“Those who don’t understand history are condemned to repeat it.” When it comes to the San Jose Airport expansion and renovation project, it’s looking more and more like city officials failed to learn from the costly experience of the Taj Mahal city hall.
Last week, the Mercury News reported that San Jose city officials asked local business leaders to help pay the tab for a grand opening ceremony for Terminal B this Summer. The paper reported that the airport is facing a $17 million shortfall for fiscal year 2010-11. “The airport is struggling with a steep drop in passengers and flights.” Just last month, Frontier Airlines announced that they would be moving out of San Jose International.
What was more embarrassing than asking invited guests to pay for their own party was Mayor Reed’s plea to members of the business community to use the airport more frequently. “We have to resell our airport to our community…your company, your people, need to start using the airport. We need a lot of people traveling through this airport.”
See, here’s the problem. San Jose officials thought that if they renovated the airport more people would come. The project was almost viewed as an economic development project. And how many times did you hear that San Jose “deserves” a modern airport?
Granted, the terminals were more than a little outdated, but they were functional. And what do we want in an airport anyway? Do people want efficiency, or looks and show? Image is not everything.
Of course there was a need to make major improvements and changes at the airport, but the focus should have been on providing for efficiencies and revenue streams, not building something grand.
San Jose’s new city hall complex was supposed to provide for a consolidation of civic office space. Instead, an expensive signature building was constructed that is too small to house the city’s staff, and an ornate customized-glass steel rotunda with heated-tile floors was also built (for purposes still unknown). There was plenty of room and money to do it right. But they didn’t. Ceremony was placed before substance, and desires were met before needs. It appears that this same calculus was applied by city officials in the planning and construction of the San Jose Airport.
When the city broke ground on the airport expansion project, the trend line for passenger traffic was falling. Yet, the project (reduced from $3 billion to $1.3 billion) still went forward. Here we go again…stuck with an expensive, ceremonial, ornate shell.
It must be a cold day in Hell, because for once I actually agree wholeheartedly with Pete Campbell! Simple answer to your question: YES! Although I wouldn’t necessarily term the construction of Terminal B and the North Concourse as an “expansion.” It’s more of an upgrade, as we’re basically exchanging the old-school airstairs of Terminal C with the modern jetways of the North Concourse. With the way things are going for our airport, not sure if the status quo would have been all that bad; only time will tell.
You know, in the future we can recoup our investment by 1) closing SJC and consolidating operations at an expanded SFO, 2) selling off the 1,000 acres/$2 billion + worth of airport real estate and 3) adaptively reusing the new Terminal B/North Concourse for retail, commercial or cultural usage. Lifting the development ceiling of our downtown will help to.
Twenty or so years ago, I can remember my first civic involvement after moving to San Jose (to Garden Alameda) was to oppose airport expansion.
At the time, this was a very controvesial position. Neighbors rallied against the Full Build-Out plan from the city, behind the leadership of ex-mayor Janet Grey Hayes and Councilperson David Pandori. Then-mayor Susan Hammer, in a display of catastrophic and misguided hubris, dismissed n’hood requests for a moderate build-out plan, publicly chided neighbors for not understanding airport economics, and carted in union supporters to council meetings to support the full build-out.
The irony since then has been exquisite. Needless to say, Hammer’s full-build out plan never came fruition because (just as the neighbors expected) predictions for growth were hugely overstated.
Also (as neighbors predicted), expectations of a substantial decrease in the pollution footprint of the airpot hasn’t occurred, due to the extended use of polluting aircraft.
Also (as neighbors predicted) the late-night/early morning noise curfew was wobbly at best, and would be dumped under the first sign of economic disterss. Hence next week’s meeting to dump the curfew.
While Hammer owes a huge apology to the SJ community for her high-handed dismissal of their accurate concerns, the more current issue is this:
* Mineta is a financial and environmental time bonb. It’s a poorly-placed airport on the wrong side of industry trends, and efforts to keep it solvent will only result in more negative impact on the already abused central neighborhods of san jose. Videoconferencing and the natural consolidation of traffic at SF and Oakland spell future doom for Mineta. RESULT: Council should back away from throwing any more good money after bad, and guarantee than taxpayers don’t foot the bill for the airport’s mounting bonds.
* The city needs a way to quantify negative values. It’s easy to put a dollar figure (however inflated) on the value of Mineta to the area. Sadly, there’s not quantifiable way to report the profound negative and environmental impact of the airport on the surrounding areas in terms of noise, air, and water pollution. NOt to mention quality of life diminishment. RESULT: City needs to develop a ‘negative value’ metric for projects with substantive environmental impact.
Until we come up with a way to quantify these projects’ negative impact, we will have to listen to yack like “the airport is the engine of economy” (pace Susan Hammer) ad nauseum.
Thanks for bringing this issue up: it’s time to stop this failed project from further expansion and investment, and find ways to think past its inevitable demise
I believe this is most cogent and truthful comment I’ve ever read on the subject of our airport.
I can also say that there will be a groundswell of opposition to the plan to end nightly curfews.
