Yes Virginia, Transportation is a Challenge

Last November, upon hearing much whining from my fellow East Bay residents, I did a little sleuthing on transportation options to get to a potential new stadium in San Jose. I found out that most of the whining was fairly justified. Getting to an imagined park in San Jose would not be as convenient as getting to the current home of the A’s for large portions of the fan base.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the SEIR in San Jose and its transportation assumptions.  I figure it is time to update the transportation discussion.

First, let’s revisit the original findings:

  • The East Bay is a big area, so…
  • It is probably better to break it down by Inner East Bay and Tri Valley/Diablo Valley
  • Inner East Bay (as measured from Berkeley) faces a 1 hr 30 min drive
  • Tri Valley (as measured from Pleasanton) faces a 30-45 minute drive
  • No actual train service exists on a  schedule to serve these folks, realistically
  • Transportation plans (BART/HSR) for the region will not make an impact on East Bay travel times before 2020 (and that is an optimistic estimate)

So now that reality has smacked us in the face and yelled “You have to drive!!!!” What are the solutions a team might kick around to get the East Bay folks some transportation? Fear not, fellow citizens of Eastbaylovakia… I have some ideas.

While I won’t throw out specific plans, here are the methods I think are key to solving the transportation challenges.

Subsidized Bus Lines

I am an East Bay resident. I work in Sunnyvale. Many of my coworkers also live in the East Bay. Our company has an interesting solution to the transportation challenges we face: a free shuttle service. In my case, due to strange work hours on occasion, the bus line is not always helpful. But, on the days I can leave my house by 0620 and leave the office at 1600, there is no better way to get to and from the South Bay than the Bauer’s powered shuttle service.

The service picks me up at the Tassajara Park n’ Ride in Dublin. Drops me off at the office and does the reverse in the afternoon.  There is another stop, further north on 680 for Diablo Valley residents. A similar service used to operate up and down 880 for Oakland/Berkeley residents.

Imagine the Green and Gold Express running up and down 680 and 880. The shuttle could be to and from Fremont BART or they could go the route my company does and hit a few park and rides on the major highways. Either way, it is a solution I expect to be pursued on some level.

Extended Train Schedules

So, there is this Capitol Corridor thing. And this ACE thing. They are comfortable. Come with Wifi. Possibly a bar cart. Not to mention the potential for some baseball history themed train rides from Sacramento, or Stockton on down. The two lines serve a considerable portion of the A’s current territory. Capitol Corridor has from Auburn to Fairfield to Martinez to Oakland to Fremont, etc. ACE covers Stockton, Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton and Fremont.

Here are the two routes with all the stations noted:

ccandaceRoutes courtesy of and

Only problem? The schedules they keep don’t exactly mesh so well with night games.  The last ACE train rumbles toward San Jose at around the time any random rooster might crow. It last departs from San Jose, heading out on a northeasterly tact, sometime around when batting practice starts. The Capitol Corridor doesn’t do much better. The simple solution is to introduce a new time slot for each route on night games (similar to what Caltrain does for Sharks games). I’d love to come in on a train from Pleasanton, on a “Turn Back the Clock Day,” with a bunch of other A’s fans, all of dressed in period garb. I can hear the ticket taker barking, “1929 priced beer in the bar cart boys and girls!”

Maybe this is pure fantasy, but it is fun to think about.

Another potential challenge here is the cost/time. A round trip ticket from Berkeley to San Jose on Capitol Corridor is $16 and requires a 1hr and 30 minute train ride. A round trip ticket from the Tri Valley is $12.25 and requires a 1hr train ride from the the Pleasanton station. Obviously, the further away you go, the higher the cost/time commitment.

Based on these numbers, it is probably safe to say that the train schedules would probably need more frequent weekend service. That will be when most folks from extended distances would come to town for a game and , probably, when most fans in the East Bay would come. I know I could get a lot more excited about a 2 hr round trip train ride on a Saturday then I would on a Wednesday.

Express Light Rail Trains

I have absolutely no idea if this is even possible. I love VTA Light Rail, for the simple fact that I think of King Friday every time I pass a “Trolley Crossing” sign. Also, because I have a free pass and anytime I need to get to Downtown San Jose I just jump on the next train and there I am.

Maybe the train only stops at sites with a parking lot and then at the Convention Center, the station at  San Fernando and Delmas and at Diridon. I am not sure if you could have a few express trains running on all routes. I imagine it would cause some congestion in the system.

This would be my preferred method on week nights. I could drive into work, catch an express train out at Moffett Park and be at the game well before the first pitch. The downside being I’d have to catch a train back out to Moffett Park before driving home, but that is doable every once in a while.

All of this conjecture points to the one non MLB controlled challenge at Diridon: Transportation for East Bay fans. Should San Jose get the nod and the park is built, success will depend (in part) on how well the available transportation options are utilized. Perhaps the A’s will bring together VTA, ACE, Capitol Corridor, and Bauer’s and together this group will agree to some unified strategy of people moving.  Stranger things have happened, right?

136 thoughts on “Yes Virginia, Transportation is a Challenge

  1. if a ballpark is built in SJ it seems that a lot of fans will be isolated and unable to attend… are they that sure that they can replace these fans with fans from the south bay and peninsula who have better access ?

