On San Jose Inside’s weekly open forum, thoughts and opinions on any topic are welcome. What’s on your mind?
42 Comments
For all you “fans” of hating Mineta/San Jose International(?) Airport (SJC) and its location north of downtown San Jose, I present you with this idea out of left field:
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, Seattle/Tacoma IA, Minneapolis/St. Paul IA, Baltimore/Washington IA; many cities across the country “share” an international airport. 20-30 years into the future, how about…your SAN FRANCISCO/SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT at SFO! Hear me out!
This idea is contingent/based on the following:
1) Implementation of high-speed rail service from SJ to SF by 2018. When completed, rail travel from Diridon/downtown SJ to Millbrae/SFO will take 13 minutes! 8-minutes from a Palo Alto/Mt. View station. From there a quick BART shuttle/AirTrain ride into SFO terminals. Diridon and Palo Alto/MV Station could feature SFO ticketing kiosks for SJ/SV air travellers.
2) High-speed rail service itself from Bay Area to Southern California, which has the potential of capturing a large portion of the travellers now using the short-haul airline market (which is the bulk of the SJC market).
3) SFO runway expansion into the Bay (either bay-fill or floating structures). This will not only increase capacity at SFO but possibly open up southwest portion of airfield for a new terminal complex; to offset closure of SJC.
4) BART to SJ and Oakland Airport (OAK)/BART connector. This would give SJ/SV air travellers the option of using OAK via BART; potential OAK ticketing kiosks at Berryessa/Milpitas BART stations.
By “sharing” SFO, San Jose could then lift the development ceiling of the downtown and redevelop the current Mineta/SJC site. The 1,000+ acres at Mineta is probably worth $2 billion or more in todays dollars. The current Terminal B project (under construction) could be adaptively reused for mixed-use, residential, cultural or commercial purposes. Sale of land at Mineta site would be a windfall for SJ, with a portion of funds going towards improvements/expansion at SFO.
By “sharing” SFO with San Francisco, San Jose would not only gain a true international airport, but would also reap the benefits in terms of downtown development and grand urban development/parklands at the Mineta/SJC site. Not to mention no more noise from low flying jets. The future SAN FRANCISCO/SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT…a win, win all around. Thank you for your time.
Here’s one data point. I travel to Tacoma usually once or twice a year, but I almost always drive because getting from SeaTac to Tacoma by public transit is a big pain.
Here’s another data point. When I go to London (that doesn’t happen as often), I’m willing to go to Gatwick instead of Heathrow because there is excellent train service to Gatwick.
I’ve arrived at SFO late at night and there is no way to get to SJ except by taxi which costs upwards of $100. You can’t get to SFO by Caltrain and Caltrain doesn’t run late anyway. Look how long it took to get BART to SFO.
Yes, if we had an excellent public transit system like they have in London, things would be different.
But SJC is 2 blocks away from Caltrain (but on the wrong side) and about the same from the light rail, and there’s no connection. The concept of connectivity doesn’t seem to have penetrated here.
The idea of extending SFO into the bay may raise environmental issues. However better access to Oakland Airport could be beneficial.
If SJC were decommissioned, what would be done with the land though? I suspect Walmart, Ikea and lots of condos. Would we be any better off for that?
Flying has become a totally unpleasant experience in recent years, but I do like the fact that we have an airport fairly close by. In the summer, when our windows are open, there are times when we have to suspend conversation because of the plane noise, but on the other hand a taxi ride from SJC is not too expensive.
“But SJC is 2 blocks away from Caltrain (but on the wrong side) and about the same from the light rail, and there’s no connection. The concept of connectivity doesn’t seem to have penetrated here.”
Have you ever heard of the 10 Airport Flyer shuttle bus that VTA runs?
That bus line links the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, all SJC terminals, and the Metro/Airport light rail station. That particular bus is FREE to ride on at any time, and runs mainly when SJC is open.
The 10 bus line can be traced back to 1990, when it also linked Franklin Mall in Santa Clara with the Airport and downtown San Jose. I remember taking that bus to an interview at a company near SJC at the time, back when I had moved to San Francisco from New Jersey after leaving college for a while after my freshman year. That was just before light rail expanded up N. First Street to Tasman.
As you alluded to with your London scenario, transit connectivity is key to my left-field, sharing SFO idea. Also take into consideration that SJC has lost 23% of its passenger capacity over the past 2-years. If you closed it tomorrow, I’m sure the 9 million passengers per year could easily be absorbed by SFO and OAK (albeit with poor transit connectivity from SJ/SV). I don’t ever see SJC getting to the 17 million + passengers per year as envisioned with the current expansion. But yes, currently driving to SJC beats the hell out of going all the way up to SFO/OAK.
As for your “IKEA”‘s at SJC suggestion, I’m of the firm belief that IF ever given the opportunity to develop the current Mineta site, San Jose would step to the plate with something worthy of a “big city”: grand urban park with lake, Santana Row-like development on steroids, high-rise city, etc.
Consolidating the airports makes loads of sense, esp for San Jose, as we’re saddled with an airport that always seems to have visions of grandeur (in terms of traffic and big-ticket flights) that never happen. All these cities are hungry for the business traveller tax dollars (hotels, restaurants, conventions, etc.) so SJ City would probably not want to lose its investment in Mineta *and* lose more convention business to SF. The idea of a super-fast connection to Downtown SJ could make the proposition much easier for our city leaders to stomach, but still: how fast, even in the best-case scenario—would a fast train take to get you to SJ? It is also fair to point out that SF Int’l is a good ten milesorsofrom downtown SF.
RGD,
Per the CAHSRA website, a trip from Diridon to Millbrae/SFO would take 13 minutes via HSR; 8 minutes from a potential Palo Alto station. Around 10 minutes into terminals via BART/AirTrain people mover. All in all, less than 30 minutes via transit from downtown SJ to your “San Francisco/San Jose International Aiport” flight! Alright, enough dreaming for one day.
Very few people come to San Jose because there is an airport located in San Jose. They come to San Jose because they have either business or pleasure in San Jose. They will still come to San Jose regardless if there is an airport here or not.
