As mentioned in my previous post, the low VTA light rail ridership in the Silicon Valley can be addressed more cost-effectively not by extending service great distances to areas not currently served, but rather by increasing the number of destinations on the current right-of-way. The light rail system already passes through many neighborhoods. It is just a matter of encouraging folks near the stations to want to use the mode of transit. Speeding it up (and thereby making the train more time-competitive) will help, but only if the line goes to where the people want to go. Otherwise, it does not matter how fast it travels. Thus, a light rail’s success is highly dependent on its proximity to the origin and destination of a potential trip. By increasing destinations, such as malls, transit hubs, stadiums, etc. on the line, agencies can raise the likelihood of a person who lives or works close to a station to travel by rail.
To illustrate this, if a mall was located five stops from the light rail station that is a block from my house, I am more likely to use the mode instead of driving and having to fight for a parking space. If, however, the shopping center (or my house) was a mile or two from the light rail line, I would probably drive instead as the inconvenience of traffic, gas, and finding a parking space would be more worthwhile than having to walk that mile to or from the station.
This is why, when conceptualizing a future line, planners try to choose routes that have these destinations, or “activity nodes,” to increase potential ridership. Of course, it is much harder when expected ridership levels fail to be met and the light rail system is already built out, like in VTA’s case. Besides building Transit-Oriented Development (TOD’s) along the line or constructing adequate transfer points to future BART stations, there is not much VTA can do to increase destinations on its current right-of-way. This may explain why the agency is pushing to expand its system even further into the suburbs.
I believe that VTA may have overlooked or undervalued some properties near its lines. Instead of extending ~2.25 miles (3.62 km) through low density residential tracts to an aging mall, the agency could build something that residents AND businesses alike from all parts of the Silicon Valley can capitalize on: a short, ~0.6mi (0.96km) stub to the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). I list and explain my four reasons below:
1) SJC is a major destination.
Above is a map of the Bay Area’s three major airports. The westernmost pin is San Francisco’s SFO, the northernmost is Oakland’s OAK, and the southernmost is San Jose’s SJC. While SFO is the most popular, with almost 40 million passengers (2011) and is the region’s gateway to the rest of the world, with flights to faraway places like Dubai, Singapore, Sydney, Sao Paolo, and Munich (data). OAK is second, with more than 9.2 million passengers (2011) but has seen a recent decline. It serves mainly domestic trips but does have some flights to Europe and Mexico (data). SJC may be the smallest major airport in the Bay Area at 8.3 million (2011), but with the growth in the South Bay/Silicon Valley area, it will be no surprise if it surpasses OAK within a decade (data). Due to collapse of the Dot-Com Bubble in the early 2000’s, the airport saw a contraction in business and minimized international flights to just Mexico. Yet recently, it has added non-stop flights to Japan and other domestic destinations – a symbol of the region’s strength through the recent recession.
SJC, with its position in the heart of the South Bay, is quite competitive. Unless their flights are only offered at other airports, SJC is the preferred option for many residents and businesses in San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Fremont, and more. While BART has a station at SFO, it does not extend its lines to the South Bay. The freeways up the Peninsula to SFO or up the East Bay to OAK are known for their traffic and possibly act as a deterrent for most flyers from the “southern regions.”
As mentioned before, SJC is expected to see an increase in flyers as the region around it grows in population and in business. The tech industry’s success has attracted many residents and financial dealers to the area. As a response to the growth, the airport has invested $1.3 billion into a new terminal (top picture) and is planning to construct another section when demand requires it.
2) SJC is near the current light rail ROW.
SJC lies just west of the North First Street light rail corridor, where 3 lines connect the tech centers in the north with Downtown San Jose (and the suburbs beyond). If using Browkaw Rd, the top pink dashed line, the airport is ~0.53 miles (0.85 km) away from the light rail. If measuring by Skyport Dr., or the bottom pink dashed line, SJC is only ~0.42 miles (0.67 km) away. Of course, these distances are just to the airport property, but additional tracks to the terminals themselves would not be much longer distance.
Currently, a free airport shuttle provided by VTA carries passengers from the Skyport Station (red middle circle) to both Terminals A & B. It then continues around the airport to pick up transferring flyers from the Caltrain station on the other side (Caltrain is a local commuter rail system). It is at this Caltrain station, and not at the airport itself, that the future BART station for airport-goers is planned. Even for the future, there is no attempt to directly connect SJC to rail systems. This is an unusual circumstance, as many international airports across the United States and the world have a rail station adjacent to airport terminals. But one does not need to look far, as SFO has an indoor BART station, and OAK is witnessing construction for a new BART airport connector. So why not SJC? After all, the detriment of a small deviation from the currently straight path of the light rail ROW would be easily outweighed by the benefits of being connected to an international airport!
3) A short extension would be easily compatible with current VTA plans.
From VTA’s Light Rail Analysis:
Winchester line loops downtown. Winchester trains will no longer travel up North First Street to Mountain View, but instead will loop around downtown San Jose before returning to Winchester. An independent Winchester line should improve the on-time reliability for Winchester riders.
The problem with on-time reliability can be illustrated with this light rail speed map. The speed of light rail changes variably from Mountain View to Metro/Airport from 55 mph to <14 mph in between stations. However, trains travelling from Downtown San Jose (St. James Station) northward to Metro/Airport run at more consistent speed, albeit more slowly at around 28 mph. For time-reliability, a slower, but consistent, speed is more preferable than a faster, but more variable, speed as it is easier to predict arrival times. By truncating the Winchester line, the agency can eliminate the more problematic sections where speeds can vary greatly.