    • Well, historically, the A’s haven’t drawn well in Oakland period. They have had a few years with above median attendance, but not much. I imagine the team looks at it from the perspective of increasing revenue, not so much replacing week night fans.

      The logic being, 24000 a night in San Jose is worth more than 24000 in Oakland. We can all only speculate as to how

      Additionally, all this talk of territory and isolation sort of ignores the fact that the Giants likely have more fans in the A’s territory anyway. Or paying customers, at least. We have seen advance ticket sales numbers for the A’s, it would be interesting to see how the Giants new stadium impacted season ticket sales for the A’s using credit card transactions from 1997 to today. Perhaps AT&T has already siphoned more fans than a mvoe to San Jsoe ever would?

      I don’t really know, and without access to information we have no way to access it is all speculation.

    • I think they’re pretty confident they can draw at least the 18,000 or so fans per game that they draw now.

      • In fact, I have little doubt that at 32,000-36,000 seats the A’s would sell out games in San Jose much like the Red Sox do in Fenway. However, even if attendance remains the same, consider the following:

        20,000 seats at an average of $20 per in Oakland;
        20,000 seats at an average of $70 per in San Jose.

        I’ll let you do the actual multiplication.

      • bartleby says:

        even if attendance remains the same, consider the following:

        20,000 seats at an average of $20 per in Oakland;
        20,000 seats at an average of $70 per in San Jose.

        I’ll let you do the actual multiplication.
        This 250% increase seems wildly optimistic. Could you break down each average by specific price points? I suspect that this would reveal some unrealistic assumptions. My hunch is that, in constant dollars, the per-patron increase would be under 100%. Today’s Oakland ticket revenues can probably be esimated pretty accurately.

        OTOH, I think it’s reasonable to project a 60% or greater increase in head count compared to 2009.

        My wild-ass guess is that the A’s averaged about $25 a head in 2009, times about 17K average attendance, or roughly $400K per game. (Ticket sales only, excluding food drink, merchandise and parking.)

        My even more wild-ass guess is that Cisco Field at Diridon will average about $45 in 2009 dollars times about 30K average attendance, or roughly $1350K per game. This is virtually identical to your total per-game figure of $1400K, but it relies less on high prices and more on increased turnout.

      • Connie Mack,
        I could not find the exact average A’s ticket price for 2009. However, league average was $26. Guy Saperstein has told us that the A’s average ticket price is one of the lowest in the league and approximately half that of the Giants. $20 seems a realistic guess to me, but if you find the exact figure I stand prepared to be corrected.
        $70 is just a hair below the average 2009 ticket price at Yankee Stadium ($73). While this number is (of course) speculative, when you consider that the A’s are contemplating a 32,000 seat stadium in one of the wealthiest and corporation-heavy counties in the country, I don’t think it is unrealistic.
        If we assume Cisco Field will have at least as much premium seating as AT&T Park but will only have 32,000 seats total, this means about 2/3 of the seats will be premium seats. If you look at the pricing map for AT&T Park (including suites), and consider there will be little discounting of cheap seats due to scarcity, $70 per seat seems entirely possible.
        You may say, “But Yankee Stadium has seats costing $2500!.” Yes it does, but not very many. In a stadium of 53000 I don’t think they drive the average as much as one might think.
        Even if my guess is off, it seems a near certainty seats will average at LEAST $50 or $60. I do not believe Oakland could come close to this because premium seat sales drive these numbers. The East Bay simply does not have enough corporate base to sell out these seats (especially in such close competition with the Giants).

      • The A’s in Oakland drew less than 2 million fans in a season exactly twice, 1994/1995, strike seasons. From 2001-2005, when the team performed well on the field, they averaged 26k fans per game. From 1988-1992, another good performance stretch, they averaged 31k fans per game. This is at a time with lower all-around MLB attendance and also minus 20 years current growth in the regional population. The 2001-2005 era is with a lower-quality facility, both in actual and relative terms, greater competition (from aggressive Giants ownership), outright hostile MLB (threats of contraction) and ownership that took every opportunity to denigrate the fanbase, the market and the facility whilst threatening to move if they ever got the chance. Nevermind the botched media coverage, bad tv and radio deals and failure to sign fan-favorite players.

        There is no reason to suppose that a new facility in Oakland would fail to draw greater numbers of fans, just as every other new facility in MLB has done over the past 20 years. It has already been demonstrated that the Oakland market, with a good team, a committed ownership group and a nicer ballpark, adequately supported the team. And this was at a time when the population of the area was significantly reduced.

      • I meant to include “after 1988, the A’s have failed to draw 2 million fans exactly twice”

      • If anyone is interested, here is a nice, easy-to-read list of attendance stats form Oakland:

        Not nearly as bad as you would believe, also note a strong trend of increasing baseline in recent years, despite the actual reduction of seating options by ownership.

      • …and on further review I misread column headings.

        The actual numbers look better for the Oakland fanbase than I thought because the AL average indicates that Oakland easily draws at or near the league average despite the “worst facility” and hostile ownership (and bad teams in some seasons).

        Note that in the Haas years with a better facility in OAKLAND the team drew far and above the league average.

        The Oakland market is solid.

        If you want to criticize Oakland’s political leadership be my guest, they’re obviously inept. You also need to blame A’s ownership and their failure to exploit the market they are in. But please, don’t blame A’s fans or the East Bay market.