Tony has a great idea. Let’s make it happen now, not 20 years from now. Also, the BOZOs are those with no vision. Those who equate an airport with success. Those who are so blind they cannot see the tremendous damage being done to San Jose on daily basis by this airport.
To those who want to get rid of this airport albatross around San Jose’s neck I salute you. Your vision is outstanding.
Having an airport is a proven factor in local economic development. Regional action is rare except in cases where the region is banded together to get something that none of the cities in the region have access to already.
SFO is built out and the likelihood of getting Environmental Clearances to expand into the bay with more infill and additional runways is slim. Ironically, historically the bay was much smaller than it is today due to silting and was filled with lots of salt marshes and stinky wetlands. During the horse powered industrial revolution, a lot of land was diked and used for hay fields (fuel) and then later either abandoned to the sea (and dredged as part of navigation schemes) or further infilled for development. There was more wetland historically, but less actual land (think silty mud covering 70% of it with the only clear channels being the major outflows from rivers.) People like water and views of open water a prettier and less smelly than miles of marsh, so today’s environmentalists fighting to save the bay or fighting to save an artificial creation, not the real pre-western man bay.
Back to local economic development, airports, transit linkages and SFO vs. SJC. I’ve used both, and prefer SJ for domestic and SFO for international. Both have transit linkages that were disjointed on purpose (long term parking revenue is a big deal in city finance) and so it took major effort and ridiculously large sums to finally build what transit linkages we do have. My preferred MO for SJC was to take light rail-shuttle for departures and then take a hotel shuttle back downtown (telling them I had a reservation at such-such) for free. If efficiency was really a priority in public works, both high speed rail and intra-regional rail (BART, LR) would have been built from the get-go with stops right inside the airports.
I’m not voting to give up my airport (SJC), nor would I support any change unless it benefits the south bay as a whole. The only scenario talked about that would have done it was the talk a few years back of taking of Moffet Naval Airstation when they were closing the base, but Lockheed and others got it kept open under NASA as the lead tenant and I don’t think we could evict all the users the clustered their to justify the move. However, If I could have Moffet as the new San Jose/Silicon Valley Airport with Highspeed rail, and Caltrain stopping in the airport, I’d even vote to raise taxes to create that ideal solution. Usually, however, we pay to much and get too little as we are over-promised and underserved by the politicians and planners who have already moved up to higher office by the time we realize we got ripped off.
Nice post Blair. Assuming my “sharing” SFO idea ever got political traction:
1) The floating runway link I presented above would be easier to stomach for environmentalists, and would free up current runway’s, taxiways, and tarmac for future terminal/concourse expansion at SFO. In short, SFO is not built out.
2)What would benefit (economically) San Jose and the South Bay as a whole?: getting rid of the development “roof” currently over downtown San Jose, and opening up 1,000 prime acres of Silicon Valley to a money-making, tax generating development. An urban park with a lake would be nice to!
Just my opinion, but whatever airport business that is lost with a hypothetical closure of SJC would be more than made up with a true downtown and development at Mineta. Besides, many of the functions currently at SJC could remain at Diridon, Santa Clara and Palo Alto HSR/CalTrain stations; airline ticketing/check-in facilities, rental car services, long-term parking. Not all airport business would be lost!
I do like your Moffett Airport idea Blair. But the NOMBY’s (Not OVER my backyard) of Sunnyvale and Mt. View will never allow it.
Regional cooperation can trump small town thinking. If we gave up the name (San Jose Mineta International Airport) and switched to Silicon Valley International Airport and split oversight, revenue and operations with all the stakeholders in the region we might be able to co-opt opponents.
Unfortunately, the window for all this was in the early 1990’s and the political leadership and vision wasn’t there at the time (nor is it there now.) Each faction is still focused on destructive competition to hold-onto what they have in these tough budget times and a new paradigm is out of the question for most as it would mean giving up a little political power for greater efficiencies.
How about merging city and county government departments throughout the south bay, consolidating certain functions that member agencies can draw upon and achieving economies of scale? Does every public agency need to duplicate the whole spread of city departments?
Here’s the bottom line:
Serious questions have been raised about the methodology and results of this study.
* Sample methods were highly biased towards those who are most likely to take a High Speed Rail train. 96% of the Californians surveyed to assess their interest in taking High Speed Rail for commuting were current train riders. [page 2-3, table 2-1 PDF]
* Documentation for the study is voluminous, yet confusing and missing key information required to assess the validity of the results.
* Drastic changes were made to the model used to produce forecasts, yet these changes were not included in the public documentation, the final project report or information provided to the peer review committee. According to the ridership consultant, this was a conscious decision on the part of MTC.[Transmittal Letter from Ridership Consultant]
* The final model reflects the data quality issues and fails industry standard primary validation checks. Producing forecasts from invalid models is problematic.
* It is concerning that the real model was never made public nor apparently distributed to the peer review panel, particularly as there were significant and obvious issues with model’s validity.
See page 4 of the pdf for a better route for the High Speed Rail route.
Bottom line is even if you accept that a high speed rail system is A Good Thing for California, there are serious problems with the way the High Speed Rail Authority does business. I find this quite disturbing.
No HJ,
There are not serious problems with the way the CAHSRA does business! This is a classic case of HSR critics blowing up a flaw in projected ridership #‘s and trying to kill the project altogether. It doesn’t help when the pathetic press helps gives them a loud voice. Will mistakes be made with this massive project? Of course; but you remedy those errors along the way, not kill the project entirely.
As for the “better route,” If you’re a Palo Alto/Menlo Park NIMBY, you would want a hypothetical Altamont route because it would keep HSR out of your backyard (never mind that the railroad has existed there for over 100 years). But alas, Pacheco has been chosen, so get over it already!
Bottom line:
• In 9 out of 10 transportation infrastructure
projects, costs are underestimated.
• For rail projects, actual costs are on average 45%
higher than estimated costs (sd=38).
• For fixed-link projects (tunnels and bridges),
actual costs are on average 34% higher than
estimated costs (sd=62).
• For road projects, actual costs are on average 20%
higher than estimated costs (sd=30).
• For all project types, actual costs are on average
28% higher than estimated costs (sd=39).
