Background: In April the San Jose City Council will vote on four different alternative master plans for future development. The alternative selected will have a direct impact on families and businesses in the San Jose and Santa Clara metro area. Due to federal law the City of San Jose can no longer regulate air traffic, flight patterns and hours of airport operation. The City Council can only choose the size, type and character of new facilities (terminals, runways, parking, etc.) runway improvements. The airport's master plan for development will determine the quality of local air transportation and how it will impact San Jose and surrounding communities. The following contains information from the Environmental Impact Report gives lists arguments for and against each alternative proposal. Please take a few minutes to review it. Then call and vote your preference. The information collected will be passed to the San Jose City Council to aid in their decision making process.
| Description | Proposal #1 "Project Case" | Proposal #2 "Alternative A" | Proposals #3 "Alternative B" | Proposal #4 "No Project" |
| Facilities Proposed | ||||
| Runways | Two maximum length commercially rated | Two maximum length commercially rated | One maximum length one general aviation | No significant impact |
| Terminals | One new terminal remodel Terminal C, eighteen new gates | One new terminal remodel Terminal C, six new gates | One new terminal or remodel of Terminal C, four new gates | |
| Fuel Storage | 4 million gallons in eight tanks | 3 million gallons in six tanks | 2.5 million gallons in five tanks | |
| Air Cargo Facilities | new cargo facility 315,000 tons annual | expanded cargo facility 283,000 tons annually | moderate cargo facility expansion
167,200 tons annually | 155,500 tons annually |
| Parking | Three new parking garages
18,800 spaces total | Three new parking garages
14,500 spaces total | Three new parking garages 13,800 spaces | 8,520 spaces |
| Passengers Accommodated | 17.6 million | 13.1 million | 12.4 million | 10.8 million |
| Passenger Flights * | 183,000 | 136,000 | 129,000 | 112,000 |
| Air Cargo Flights * | 13,000 | 13,000 | 5,500 | 5,500 |
| Economics | ||||
| Total Costs | $926 million
2.7% federal grants | $717 million
3.2% federal grants | $548 million
1.6% federal grants | $163.5 million current bond debt |
| Federal Grants | $25.4 million, 2.7% | $23 million, 3.2% | $8.9 million 1.6% | N/A |
* The above figures are annual figures projected to occur by 2010. Comparison to today's estimated annual air traffic rate:
Passenger flights: 86,000
Air Cargo flights: 5,000
| Description of Impact | Proposal #1 "Project Case" | Proposal #2 "Alternative A" | Proposals #3 "Alternative B" | Proposal #4 "No Project" |
| Traffic Impact | ||||
| Average Daily Trips (ADT) | 72,000 auto trips to or from SJC daily, 45% increase in traffic | 58,000 auto trips to or from SJC daily, 32% increase in traffic | 54,000 auto trips to or from SJC daily, 27% increase in traffic | 48,000 auto trips to or from SJC daily, 18% increase in traffic |
| Intersection Congestion | Significant and unavoidable at seven freeway and surface road intersections | Significant and unavoidable at five freeway and surface road intersections | Significant and unavoidable at five surface road intersections | No significant impact |
| Freeway Congestion | Significant and unavoidable impact to
US101 north of Hiway 87, 87 north of the airport and south of I-880, I-880 north and south of Coleman Ave. | Significant and unavoidable impact to
US101 , SR87 and I-880 | No significant impact | No significant impact |
| Air Quality | ||||
| NO2 | Addl. 2,922 lbs. per day 42% increase, impact significant and unavoidable | Addl. 1,423 lbs. per day 23% increase, impact unavoidable | Addl. 474 lbs. per day 10% increase | Addl. 126 lbs. per day 3% increase, impact unavoidable |
| Particulate Matter | Addl. 1,439 lbs. per day 59% increase | Addl. 749 lbs. per day 43% increase | Addl. 331 lbs. per day 25% increase | Addl. 180 lbs. per day 15% increase |
| Reactive Organic Gases | 2% reduction | 22% reduction | 37% reduction | 43% reduction |
| SOx | Addl. 186 lbs. per day
42% increase | Addl. 73 lbs. per day
22% increase | Addl. 26 lbs. per day 9% increase | 2% reduction |
| Noise Impacts | ||||
| Cumulative Aircraft Noise | Significant and unavoidable exterior noise impact in San Jose and Santa Clara | Significant and unavoidable exterior noise impact in San Jose and Santa Clara | No significant impact | No significant impact |
| Other | ||||
| New Fuel Storage Adjacent to Guadeloupe River and US101 | Significant short term impact from leaks, spills or fire to be mitigated with current technology | Significant short term impact from leaks, spills or fire to be mitigated with current technology | Significant short term impact from leaks, spills or fire to be mitigated with current technology | |
| Air Safety | No increase in air safety risks | No increase in air safety risks | No increase in air safety risks | No increase in air safety risks |
This proposal maximizes the development
of all available land at San Jose International Airport (SJC).