      • This is the problem I have with certain assessments of attendance. You are using the 2 million mark as an arbitrary measure of success. But is hitting the 2 million mark really a good season? Maybe it is to you, but it’s not that great compared to the rest of the league. That’s where the comparison should lie, not through setting an arbitrary standard. Jeffro has a pretty solid analysis of this over at AN.

      • Wait, this firehose of repetitive disinformation seems awfully familiar. Could it be…? Why yes, the Navigator has found another computer to post from.

      • First of all, Navigator, the “post-1988” thing is total, self-serving crap. I get why you’re doing it: Attendance has sucked relative to performance 35 out of 40 years, so you’re trying to figure out ways to take those four or five outlier years and make them look like the norm.
        Second, your statistics are flat out wrong. Even just looking at your chosen window, A’s attendance was below 2 million 11 out of 21 years. (That is, most of the time).
        (And of course, this totally ignores the 11 out of 13 years in the 60s and 70s when attendance was below 1 million despite repeated World Championship teams).
        Third, your statement that “The actual numbers look better for the Oakland fanbase than I thought because the AL average indicates that Oakland easily draws at or near the league average” is a flat out lie. Even using your self-serving window of time, since 1988 A’s attendance has been between 500,000 and 1 million below league average 11 times. It only exceeded league average six times during this period – mostly during the five deficit spending “outlier” years you keep throwing out there as though they represented anything.
        Pre-1988, of course, the numbers look even more dismal.
        I do encourage all readers to go take a look at the actual numbers, rather than taking either my or Navigator’s word for it.

      • I make a lot more sense than navigator.

        The “post-1988” bit is important because the population of the region has increased massively since then. The 1980’s were when the East Bay suburbs such as Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Dublin, etc, really took off.

        Next, I clearly posted that I mixed up two columns. My key point was regarding average attendance and comparisons to the AL average (which were the numbers on that chart). The entire AL averaged less than 2 millions fans per season in 94/95, strike seasons yes, but useful to know that 2 million attendance isn’t bad, it’s average.

        Most teams in the AL got new stadiums in those years, nearly all of them in fact. They all saw increases in attendance that were clearly related to those new facilities (and the corresponding reinvigoration of marketing, etc). Should the A’s receive a new facility they will have no problem drawing large numbers of fans.

        Most posts here on this topic are regarding the fan base. I simply want to counteract the lie that the A’s existing fan base has not adequately supported the team. The ownership situation has almost always been challenging in Oakland. This is the case today. Every other team in MLB with lousy ownership goes through difficulties. When ownership improves, so does attendance, fan enthusiasm and all the rest.

        Argue in favor of SJ all you want but please stop lying about what exists today in Oakland.

      • “I make a lot more sense than navigator.”
        That’s debatable (and in any event is setting the bar pretty low). But sorry, I still think you’re Nav. Only Nav would misread the data, take a second look and see that A’s attendance has been below league average almost every single year and DRAMATICALLY below league average about half of the time, and come back with a declaration like “The actual numbers look better for the Oakland fanbase than I thought!”

        “The “post-1988″ bit is important because the population of the region has increased massively since then.”
        Sorry, the post-1988 bit isn’t important for any reason other than your desire to discount a large amount of data which runs counter to your argument. I’m sure population has increased in most MLB markets since 1968. We can easily adjust for population growth by simply comparing to the league average.

        “Next, I clearly posted that I mixed up two columns. My key point was regarding average attendance and comparisons to the AL average (which were the numbers on that chart). The entire AL averaged less than 2 millions fans per season in 94/95, strike seasons yes, but useful to know that 2 million attendance isn’t bad, it’s average.”
        First of all, 2 million is not average. Since 1988, the AL average has generally, been in the 2.2 to 2.3 million range, and more recently 2.4 or 2.5 million.
        Second of all, realizing your error, why would you come back with a lame “attendance has been better than I thought!” rather than acknowledging that since 1996, the A’s have only reached 2 million in attendance five times, and then only barely? And that based on average per game attendance, they wouldn’t have broken two million in 94 or 95, either? And how DRAMATICALLY short they were in many of the years when they fell short (like 500K to 1 million short)? And how, adjusting for team performance, the picture looks even worse?

        “When ownership improves, so does attendance, fan enthusiasm and all the rest.”
        I have yet to see any evidence “owner-love” has any meaningful affect on attendance. In fact, the evidence runs to the contrary. When team performance fell, fans abandoned Walter Haas far faster than they have abandoned Lew Wolff. On the other hand, attendance increased every year carpetbagger Steve Schott owned the team.

  2. Thanks for being fair on the transportation issue, Jeffrey, your addition to this site is much appreciated. It’s an insanely risky business strategy to abandon an existing customer base (which does exist, despite the constant prattling on about how the A’s have no fans. They do have fans, millions of them, most of whom live in the Easy Bay and pay to attend baseball games on a regular basis despite the hostile ownership).

    San Jose is inaccessible to the residents of the city as well. CalTrain is the only option to Diridon and CalTrain doesn’t serve SF very well, lacking intermodal transfer points and having only stops on one side of the city (not near the population centers unfortunately). It’s extremely unlikely that many San Francisco fans will go down to CalTrain after work to go to San Jose to see the A’s.