• Cost underestimation exists across 20 nations
and 5 continents; it appears to be a global
phenomenon.
• Cost underestimation appears to be more
pronounced in developing nations than in
North America and Europe (data for rail projects
only).
• Cost underestimation has not decreased over the
past 70 years. No learning that would improve
cost estimate accuracy seems to take place.
• Cost underestimation cannot be explained by
error and seems to be best explained by strategic
misrepresentation, i.e., lying.
• Transportation infrastructure projects do not
appear to be more prone to cost underestimation
than are other types of large projects.
For California high speed rail, the projected cost of the new rail line has already gone from the promised $33.8 million to $42.6 million, and that’s before one shovelful of dirt has been moved. And the proposed SF-LA fare, once promised to be $55, has been jacked up to a slightly more realistic $105. See: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=14948
So, it’s no wonder that some folks who voted for Prop 1A and now saying “bait and switch.”
So maybe we should cease building anything from now on because a project may cost a little more than originally planned. Yeah, that’s the way to move forward! By the way, a lot of cost-overruns are due to stupid litigation and people hell-bent on stopping a certain project (see frivolous lawsuits). Steve, and the rest of you naysayers, it would be best to just accept the reality of high-speed rail and move on peacefully with your lives. I’m done for today; HAPPY SUPER SUNDAY AND GO SAINTS!
That’s a straw man argument and you know it. Nobody’s making a blanket statement regarding building anything from now on.
The point is that CAHSRA made one set of claims to get voters to vote for 1A and one year later changed their tune on several aspects of the project.
And it takes some nerve to say “accept it and move on” after people point out the obvious bait and switch. And the finances of this project are still questionable because even after the 9 billion in 1A bonds and federal grants are factored in, there’s still a funding shortfall. Have you noticed the state is broke?
And there will always be people who believe that they will never have to pay for anything, and so they will always favor spend, spend, spend, build, build, build anything no matter how useless, wasteful, or corrupt.
> And the proposed SF-LA fare, once promised to be $55, has been jacked up to a slightly more realistic $105.
And a trip from LAX to OAK on Southwest Airlines is what? $105 bucks.
And a trip by Greyhound from LA to SF is what? 69 bucks?
$50 billion is a lot to spend just to enable illegal aliens to get from the Mexican border to the Sierra Club headquarters in a couple of hours less time.
For those lining up behind Chuck Reed, don’t move so fast. Cindy Chavez still has a candidate up her sleeve that might get into the race. Someone who can self fund and has labor’s backing will be a tough to beat.
So, bye, bye from the Old Quad, says Jamie McLeod,
Took her chevy to the levee of support, but the levee of
of support from community leaders due to McLeod supporting wackos like the Hazelnut has gone dry
And good ol boys drinking whiskey and rye saying when you, McLeof, blame the stadium for Scott Brown, then you turn against the Democrats and you also lie!
An update on something I posted 2 weeks ago about the Oakland Airport Connector and its affect on regional transit operations funding and priorities:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) voted 11-5 on a compromise proposal giving BART until mid-February to complete a Title VI Civil Rights equity review for the OAC project.
If the equity review is not complete, or if it does not satisfy requirements from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the $70 million at stake would be distributed to local transit agencies like VTA.
VTA would get $12 million in funding under the compromise.
All three Santa Clara County representatives to the MTC voted for the compromise. This included County Supervisor Dave Cortese. Numerous transit advocacy groups called for the MTC to use the $70 million for regional transit operations funding instead of jump-starting construction for the OAC.
Just before the vote itself, I received an email from Dave Cortese himself regarding the crowd at the MTC meeting in Oakland. You can read the email at the vtaridersunion.org link I mentioned above. Makes you wonder what he meant by potential political retribution…
Eric,
Will SJI be covering the elections that are coming up? I have been reading some disturbing things about the Sheriff’s race. I also went to the endorsement forum at the County last week to get to know the candidates and their stands on things. WOW, lots of conflict, stories, and drama.
It would be helpful for me and others if you guys covered it. Thanks.
Kathleen,
Yes, we are following the upcoming races and with your help and that of the rest of the SJI community we will follow the issues, conflict and drama.—Eric
San Francisco / San Jose airport will NEVER be approved and it is even WORST idea than your previous BOZO suggestions to move SJ airport to Holister or Moffitt Field because
1) SF would not agree, same as Sunnyvale for Moffitt If they agree to get rid of competing airport SJ would get little to zero in airport revenue SF has always been greedy self centered about revenue sharing BART did not go to SFO for decades for same reason and is still money losing slow way to airport
2) MTC and FCC would NEVER approve
3) Environment would be WORST because of all the traffic since it would be 1 -2 decades to get adequate public transit in place and 80-90% would try to drive to SF/SJ airport from South Bay
4) No room at SFO to double airport size without massive SF Bay fill so Environmental lawsuits would go on for decades delaying expansion
5) Previous suggestions that selling SJC land would pay for closing airport and existing airport debt are wrong and also loses future airport revenue, jobs and major economic development opportunities for San Jose unless your intent is for SJ to be a 2nd class city Top 10 US city with low tax revenues
Why don’t you do at least minimum research before wasting everyone time with MORE BOZO THE CLOWN TYPE suggestions which are not entertaining just Dumb
San Francisco / San Jose airport will NEVER be approved and it is even WORST idea than your previous BOZO suggestions to move SJ airport to Holister or Moffitt Field because
1) SF would not agree, same as Sunnyvale for Moffitt If they agree to get rid of competing airport SJ would get little to zero in airport revenue SF has always been greedy self centered about revenue sharing BART did not go to SFO for decades for same reason and is still money losing slow way to airport
2) MTC and FCC would NEVER approve
3) Environment would be WORST because of all the traffic since it would be 1 -2 decades to get adequate public transit in place and 80-90% would try to drive to SF/SJ airport from South Bay
4) No room at SFO to double airport size without massive SF Bay fill so Environmental lawsuits would go on for decades delaying expansion
5) Previous suggestions that selling SJC land would pay for closing airport and existing airport debt are wrong and also loses future airport revenue, jobs and major economic development opportunities for San Jose unless your intent is for SJ to be a 2nd class city Top 10 US city with low tax revenues
Why don’t you do at least minimum research before wasting everyone time with MORE BOZO THE CLOWN TYPE suggestions which are not entertaining just DUMB not well thought out ideas
I just spoke with Vice Mayor Chirco’s Office. They verified that the FINAL community input meeting on the IPA issue IS as follows:
Thursday, February 25, 2010
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Roosevelt Community Center
901 E Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95116
PLEASE come, bring a friend, and pass it on to everyone you know! If you can not come WRITE your Council Member and Mayor and give them your input, or hold your own community meeting, and give the Mayor and Council your group’s input! Thanks!
