San Francisco Gets Train-to-Plane Link

SAN FRANCISCO -- For this public transit mecca, the train-to-plane project seemed set for a perfect landing: Officials sought to extend the regional subway line to San Francisco International Airport, following through on a popular notion envisioned by area planners as far back as 1956.

Over the ensuing years, they learned a cruel transportation lesson: Sometimes, you just can’t get there from here. Their project became a frustrating journey marked by nagging delays and political turbulence. But now, that long-anticipated airport extension is finally touching ground.

This week, the 98-mile Bay Area Rapid Transit system will finally go the few extra miles to connect with the world’s seventh-busiest airport, adding San Francisco to a short list of cities nationwide -- including Atlanta, Chicago and Washington -- with a direct airport-subway link.

The 8.7-mile spur will feature four new stops, including an airport station within steps of the international gates and another in suburban Millbrae offering a cross-platform connection between a subway and regional rail line.

Project supporters predict the new, mainly subterranean line will increase subway ridership by 70,000 trips a year by 2010, taking more vehicles off local freeways and helping ease the Bay Area’s worsening transportation woes. Travelers will be able to make it from San Francisco International to attractions downtown for about $5, compared with $15 for a shuttle or $40 for a 10-mile taxi ride.

Yet as officials trumpet the new convenience at a ribbon-cutting ceremony scheduled Saturday, commuters in this densely populated region are asking the same question: How did it take so long to create such a critical transportation link?

Completion of the $1.5-billion airport connection has been complicated by federal funding woes, environmental concerns and jurisdictional infighting, not to mention an endangered garter snake.

Along with such expected opponents as local environmentalists, the subway extension was also hampered by a pair of unlikely foes: the airport and major airlines themselves, which feared the subway station would increase taxes and bring unwanted city political intrusion into their exclusive turf, say those close to the project.

Lessons for Los Angeles

Officials say the infighting provides a cautionary tale for cities such as Los Angeles, whose own Metro Green Line -- derided as a “road to nowhere” -- stops short of reaching busy Los Angeles International Airport. (A shuttle bus provides the final connection.)

“This whole San Francisco project has been a testimony to special-interest obstructionism and weak local leadership,” said San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, who fought for the rail extension as a longtime state senator and chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

“It’s just a shame that this has taken so long to realize. Because it’s so common-sensical. Just look at European cities, such as London and Frankfurt. If those world-class cities could do it, what took San Francisco so long?”

Many hope the new subway connection will provide a boost to an airport reeling from economic misfortune. Last year, passenger traffic plunged to an 11-year low following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the deflation of the region’s high-tech bubble.

United Airlines, which operates half of the airport’s flights, filed for bankruptcy and slashed its schedule. And further study into the feasibility of extending airport runways into San Francisco Bay is also now on hold.

Earlier this year, local officials likened the new line to “the last spike being driven to complete the transcontinental railroad.”

Local newspapers echoed the sentiments. “It’s been a long and grueling road, fraught with political and funding potholes, but now it’s just about done,” boasted a recent San Francisco Examiner editorial. “It goes to show that major projects can still happen here.”

On a recent media tour, local transportation officials proudly unveiled the newest stretch of subway track, which involves two largely underground lines from the present terminus in Daly City. One line rises above ground, crossing U.S. 101 as it curves toward the airport. The other continues south to the final above-ground station in nearby Millbrae.

Communities south of San Francisco also eagerly await the economic boost from the four new stations, including the one at the airport, which is actually in neighboring San Mateo County. One neighborhood developed an extensive plan for mixed-use development around its new station. Another spent millions on a new road to ease traffic around the stop.

Still, some criticize the project’s cost as too steep. They say the $250 million that BART officials spent on the Millbrae station could have gone for other projects, such as a much-needed seismic retrofit of the entire line, which also runs to several East Bay communities, from Fremont and Oakland to Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County. Officials agree that the line needs retrofitting, but note that the system suffered little damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta quake.

The project’s $1.5-billion price tag is being footed with $750 million in pledged federal funding, along with money from area transportation districts. About $200 million is coming from the airport and airlines themselves.