    I think your speculation that the Giants “probably” have more fans in A’s territory is absolutely baseless. One oft-ignored fact in this discussion is how many A’s fans there are over here in Giants territory (SF). Most baseball fans from the Bay Area picked a team as a kid and stuck with them. Many of those East Bay kids were A’s fans because the A’s were the superior team (ahem 1989) and like many people they moved into the big city, San Francisco, and retained their A’s loyalty.

    This is possible for several reasons, one being BART and another being the large number of A’s fans in the city, facilitating A’s bars, etc. The area is truly a two-team mixed market and I’d love to see MLB respect that. Give the A’s and Giants fully-shared territory and let ’em duke it out fair and square.

    I think we all know that the city of Oakland has been inept and that the A’s organization has been hostile and thus the two sides have not been able to see eye-to-eye on a stadium deal. That reality has turned into an assault on the East Bay, A’s fans and everyone else who has nothing to do with this little war. A new ballpark for the A’s in Oakland is clearly the safest bet in the long-term for the organization when considered without all of this propaganda.

    All of this energy wasted on relocating the team away from its fans would be better spent by ownership trying to improve on its existing fanbase (instead of denigrating them) and work on improving its ballpark. They’d make a LOT of fans by going after the city of Oakland’s political failures and calling them out. Lew Wolff could get elected mayor if he did that. Oakland residents dislike their city government for many reasons that go far beyond the A’s. Knocking the city’s inept leadership is a GREAT strategy to build goodwill with the residents of the East Bay, all of whom feel robbed by political leadership that mars what they consider to be one of the finest places to live in the entire country.

    Finally, it should be noted that the A’s ownership since 1995/1996 has been San Jose-based and has been marketing the team aggressively to that fan base. The TV and radio deals were both San Jose based, for example. Where is the enormous A’s fanbase that has been developed in that time? They don’t show up yet in the ticket numbers. Where’s the data on MLB TV viewership in San Jose? As I recall during the Expos-relocation search that was a very important indicator of a fanbase for MLB and I don’t recall seeing San Jose anywhere near that list despite two nearby teams.

    • Yo… the speculation about more Giants fans in A’s territory relies mainly on season ticket sales (though admittedly we don’t know where the buyers come from) and TV Ratings. The Giants have a large advantage in both and have had the edge for a more than a decade.

      Regardless of MLB Territory designation, the A’s and Giants sell tickets and broadcast their games to the same audience, as you have pointed out. The Giants clearly have a bigger slice of the Bay Area market than the A’s do.

      • So like I said, baseless.

      • How is that baseless? The Giants have more than 3 times the season ticket holders and in the past season had more than 4 times the viewership. I guess none of those people live in the East Bay.

        The Giants demographic info on their website shows that 27% of their fan base is in Alameda or Contra Costa County. So advertisers get 21,870 viewers in the A’s territory on the average Giants broadcast this past season.

        The A’s demographic info shows 51% of their viewers come from the same area. Last season that would mean about 10,000 viewers. The year before it would have meant about 20,000.

        Do you seriously disagree that the Giants have more fans across the Bay Area than the A’s do?

      • I looked at those links and there are many problems with them, for starters the Giants page has no attribution so it could easily be made up. Next, such information from the A’s is difficult to take at face value as they are engaged in an effort to reduce the fanbase in one area and increase it in another. This naturally makes all statistical information they sponsor suspect.

        Most importantly the Giants fan data for SF is just ridiculous. Those numbers don’t even pass the sniff test of base anecdotal observation.

        Finally, to truly measure a fanbase I would think you need to source your data, determine what a “fan” is and put them into categories (ticket buyer, tv watcher, casual follower, season ticket holder, long time fan, out-of-market fan etc). Next you would need to ask where they work as well as live and pay attention to where they lived when they became A’s fans.

        Basically I’m saying that “data” is garbage and not worth analysis.

      • Both sets of figures come from annual data provided to MLB teams by Scarborough Research. They cover just about every conceivable part of American consumption, so if you have a beef with the data you might want to take it up with them, anon.

    • It is not a risky strategy at all to move away from a fan base which, while it may exist, has never adequately supported the team. It’s even less risky when that fan base lacks the primary gate revenue driver in modern MLB: A corporate base which can support premium seating.
      Jeffrey’s post was very fair in assessing transportation challenges. From all of us in the South Bay: Welcome to our world. These are the challenges all of us here must face anytime we want to see any sporting event beside hockey. Don’t worry, you’ll manage.
      Actually, the situation is far worse for South Bay folks trying to get to Oakland than it will be for East Bay folks trying to get to San Jose, for two reasons:
      1. Southbound folks will be going in the counter-commute direction, while northbound folks must fight rush hour traffic; and
      2. Huge number of East Bay folks work in the South Bay, while virtually no South Bay folks work in the East Bay.
      City folks who complain about having to endure an hour train ride to get to San Jose do not have my sympathy. An hour train ride is BEST case for those of us down here trying to get a game. Bottom line, it makes no sense to place two MLB teams side-by-side so they fight over basically the same population, while ignoring the largest county in the Bay Area (which happens to include most of the local corporate base).

      • The mantra that Oakland has “never adequately supported the team” is wrong. During the Haas era (the only legitimate ownership group in terms of local commitment) the team was well-supported and the East Bay market has grown considerably since that timeframe. During the early 2000’s the team still drew well despite poor ownership efforts, a reduced-quality facility (in an era of improving facilities), bad tv and radio access, poor media coverage and hostility from MLB and the local media repeatedly discussing the team as a candidate for “contraction.”