Has the SJ City Council dealt with the issue of private emails yet?
It turns out Jamie McLeod is holding an email in contravention to the city’s ethics policy. Where is Marshman and the Mercury News? Filling out resumes?
Hey Tony D.,
It’s probably just the Budweiser talking, but I want to tell you something. For right now anyway, you and I have found “common ground”! Was that a helluva football game or what?
WHO DAT. WHO DAT! WHO DAT!!!
> 2) High-speed rail service itself from Bay Area to Southern California, which has the potential of capturing a large portion of the travellers now using the short-haul airline market (which is the bulk of the SJC market).
High-speed rail to Southern California has the potential of being an enormous fiscal black hole.
Tucked away on page 2 of the local section of last Sundays Murky News was a story about a “new vision” for The Alameda between Stockton St. & I880.
They want to NARROW it to one auto lane in each direction, and install a huge median strip.
Can you imagine the gridlock during commute hours and before and after Sharks games caused by reducing road capacity by 50%?
Left turns into streets would be dramatically reduced, and all left turns into driveways would be prohibited. And there would be no parking on one side of The Alameda. That oughta kill commerce along The Alameda in a hurry. These guys are worse than the WG folks re Lincoln Ave.
And, all this was based on a survey of 189 people!
Alameda is the southern range of the El Camino and SJ is perhaps joining other cities in the Grand Boulevard Project. Check out the project at http://www.grandboulevard.net/
Road Diet’s are what they call the removing of traffic lanes to improve the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. In some places, its worked really well (Casto Street, Mountain View) but it requires some good thought about where the actual commute traffic load is supposed to go that is displaced. In Mountain View they upgraded Shoreline as the new primary connector from 101 to El Camino. What would you do for this corridor in SJ? Especially since 880 is under-served in terms of on-ramps or freeway to freeway connections in SJ, this become important.
Current SJ thinking seems to be that LOS can be dropped in the urban core (Level of Service measures how fast cars move through intersections.) It seems to be assumed that people will adapt by parking and walking around or taking transit, but if you look at the parking situation at City Hall and VTA headquarters, even the planners haven’t changed their private travel behavior, so why should we have to to fit their vision.
The Mercury News and the political power elite are at it again. Ordinary citizens are no longer qualified to serve on each and every public board and body. They pulled this crap with editorials about the appointment to the water district a few years back saying the business of the district is too complex to appoint anyone less qualified than a civil engineer. And now you need to be an accountant or better to serve on the assessment appeals board? Common sense and being willing to ask good questions isn’t enough to handle public business? By this logic, non-lawyers should be barred from jury duty as legal matters are too complex for the uneducated to grasp. Only doctors should be allowed to manage health care issues. Only insurance company folks should be involved in insurance regulation.
Come on. They’re elitist jerks who think the common man is too stupid to handle big decisions. And well credentialed fools are better? Usually the bigger the pedigree the more indebted folks have become to public and private interests that helped them get where they are today. Is that what is really preferable? Degrees document potential ability, but even Harvard and Yale graduate idiots with more money than sense. Ask each finalist for an appointment some questions and get a sense of their ability to fairly and impartially discharge the duties of the office. Maybe you don’t want a professional assessor, banker, real estate broker, lawyer or accountant siting on the board that’s making property tax appeal decisions? The value of making friends with potential future clients might outway the thankless job of looking after the revenues that schools, cities and county services need. Then again, sometimes the assessor folks might be unfairly leaning on business to shore up local tax revenue and cooler heads might need to correct the politically motivated injustice as so-called professsional assessors (elected official in a non-term-limited job) used selective interpretation of the law around re-appraisal to put a greater burden on business versus other property owners (residential).
> The Mercury News and the political power elite are at it again. Ordinary citizens are no longer qualified to serve on each and every public board and body. They pulled this crap with editorials about the appointment to the water district a few years back saying the business of the district is too complex to appoint anyone less qualified than a civil engineer. And now you need to be an accountant or better to serve on the assessment appeals board?
By the Murky’s logic, Barack Hussein Obama would not be qualified to serve on the assessment appeals board.
For all you “fans” of hating Mineta/San Jose International(?) Airport (SJC) and its location north of downtown San Jose, I present you with this idea out of left field:
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, Seattle/Tacoma IA, Minneapolis/St. Paul IA, Baltimore/Washington IA; many cities across the country “share” an international airport. 20-30 years into the future, how about…your SAN FRANCISCO/SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT at SFO! Hear me out!
This idea is contingent/based on the following:
1) Implementation of high-speed rail service from SJ to SF by 2018. When completed, rail travel from Diridon/downtown SJ to Millbrae/SFO will take 13 minutes! 8-minutes from a Palo Alto/Mt. View station. From there a quick BART shuttle/AirTrain ride into SFO terminals. Diridon and Palo Alto/MV Station could feature SFO ticketing kiosks for SJ/SV air travellers.
2) High-speed rail service itself from Bay Area to Southern California, which has the potential of capturing a large portion of the travellers now using the short-haul airline market (which is the bulk of the SJC market).
3) SFO runway expansion into the Bay (either bay-fill or floating structures). This will not only increase capacity at SFO but possibly open up southwest portion of airfield for a new terminal complex; to offset closure of SJC.
4) BART to SJ and Oakland Airport (OAK)/BART connector. This would give SJ/SV air travellers the option of using OAK via BART; potential OAK ticketing kiosks at Berryessa/Milpitas BART stations.