Should the Council vote in favor of that, they can expect a verbal and litigious revolution of epic proportions and the end of any future career plans in public service.
Great post RGD!
“…find ways to think past its inevitable demise.” Damn straight!
I too appreciated Rosegarden Dad’s post.
As for Greg’s reply, I seriously hope all the groundswell-of-opposition people show up at the airport study session on March 8th: City Hall, wing rooms 118-120. Unfortunately it is an afternoon meeting,from 1:30 – 5:00. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100308/20100308a.pdf
If folks cannot show up, then energy needs to be expended to write, call, email etc. their council members/Mayor to voice opinion.
It’s time we (the neighborhoods) get actively involved (or even more actively involved as the case may be) in what is happening to our City, and how it is being run (or not run as the case may be). This could be on a micro-volunteer level or a macro-volunteer level.
With all the neighborhood cuts in services ($116million of them on our backs unless we use the groundswell-of-opposition technique yet again) and now the potential for unliveable all-night-airport-noise, it’s enough to make people vote with their feet and flee for the ‘burbs.
Tina
It only does minimal good to gripe on this site. Want to attempt to actually do something about this? Attend Monday’s Council study session at 1:30 where they will discuss Airport Economic, Budget and Competitive Issues. You will have the chance to see the current airport director attempt to bully the council and public into seeing things his way (which is a vision made up of twisted and in some cases inaccurate information). Should be a good show.
Here is a link to the agenda:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100308/20100308a.pdf
…publicly chided neighbors for not understanding airport economics…
First, very good post. It is always refreshing to read the truth versus airport nonsense.
One point that is always overlooked with airport revenue projections is the LOST revenue that results from using land as an airport.
Most of the land used by SJI is fallow. It just sits there producing no revenue, and no tax dollars. If the 1000 acres used by SJI, and the land north and south of the airport currently in the safety zone, were used in an alternative manner then San Jose would reap a tax bonanza. The revenue generated by intelligently using land for something other than an airport would be “sky high” compared to the pitiful revenue generated when used as an airport.
Thanks again for your post.
In case you didn’t know, the failed in revitalizing downtown and make it a regional destination for the valley. Instead, downtown remains its third world feel with out the vitality. San Jose remains being the most emptiest city.
You are 100% correct. However, the reason why few live downtown is because there is an airport there. Normal people do not want to be near an airport unless they are traveling.
“However, the reason why few live downtown is because there is an airport there.”
Have you ever been to San Diego? Their airport is even closer to Downtown than SJC and San Diego has a burgeoning population that lives in Downtown high-rise condos.
If anyone is interested, I drew up some crude illustrations of a “San Francisco/San Jose International Airport 2030” concept; CLOSE SJC! Just send me your email address and the fantasy is all yours!
[email protected]
with runways wedged between 2 freeways our airport cannot accomodate larger/truly international planes/flights. Thats the good news. The bad news is that the airport is wedged between 2 freeways.
Downtown cannot have buildings taller than 14 floors thus impeding development of downtown.
Perhaps consider moving the airport. The new terminal could be the final terminus for the so called HSR – Then BART to SFO and Eastbay from there. Lots of land to sell/develop out of this. maybe even create a new economic boom.
Don’t forget the huge price tag for redeveloping downtown San Jose-$3,000,000,000. Downtown is a total failure of taxpayer dollars. Now the city has to pay the “Piper”. In case you didn’t know, the failed in revitalizing downtown and make it a regional destination for the valley. Instead, downtown remains its third world feel with out the vitality. San Jose remains being the most emptiest city.
> Instead, an expensive signature building was constructed that is too small to house the city’s staff, . . .
There’s a simple solution for this problem: just downsize the city’s staff.
The mayor, council, and manager are running out of sleight of hand techniques to balance the budget, such as “eliminating” positions that haven’t been filled for years.
If the unions refuse to share the pain, the last hired will be the first fired, so we can predict how senior members will vote.
Concentrate on needs, eliminate nice but unnecessary wants, such as the 16-18 person Office of Cultural Affairs.
Eliminate enough managers, deputy assistants, etc. as needed to ensure that each manager or supervisor manages or supervises at least ten people.
Its not even a true City Hall. The seat of government should be in the classic greek architechtual style as it denotes the origins of what we call democracy. Uniform and symetrical lines imply to the viewer that everything is orderly and shows a continuity to a steady ongoing goverment process that is comforting. With a dome on TOP of the building citizens know that all government work is conducted under the time proven process of democracy. Trees and landscaping provide calmness and serenity.
what we have is a shoe box on end with a cheese grater stuck on the side – the dome just sitting there EMPTY (of ideas, worthwhile work, etc) looks to be just what it is – an afterthought.
Why don’t we wait for the expansion to open in June before knocking it. Nobody has any certainty how it will affect usage or whether it will attract more flights and passengers. Give it until the end of 2011 before calling it a failure. Personally, I would much rather fly out of SJC than the perennially delayed SFO and pretty mediocre OAK.