        To draw 2 million + fans consistently under such circumstances is admirable. Montreal did much worse when under the MLB gun.

        Your next suggestion, that we should pursue a “corporate base which can support premium seating” is a bit like the people on TV protesting against free health care. Why would you want to increase the price of watching games? Anyway, if SJ/SV is so close that they are in “the same market” then why can’t the A’s pursue a new stadium in Oakland and also corporate money from the South Bay region? Many SF companies, for example, own season tickets for the A’s. Oh, that’s right, because it would require effort and stuff.

        Dear South Bay: Look in the mirror, you live in a market of around 2 million, less than Portland or Oklahoma City or other cities in the US without MLB or NFL. Them’s the breaks. East Bay, meanwhile, is a much bigger area, of the sort that typically would have MLB and NFL.

        The burden of “improving access” is not on the existing location of the team. The A’s are an East Bay team and you live in the South Bay, yes, it will be tricky to get to games! As it would be for someone from Fresno! If A’s ownership wants to increase access for SJ/SV fans I say great! It’s a lot cheaper than uprooting the team entirely! Note that the A’s already have a stadium and fanbase and excellent transportation in their current location.

        The South Bay’s obvious inferiority complex does not change the fact that the Bay Area has a center of population and gravity and it’s far North. The East Bay is the MOST central part of the entire Bay Area. The Giants are closest to where more people in the area work. Also, while there may be a lot of people who live and work in the SV area they are not of the demographics known to support MLB. If they were they’d already be Giants and A’s fans because both teams are widely publicized and broadcast in that region.

      • Wow, so you tell people to back off the East Bay and Oakland yet you point out the South Bay’s inferiority complex? Did one troll disappear only to be replaced by another?

        Pot. Kettle. Black.

      • ML: No, same troll.

      • It’s cute that Oaklanders think the entire east bay has an allegiance to their city, and isn’t afraid to travel there at all….

      • Its cute how san jose people think the entire BAY AREA has an allegiance to their city and isnt afraid to travel their

      • Not only was that a weak retort, but it isn’t even correct. Who has argued that?

        P.S. “there”

      • Bartleby has been arguing that up and down this thread.

      • “Bartleby has been arguing that up and down this thread.”
        Show me one place where I’ve argued that the “entire Bay Area has an allegiance to [San Jose] and isn’t afraid to travel there”?
        What I’ve actually argued is:
        – the A’s have had historically bad attendance in Oakland
        – the East Bay has little corporate base, which is essential to make a privately-financed ballpark pencil out
        Someone with this much of a cognitive disability can only be Navigator.

      • Well Bartleby, In all fairness the A’s staying does have the backing of Kaiser and Colorox. 😉

        bartleby: “Bartleby has been arguing that up and down this thread.”
        Show me one place where I’ve argued that the “entire Bay Area has an allegiance to [San Jose] and isn’t afraid to travel there”?
        What I’ve actually argued is:
        – the A’s have had historically bad attendance in Oakland
        – the East Bay has little corporate base, which is essential to make a privately-financed ballpark pencil out
        Someone with this much of a cognitive disability can only be Navigator.

        bartleby: “Bartleby has been arguing that up and down this thread.”
        Show me one place where I’ve argued that the “entire Bay Area has an allegiance to [San Jose] and isn’t afraid to travel there”?
        What I’ve actually argued is:
        – the A’s have had historically bad attendance in Oakland
        – the East Bay has little corporate base, which is essential to make a privately-financed ballpark pencil out
        Someone with this much of a cognitive disability can only be Navigator.

      • I dont think two companies are enough to do it though. And those two companies do not seem to have done much advertising at the coliseum as far as I can remember.

      • Not to mention that 1 of those companies has the bulk of their business under non-profit status—which is great–but not the most likely to be investing substantially in advertising etc—

      • The SV colored glasses worn around here do not allow for a realistic view of corporate support for an A’s ballpark in Oakland. The “Let’s Go Oakland: Keep the A’s” Facebook group has a “Founding Supporters” page that includes top execs from Genentech, Levi Strauss, Onyx Pharm., Barclays Bank, Credit Suisse, and other companies besides Kaiser-Permanente and Clorox. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect support as well from major corporations with headquarters and/or a large presence in the East Bay, like Chevron, Bio-Rad, Safeway, Wells Fargo, PG&E, etc.

      • But the Oakland naysyers will counter that SV has many more corporations who’ll support a ballpark. We know Cisco for sure, but many others support the Giants and that’s the why the whole TR issues won’t go away.

      • jk- who are the many others that support the Giants? And what does support actually mean?

      • Luxury suite purchases, signage in the ballpark, promotional events.

      • I understand what they would buy, what I don’t understand is why people keep saying “The Giants corporate support comes from Silicon Valley” without any real knowledge of who buys what from the Giants (outside of signage).

        Of the prominent sings in the stadium I think of an East Bay company (Chevron), a South Bay company (Yahoo!). I remember a Visa sign (San Francisco company), Levi’s (San Francisco)… I don’t dispute that it is possible that the Giants receive the majority of their support from Silicon Valley, but I have never seen anything that shows that to be the case.