By “sharing” SFO, San Jose could then lift the development ceiling of the downtown and redevelop the current Mineta/SJC site. The 1,000+ acres at Mineta is probably worth $2 billion or more in todays dollars. The current Terminal B project (under construction) could be adaptively reused for mixed-use, residential, cultural or commercial purposes. Sale of land at Mineta site would be a windfall for SJ, with a portion of funds going towards improvements/expansion at SFO.
By “sharing” SFO with San Francisco, San Jose would not only gain a true international airport, but would also reap the benefits in terms of downtown development and grand urban development/parklands at the Mineta/SJC site. Not to mention no more noise from low flying jets. The future SAN FRANCISCO/SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT…a win, win all around. Thank you for your time.
Here’s one data point. I travel to Tacoma usually once or twice a year, but I almost always drive because getting from SeaTac to Tacoma by public transit is a big pain.
Here’s another data point. When I go to London (that doesn’t happen as often), I’m willing to go to Gatwick instead of Heathrow because there is excellent train service to Gatwick.
I’ve arrived at SFO late at night and there is no way to get to SJ except by taxi which costs upwards of $100. You can’t get to SFO by Caltrain and Caltrain doesn’t run late anyway. Look how long it took to get BART to SFO.
Yes, if we had an excellent public transit system like they have in London, things would be different.
But SJC is 2 blocks away from Caltrain (but on the wrong side) and about the same from the light rail, and there’s no connection. The concept of connectivity doesn’t seem to have penetrated here.
The idea of extending SFO into the bay may raise environmental issues. However better access to Oakland Airport could be beneficial.
If SJC were decommissioned, what would be done with the land though? I suspect Walmart, Ikea and lots of condos. Would we be any better off for that?
Flying has become a totally unpleasant experience in recent years, but I do like the fact that we have an airport fairly close by. In the summer, when our windows are open, there are times when we have to suspend conversation because of the plane noise, but on the other hand a taxi ride from SJC is not too expensive.
“But SJC is 2 blocks away from Caltrain (but on the wrong side) and about the same from the light rail, and there’s no connection. The concept of connectivity doesn’t seem to have penetrated here.”
Have you ever heard of the 10 Airport Flyer shuttle bus that VTA runs?
http://www.vta.org/schedules/SC_10.html
That bus line links the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, all SJC terminals, and the Metro/Airport light rail station. That particular bus is FREE to ride on at any time, and runs mainly when SJC is open.
The 10 bus line can be traced back to 1990, when it also linked Franklin Mall in Santa Clara with the Airport and downtown San Jose. I remember taking that bus to an interview at a company near SJC at the time, back when I had moved to San Francisco from New Jersey after leaving college for a while after my freshman year. That was just before light rail expanded up N. First Street to Tasman.
10 MHz Days,
As you alluded to with your London scenario, transit connectivity is key to my left-field, sharing SFO idea. Also take into consideration that SJC has lost 23% of its passenger capacity over the past 2-years. If you closed it tomorrow, I’m sure the 9 million passengers per year could easily be absorbed by SFO and OAK (albeit with poor transit connectivity from SJ/SV). I don’t ever see SJC getting to the 17 million + passengers per year as envisioned with the current expansion. But yes, currently driving to SJC beats the hell out of going all the way up to SFO/OAK.
As for your “IKEA”‘s at SJC suggestion, I’m of the firm belief that IF ever given the opportunity to develop the current Mineta site, San Jose would step to the plate with something worthy of a “big city”: grand urban park with lake, Santana Row-like development on steroids, high-rise city, etc.
In terms of SFO runways into the Bay, check this environmentally-friendly idea out:
http://www.floatinc.com/SFIAProposal.pdf
Consolidating the airports makes loads of sense, esp for San Jose, as we’re saddled with an airport that always seems to have visions of grandeur (in terms of traffic and big-ticket flights) that never happen. All these cities are hungry for the business traveller tax dollars (hotels, restaurants, conventions, etc.) so SJ City would probably not want to lose its investment in Mineta *and* lose more convention business to SF. The idea of a super-fast connection to Downtown SJ could make the proposition much easier for our city leaders to stomach, but still: how fast, even in the best-case scenario—would a fast train take to get you to SJ? It is also fair to point out that SF Int’l is a good ten milesorsofrom downtown SF.
RGD,
Per the CAHSRA website, a trip from Diridon to Millbrae/SFO would take 13 minutes via HSR; 8 minutes from a potential Palo Alto station. Around 10 minutes into terminals via BART/AirTrain people mover. All in all, less than 30 minutes via transit from downtown SJ to your “San Francisco/San Jose International Aiport” flight! Alright, enough dreaming for one day.
Very few people come to San Jose because there is an airport located in San Jose. They come to San Jose because they have either business or pleasure in San Jose. They will still come to San Jose regardless if there is an airport here or not.
Tony has a great idea. Let’s make it happen now, not 20 years from now. Also, the BOZOs are those with no vision. Those who equate an airport with success. Those who are so blind they cannot see the tremendous damage being done to San Jose on daily basis by this airport.
To those who want to get rid of this airport albatross around San Jose’s neck I salute you. Your vision is outstanding.
Having an airport is a proven factor in local economic development. Regional action is rare except in cases where the region is banded together to get something that none of the cities in the region have access to already.
SFO is built out and the likelihood of getting Environmental Clearances to expand into the bay with more infill and additional runways is slim. Ironically, historically the bay was much smaller than it is today due to silting and was filled with lots of salt marshes and stinky wetlands. During the horse powered industrial revolution, a lot of land was diked and used for hay fields (fuel) and then later either abandoned to the sea (and dredged as part of navigation schemes) or further infilled for development. There was more wetland historically, but less actual land (think silty mud covering 70% of it with the only clear channels being the major outflows from rivers.) People like water and views of open water a prettier and less smelly than miles of marsh, so today’s environmentalists fighting to save the bay or fighting to save an artificial creation, not the real pre-western man bay.
