6 ms·

Battle over possibility of taller buildings near San Jose International Airport

54 points by Tempest1981 8y ago

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
https://outline.com/zrqgEu https://outline.com/zrqgEu
crushcrashcrush 8y ago
Simple - you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south. SJC, while super convenient (I live in the South Bay) isn't a premier airport and will never be. Half of it is old and needs remodeling. We need housing and density so much more than we need more flights out of SJC.
- slededit 8y ago
  Not that simple. Planes need to take off and land into the wind. Your “simple” rule would dramatically lower capacity of the runway.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
  I'm curious, which part needs remodeling? I live on the peninsula, and SJC is my preferred airport. I go through there at least once a year, and it's never felt particularly run-down to me.
  - vkou 8y ago
    I've never flown OAK, but given the choice, I will always prefer SJC over SFO. It handles its current load much more gracefully.
    - bradknowles 8y ago
      I did a six month contract for Apple in Cupertino. I lived in a 1BR apartment right on the border of Cupertino and San Jose, on Stevens Creek Blvd just west of I-280. On one occasion, I flew via SFO. I vowed to never ever do that again. From that point forward, I always flew via SJC, and I was much, much happier. The airport was clean, reasonably up-to-date, and never had major traffic problems that I saw. I would be very unhappy if that airport got shut down or crippled just because some people want to build tall buildings in the area.
  - crushcrashcrush 8y ago
    Terminal A is old. Terminal B is great!
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  > Simple - you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south. Obviously we also have to require aircraft to take off to the north, yes? Let's see how we can implement this proposal. SJC has two parallel runways: 30L/12R and 30R/12L. The runways are 700 feet apart. [1] [2] We could operate the airport like a two-way highway where you only drive on the right. We permanently close runways 30L and 12L, and allow takeoffs only on 30R and landings only on 12R. So you approach from the north and take off to the north. This will result in oncoming traffic 700 feet to your left, whether you are taking off or landing. Passengers may get used to seeing other jetliners zoom by them at 250-300 miles per hour. After all, we do something like that on the freeway every day. As a pilot, my worry is the wingtip vortices, affectionately called "wake turbulence". These are little cyclones that come off the end of each wing, travel with the wind, and can flip you upside down! The two-way traffic will assure plenty of opportunities to get caught in one of these. OTOH, the oncoming traffic and wingtip vortices may only be a problem on a very calm day. On many typical days of the year with moderate winds from the north-northwest, we may have to close the airport for landings and only allow takeoffs. Conversely, when the winds reverse due to weather, we will only allow landings and cancel all takeoffs. Perhaps this plan is not quite as simple as it first seemed. [1] Runways are numbered by their approximate compass heading divided by ten. A runway can be used in either direction depending on wind conditions, so it has two different designations that differ by 18, or 180 degrees. When an airport has parallel runways, they get an L or R suffix for left or right. So runway 30L and 12R are the same physical strip, at an approximate compass direction of 300 degrees if you are approaching from the southeast, or 120 degrees when approaching from the northwest. Similarly, the parallel strip is runway 30R and 12L. [2] SJC runway map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SJC_Airport_Diagram.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SJC_Airp...
  - masonic 8y ago
    So you approach from the north and take off to the north. are you unaware that both takeoffs and landings face into the prevailing wind direction?
    - Stratoscope 8y ago
- everdev 8y ago
  I'd much rather fly out of SJC than SFO. SJC has a good number of domestic and international flights and the parking, pickup and security is much faster and easier to navigate. Also, you approach based on the wind.
- masonic 8y ago
  you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south This makes no sense to me. The prevailing winds are from the North, so except for storms and early mornings, standard approach is from the south.
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
The title is correct, but it's worth noting that the article is only talking about the space South-East of SJC (the airport). There are already some tall buildings to the E-NE of the airport, in the triangle bordered by SR 87, SR 101, and Interstate 880. See the area map at [0]. The other place to look would be to the W-SW of the airport, in the already-mostly-industrial area bordered by the Caltrain tracks, the San Thomas Expressway, and either SR 101 or the single train track that runs near De La Cruz Blvd.. The only problem is, that's no San Jose, that's Santa Clara (see [1]), and since "all politics is local", that doesn't count. The area SW of the airport that is in San Jose is the empty-looking strip between Coleman Ave and the Caltrain tracks. A chunk of that has construction in progress, another chunk is Avaya Stadium and associated parking, and I think the rest is reserved for a future BART terminus and associated stabling sidings (similar to what BART has at Millbrae). On the other hand, though… maybe that could still be used for development? It would be expensive, since any developer would have to maintain an empty shell on ground level, but it may be doable. [0]: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3616791,-121.9254423,4047m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3616791,-121.9254423,4047m/d... [1]: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SCC_BoundariesMap.pdf https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SCC_Bou...
- masonic 8y ago
  SR 101 US 101
mlinksva 8y ago
I wonder if long term plan ought be to shut down and redevelop SJC. Has this been studied? I know that SAN relocation is periodically studied but not gotten far (too bad, I'd like San Diego better without the low flying planes). SJC is closer to downtown and there are existing alternatives (SFO and OAK) so would seem to be a more attractive candidate.
- toast0 8y ago
  SFO is prone to weather delays. I've never flown through OAK, because it was always less convenient than the other two (for me, living in Sunnyvale and San Jose), price was about the same and no better routes. It might make more sense to expand one of San Jose's municipal airfields to replace SJC than to just abandon it.
- United857 8y ago
  IMO, they should look at commercializing NUQ (Moffett Field) in Mountain View and make it the new SJC. It would be a great location since it's not surrounded by a city as with the current SJC. One downside though would be it would add to the already crazy traffic in the 101-237 corridor.
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    Google will never allow it. They dont need an international airport in the middle of the campus.
    - warp_factor 8y ago
      Ah yes, I forgot that Mountain View//Sunnyvale is now a dictatorship under Google /s
      - masonic 8y ago
        They do have dominance over Moffett Field runways.
  - 8y ago
everdev 8y ago
I used to work on the top floor of River Park Towers, right in the fight path of the SJC approach and next to Adobe HQ. It felt like planes were barely passing over the roof until I made the approach in the air and felt like it must have been several hundred feet of separation. Still closer to a building than any other approach I can recall, but never felt dangerous. It certainly does reduce the margin for error though.
- 0max 8y ago
  Sounds like what landing at Hong Kong's old Kai Tak Airport back when it was still in operation. You could see into people's homes from your window when landing there.
mathattack 8y ago
SJC is much easier access than SFO and much more reliable. Better to expand it.
bdamm 8y ago
SJC is an outstanding airport. It's very convenient, easy to access, nice and close to the downtown core that it serves. It would be a shame to lose this gem of an asset. There are policy and technology options to work around the tightness of the city and the airport. This is a city that needs its airport. It's a rare asset to have such a versatile and productive airport so embedded.
- 01100011 8y ago
  Especially as the south end continues to grow. You're going to have a lot more people crammed into SJ in the next few years and making them all commute to SFO/OAK is stupid. +1 about SJC being outstanding. It's so damn easy to get in and out of. I really like flying through there. SAN is also pretty good, if you're on SWA anyway.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  It's very convenient, easy to access, nice and close to the downtown core that it serves That's why it will ultimately be replaced -- it's too close and is limiting growth of of that same downtown core.
  - volkl48 8y ago
    Doesn't seem to have hurt Boston much even with Logan imposing strict height restrictions over large sections of the city. I will also point out that if you develop in a properly dense, urban fashion, you can create a large amount of space with relatively low-rise buildings. I am skeptical of the premise that the airport is limiting downtown development when I can see huge swaths of land devoted to asphalt parking lots and single-story buildings at present. You could redevelop/build new square footage for decades just on that.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Because of the orientation of Logan's runways, the main downtown isn't included in the most restrictive airspace: http://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan-airspace-map.pdf http://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan-airspace-map... San Jose airport's runways are aimed right at San Jose's core downtown area (near Diridon station) where all of this new development is taking place. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8294 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8294

54 points by Tempest1981 8y ago

https://outline.com/zrqgEu https://outline.com/zrqgEu

Simple - you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south. SJC, while super convenient (I live in the South Bay) isn't a premier airport and will never be. Half of it is old and needs remodeling. We need housing and density so much more than we need more flights out of SJC.

slededit 8y ago
Not that simple. Planes need to take off and land into the wind. Your “simple” rule would dramatically lower capacity of the runway.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
I'm curious, which part needs remodeling? I live on the peninsula, and SJC is my preferred airport. I go through there at least once a year, and it's never felt particularly run-down to me.
- vkou 8y ago
  I've never flown OAK, but given the choice, I will always prefer SJC over SFO. It handles its current load much more gracefully.
  - bradknowles 8y ago
    I did a six month contract for Apple in Cupertino. I lived in a 1BR apartment right on the border of Cupertino and San Jose, on Stevens Creek Blvd just west of I-280. On one occasion, I flew via SFO. I vowed to never ever do that again. From that point forward, I always flew via SJC, and I was much, much happier. The airport was clean, reasonably up-to-date, and never had major traffic problems that I saw. I would be very unhappy if that airport got shut down or crippled just because some people want to build tall buildings in the area.
- crushcrashcrush 8y ago
  Terminal A is old. Terminal B is great!
Stratoscope 8y ago
> Simple - you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south. Obviously we also have to require aircraft to take off to the north, yes? Let's see how we can implement this proposal. SJC has two parallel runways: 30L/12R and 30R/12L. The runways are 700 feet apart. [1] [2] We could operate the airport like a two-way highway where you only drive on the right. We permanently close runways 30L and 12L, and allow takeoffs only on 30R and landings only on 12R. So you approach from the north and take off to the north. This will result in oncoming traffic 700 feet to your left, whether you are taking off or landing. Passengers may get used to seeing other jetliners zoom by them at 250-300 miles per hour. After all, we do something like that on the freeway every day. As a pilot, my worry is the wingtip vortices, affectionately called "wake turbulence". These are little cyclones that come off the end of each wing, travel with the wind, and can flip you upside down! The two-way traffic will assure plenty of opportunities to get caught in one of these. OTOH, the oncoming traffic and wingtip vortices may only be a problem on a very calm day. On many typical days of the year with moderate winds from the north-northwest, we may have to close the airport for landings and only allow takeoffs. Conversely, when the winds reverse due to weather, we will only allow landings and cancel all takeoffs. Perhaps this plan is not quite as simple as it first seemed. [1] Runways are numbered by their approximate compass heading divided by ten. A runway can be used in either direction depending on wind conditions, so it has two different designations that differ by 18, or 180 degrees. When an airport has parallel runways, they get an L or R suffix for left or right. So runway 30L and 12R are the same physical strip, at an approximate compass direction of 300 degrees if you are approaching from the southeast, or 120 degrees when approaching from the northwest. Similarly, the parallel strip is runway 30R and 12L. [2] SJC runway map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SJC_Airport_Diagram.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SJC_Airp...
- masonic 8y ago
  So you approach from the north and take off to the north. are you unaware that both takeoffs and landings face into the prevailing wind direction?
  - Stratoscope 8y ago
everdev 8y ago
I'd much rather fly out of SJC than SFO. SJC has a good number of domestic and international flights and the parking, pickup and security is much faster and easier to navigate. Also, you approach based on the wind.
masonic 8y ago
you can only approach SJC airport from the north, not the south This makes no sense to me. The prevailing winds are from the North, so except for storms and early mornings, standard approach is from the south.

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

The title is correct, but it's worth noting that the article is only talking about the space South-East of SJC (the airport). There are already some tall buildings to the E-NE of the airport, in the triangle bordered by SR 87, SR 101, and Interstate 880. See the area map at [0]. The other place to look would be to the W-SW of the airport, in the already-mostly-industrial area bordered by the Caltrain tracks, the San Thomas Expressway, and either SR 101 or the single train track that runs near De La Cruz Blvd.. The only problem is, that's no San Jose, that's Santa Clara (see [1]), and since "all politics is local", that doesn't count. The area SW of the airport that is in San Jose is the empty-looking strip between Coleman Ave and the Caltrain tracks. A chunk of that has construction in progress, another chunk is Avaya Stadium and associated parking, and I think the rest is reserved for a future BART terminus and associated stabling sidings (similar to what BART has at Millbrae). On the other hand, though… maybe that could still be used for development? It would be expensive, since any developer would have to maintain an empty shell on ground level, but it may be doable. [0]: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3616791,-121.9254423,4047m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3616791,-121.9254423,4047m/d... [1]: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SCC_BoundariesMap.pdf https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SCC_Bou...

masonic 8y ago
SR 101 US 101

mlinksva 8y ago

I wonder if long term plan ought be to shut down and redevelop SJC. Has this been studied? I know that SAN relocation is periodically studied but not gotten far (too bad, I'd like San Diego better without the low flying planes). SJC is closer to downtown and there are existing alternatives (SFO and OAK) so would seem to be a more attractive candidate.

toast0 8y ago
SFO is prone to weather delays. I've never flown through OAK, because it was always less convenient than the other two (for me, living in Sunnyvale and San Jose), price was about the same and no better routes. It might make more sense to expand one of San Jose's municipal airfields to replace SJC than to just abandon it.
United857 8y ago
IMO, they should look at commercializing NUQ (Moffett Field) in Mountain View and make it the new SJC. It would be a great location since it's not surrounded by a city as with the current SJC. One downside though would be it would add to the already crazy traffic in the 101-237 corridor.
- jedmeyers 8y ago
  Google will never allow it. They dont need an international airport in the middle of the campus.
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    Ah yes, I forgot that Mountain View//Sunnyvale is now a dictatorship under Google /s
    - masonic 8y ago
      They do have dominance over Moffett Field runways.
- 8y ago

everdev 8y ago

I used to work on the top floor of River Park Towers, right in the fight path of the SJC approach and next to Adobe HQ. It felt like planes were barely passing over the roof until I made the approach in the air and felt like it must have been several hundred feet of separation. Still closer to a building than any other approach I can recall, but never felt dangerous. It certainly does reduce the margin for error though.

0max 8y ago
Sounds like what landing at Hong Kong's old Kai Tak Airport back when it was still in operation. You could see into people's homes from your window when landing there.

mathattack 8y ago

SJC is much easier access than SFO and much more reliable. Better to expand it.

bdamm 8y ago

SJC is an outstanding airport. It's very convenient, easy to access, nice and close to the downtown core that it serves. It would be a shame to lose this gem of an asset. There are policy and technology options to work around the tightness of the city and the airport. This is a city that needs its airport. It's a rare asset to have such a versatile and productive airport so embedded.

01100011 8y ago
Especially as the south end continues to grow. You're going to have a lot more people crammed into SJ in the next few years and making them all commute to SFO/OAK is stupid. +1 about SJC being outstanding. It's so damn easy to get in and out of. I really like flying through there. SAN is also pretty good, if you're on SWA anyway.
Johnny555 8y ago
It's very convenient, easy to access, nice and close to the downtown core that it serves That's why it will ultimately be replaced -- it's too close and is limiting growth of of that same downtown core.
- volkl48 8y ago
  Doesn't seem to have hurt Boston much even with Logan imposing strict height restrictions over large sections of the city. I will also point out that if you develop in a properly dense, urban fashion, you can create a large amount of space with relatively low-rise buildings. I am skeptical of the premise that the airport is limiting downtown development when I can see huge swaths of land devoted to asphalt parking lots and single-story buildings at present. You could redevelop/build new square footage for decades just on that.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Because of the orientation of Logan's runways, the main downtown isn't included in the most restrictive airspace: http://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan-airspace-map.pdf http://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan-airspace-map... San Jose airport's runways are aimed right at San Jose's core downtown area (near Diridon station) where all of this new development is taking place. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8294 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8294