      • Jeffrey,
        Beating a dead horse: the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) poll of 2009, in which they surveyed 200+ Silicon Valley company’s. The results (again): 75% did not do any business with the Giants, and of the 15% who did, they would continue to support the Giants even with the A’s in San Jose (10% did not respond to survey). Another thing to consider is that the SVLG, which represents most (if not all) major corporations in the South Bay, wholeheartedly endorses an A’s move to San Jose. That tell’s yah a little something now doesn’t it.

        Kaiser Yards or Clorox Field? Glad to see that KP and Clorox are willing to fork out $100 million + of their own money for naming rights to this fantasy Oakland yard. Damn Kaiser better not raise my insurance premiums to make it happen!

      • Look at the list of 8 major corporations that helped build AT&T park. They are listed on the San Francisco Giants web site as the Giant’s Winner Circle. They are AT&T, Bank of America, Budweiser, Chevron, Charles Schwab, Coca Cola, CHW, and Visa.

        Let’s see now.

        Bank of America – Used to be headquartered in San Francisco.
        Pacific Bell – Subsidiary of AT&T that used to be headquartered in San Francisco.
        Charles Schwab – Headquarters in San Francisco.
        Visa – Headquarters in San Francisco
        Chevron – Headquarters in San Ramon (Used to be in San Francisco)
        Coca Cola – Headquarters in Atlanta
        Budweiser – Headquarters in St. Louis
        Catholic Healthcare West – Headquarters in San Francisco.

        What do these companies have in common? Obviously they are all high tech companies based in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara County should remain Giants territory.

        Of the 8 companies, 3 are current headquartered in San Francisco, 2 used to be headquartered in San Francisco, 1 subsidiary that used to be headquartered in San Francisco and which the baseball park used to be named after, and 2 beverage manufactures that would like to be the major suppliers for the ballpark.

        I was actually surprised that so many companies were headquartered or used to be headquartered in San Francisco. If the ballpark was built in San Jose instead of San Francisco, would these same 8 companies have been the major companies in getting the ballpark built. I would say yes to Budweiser, Coca Cola, maybe to Chevron, and probably not to CHW, Charles Schwab, Bank of America, Visa, and Pacific Bell (AT&T). Why would I say probably not to the last 5 companies? Because it would not be convenient for executives in San Francisco to show clients baseball games in San Jose.

        The whole point of this blog posting is that travelling between San Jose and the East Bay sucks for weekday night games. I agree with that. For that reason, you are very unlikely to get many luxury suites sold to companies in Santa Clara County. Having the new stadium in Jack London Square area is even worse for Santa Clara County than the current location. As someone who takes Caltrain to work almost every weekday, having BART access is very desirable for me. Currently though, using BART from the South Bay is not that convenient because it still takes a difficult commute to go north on 880 to get to Fremont and then drive across town to the BART station. The new station at Warm Springs would help a lot. It is further south and much closer to the freeways. Still that would help get corporate executives to take clients to the game.

        If a stadium is built in San Jose, I don’t expect corporations in San Francisco, Oakland, or the rest of the East Bay except for Fremont to be buying corporate suites or helping get the stadium built in San Jose. Likewise, you shouldn’t expect the opposite if it is built in Jack London Square area.

      • I hope that’s true. I’d logically believe that the corporate sponsorships/lux suite purchases for a new Oakland site would go IF they could build an attractive park attached/near JLS. You have to make it an attractive place to take clients or reward employees with an upscale night at the game.

        I’d also wonder if we could get Peet’s Coffee to add onto the corporate list.

      • There is no level of park attractiveness that is going to make Silicon Valley execs drag their clients through 2 hours of rush hour traffic, especially when it takes only one hour to get to AT&T Park. It just isn’t going to happen. In terms of marketing to Silicon Valley, China Basin is already a challenge; JLS is a complete non-starter.

        Again, we’re not talking about who’s going to buy the signage; I’m sure the signage will sell regardless of where the park is located. We’re talking about who is going to buy full-season packages for anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 suite and club seats.

        A dozen or so East Bay or SF companies in not nearly enough.

      • Where are these corporations now? They’re waiting for the park, with no regard to the team now? Wow, that’s loyalty.

      • good question….ask the earthquakes about that..

      • Kaiser Yards or Clorox Field has a nice ring to it.
        Hope I don’t get banned for saying that?!

      • Kaiser Yards sounds like a German meatpacking plant.
        With Clorox Field, the home whites would be especially bright. It doesn’t make much sense for a product that is marketed mostly for women to have its name on a ballpark, though.

      • Nav said……”Also, while there may be a lot of people who live and work in the SV area they are not of the demographics known to support MLB.” Could you let the gints know that so that they can give up their claim to Santa Clara County since we don’t fit the demographic known to support MLB–that is one of the most classic lines I have ever heard–

      • “During the Haas era (the only legitimate ownership group in terms of local commitment) the team was well-supported”

        Nonsense. During a handful of years when Haas deficit-spent like crazy, fielded an All-Star Team, and repeatedly made the World Series, attendance was respectable (though not overwhelming under the circumstances). However, Haas lost $30 million doing this (and those were early 1990s dollars, not 2010 dollars), so it was not sustainable. As soon as he stopped, attendance plummeted. Attendance during the other years of his tenure was just as bad as for Finley, Schott, or Wolff.

