BART, East Bay, Election Coverage, Oakland, San Francisco

A new direction for the BART Board of Directors: The choice is ours

BART Districts 4 and 8

Compelling candidates challenge incumbent BART directors in District 8 (San Francisco, left) and District 4 (Oakland/Alameda, right).

If there is a silver lining to be found in the protracted Oakland Airport Connector debate and other BART drama that has ensued over the past couple of years, it’s that BART’s Board of Directors and the agency generally have been subject to an extra measure of public scrutiny.  There’s a related silver lining: candidates emerging to challenge lackluster incumbent directors.  And not just any challengers, but serious, compelling challengers that deserve our attention.  This election, we’re talking about District 8 (the north and west side of  San Francisco) and District 4 (Oakland, east of Broadway, and Alameda).

Vigorous but misguided advocacy of the senseless Oakland Airport Connector, coupled with an insensitive brushing aside of well-reasoned opposition expressed by members of the public, is reason enough to unseat current District 4 director Carole Ward Allen.  Do we even need a clearer example showing her faulty grasp of riders’ true priorities? Insert a too little, too late approach to police reform, and one cannot help but draw the conclusion that Oakland and Alameda deserve better.

 Meanwhile, current District 8 director James Fang is a lonely Republican in San Francisco who has presided for far too long over a district that is gerrymandered if there ever was one (see above map).  He has pursued an approach that values flash over substance (cell phone fare payment), not to mention flash over basic common sense  (the infamous fare rollback, overwhelmingly disdained by rider surveys).  Okay, so he did recently express his support for a BART line to serve the Richmond District — that’s at least something we can agree would be a good thing.  But then again, given that he apparently sees BART as primarily a supplier of construction jobs (rather than, you know, a transit operator), Fang is happy to build BART anywhere and everywhere, indiscriminately.  So he was bound to come around to his own district sooner or later, and what better time to do so than during election season?

If the BART Board’s suburban tilt isn’t enough to contend with, what’s unforgivable is that even its urban directors (save one) aren’t true urbanists.  Like Carole Ward Allen and James Fang, they willingly sign off on ever more distant extensions that not only drain dollars and strain the system, but also lead to the deterioration of their own constituents’ experiences riding the train.

Bert Hill (left) and Robert Raburn (right). Images courtesy of their respective campaign websites.

Enter Bert Hill and Robert Raburn.  Personally, I am thrilled that both these candidates have stepped up to the plate to challenge the old guard.  I won’t repeat all their background information in this post, as you can read about it here and here.  Both bring years of valuable transportation advocacy experience, as well as relevant professional and academic expertise.  Bert Hill’s platform discusses local connectivity to BART stations; he also emphasizes that funds should be prioritized for maintaining existing track and stations and accommodating future capacity needs, rather than building unsustainable extensions to the hinterlands.  Meanwhile, Raburn vehemently criticizes the Oakland Airport Connector, which lies in his home district, and correctly reminds us that in relentlessly pursuing the OAC, the BART Board unnecessarily exposes the agency and its riders to the risks and consequences of taking out a federal TIFIA loan to finance the project.  I could not agree more on these points, and I believe both Hill and Raburn will bring perspectives that are underrepresented and sorely needed on the Board.

This is not to say there isn’t necessarily room for growth and improvement.  For example, at a candidate forum, Raburn was so insistent on the need to focus on maintaining the core system (instead of pursuing expensive capital projects) that his gut reaction to the idea of building infill stations was “Oh my gosh: another construction project.”  I cannot agree with the implication of that remark – that infill stations and suburban extensions belong to the same generic category of undesirable capital projects, and that infill stations “won’t pencil out.”  Rather, a few well-chosen urban infill stations are the exact type of capital project that likely will pencil out, by increasing ridership at a fraction of the cost of a new extension, while creating comfortably transit-dependent neighborhoods with denser land uses.  But despite that slip-up (in what was otherwise a series of solid, well-presented viewpoints), I didn’t get the sense that an insurmountable ideological barrier was reached.  Rather, the reaction seemed more like a vehicle for Raburn to contrast his own world view with that of the current Board, which has moved the OAC and other extensions forward in spite of deferred maintenance needs.  Perhaps more importantly, though, I sensed in him an intellectual curiosity and genuine interest in transportation issues, as well as a willingness to engage with details and facts.  Ever try to reason with Carole Ward Allen about the facts on the Oakland Airport Connector?

The bottom line is that both Bert Hill and Robert Raburn agree that it’s irresponsible to extend track into far-flung corners of the region when major investments are required to shore up the core system and accommodate future capacity needs.  Both candidates understand that BART’s role in the region is not to provide an endless stream of construction jobs and groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but to operate an efficient, clean, functional system that fortifies our urban environment, ties together our region as the backbone of a multimodal network, and ultimately improves our quality of life. 