It will provide commercial air passenger and cargo handling capacity
in excess of forecasted demand for the next thirteen years. It
will severely limit private air traffic (General Aviation) and
will close the SJSU educational facility at SJC. Displaced planes
will moved to Reid-Hillview or other airports. Parking will increase
with the addition of three new parking structures. A new terminal
will be built and the original Terminal C will be remodeled. Aviation
fuel storage on site will be expanded to four million gallons
in a tank farm near US-101 and the Guadalupe River. Freeways and
intersections near the airport will see significant increases
in traffic congestion. Improved road access to the airport, freeway
enhancements and mass transit connections are not the responsibility
of the airport and are not included in this plan. Economic reviews
disagree as to the balance of benefit versus cost for this proposal.
Cost of proposal: $924 million
| Arguments in favor of the proposal: | Arguments against the proposal: |
| Proposal #1, the "Project Case" will fully meet all possible demand for commercial air traffic at SJC until at least 2010. The expanded air cargo facility will attract air cargo carriers from San Francisco and Oakland airports to relocate activities to SJC. This will allow SJC to increase service to businesses in San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito and Monterey counties. The resulting passenger and freight tax revenues will be used to repay bonds (city backed debt) used to pay for airport expansion.
This proposal is recommended by Airport Staff and the San Jose Chamber of Commerce. | This is too much too soon. Competing to relocate air traffic from San Francisco and Oakland will increase ground transportation problems at and near the airport. The number of trucks entering and leaving the airport will triple. The projected increase in air and toxic pollution will increase San Jose residents' risk of respiratory illnesses and cancer. 40% of San Jose's neighborhoods and 100% of the downtown high-rise district will be under SJC's expanded flight paths. The proposals cost too much. Cost over runs on airport expansion projects are very common. With cost overruns, the expansion costs could turn into a drain on the General Fund. This would require additional tax increases or cuts in city services like police, fire and road maintenance.
This proposal is opposed by neighborhood associations, and environmental organizations. |
This proposal maximizes the development
of all available land at San Jose International Airport (SJC).
It will accommodate 13 million passengers and the majority of
forecasted demand for air cargo at SJC. It will limit private
air traffic (General Aviation) and will close the SJSU educational
facility at SJC. Displaced planes will moved to Reid-Hillview
or other airports. Parking will increase with the addition of
three new parking structures. A new terminal will be built and
the original Terminal C will be remodeled. Aviation fuel storage
on site will be expanded to three million gallons in a tank farm
near US-101 and the Guadeloupe River. Freeways and intersections
near the airport will see significant increases in traffic congestion.
Improved road access to the airport, freeway enhancements and
mass transit connections are not the responsibility of the airport
and are not included in this plan. Economic reviews disagree as
to the balance of benefit versus cost for this proposal.