        “During the early 2000’s the team still drew well despite [blan, blah, blah]”
        More BS. In 2000, attendance was 500,000 below league average. In 2001, it was 200,000 below league average. In 2002 and 2003, it was almost exactly league average, but those were both years in which the team was coming off 100 win seasons and repeated playoff appearances and was expected to legitimately contend for a pennant. If “league average” is the ceiling under those circumstances, face it, it’s not a baseball town.

        “Your next suggestion, that we should pursue a “corporate base which can support premium seating” is a bit like the people on TV protesting against free health care. Why would you want to increase the price of watching games?”

        I don’t want to increase the price of attending games. I do want the team to increase revenue, which is necessary to pay for a new ballpark and allow the team to retain valued players. The only way the team is going to increase revenue is with Government support (a non-starter in Northern California) or higher ticket prices. So I accept the need for higher ticket prices as a necessary evil.

        I would emphasize, we’re talking AVERAGE ticket prices. The average will go way up because the team will be selling a lot more suites and club seats at much higher prices, but seats at the low end will go up much less. In practice, the corporate fat cats will be subsidizing the game day experience for the rest of us.

        I’m not saying this will have no impact on average fans. To get the cheapest seats, you will likely have to buy the day they go on sale, and possibly settle for seeing the Royals instead of the Yankees. This is basically how it is in Boston. The day of the walk-up Plaza Infield seat behind home plate will be over.

        But considering the alternatives, I think this is the best outcome that can be hoped for.

        “Anyway, if SJ/SV is so close that they are in “the same market” then why can’t the A’s pursue a new stadium in Oakland and also corporate money from the South Bay region?”

        They are in the same television market. They are in the same market for purposes of casual fans who want to take in a game with the family on the weekend (since without traffic, the drive from South Bay to Oakland or vice versa is not too bad). However, they are not really in the same market for the purpose of pursuing corporate support for premium seat sales, which is what is needed to pay for a privately financed ballpark.

        The reason for this should be obvious. Premium seats are typically sold on a full-season basis, primarily to large corporations. Those corporations use them to entertain clients, reward employees, and as a perk for executives.
        However, it’s only worth it to buy them if you can use most of them. Most MLB games are held on weeknights. To get to an Oakland ballpark on a weeknight from, say, Palo Alto, you must plan on sitting in hideous traffic and allow 2 hours to get to the ballpark. Time is money for these guys. No Silicon Valley exec is going to regularly drag important clients up to Oakland on a weeknight, no matter how good the marketing is. They might take clients to AT&T Park, which is only an hour, but even that’s iffy.
        Now a ballpark in downtown SJ, which can be reached in 20-30 minutes: Jackpot.

    • Very, very, good points SFResident

    • sfresident–

      One question: If you can get to BART (to go to the Coliseum currently), then is it that much harder to take BART to Milbrae/Caltrain?

      I know people come down from SF for Sharks games on Caltrain, why wouldn’t they do the same for A’s games?

      • Why should they have to? The A’s are already closer to millions more people than they ever will be in San Jose. Is the cognitive dissonance on this point so difficult to see?

      • Anon-

        sfresident specifically mentioned that “CalTrain doesn’t serve SF very well.” I asked him/her for some clarification on that.

        If you’d like to turn that simple question of mine (properly placed in a topic on transit access to San Jose) into something else, why not log in and do so in one of the many other topics/discussions addressing those issues on this blog?

      • CalTrain doesn’t serve SF very well and neither does Caltrain’s miserable Millbrae connection. A one-way ride form downtown SF BART to SJ utilizing the Caltrain option costs something like $15 per person and takes 90 minutes or longer, requires a modal transportation change and still requires you to be on the east side of SF.

      • Again…I was asking sfresident, not anon/navigator. But whether you’re Nav or not, you have his/her same tendencies to throw out random figures as if they’re fact. To wit:

        Montgomery St. – Milbrae: 4:48p-5:21p Milbrae – Diridon: 5:33p-6:11p
        Montgomery St. – Milbrae: 5:03p-5:36p Milbrae – Diridon: 5:49p-6:39p
        Montgomery St. – Milbrae: 5:50p-6:22p Milbrae – Diridon: 6:30p-7:11p
        Fare: $4.25 (BART) + $6.00 (Caltrain) = $10.25
        Average time: 86.6 minutes.

        That doesn’t seem too bad, for either transit time or pricing. If your BART stop is farther west, both the transit times and price could decease.

        The return to SF would take longer, as it would on almost any transit option outside rush hour/after 10PM, when the headways are increased.

        I’m not suggesting this is a good option from the East Bay–from Richmond or Pleasanton or Concord you’d be looking at a 2 hour plus transit nightmare–almost certainly you’d be better off heading to Fremont on BART and working out something from there. But if you’re in SF and currently do whatever it takes to get to a BART stop to go to the Coliseum, why is that difficult to take BART in other direction? People already do it for Sharks games.

      • Most likely, SF people will do the same we do in the South Bay: They’ll drive to Caltrain, catch a baby bullet train which will put them right in front of the ballpark in less than an hour, at a cost of $7.75 each way.
        Or they can just go to a Giants game.