Back to local economic development, airports, transit linkages and SFO vs. SJC. I’ve used both, and prefer SJ for domestic and SFO for international. Both have transit linkages that were disjointed on purpose (long term parking revenue is a big deal in city finance) and so it took major effort and ridiculously large sums to finally build what transit linkages we do have. My preferred MO for SJC was to take light rail-shuttle for departures and then take a hotel shuttle back downtown (telling them I had a reservation at such-such) for free. If efficiency was really a priority in public works, both high speed rail and intra-regional rail (BART, LR) would have been built from the get-go with stops right inside the airports.
I’m not voting to give up my airport (SJC), nor would I support any change unless it benefits the south bay as a whole. The only scenario talked about that would have done it was the talk a few years back of taking of Moffet Naval Airstation when they were closing the base, but Lockheed and others got it kept open under NASA as the lead tenant and I don’t think we could evict all the users the clustered their to justify the move. However, If I could have Moffet as the new San Jose/Silicon Valley Airport with Highspeed rail, and Caltrain stopping in the airport, I’d even vote to raise taxes to create that ideal solution. Usually, however, we pay to much and get too little as we are over-promised and underserved by the politicians and planners who have already moved up to higher office by the time we realize we got ripped off.
Nice post Blair. Assuming my “sharing” SFO idea ever got political traction:
1) The floating runway link I presented above would be easier to stomach for environmentalists, and would free up current runway’s, taxiways, and tarmac for future terminal/concourse expansion at SFO. In short, SFO is not built out.
2)What would benefit (economically) San Jose and the South Bay as a whole?: getting rid of the development “roof” currently over downtown San Jose, and opening up 1,000 prime acres of Silicon Valley to a money-making, tax generating development. An urban park with a lake would be nice to!
Just my opinion, but whatever airport business that is lost with a hypothetical closure of SJC would be more than made up with a true downtown and development at Mineta. Besides, many of the functions currently at SJC could remain at Diridon, Santa Clara and Palo Alto HSR/CalTrain stations; airline ticketing/check-in facilities, rental car services, long-term parking. Not all airport business would be lost!
I do like your Moffett Airport idea Blair. But the NOMBY’s (Not OVER my backyard) of Sunnyvale and Mt. View will never allow it.
Regional cooperation can trump small town thinking. If we gave up the name (San Jose Mineta International Airport) and switched to Silicon Valley International Airport and split oversight, revenue and operations with all the stakeholders in the region we might be able to co-opt opponents.
Unfortunately, the window for all this was in the early 1990’s and the political leadership and vision wasn’t there at the time (nor is it there now.) Each faction is still focused on destructive competition to hold-onto what they have in these tough budget times and a new paradigm is out of the question for most as it would mean giving up a little political power for greater efficiencies.
How about merging city and county government departments throughout the south bay, consolidating certain functions that member agencies can draw upon and achieving economies of scale? Does every public agency need to duplicate the whole spread of city departments?
Also, next generation aircraft (B787 and beyond) will be a lot quiter than the current fleet.
Did anybody catch this article in this morning’s Merc?
Bullet train ridership numbers don’t add up, watchdog says
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14348215
The article links to the Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design website:
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/
Here’s the bottom line:
Serious questions have been raised about the methodology and results of this study.
* Sample methods were highly biased towards those who are most likely to take a High Speed Rail train. 96% of the Californians surveyed to assess their interest in taking High Speed Rail for commuting were current train riders. [page 2-3, table 2-1 PDF]
* Documentation for the study is voluminous, yet confusing and missing key information required to assess the validity of the results.
* Drastic changes were made to the model used to produce forecasts, yet these changes were not included in the public documentation, the final project report or information provided to the peer review committee. According to the ridership consultant, this was a conscious decision on the part of MTC.[Transmittal Letter from Ridership Consultant]
* The final model reflects the data quality issues and fails industry standard primary validation checks. Producing forecasts from invalid models is problematic.
* It is concerning that the real model was never made public nor apparently distributed to the peer review panel, particularly as there were significant and obvious issues with model’s validity.
This report comes shortly after a report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office that raises some doubts about the High Speed Rail Authority’s business plan. That report is here:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2010/2009_High_Speed_Rail_01_12_10.pdf
Read the report to see the the problems that the Legislative Analyst’s Office identified.
Then, some rail advocates are pointing out serious questions about the politically-motivate route choice:
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0110/crn0110.pdf
See page 4 of the pdf for a better route for the High Speed Rail route.
Bottom line is even if you accept that a high speed rail system is A Good Thing for California, there are serious problems with the way the High Speed Rail Authority does business. I find this quite disturbing.
Yup! Saw it.
But I doubt if it will change anything.
We live in the Post Truth/Post Reality era. Things don’t have to make practical sense or economic sense. They only have to make political sense.
The SEIU wants this BAD!
They will buy who needs to be bought, and crush who needs to be crushed to make this happen.
High Speed Rail is the Democrat’s “Bridge to Nowhere”.
No HJ,
There are not serious problems with the way the CAHSRA does business! This is a classic case of HSR critics blowing up a flaw in projected ridership #‘s and trying to kill the project altogether. It doesn’t help when the pathetic press helps gives them a loud voice. Will mistakes be made with this massive project? Of course; but you remedy those errors along the way, not kill the project entirely.
As for the “better route,” If you’re a Palo Alto/Menlo Park NIMBY, you would want a hypothetical Altamont route because it would keep HSR out of your backyard (never mind that the railroad has existed there for over 100 years). But alas, Pacheco has been chosen, so get over it already!
go to http://www.cahsrblog.com for the truth!
Another problem with high speed rail is the inevitable cost overruns that we’ll get hit with before this thing is done. Read this report:
http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED.pdf
Bottom line:
• In 9 out of 10 transportation infrastructure
projects, costs are underestimated.
• For rail projects, actual costs are on average 45%
higher than estimated costs (sd=38).
• For fixed-link projects (tunnels and bridges),
actual costs are on average 34% higher than
estimated costs (sd=62).
• For road projects, actual costs are on average 20%
higher than estimated costs (sd=30).
• For all project types, actual costs are on average
28% higher than estimated costs (sd=39).
• Cost underestimation exists across 20 nations
and 5 continents; it appears to be a global
phenomenon.
• Cost underestimation appears to be more
pronounced in developing nations than in
North America and Europe (data for rail projects
only).