My proposal to extend the light rail to the airport will keep time-reliability in mind. Instead of looping the Winchester line in Downtown, I suggest keeping the line going a little more than 2 miles northward to SJC, where trains can pick passengers up at the airport terminals and return back to Winchester. Time-reliability will still be improved as the Mountain View segment will not be included. While it will not be as reliable as VTA’s current plans, since it will add 2 miles, the disparity will not be great. As mentioned before, the light rail speed map shows that trains travelling from Downtown to Metro/Airport do not experience much variability in speed. With minimal speed changes, it is easier to then predict arrival times of trains. Therefore, an airport extension using the Winchester line will not alter VTA plans greatly while most likely maintaining time-reliability goals set by the agency.
4) It would eliminate the burden of a transfer.
To test my proposal, I shall simulate trips by potential rail commuters from different areas of Santa Clara County. This is to ensure that my suggestion will meet the main objective of eliminating the burden of a transfer. I shall compare my Winchester line extension to the status quo, as well as the alternative of having some other light rail line go to the airport. With the destination being SJC, I chose the four origins of Palo Alto in the northwest, Fremont in the northeast, Morgan Hill in the southeast, Los Gatos in the southwest. Keep in mind that besides driving to the nearest rail station, these simulated commuters will only use rail to get to SJC.
I also made two other rules: 1) the BART extension to Downtown San Jose has been completed (will hopefully be done by 2020!); and 2) people will have equal preference for the Caltrain stations of Santa Clara and Diridon as they are in the same fare zone.
This is the result:
Origin |
Status Quo (Shuttle Bus & Winchester Loop) |
Winchester Line to SJC |
Other Line to SJC (Winchester Loop)
|
Fremont |
BART to Milpitas Transfer Other Light Rail to Metro Transfer Shuttle Bus to SJC |
BART to Downtown Transfer Winchester to SJC |
BART to Milpitas Transfer Other Light Rail to SJC
|
Palo Alto |
Caltrain to Santa Clara Transfer Shuttle Bus to SJC |
Caltrain to Diridon Transfer Winchester to SJC |
Caltrain to Diridon Transfer Winchester to Downtown Transfer Other Light Rail to SJC |
Los Gatos |
Winchester to Downtown Transfer Other Light Rail to Metro Transfer Shuttle Bus to SJC |
Winchester to SJC |
Winchester to Downtown Transfer Other Light Rail to SJC |
Morgan Hill |
Caltrain to Santa Clara Transfer Shuttle Bus to SJC |
Caltrain to Diridon Transfer Winchester to SJC |
Caltrain to Diridon Transfer Winchester to Downtown Transfer Other Light Rail to SJC |
From the chart, it is apparent that extending the Winchester Line to SJC will increase the convenience of the rail commuter. Travellers from Los Gatos will be more inclined to use the light rail, even while carrying luggage, as it will be a one-seat ride to the airport. In all other cases, commuters only need to worry about only one transfer, while the status quo or the other line alternative may require two. This test shows that extending the Winchester Line to SJC is the best option in eliminating transfers for flyers. In joining SJC to the light rail system using the Winchester Line, not only is a major destination that attracts millions each year added to the system, but it also is added in a convenient manner for commuters around the Silicon Valley.
——————–
Now that I made my case, I shall now briefly discuss alignment. From the current infrastructure, I see two possible track alignments to the airport.
The blue line and dot represent the existing ROW and Metro Station. From Winchester, my first alternative (W1) will stop at Metro station, head northwest and deviate from the current ROW, and make a turn a Brokaw/Airport Parkway. Here, a possible infill station can be constructed to serve the immediate businesses around. The tracks will then continue under the freeway, across the Guadalupe River, weave through an intersection and arrive at the terminus station in between airport terminals A & B.
In my second alternative (W2), the line instead turns left prior to reaching Metro Station. On Skyport Drive, a potential infill station can be built. As it crosses the River, W2 will use the road margins close to the Guadalupe River Trail to travel to its terminus station. This light rail station at the airport for both W1 and W2 is under 1/5 mi from both terminals, a convenient walk for flyers.
A zoom in to the proposed airport station:
The good thing is that because it is a terminus, the tracks leading to the airport do not have to be double-tracked (two-lane). The opportunity to build only a single-track route is good as it requires less space for the ROW and lower construction costs. The approach to the airport can easily handle a single track route:
Another benefit of the Winchester line is that trains on the line are only two cars long, making the train only 180 ft long (90 ft per car). In such a compact area, space is a foe. However, there is room to accommodate a 180-ft station in the grassy area next to the terminal. With a wide sidewalk already existing to separate the road and vegetation, a station can easily be accommodated without much change:
Unfortunately, however, there are plans to build not a light rail extension to SJC, but rather a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system around the airport. I am unsure how far these plans are into being realized, but it will not help attract more riders. It will still pose the transferring problem, as all it is essentially doing is replacing the bus shuttle system with a fancier one. In other words, instead of reading “Shuttle Bus to SJC” in my chart under Status Quo, it will read “PRT to SJC.” The amount of transfers stays the same.
With that, I conclude my lengthy post on bringing VTA light rail to San Jose’s airport!
THANK YOU FOR READING!