In short, both Hill and Raburn simply get it on so many issues.  Either one, and preferably both, would be a breath of fresh air on the Board.  With the Board’s current membership, Tom Radulovich too often speaks as the sole voice of reason drowned out by a chorus.  A Radulovich-Hill-Raburn trifecta would be a positive development, bringing to bear a team that could exert more influence on Board votes.

I am unfortunately not eligible to vote in either of these races, but I would strongly recommend that readers who live in BART districts 4 and 8 skip past the incumbents on their ballot, and instead cast a vote this time for Robert Raburn in District 4, and Bert Hill in District 8.  This November both sides of the Bay can stand together and vote for change at BART.  As BART continues to evolve beyond a commuter rail service into an urban metro, the composition of the Board should reflect the evolving nature of the system.  We stand to benefit from the expertise and passion that these candidates offer.

About these ads

Discussion

11 thoughts on “A new direction for the BART Board of Directors: The choice is ours

  1. Bert4BART.

    Thanks for posting this.

    Posted by mikesonn | 29 October 2010, 8:09 am
  2. I am thrilled to be supporting and working for Robert Raburn to represent me here in Alameda.

    The incumbent has never really paid any attention to Alameda and Robert has. We need Robert Raburn in District 4 and Bert Hill representing District 8 on the BART Board…

    http://www.raburnforbart.com/ElectRaburnforBARTDistrict4.html

    Posted by Jon Spangler | 29 October 2010, 1:35 pm
  3. As a BART insider, we definitely need change on the BART Board. We need new perspectives of the publics’ repesentatives on what they want out of BART. Incumbents, exit stage left! Change is good citizens of the Bay Area. Please vote accordingly!

    Posted by bubu | 29 October 2010, 7:05 pm
  4. Another case in point: groundbreaking for eBart to Antioch. Stop the madness! Hill and Raburn for BART Board!

    http://bart.gov/news/articles/2010/news20101029.aspx

    Posted by Brian Toy | 30 October 2010, 9:10 am
  5. From this blog post (written before the BART press release):
    But then again, given that he apparently sees BART as primarily a supplier of construction jobs (rather than, you know, a transit operator), Fang is happy to build BART anywhere and everywhere…

    James Fang, from the BART press release Brian Toy linked to above:
    “Once again, BART is going to create jobs, not just transport people to their jobs,” BART Board President James Fang said. “eBART will provide more than 600 jobs during construction and then, once it’s in operation, eBART will provide about 40 to 80 permanent jobs.”

    At least the job number is probably more accurate than the absurd numbers that have been flying about for the OAC, but no matter the number, BART’s primary concern should be getting people to their jobs, not providing construction ones.

    Posted by Eric | 30 October 2010, 9:15 am
  6. Why is it that every time some expensive project comes up, people sugar code it by saying “it will create jobs” — how about “it will leak government finances by paying for possibly unnecessary jobs?”

    Posted by Alex | 11 November 2010, 1:56 pm
  7. And then what happened? BART Board election results were a little hard to find amidst the slew of election results. (Thanks for whatever info you can provide).

    Posted by peasepress | 23 November 2010, 7:36 am
  8. My apologies, I had wanted to post also on election results, but I was in New York during election week and then it got away from me after that.

    In BART District 4 (Oakland/Alameda), Robert Raburn scored a decisive win over incumbent Carole Ward Allen. The breakdown was 46.79% for Raburn, 34.87% for CWA, and 17.28% for Monique Rivera.

    In BART District 8 (San Francisco), long-time incumbent James Fang unfortunately held onto his position and defeated Bert Hill. The breakdown was 51.57% for Fang, 25.2% for Hill, and 22.83% for Brian Larkin.

    Posted by Eric | 23 November 2010, 8:33 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Streetsblog San Francisco » Today’s Headlines - 29 October 2010

  2. Pingback: 2010 Endorsements » Mike / Michael Fogel - 30 October 2010

  3. Pingback: A short-lived attempt « Transbay Blog - 15 May 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Subscribe

RSS Feed Facebook Twitter Flickr

Photos

12th Avenue

R-62A Subway Cars #2446/2447 - West Side IRT at 125 St

More Photos

Archives by Month

Archives by Topic

Archives of all blog posts, organized by topics and themes. Click here for more.

Links

Links to some of our favorite urbanist and transit blogs, websites, advocacy groups, news sources, and government agencies. Click here for more.


If you are interested in California water issues, you may want to check out my other blog on that topic.

Copyright © 2007-2013 Transbay Blog.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers