San Francisco - Two awful things I just discovered about SJC

I just flew Southwest on a round trip out of SJC. It's been a while since I've been there and given my experience, it will likely be quite a while before I am back again. Here's the new reasons why:

1. Without Southwest, SJC would be a ghost town. So the airport rewards them by putting the Southwest gates at the farthest possible distance from both security checkpoints. You will likely have to walk a half mile to get between an entrance/exit and your Southwest gate regardless of which entrance/exit you use.

2. For those intending to use public transit to get to or from SJC, the shuttle bus frequency (the one which goes to the light rail and Caltrain) has been reduced to 30 minutes on weekends and holidays. This is hugely inconvenient and I recommend avoiding public transit if your flight arrives or departs on a weekend.

1. Without Southwest, SJC would be a ghost town. So the airport rewards them by putting the Southwest gates at the farthest possible distance from both security checkpoints. You will likely have to walk a half mile to get between an entrance/exit and your Southwest gate regardless of which entrance/exit you use.



I was told that it is at the request of Southwest to be located at the gates that are the closest to the runways as possible, to minimize taxi and waiting times. It is part of their business strategy. Your lost time is not their concern, their concern is turning airplanes as quickly as possible.

What you say is true - SJC used to be a lot more user-friendly and convenient. But the recession has decimated the level of service - all the trans con flights to BOS, NYC, and WAS are gone. UA ended flights to ORD, AA cut way back, and even DL is back to a once/day redeye to ATL.

But look at OAK also - AA gone, UA leaving shortly, DL only goes to SLC, B6 only east coast is a redeye to JFK - everything dominated by WN there also.

Maybe ANA starting up NRT service next year will be a catalyst. Let's hope so.

I was told that it is at the request of Southwest to be located at the gates that are the closest to the runways as possible, to minimize taxi and waiting times. It is part of their business strategy. Your lost time is not their concern, their concern is turning airplanes as quickly as possible.

It seems to me that virtually all the gates in terminal A and B have the same time to/from the runways -- if it's shorter on takeoff, it's longer on landing and vice versa.

... So the airport rewards them by putting the Southwest gates at the farthest possible distance from both security checkpoints.

We have no idea if this is a "reward" or just the exact gate space that WN negotiated to get.

Once WN moved into SJC, the legacies decided to pack up and just leave hub service and let WN take all the regional point to points. It is the story of many of the midsize airports that WN gets a good foothold into. SMF/Sacramento is similar, but the government and gov't-related traffic helps. OAK is even in worse shape compared to SJC.

I know, I used to fly out of SJC a few times a year. Now I just use it for WN to the LA area and pretty much nothing else. I wonder how long ANA will keep their service, or if they will even follow through with their promise to start it. But if they do and have lay-flat beds in business, I will give it a try. Just won't be using public transit to get there!

I know, I used to fly out of SJC a few times a year. Now I just use it for WN to the LA area and pretty much nothing else. I wonder how long ANA will keep their service, or if they will even follow through with their promise to start it. But if they do and have lay-flat beds in business, I will give it a try. Just won't be using public transit to get there!
Come one, Caltrain to the Santa Clara station then a VTA bus? Or Caltrain to Mtn. View VTA light rail then a VTA bus? Or how about trying VTA buses the whole way there. ;)

Come one, Caltrain to the Santa Clara station then a VTA bus? Or Caltrain to Mtn. View VTA light rail then a VTA bus? Or how about trying VTA buses the whole way there. ;)

The reason was in my first post and was one of the main reasons I started this thread, please take a look. The critical final connector bus, route 10, only runs once every 30 minutes. It can take a long time to do that last mile to/from SJC if you arrive or depart on a weekend/holiday.

The reason was in my first post and was one of the main reasons I started this thread, please take a look. The critical final connector bus, route 10, only runs once every 30 minutes. It can take a long time to do that last mile to/from SJC if you arrive or depart on a weekend/holiday.

Is this the bus that goes to Caltrain? I have been endlessly annoyed that it also stops at the parking lots, wasting time, and making me miss one train and have to wait for another.

Is this the bus that goes to Caltrain? I have been endlessly annoyed that it also stops at the parking lots, wasting time, and making me miss one train and have to wait for another.

Yup, same bus.

#1 SJC is already a ghost town airport. If you want to visit another ghost town airport in California, try ONT. It's even worse than SJC. Can you believe that? Judging from recent PAX loads for SJC-ONT, WN needs to get rid of another flight or two on this route.

#2 The VTA line 10 bus to Caltrain and light rail from SJC is a sad joke just like the rest of the airport. The posted schedule seems to be optional. It is late (or early?) frequently. I found out from VTA customer service that they don't monitor drivers by GPS for lateness??? Uhh... this is Silicon Valley.

The reason was in my first post and was one of the main reasons I started this thread, please take a look. The critical final connector bus, route 10, only runs once every 30 minutes. It can take a long time to do that last mile to/from SJC if you arrive or depart on a weekend/holiday.
I see that now. Too bad about the schedule. Public transport to SJC is pretty sad. It is the story of the South Bay - slow and spotty public transportation.

The cynic in me believes that SJC intentionally makes public transit access uncomfortable and inconvenient, solely to make more money on parking.

I live downtown, so I do take the bus to get to SJC. Even though I live only about 4 miles away (about 10 minutes' drive, with stop lights), it still takes me an hour to get to SJC from my house via public transit.

And many years later, I'm still upset that the airport propaganda machine managed to con voters into removing the requirement of an automated people mover from the nearby train station (again, I suspect, to maintain parking revenue -- can't make it too easy for people).

All the above is why I drive right past SJC to use SFO for 95% of my flights.

Public transit is horrible all over that area - San Jose is not really a city, but a crappy suburb, with matching crappy suburban public transit.

Try taking Caltrain there on a weekend from San Francisco - makes 22 stops, unbelievably slow.


I see that now. Too bad about the schedule. Public transport to SJC is pretty sad. It is the story of the South Bay - slow and spotty public transportation.

Public transit is horrible all over that area - San Jose is not really a city, but a crappy suburb, with matching crappy suburban public transit.

A suburb of what, Santa Clara?

(Mods, can we merge these two threads now? :D)

Public transit is horrible all over that area - San Jose is not really a city, but a crappy suburb

San Jose is the 3rd largest city in the state, 10th largest in the nation.

Pray, what tell, which city is it a suburb of?

If a suburb has to be linked to a nearby big city, then it is a suburb of San Francisco. Among the factors that lead to the conclusion of San Jose being a suburb:


Just have a look - it looks like a suburb, not a city. Miles of freeway, suburban style shopping centers, nobody walking on the streets.
Crappy public transportation, essentially impossible to live there without a car.
As doucmented on Flyertalk, airport is a joke, need to go to SFO for long-distance non-stop flights
It is part of the San Francisco Media Market. Only one TV station located in San Jose, otherwise all TV stations serving area are in San Francisco
Virtually no Black people - about 3% of the population in 2010 census.




San Jose is the 3rd largest city in the state, 10th largest in the nation.

Pray, what tell, which city is it a suburb of?

Having just had a post deleted in a related forum because it verged on Omni, I'm not going to add to the last few posts. I started this thread to talk about how un-pasenger-oriented SJC has become, which is rather sad for an airport that used to call itself "the user-friendly airport." I would appreciate it if we focused on those issues here, thanks.

I do find it surprising that there are not frequent and reliable public transportation links to the airport from downtown San Jose and other connecting points. While San Jose and Silicon Valley at a whole have not been built at densities sufficient to support robust public transportation, the airport is so close to downtown San Jose and the convention center that you'd think at least that would be a strong link.

On two other points:

Not sure about SJC traffic, but OAK traffic (pax) has been down about 1/3 from its highs. Fewer flights, fewer flying overall. WN's use of OAK as a hub (or WN's version thereof, at least) is sustaining traffic there.

A poster above expressed surprise that drivers weren't being monitored by GPS for on-time performance. I'd suggest that would be a good way to destroy employee morale. A better use of GPS might be to provide drivers with GPS-based tools to monitor schedule and progress, provide appropriate schedule slack so there are even times when a bus may need to wait for a minute or two at a stop (and can make timed transfers to other lines), and consider other measures, such as bus control of stoplights and dedicated bus lanes allowing them to minimize traffic impacts on schedule. Driver-supporting GPS tools could also provide the data needed for better schedule planning.

Just have a look - it looks like a suburb, not a city. Miles of freeway, suburban style shopping centers, nobody walking on the streets.
Crappy public transportation, essentially impossible to live there without a car.
As doucmented on Flyertalk, airport is a joke, need to go to SFO for long-distance non-stop flights


So does that make LA a suburb of San Francisco too?

Having just had a post deleted in a related forum because it verged on Omni, I'm not going to add to the last few posts. I started this thread to talk about how un-pasenger-oriented SJC has become, which is rather sad for an airport that used to call itself "the user-friendly airport." I would appreciate it if we focused on those issues here, thanks.

What I have found most frustrating about both SFO and SJC is how obtuse the public transit agencies seem to be about integrating service between transportation modes and the airports. At SJC it is the unnecessarily slow and interrupted transport between Caltrain and the airport with unreliable buses which can sit at the Caltrain station for 15 minutes after the train arrives before heading for the airport, and which then stop unnecessarily at the parking lots.

At SFO, millions of our dollars were spent building a BART connection from the Millbrae Caltrain/BART/Bus terminal directly to the airport, but which is used only late at night or on weekends, making anyone who wants to connect from other modes travel wait up to 15 minutes to take a BART train BACKWARDS two stations up the tracks, get off that train and wait up to 15 minutes to get on the BART train to the airport. All instead of just making one trip on the specially built tracks direct to the airport. It almost seems in this case as if BART is consciously trying to undermine use of Caltrain, as the added perhaps 30 minutes of waiting for BART make it a no-go. And then BART charges $4 on top of the regular fare to go to the airport. This all worked a lot more smoothly when there was a shuttle bus from Caltrain to the airport. I used to enjoy taking Caltrain to SFO, but simply no longer do it, and avoid taking Caltrain to SJC for the delays noted above.

At SFO, millions of our dollars were spent building a BART connection from the Millbrae Caltrain/BART/Bus terminal directly to the airport, but which is used only late at night or on weekends, making anyone who wants to connect from other modes travel wait up to 15 minutes to take a BART train BACKWARDS two stations up the tracks, get off that train and wait up to 15 minutes to get on the BART train to the airport.

Actually it's only one station, not two (San Bruno). In theory the times are synced between the trains in each direction so the wait at San Bruno should never be more than a few minutes (most I've ever waited is about 5 minutes), although obviously all it takes is a late train to throw the out badly.

And then BART charges $4 on top of the regular fare to go to the airport.

Well, yes and no. They do charge a $4 airport fee, but the base fare to catch BART from Millbrae to the airport is $0 - giving a total fare of $4 which is only slight more than any other similar trip (eg, Millbrae->San Bruno is $2.90).

Actually it's only one station, not two (San Bruno). In theory the times are synced between the trains in each direction so the wait at San Bruno should never be more than a few minutes (most I've ever waited is about 5 minutes), although obviously all it takes is a late train to throw the out badly.

I must have caught one of those times. After then feeling very rushed to make it to the plane, I have stopped using it. In the absence of a compelling argument as to why they should not use the direct route, which I haven't seen presented, it all just has the effect of discouraging use of Caltrain or buses connecting to Milbrae.

Well, yes and no. They do charge a $4 airport fee, but the base fare to catch BART from Millbrae to the airport is $0 - giving a total fare of $4 which is only slight more than any other similar trip (eg, Millbrae->San Bruno is $2.90).

My bad; I haven't taken it in several years since the fare increases. That is still $4 more than it was when a shuttle connected Millbrae Caltrain to the airport. Given the inconvenience, cost, and my experience of having to factor in an extra 30 minutes just to be safe for BART waits, it has become too much time, money, and trouble where the old system with the shuttle worked very smoothly.

In the absence of a compelling argument as to why they should not use the direct route, which I haven't seen presented, it all just has the effect of discouraging use of Caltrain or buses connecting to Milbrae.

I believe the main reason is to do with the turn-around of the train at SFO. Trains between Millbrae and the airport either need to have two operators (one at each end), or the single operator needs to walk from one end of the train to the other once the train reaches the airport in either direction.

Sadly, there may still be a free shuttle between SFO and Millbrae station but, if so, it is restricted to airport employees. Again, if it still exists, I believe that SFO has also moved the bus stops to really obscure locations so that ordinary taxpayers aren't likely to find it in the first place. Can anyone else confirm/deny this?

I believe the main reason is to do with the turn-around of the train at SFO. Trains between Millbrae and the airport either need to have two operators (one at each end), or the single operator needs to walk from one end of the train to the other once the train reaches the airport in either direction.

Which is a bit ironic since the driver doesn't actually drive BART trains, the driver is just there in case of emergency.

Which is a bit ironic since the driver doesn't actually drive BART trains, the driver is just there in case of emergency.

Well, yes and no.

Although the trains are pretty much fully automated once in motion, it's up to the operator to actually start the train at each station (as well as opening/closing doors, etc). As you say they are also responsible for emergencies, including things like people/etc on the tracks in front of the train - thus the reason they need to be located at the front of the train.

Compare that to something like the SFO AirTrain which is fully automated - no driver at all, and even the door opening/closing and starting the train after each stop is automated.