But some question a long-term agreement signed in 1995 in which BART officials agreed to pay $2.5 million in annual rent to the airport -- in effect, to help cover the airport’s contribution to the station and to offset projected higher landing fees owed by airlines.

“We’re all thrilled that a world-class metropolitan area now has a state of the art transit system to its airport, but at what cost?” asked county Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

BART to Raise Fares

He said the steep airport rent is one reason that BART plans to raise fares in January. “The result of this bizarre arrangement is that passengers are going to be gouged to get out to the airport and other places,” Peskin said. “How that deal was ever negotiated is beyond me.”

Airport officials said the deal makes perfect sense. “The airlines didn’t want to get stuck paying the bill,” said airport spokesman Mike McCarron.

He said airline landing fees are added to concession and parking profits to balance the airport’s budget. “If we pay money to build a new subway terminal, that means we have to raise taxes on the airlines,” McCarron said. “And federal law says their money must go to operate the airport. And a subway station doesn’t fit that bill.”

The BART airport extension has always seemed a project nobody could agree upon. In the early 1960s, when the Bay Area began to envision a regional subway system, San Mateo County voted against inclusion. Merchants were fearful that shoppers would forsake local stores and use the subway to travel into San Francisco. The new rail system also would claim a portion of area taxes, which municipalities resisted.

“That vote was the biggest mistake in the history of San Mateo County,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin, now a main proponent of the spur. “It was simply shortsighted.”

BART began operating in 1972 and by this year had opened 39 stations. But it wasn’t until 1988 that the Clinton administration authorized the $750 million in federal funding for the airport extension.

But in the next few years, a Republican-controlled Senate balked at the Clinton deal and the promised money suddenly became scarce, officials said. Instead of receiving $75 million a year for 10 years, local officials often battled to secure half the pledged funding. The shortages held up everything from environmental studies to design work.

“It became a never-ending story,” said James Fang, a BART director who says he has worked for the extension since joining the board in 1990. “We literally spent eight years fighting for that funding.”

Numerous Roadblocks

But there were local roadblocks as well. Opposition from the Sierra Club, numerous politicians and local card room owners slowed progress. Many wanted to build the airport subway station nearly two miles away in San Bruno. Airport officials did not want their station to be the subway terminus because they thought commuters would use their limited parking spaces as park-and-ride lots.

Critics also complained that the new station was too expensive and that travelers taking BART to the airport stop would have to walk too far or transfer to a shuttle to make domestic flights.

In 1994, airport station supporters collected 20,000 signatures to place a ballot measure directly before San Francisco voters to approve their plan. The airlines and other critics countered with their own proposition. “We beat them 2 to 1,” said Kopp, who spearheaded the original effort. “How sweet it was.”

Another delay came in the form of a foot-long snake. During construction, workers came across a dead San Francisco garter snake that environmentalists said was on the endangered species list. Work on the line was halted nearly a month as laborers built platforms so they wouldn’t step on any snakes. Said Fang: “We spent millions of dollars and shut things down for weeks just to make sure we didn’t kill any more garter snakes.”

Such delays became common, forcing officials to move back the proposed opening date time and again. And there are still some jitters about the new spur. Millbrae residents worry that commuters will come speeding through residential neighborhoods to make morning trains at the nearby station. But Mayor Linda Larson calls the new subway service a hedge against overdevelopment in the future.

“I’m convinced we’re being forward-thinking here,” she said. “Traffic is the No. 1 problem in the Bay Area. And when our region’s economy finally does rebound, our freeways are going to be overrun by cars, cars and more cars. This subway will be insurance against that.”

Flush with success, local transportation officials said they don’t want to stop at the airport or Millbrae and are trying to raise funds to extend BART all the way to San Jose, creating an almost complete ring around San Francisco Bay.

As he rode a near-empty subway car on a test run to the sparkling new airport station, BART director Fang said all the work was worth the result.

“The lesson here is that if there is a will of the people, any project can get done despite the obstacles,” he said. “But this thing sure would have been cheaper if we’d built it back in the 1960s.”