Cost of proposal: $717 million
| Arguments in favor of the proposal: | Arguments against the proposal: |
| Proposal #2, the "Alternative A" balances the needs of cargo with commercial air traffic and General Aviation. It will fully meet the majority of forecasted demand for air cargo at SJC until at least 2010. The expanded air cargo facility will attract air cargo carriers from San Francisco and Oakland airports to relocate activities to SJC. This will allow SJC to increase service to businesses in San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito and Monterey counties. The resulting passenger and freight tax revenues will be used to repay bonds (city backed debt) used to pay for airport expansion. No group is on record as supporting this proposal.
. | Proposal #2, the "Alternative A" will cause significant new congestion on freeways and intersections near the airport. (see table) It also places too much emphasis on air cargo. Cargo airlines prefer to operate late at night during SJC's curfew hours. Building a major cargo center is incompatible with SJC's convenient downtown location. Operating under a curfew will result in financial losses for SJC. Operating the cargo hub without a curfew will result in damaging San Jose's investments in downtown. 40% of San Jose's neighborhoods and 100% of the downtown high-rise district will be under SJC's expanded flight paths. Increased jet traffic will bring an additional 1,7000 pounds of smog producing Nitrous Oxides and 750 pounds of cancer causing particulants to San Jose every day. This proposal is opposed by neighborhood associations and environmental organizations. |
This proposal balances the development
San Jose International Airport (SJC) for commercial aviation,
air cargo and General Aviation. Terminal C will be remodeled or
replaced to improve service to air passengers and increase the
number of jetway gates. A moderate air cargo facility will be
built and the commercial runway will be rebuilt and enhanced with
supporting taxiways. Parking will increase with the addition of
two new parking structures. Intersections near the airport will
see moderate increases in traffic congestion. Freeway enhancements
will not be required. Economic reviews disagree as to the balance
of benefit versus cost for this proposal.
Cost of proposal: $548 million
| Arguments against the proposal: | |
| Proposal #3, the "Alternative B" balances the needs of cargo with commercial air traffic and general aviation. It will 12 million passengers (nearly twice the current number) at a must lower environmental cost than the "Project Case" or "Alternative A". This proposal carries the lowest risk for San Jose and yet ensures that aviation requirements are met for years to come. "Alternative A" provides a good balance between needs of the flying public and the needs of the citizens of San Jose.
This proposal is supported by environmental groups. | Proposal #3, the "Alternative B" will be inconvenient for airport staff and commercial air carriers. San Jose will not be able to grow into a major airport that can compete with San Francisco and Oakland for air traffic and hub services. Developing areas such as the Coyote Valley, Morgan Hill and Gilroy will not be able to attract as many manufacturing firms. The Project Case and Alternative A will promote development in San Benito county, "Alternative B" will not. |
Under this proposal no substantial
new facilities will be built at SJC for up to ten years. Current
facilities would be maintained and updated. Passenger and cargo
traffic would continue to increase at SJC. Passengers handled
will increase 50% to more than 10 million annually. Cargo will
increase to 155,500 tons annually. There will be significant air
quality impacts but insignificant traffic impacts under this proposal.
Cost of proposal: None
| Arguments in favor of the proposal: | Arguments against the proposal: |
| Air traffic has nearly doubled at SJC over the past ten years and air cargo has more than tripled. During the same time the population has grown 12% in the San Jose metro area but employment has grown only 4%. Rapid growth at SJC has not resulted in employment growth in the greater San Jose metro area. The numbers would seem to indicate that airport growth is driving away employers not attracting them. Until San Jose can put forward a plan to reduce or eliminate the traffic and environmental damage done by increased air traffic, SJC should not grow.
The "No Project" proposal is endorsed by neighborhood associations. | Limiting growth or operations at San Jose International Airport in any way will cost jobs and could reduce the number of people moving into the area. With over four thousand people working at or for the airport, SJC is a major employer. Residents inconvenienced by traffic, noise or pollution can relocate outside of the impact zone to cities such as Los Gatos, Morgan Hill or Palo Alto. The negative impacts of the airport are out weighed by its positive contribution to the economy and civic pride of San Jose.
The "No Project" proposal is opposed by the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and Airport Staff. |