BART *can* run fully automated (or at least, that was the original design), but for a number of reasons - basically all of them non-technical - that's never happened.

If you Google "suburbs in search of a city" you will get many links to Los Angeles.



So does that make LA a suburb of San Francisco too?

In the absence of a compelling argument as to why they should not use the direct route, which I haven't seen presented, it all just has the effect of discouraging use of Caltrain or buses connecting to Millbrae.


My recollection is the scheduling results from a desire to minimize the funding paid to BART by SamTrans. San Mateo County pays for BART's operational budget through SamTrans, rather than through a dedicated sales tax, as the three counties do that are part of the BART district. Thus, paying for BART service reduces available funding for other public transportation options in San Mateo County, so there's an incentive to minimize the amount of money paid to BART.

That incentive, combined with fairly low ridership SFO <--> Millbrae, led to the switch in SFO-Millbrae service. IIRC, when the line first opened, direct service was part of the schedule.

The driver item, while plausible, doesn't make sense to me--part of the dwell time during a driver's switch is used for pax to board, and the remainder simply gives more time for boarding--on a short route where the dwell time can easily be planned into the schedule. If they were to run a shorter, dedicated train (e.g., 4 cars) on that section, the time to switch would be quite brief.

A taxi from Millbrae BART to SFO is about $11 including tip.



My recollection is the scheduling results from a desire to minimize the funding paid to BART by SamTrans. San Mateo County pays for BART's operational budget through SamTrans, rather than through a dedicated sales tax, as the three counties do that are part of the BART district. Thus, paying for BART service reduces available funding for other public transportation options in San Mateo County, so there's an incentive to minimize the amount of money paid to BART.

That incentive, combined with fairly low ridership SFO <--> Millbrae, led to the switch in SFO-Millbrae service. IIRC, when the line first opened, direct service was part of the schedule.

The driver item, while plausible, doesn't make sense to me--part of the dwell time during a driver's switch is used for pax to board, and the remainder simply gives more time for boarding--on a short route where the dwell time can easily be planned into the schedule. If they were to run a shorter, dedicated train (e.g., 4 cars) on that section, the time to switch would be quite brief.

A taxi from Millbrae BART to SFO is about $11 including tip.

Technically, if you're parking at Millbrae BART then you're not allowed catch a taxi - you must catch the train in both directions.

(Yes, sure, "how would they know" - but them the rules...)

Obviously if you're coming in on Caltrain/etc then you can do whatever you want.

Technically, if you're parking at Millbrae BART then you're not allowed catch a taxi - you must catch the train in both directions.

(Yes, sure, "how would they know" - but them the rules...)

Obviously if you're coming in on Caltrain/etc then you can do whatever you want.

That always struck me as a rather weird rule -- suppose you show up during the time BART wasn't running, are you supposed to hang out until it does?

That always struck me as a rather weird rule -- suppose you show up during the time BART wasn't running, are you supposed to hang out until it does?

The BART airport parking passes specifically call out that 'You may not car pool away' or words to that effect, so I'm guessing that's really what they are trying to stop, more than someone catching a taxi because BART hasn't started yet/is running late/etc.

If one looks at the terms and conditions at https://www.parkingcarma.com/portals/bart/bartterms.aspx#Airport, the airport parking rules say "you must be a patron using the BART System in connection with your parking reservation". This would not seem to preclude going one-way on BART.

In contrast, the rules on the same page state that monthly parkers should be using the BART system on a RT basis.

Of course, as a practical matter, no one is going to follow you from your car at Millbrae to see if you go to the BART station. As I have pointed out in at least on other thread, $6 per day for weekdays only plus RT cab fares is the cheapest and most convenient LT parking at the airport. Unlike the other LT parking solutions, you take a cab direct and are not going around in circles on a shuttle bus.



The BART airport parking passes specifically call out that 'You may not car pool away' or words to that effect, so I'm guessing that's really what they are trying to stop, more than someone catching a taxi because BART hasn't started yet/is running late/etc.

If one looks at the terms and conditions at https://www.parkingcarma.com/portals/bart/bartterms.aspx#Airport, the airport parking rules say "you must be a patron using the BART System in connection with your parking reservation". This would not seem to preclude going one-way on BART.

The BART/airport permit itself has the following on it :

You must ride BART on a round trip basis to use this permit. You may not carpool away the station with this permit.

It's generally not legal to add a contractual lterm after the purchase.



The BART/airport permit itself has the following on it :

You must ride BART on a round trip basis to use this permit. You may not carpool away the station with this permit.