Project: BART to San Francisco Airport

1.0 Synopsis

Opened during summer 2003, BART’s extension through San Mateo County to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has successfully served transit-dependent workers commuting to the airport or downtown San Francisco, but has not reached its potential in terms of spurring long-term economic development. This case study documents how an operational reconfiguration of South Bay’s transportation network could enhance the impact the BART-SFO extension has on market access, travel times, and real estate development. The federal New Starts program funded half of the $1.5 billion project, with other funders including BART, SFO, and San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans).

2.0 Background

2.1 Location & Transportation Connections

In November 1997, work began on the construction of an 8-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system to San Francisco International Airport (SFO).  The extension, which opened in June 2003, connects the Colma BART station, located in northern San Mateo County with SFO, after which it extends south to the Milbrae station. By extending to the Milbrae station, which is located less than one mile from SFO, BART provides an intermodal connection to the Caltrain commuter rail service. Both intermediate stations (South San Francisco and San Bruno) provide bus connections, and at SFO, a new airport station is located within walking distance of the international terminal—a feature that required constructing a designated spur from the primary BART rail line. Using BART, the travel time from SFO to downtown San Francisco is approximately 30 minutes. In addition, for connections to Oakland and the East Bay, travelers originating at or destined for SFO can use BART’s Pittsburg/Bay Point line.

2.2 Community Character & Project Context

Until July 1996, when BART was extended to the Town of Colma, the system terminated in Daly City, which is located in San Mateo County just south of the San Francisco border. When work began on the extension, SFO could be accessed only by driving or taking a bus. BART not only provided a connection to SFO, but also to South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae—largely residential, auto-oriented communities in San Mateo County. In Millbrae travelers can transfer to Caltrain. From 2000 to 2012, the surrounding area’s (ZIP-code-based) population grew by 4.3 percent, from 168,000 to 175,000. From 1998 to 2012, the employment in this area grew by 11 percent, from approximately 78,600 to 87,300.

3.0 Project Description & Motives

Planners first proposed the idea of extending BART to SFO in 1970, when the agency received a federal grant to study the feasibility of doing so. After working for two decades to identify sources of funding and reach an agreement with San Mateo County regarding its financial contribution, BART and SamTrans decided to complete the extension in two phases: an extension from Daly City to Colma, and a subsequent extension from Colma to SFO. BART developed seven build scenarios and two no-build scenarios, and in 1994, ballot measures informed the decision of where to locate the SFO station. Proposition H directed the City of San Francisco to select a site on the side of Highway 101 opposite of the airport, requiring travelers to transfer to an airport shuttle in order to reach the terminals. A majority of voters supported Proposition I, which would involve tunneling under Highway 101 and the airport in order to provide a station within SFO, an alternative that would have cost $300 million more (in 1994 dollars). Despite public support for the extension and a designated airport station, some opponents suggested that BART implement a more cost-effective solution, such as providing free bus service from the Colma station to SFO.

In April 1995, BART approved the alternative including a station at SFO (east of Highway 101), although the design was modified in order to prevent having to tunnel under the highway and part of the airport. The approved design involved building a spur from the main rail line that crossed over Highway 101 on its approach from northern stations and then back again to extend south, along the west side of the highway, to the Milbrae station. Today, while the extension drops travelers within walking distance of SFO’s international terminal, the project has led to scheduling complications that affect the entire line. Because BART runs southbound trains that go to either SFO or Milbrae, service frequency at both stops is limited.

In addition, because there is no direct service between SFO and Milbrae before 7:00 PM on weekdays, Caltrain travelers destined for SFO from points south must transfer to BART at Milbrae and continue north past SFO to the San Bruno station, where they cross the platform and board a train traveling in the opposite direction to SFO. While the BART-Caltrain connection is currently cumbersome, one person interviewed for this case study believes that if plans to electrify the commuter rail and provide more frequent service are implemented, the “network effect” could be significantly enhanced.

4.0 Project Impacts

4.1 Transportation Impacts

4.2 Demographic, Economic & Land Use Impacts

One person interviewed has observed that transit-oriented development (TOD) has so far failed to take hold along the BART extension, especially compared with the East Bay’s success in leveraging stations to attract development. This person cites successful TOD surrounding BART’s West Oakland and Fruitvale stations, in particular, attributing it in part to a larger [transit-using] commute shed [than in the South Bay] (i.e., more travelers entering and exiting stations). This is a “current phenomenon that is likely to grow,” this person says, “especially around Caltrain [in the South Bay] and the East Bay.”

Long-term economic development impacts stemming from the BART extension are more related to tourism and labor market access—particularly access to service workers—than to business attraction. One person interviewed does not believe that corporate relocations can be attributed to the extension, nor that technology companies based in Silicon Valley depend on the line, in part because many provide private bus service to their employees. People interviewed also agree that for most existing companies, BART’s connection to SFO is not critical, mostly because driving is convenient and often much quicker than the train. Still, BART’s extension has expanded the number of options for reaching SFO, the region’s premier airport.

The extension plays a different role among tourists because many visitors to the Bay Area are from Europe and Asia, where using public transportation is a common mode of travel. Because of this, BART is a popular way to reach San Francisco and other areas. Since 2003, when the BART-SFO extension opened, the number of annual visitors to San Francisco has exceeded 14 million. And while not segmented by route, the San Francisco Travel Association reports that more than one in four (26.7 percent) of visitors use BART while in San Francisco. Regarding labor market access, service workers at SFO and possibly retail stores surrounding the San Bruno station depend on BART for their commute.

5.0 Non-Transportation Factors

The technology and construction industries have led job growth in San Mateo County and the larger Silicon Valley, with a buoyant housing market supporting the construction industry. In a sign of the region’s dominance in the broadly defined “tech” sector, it received nearly 58 percent of total venture capital funding in the U.S., nearly all of which flowed into the three San Francisco Peninsula counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, and San Clara.

Michael Storper, an urban planning professor at UCLA who studies urban economies, attributes the Bay Area’s economic fortunes to a “...[concentration] on attracting and supporting new high-wage industries...,” especially in comparison to the Los Angeles region, which “tried to reinvigorate the mainstay of the old economy: manufacturing.”

6.0 Resources

6.1 Citations

1. “Airports,” Caltrain, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/destinations/Airports.html
2. Elizabeth Deakin et. al, A State of Good Repair for BART: Regional Impacts Study (Bay Area Council Economic Institute, 2012).
3. Dennis Freeman, Wenbin Wei, and Geoffrey D. Gosling, Case Study Report: San Francisco International Airport BART Extension (San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012).
4. Michael Storper, October 23, 2015, “Why San Francisco’s way of doing business beat Los Angeles’,” Los Angeles Times, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-storper-how-sf-beat-la-20151025-story.html
5. “Ridership Reports,” Bay Area Rapid Transit, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership
6. “San Francisco Tourism: Volume, Spending & Characteristics (2013),” April 2014, San Francisco Center for Economic Development, accessed October 26, 2015, http://sfced.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Data-Statistics-Toursim-Overview.pdf
7. San Francisco Travel Association, March 22, 2011, accessed October 26, 2015, http://www.sanfrancisco.travel/article/san-francisco-travel-association-releases-economic-impact-figures-2010-and-results-year-long
8. Stephen Levy, Trends Affecting Workforce Development in San Mateo County and the San Francisco Peninsula (San Jose, CA: Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, 2014).

6.2 Interviews

Organization

Bay Area Council Economic Institute

San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR)

Footnotes

Case Study Developed by Economic Development Research Group, Inc.