• Cost underestimation has not decreased over the
past 70 years. No learning that would improve
cost estimate accuracy seems to take place.
• Cost underestimation cannot be explained by
error and seems to be best explained by strategic
misrepresentation, i.e., lying.
• Transportation infrastructure projects do not
appear to be more prone to cost underestimation
than are other types of large projects.
For California high speed rail, the projected cost of the new rail line has already gone from the promised $33.8 million to $42.6 million, and that’s before one shovelful of dirt has been moved. And the proposed SF-LA fare, once promised to be $55, has been jacked up to a slightly more realistic $105. See: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=14948
So, it’s no wonder that some folks who voted for Prop 1A and now saying “bait and switch.”
And for every pro-HSR blog that Tony D can link to, we have an opposing paper, this one from David Levinson, University of Minnesota:
http://nexus.umn.edu/Projects/HSR/HSR-factsheet.html
It’s time to re-think this before this broke state sells more bonds it can’t afford to pay off.
regarding the cost overruns of high speed rail, shouldn’t that be $38.8 to $42.6 BILLION, not million? oops!
So maybe we should cease building anything from now on because a project may cost a little more than originally planned. Yeah, that’s the way to move forward! By the way, a lot of cost-overruns are due to stupid litigation and people hell-bent on stopping a certain project (see frivolous lawsuits). Steve, and the rest of you naysayers, it would be best to just accept the reality of high-speed rail and move on peacefully with your lives. I’m done for today; HAPPY SUPER SUNDAY AND GO SAINTS!
That’s a straw man argument and you know it. Nobody’s making a blanket statement regarding building anything from now on.
The point is that CAHSRA made one set of claims to get voters to vote for 1A and one year later changed their tune on several aspects of the project.
And it takes some nerve to say “accept it and move on” after people point out the obvious bait and switch. And the finances of this project are still questionable because even after the 9 billion in 1A bonds and federal grants are factored in, there’s still a funding shortfall. Have you noticed the state is broke?
> There will always be people against any project
And there will always be people who believe that they will never have to pay for anything, and so they will always favor spend, spend, spend, build, build, build anything no matter how useless, wasteful, or corrupt.
There will always be people against any project.
I am happy the Saints won.
Tell Bailey to stop asking for pictures.
Did you see this article?
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14360167?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1
The more facts come out about the CAHSRA’s methodology, the worse this project sounds.
I hope the CSHSRA data is reviewed by an impartial expert. Nothing CSHSRA puts out now can be trusted.
> And the proposed SF-LA fare, once promised to be $55, has been jacked up to a slightly more realistic $105.
And a trip from LAX to OAK on Southwest Airlines is what? $105 bucks.
And a trip by Greyhound from LA to SF is what? 69 bucks?
$50 billion is a lot to spend just to enable illegal aliens to get from the Mexican border to the Sierra Club headquarters in a couple of hours less time.
For those lining up behind Chuck Reed, don’t move so fast. Cindy Chavez still has a candidate up her sleeve that might get into the race. Someone who can self fund and has labor’s backing will be a tough to beat.
Andy Diaz?
So, bye, bye from the Old Quad, says Jamie McLeod,
Took her chevy to the levee of support, but the levee of
of support from community leaders due to McLeod supporting wackos like the Hazelnut has gone dry
And good ol boys drinking whiskey and rye saying when you, McLeof, blame the stadium for Scott Brown, then you turn against the Democrats and you also lie!
The Sheriff’s race is going to heat up tomorrow. Stay tuned!
An update on something I posted 2 weeks ago about the Oakland Airport Connector and its affect on regional transit operations funding and priorities:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) voted 11-5 on a compromise proposal giving BART until mid-February to complete a Title VI Civil Rights equity review for the OAC project.
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/causes/stimulus2010.html
If the equity review is not complete, or if it does not satisfy requirements from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the $70 million at stake would be distributed to local transit agencies like VTA.
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/dont-mess-with-fta.html
VTA would get $12 million in funding under the compromise.
All three Santa Clara County representatives to the MTC voted for the compromise. This included County Supervisor Dave Cortese. Numerous transit advocacy groups called for the MTC to use the $70 million for regional transit operations funding instead of jump-starting construction for the OAC.
Just before the vote itself, I received an email from Dave Cortese himself regarding the crowd at the MTC meeting in Oakland. You can read the email at the vtaridersunion.org link I mentioned above. Makes you wonder what he meant by potential political retribution…
Looks like this project just lost $70 million. Darn.
http://transformca.org/campaign/oac
Eric,
Will SJI be covering the elections that are coming up? I have been reading some disturbing things about the Sheriff’s race. I also went to the endorsement forum at the County last week to get to know the candidates and their stands on things. WOW, lots of conflict, stories, and drama.
It would be helpful for me and others if you guys covered it. Thanks.
Kathleen,
Yes, we are following the upcoming races and with your help and that of the rest of the SJI community we will follow the issues, conflict and drama.—Eric
As a professional courtesy I would advise you to have a reporter at the Tuesday, Feb. 9th, 6:00 pm, DAS forum at the County building.
Here is why:
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14345292?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1.
I’m sure this issue will be brought up there.
I was at the DSA forum last week and boy was it interesting!