Also I have no idea where Hugh got the idea the building can’t be taller than 14 floors downtown. The Marriott is 25 floors, even Axis which is one of the closest buildings to the Airport is over 20. I agree that the SJC definitely screwed downtown building heights, but 14 would be a joke and I’m glad that isn’t true.
Finally, a rational post in this thread. It’s true that Frontier’s recently announced pull-out is bad news but things should improve in the long run. If they don’t, we have bigger problems than the cost of the new terminal. I agree we need to wait for at least a year before passing judgment.
The taxpayers of Santa Clara should be outraged at another white elephant boondoggle.
This time the renovation of San Jose Intl.
I flew in this morning on Southwest and our plane gated at 21. All the while I’m walking the 600 yard to the exit I’m thinking out loud why didn’t they install people movers for such a distance.
A gentleman remarked that they were in the plans but due to money the people movers were cut.
Instead the moron architects waste money on a “21st century look?” and a hedious “feel good liberal artwork” decorating the new parking structure.
How many millions did the stupid “hands reaching the air” cost?
And now seniors and those with difficulty getting around have to negotiate sevearl hundred yards to the south west gates.
This is what happens when feel good liberals (progressives) make decisions with taxpayer dollars.
This not about liberalism. After all Council has always been Democrat. This is a City that has been obsessed with downtown, its blinders on with a focus on an upscale corporate image. This focus is why we do not have an ampitheater at the fairgrounds, why kids have to DUI across town instead of from a local club in their neighborhood. Why we have a Civic building that I predicted would be the deadest place on evenings and weekends. Its why we already do not have a ball park where it should be, a current open lot that would not terrorize an established neighborhood. Oh ye of short memory, City Hall was crowded with those against this expansion. The Chamber, the Leadership Group, and Developers all chiming there support, as they never cared about the City budget, ever! No one mentioned the millions upon millions of spent soundproofing homes! And the punishment for those responsible? The voters brought them to be our current Country Supervisors!!
Question #1: How much the the “artwork” on the exterior of the parking structure cost?
Question #2: How much would it have cost to install moving walkways from the TSA screening area to the new Southwest terminal building.
Question #3: Which would have been a smarter investment?
It’s obvious to me that no one who has responded to this blog post actually has to travel out of San Jose on business with any regularity.
The airport is vital to local businesses… the idea of BART’ing or taking CalTrain is rediculous. No business person has the extra 3 hours to waste on a given trip.
San Jose businesses both large and small need this airport to compete. Moreover, the new airport will help us attract new startups to keep the employment base.
The old airport was a complete joke. Inefficient and broken down. We have some of the most innovative, forward thinking people and businesses in the 21st century here flying in an out of a 1950’s era infrastructure. And, these are the folks that will be paying the bill for everyone on retirement reading writing and complaining on this blog.
I’m as frugal as anyone in San Jose….just give it up on the airport.
M.R.,
By 2020, it will take 13 minutes to get from Downtown San Jose/Diridon to Millbrae/SFO via high-speed rail…13 MINUTES! 8 minutes or less from either a Redwood City, Palo Alto, or Mtn. View high-speed rail station. Just saying.
Actually, it’s more like 1960s infrastructure, as Terminal C opened in 1965 and was expanded a few years later.
Having said that, you’re right that we need a modern, efficient airport if this region is to remain competitive. And those long walks from the Terminal A security to the Southwest gates in the new concourse should be a thing of the past after the new terminal opens in June because Southwest passengers will check in closer to their gates.
“I’m as frugal as anyone in San Jose….just give it up on the airport.”
My sentiments exactly
All of this anti-airport whining and “move it now” nonsense is as removed from reality as the state budget. The new airport terminal B opens at the end of the month and will be a welcome improvement.
SJC is not going anywhere. There is an Regional Airport Planning Committee study currently under way to see how existing aviation assets in the Bay Area can be used most efficiently in the future. Staff has just submitted its “Mid-Point Screening Analysis and Recommendations” to the committee, the report is here:
http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/meeting_packet_documents/agenda_1508/7_RAPCJuneScenarioRecommendation.pdf
All of the committee’s scenarios envision a role for SJC, starting with the “Reference Scenario 1-2035 Base Case” plan where SJC handles 16.3 Million Annual Air Passengers (MAP), this goes up to 24 MAP under the New Scenario C. Close/move SJC? Isn’t going to happen. Get over it.
Sorry. The airport is the last thing we need. We need to use the 1000 acres in a manner that enhances this area.
I have no sympathy for the poor, oh-so-important business people who need to fly. Learn how to plan your time. Most “business” trips are unnnecssary, and are just an excuse to get out of the office.
I am tired of the enviroment being raped, and our quality of life being destroyed, all in the name of “business”.
If you cannot fly out of Frisco then get out of business.
Agreed!
It’s amazing that some would forever hinder downtown/Central San Jose growth (including the Mineta Site itself!) and continue to subject thousands to aircraft noise in the name of adding just a few more flights and the “convenience” of a few business folk. MOVE/CLOSE IT BY 2030!