Forum Video for AC Transit D3, BART D4, Peralta D3 and D5

For those of you who aren’t as geeky as me, Reginald James of The Peralta Report, Eric of Transbay Blog, Daniel Schulman, or several devoted members of the League of Women Voters Oakland and didn’t get to see it in person, I’m happy to share with you video of four out of five of last night’s forums.

Forum breakdowns by question and recaps with my commentary will be forthcoming, but I don’t know when, and I wanted to get these up as quickly as I could, because I know some of you out there are particularly interested in this BART race. So here you go.

BART Board District 4

Candidates in this race are incumbent Carol Ward Allen and challengers Robert Raburn and Monique Rivera.

AC Transit Board District 3

Candidates in this race are incumbent Elsa Ortiz and challengers Dollene Jones and Nancy Skowbo.

Peralta Community College Board District 3

Candidates in this race are incumbent Linda Handy and challenger Monica Tell.

Peralta Community College Board District 5

Candidates in this race are incumbent Bill Riley and challenger William Mattox.

Okay, have fun! And if anyone knows of websites for the candidates that I didn’t include a link for, it would be awesome if you made a note of them for me in the comments.

26 thoughts on “Forum Video for AC Transit D3, BART D4, Peralta D3 and D5

  1. Max Allstadt

    Here’s a video of Carole Ward Allen in action at BART Board that everybody should see.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8sIdN4uDE

    I realize that on this site, I’m preaching to the converted for the most part, but what the heck, I’ll say it one more time: VOTE CAROLE WARD ALLEN OUT!

    I’m squarely behind Robert Raburn, who is a real transit advocate, extremely knowledgeable about the issues, and deserves the job.

    Raburn’s focus in every conversation I’ve had with him has been that BART has to stop trying to grow through debt. He’ll reign in reckless spending and focus on improving service on the existing system.

  2. Daniel Schulman

    Max that video is one of the best Zennie has done. Thanks for the reminder.

    For the impatient, it gets really good around the 2:25 mark.

  3. Dave C.

    My favorite thing on her website is her list of endorsements. In the “Elected Officials” section, she identifies Carl Chan as “Mayor of Oakland Chinatown.” That may be true in some metaphorical sense, but as far as I know it’s not an official title.

  4. BART Watcher

    How can Carol Ward Allen say “it will bring close to 5,000 jobs to Oakland” when she knows that none of BART’s numbers show that to be true?

  5. MarleenLee

    BART Watcher: If you have any interest in catching sitting politicians in their lies, do a public records request for any public documents supporting their claims. See what happens.

  6. ralph

    I know I am about to ask for more than I should but it is possible to have either a link or a broad description of the boundaries for these various districts.

  7. Naomi Schiff

    More detail for Peralta:
    It’s a PDF under Board Policies, and the doc is headed:BP_1.01_Membership.pdf

    BP stands for board policy, I guess. This is in the first section.

    They don’t make it real easy to find! Most agencies put a district map link on the home or about page.

  8. ralph

    Naomi,
    Thanks.

    I just listened to the Bart D4; I am not impressed by Raburn’s insistence on focusing on the core functions. Yes, you do the core but you need to plan for the future. Also, how does he plan to get people to stations? That is something I found troubling about the engineer woman as well. And it certainly does not sound like he has an alternative plan for the airport connector. I like the certainty of a train, not the uncertainty of the bus.

  9. ralph

    Naomi,
    Thanks. Has someone at BART made a stmt as to why they prefer OAC? I have my thoughts on the matter, but would like ot know if there is some official word.

  10. Dave C.

    Ralph, they argue that a quasi-rail connector, even if it has a higher fare and takes just as long, is inherently better than a bus, because many business travelers, who are unwilling to take a bus that travels on scary East Oakland streets, will be willing to take an elevated tram. This seems to be what they mean when they say that the OAC will help turn Oakland International into a “world class” airport. They also emphasize that the OAC is shovel-ready, so it will create much-needed jobs almost immediately, whereas any alternative capital projects would take years of study and planning before they actually got off the ground.

    Those, in my opinion, are the only two substantive arguments that BART makes in favor of the OAC. The other arguments they make are purely emotional, saying more about their psychological investment in the project than any actual benefits. For instance, they go on and on about how it will be a “legacy project,” which seems to mean that it will be something they can point to later and say “Look! We accomplished something big and expensive!” They also argue that they’ve been trying to get an airport connector built for several decades, so it’s time to stop debating it and start doing it. (I’m not sure why 30 years of failure is an argument in favor of wasting half a billion dollars on something unnecessary, but that’s just me.)

  11. ralph

    Dave,
    Thanks. What I have been wondering for some time now could it be that BART’s objection to Full BRT has more to do with the type of service than the efficiency of the service. Full BRT is just not like the rest of BART. It seems to me if Raburn, or anyone, wants to focus on BART’s core service, then Full BRT would be a non-starter.

  12. V Smoothe

    BRT is no less like “the rest of BART” than the Airport Connector they are planning on building. That system is unique technology, totally unrelated to anything BART currently operates.

  13. Dave C.

    Ralph, to add to what V Smoothe said, BART likes to spread a lot of misinformation by claiming that the OAC will be an “extension” of BART to the airport, which gives people the impression that it will be a seamlessly integrated connection on a BART-like train. That’s misleading—the more one looks at the details of the OAC and what the passenger experience will be like (an awkward transfer at Coliseum BART, a high fare, a slow ride, no direct service to OAK’s two terminals, etc), the more the project looks like a loser. And that’s before one gets into the opportunity costs that come with spending half a billion dollars on the OAC instead of anything else.

  14. Dave C.

    I meant to add, Ralph, that you are correct that BART’s objection to BRT seems to stem, at least in part, from a dismissive attitude toward buses in general. Their feeling seems to be that even if a BRT connector were superior to the OAC in every way, then they would still prefer the OAC, because they are in the train business, not the bus business. (Incidentally, a BRT connector likely would be superior to the OAC in every way—cheaper for BART to build, cheaper for passengers to ride, just as fast, a more seamless transfer at Coliseum BART, a lighter footprint through East Oakland, a dropoff at each of OAK’s terminals, and so on.)

  15. East Lake Rider

    @21:45 Monique Rivera said that increasing BART ridership DOES NOT mean getting people out of their cars.

    Did anyone else catch this? That’s crazy talk.

  16. Simon Dorf

    http://transformca.org/oac

    That’s a link to a study Transform–the transportation reform group (based in Oakland)–did comparing the Oakland Airport Connector to a BRT option. The study found that the Connector would cost over $100 per new transit passenger, much more than other transit projects around the Bay Area.