Also, some commentary and interviews on the Mayor’s letter to Coto and Fong would be an excellent blog for discussion: http://protectsanjose.com/blogs/3-city-leaders/190-a-message-from-the-mayor
San Francisco / San Jose airport will NEVER be approved and it is even WORST idea than your previous BOZO suggestions to move SJ airport to Holister or Moffitt Field because
1) SF would not agree, same as Sunnyvale for Moffitt If they agree to get rid of competing airport SJ would get little to zero in airport revenue SF has always been greedy self centered about revenue sharing BART did not go to SFO for decades for same reason and is still money losing slow way to airport
2) MTC and FCC would NEVER approve
3) Environment would be WORST because of all the traffic since it would be 1 -2 decades to get adequate public transit in place and 80-90% would try to drive to SF/SJ airport from South Bay
4) No room at SFO to double airport size without massive SF Bay fill so Environmental lawsuits would go on for decades delaying expansion
5) Previous suggestions that selling SJC land would pay for closing airport and existing airport debt are wrong and also loses future airport revenue, jobs and major economic development opportunities for San Jose unless your intent is for SJ to be a 2nd class city Top 10 US city with low tax revenues
Why don’t you do at least minimum research before wasting everyone time with MORE BOZO THE CLOWN TYPE suggestions which are not entertaining just Dumb
San Francisco / San Jose airport will NEVER be approved and it is even WORST idea than your previous BOZO suggestions to move SJ airport to Holister or Moffitt Field because
1) SF would not agree, same as Sunnyvale for Moffitt If they agree to get rid of competing airport SJ would get little to zero in airport revenue SF has always been greedy self centered about revenue sharing BART did not go to SFO for decades for same reason and is still money losing slow way to airport
2) MTC and FCC would NEVER approve
3) Environment would be WORST because of all the traffic since it would be 1 -2 decades to get adequate public transit in place and 80-90% would try to drive to SF/SJ airport from South Bay
4) No room at SFO to double airport size without massive SF Bay fill so Environmental lawsuits would go on for decades delaying expansion
5) Previous suggestions that selling SJC land would pay for closing airport and existing airport debt are wrong and also loses future airport revenue, jobs and major economic development opportunities for San Jose unless your intent is for SJ to be a 2nd class city Top 10 US city with low tax revenues
Why don’t you do at least minimum research before wasting everyone time with MORE BOZO THE CLOWN TYPE suggestions which are not entertaining just DUMB not well thought out ideas
I just spoke with Vice Mayor Chirco’s Office. They verified that the FINAL community input meeting on the IPA issue IS as follows:
Thursday, February 25, 2010
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Roosevelt Community Center
901 E Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95116
PLEASE come, bring a friend, and pass it on to everyone you know! If you can not come WRITE your Council Member and Mayor and give them your input, or hold your own community meeting, and give the Mayor and Council your group’s input! Thanks!
There is some GREAT art over at Roosevelt Center!
Has the SJ City Council dealt with the issue of private emails yet?
It turns out Jamie McLeod is holding an email in contravention to the city’s ethics policy. Where is Marshman and the Mercury News? Filling out resumes?
Hey Tony D.,
It’s probably just the Budweiser talking, but I want to tell you something. For right now anyway, you and I have found “common ground”! Was that a helluva football game or what?
WHO DAT. WHO DAT! WHO DAT!!!
> 2) High-speed rail service itself from Bay Area to Southern California, which has the potential of capturing a large portion of the travellers now using the short-haul airline market (which is the bulk of the SJC market).
High-speed rail to Southern California has the potential of being an enormous fiscal black hole.
More than potential, it’s a CERTAINTY!!!
Tucked away on page 2 of the local section of last Sundays Murky News was a story about a “new vision” for The Alameda between Stockton St. & I880.
They want to NARROW it to one auto lane in each direction, and install a huge median strip.
Can you imagine the gridlock during commute hours and before and after Sharks games caused by reducing road capacity by 50%?
Left turns into streets would be dramatically reduced, and all left turns into driveways would be prohibited. And there would be no parking on one side of The Alameda. That oughta kill commerce along The Alameda in a hurry. These guys are worse than the WG folks re Lincoln Ave.
And, all this was based on a survey of 189 people!
Alameda is the southern range of the El Camino and SJ is perhaps joining other cities in the Grand Boulevard Project. Check out the project at http://www.grandboulevard.net/
Road Diet’s are what they call the removing of traffic lanes to improve the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. In some places, its worked really well (Casto Street, Mountain View) but it requires some good thought about where the actual commute traffic load is supposed to go that is displaced. In Mountain View they upgraded Shoreline as the new primary connector from 101 to El Camino. What would you do for this corridor in SJ? Especially since 880 is under-served in terms of on-ramps or freeway to freeway connections in SJ, this become important.
Current SJ thinking seems to be that LOS can be dropped in the urban core (Level of Service measures how fast cars move through intersections.) It seems to be assumed that people will adapt by parking and walking around or taking transit, but if you look at the parking situation at City Hall and VTA headquarters, even the planners haven’t changed their private travel behavior, so why should we have to to fit their vision.
Post-Democratic America
The Mercury News and the political power elite are at it again. Ordinary citizens are no longer qualified to serve on each and every public board and body. They pulled this crap with editorials about the appointment to the water district a few years back saying the business of the district is too complex to appoint anyone less qualified than a civil engineer. And now you need to be an accountant or better to serve on the assessment appeals board? Common sense and being willing to ask good questions isn’t enough to handle public business? By this logic, non-lawyers should be barred from jury duty as legal matters are too complex for the uneducated to grasp. Only doctors should be allowed to manage health care issues. Only insurance company folks should be involved in insurance regulation.
Come on. They’re elitist jerks who think the common man is too stupid to handle big decisions. And well credentialed fools are better? Usually the bigger the pedigree the more indebted folks have become to public and private interests that helped them get where they are today. Is that what is really preferable? Degrees document potential ability, but even Harvard and Yale graduate idiots with more money than sense. Ask each finalist for an appointment some questions and get a sense of their ability to fairly and impartially discharge the duties of the office. Maybe you don’t want a professional assessor, banker, real estate broker, lawyer or accountant siting on the board that’s making property tax appeal decisions? The value of making friends with potential future clients might outway the thankless job of looking after the revenues that schools, cities and county services need. Then again, sometimes the assessor folks might be unfairly leaning on business to shore up local tax revenue and cooler heads might need to correct the politically motivated injustice as so-called professsional assessors (elected official in a non-term-limited job) used selective interpretation of the law around re-appraisal to put a greater burden on business versus other property owners (residential).
> The Mercury News and the political power elite are at it again. Ordinary citizens are no longer qualified to serve on each and every public board and body. They pulled this crap with editorials about the appointment to the water district a few years back saying the business of the district is too complex to appoint anyone less qualified than a civil engineer. And now you need to be an accountant or better to serve on the assessment appeals board?
By the Murky’s logic, Barack Hussein Obama would not be qualified to serve on the assessment appeals board.
Hmmmm. Maybe I DO agree with the Murky for once.