      • This is patently ridiculous. Santa Clara County is larger than Alameda. I know you’ll try to take credit for Contra Costa as well, but the A’s will draw from neighboring counties no matter where they are.
        Bottom line: San Jose and Oakland have similar numbers of people within thirty minutes to an hour’s travel time, the meaningful radius for getting to a game. However, San Jose has WAY more big corporations and less competition from other nearby MLB teams.
        If your ludicrous claim of being closer to “millions more people” is based on slightly better proximity to far away locations which won’t send many people to games anyway, I’m still claiming the crown based on San Jose’s closer proximity to Los Angeles.

    • sfresident referred to an existing customer base (which does exist, despite the constant prattling on about how the A’s have no fans. They do have fans, millions of them, most of whom live in the Easy Bay and pay to attend baseball games on a regular basis despite the hostile ownership).
      I doubt that the A’s have millions (plural) of fans. May we define a fan as someone who attends at least one game a year? In the context of this blog’s subject matter, is it reasonable to call some one who doesn’t go to even one game a year a fan? Last year, 1,409,000 tickets were sold to A’s home games — this includes no shows. But it doesn’t mean 1.4 million fans, since many prople go to multiple games, and some even go to all 81. My estimate is that these 1.4 million tickets represent about 500,000 or 600,000 individuals — a fraction of a million fans, rather than millions of fans.
      That would change dramatically in SJ.

      • I should also add that not all of these 500K or 600K ticket-buyers are A’s fans. Some fraction just come to see a ball game, and are indifferent to the A’s fortunes. Others are fans of the visiting team, and have come to see them.

      • a fanbase is definitely not someone who attends one game a year … many people love to watch on tv, or are not able to attend games… your thinking is very narrow minded.

      • So using your logic a ballpark should be built close to those who are “fans” but who don’t attend games—that is interesting—why not build it where there are “fans” who will actually pay to attend games while still allowing other “fans” who prefer to watch it on tv to do so—its called keeping them in the Bay Area–and San Jose is the preferred location of the people who are willing to shell out the $500M to do so—

      • Come on now did i say that u shoud build a park where people wont pay to see them, does that appear anywhere in my comment? … im jus pointing out the fact that oakland and the east bay have far more than 600,000 fans .

      • The point that CM made was paying fans—in fact he used the word ticket buyer—so not sure the point you are making—sure not all fans pay to see a game—but the whole point of a new ballpark is to locate it in an area where “paying fans” will support it—and once again–if the owners are willing to risk paying $500M of their own money they should have a pretty strong say in where it is located—

      • Many A’s fans don’t want to buy tickets because the money supports Wolf and his efforts to move the team. He’s also reduced the stadium’s seating. The third deck was very popular (it was fun!).

        I know some of you think this is dumb or not true but you’re wrong. Many of us A’s fans are very reluctant to shell out to support this insulting ownership group. If they are going to leave town they’re going to do it with or without or money. We’d rather they do it without.

      • Ahh—so help me out—define “many of us A’s fans”….is that like 10, 100, 1.5M maybe….pick any number you want to try and justify your statements but we all know that attendance has always sucked for the A’s—no matter who the owner is—you also go on to say another reason you don’t buy tickets is becasue he “reduced the stadium seating”….you don’t mention that the ballpark on average is less than 50% full even with reduced seating but lets assume for a minute that a new 36,000 seat ballpark is built in Oakland—-seating is still reduced so I guess you won’t go to a new ballpark in Oakland either—so why should Wolff or anyone else for that matter give a shit about what you want?

  3. The problem with light rail is that all routes go through downtown, and the problem there is speed more than stops. Since the train essentially operates like a street car in that part of the route, it travels at like 15 mph and even if it didn’t stop, there would be serious congestion issues.

    If you’re coming from Sunnyvale, though, you should just take CalTrain. Much faster, goes around downtown.

    • I live in Sunnyvale, so I would most likely use Caltrain and park at the station in downtown Sunnyvale.

      Also, Caltrain has special train schedules for the Gnats, so I’d be surprised if they did not do this also for the A’s.

      • dr.k,
        have you been following the caltrain electrification project? Since caltrain is nonexistant to me in the East bay, I really don’t follow it that much. Is it really on target for a 2015 opening?

      • No I haven’t – but I sure hope this happens. I’ve ridden electrified trains in Austria and Germany, and they are much quieter than the typical diesel-electric locomotives used on Caltrain, ACE, and Capitol Corridor.

      • By the way… I lvoe the Firehouse downtown in Sunnyvale. Do you ever eat there?

      • Never been there. My favorite Sunnyvale restaurant is El Caminito, which is on El Camino between Fair Oaks and Sunnyvale Avenue.

      • Electrification is tied to HSR as both Caltrain and HSR will be sharing stations and right-of-way. Funding for electrification is also largely tied to HSR funding.

        We may see a situation where East Bay fans travel to SF, transfer at the Transbay Terminal, and take a faster HSR or electrified Caltrain down to SJ.

      • As long as the Peninsula nimby’s are at it I wouldn’t be on HSR/electrification becoming a factor soon (though I very much wish it would!).

        I also think SVA improving light rail service and adding express lines would be a great idea, seeing that it is basically the worst performing light rail system in the United States.

        The challenge is real, the South Bay is very spread out and even though there are a few concentrations of business there is no real center of density. This makes transportation a permanent challenge, not just for events. People who live in that area adapt to the hour-long commutes and their lives are structured around it so it may not seem as important to them as it does for someone who lives in SF or Oakland and considers 30 minutes a long time.

      • There’s no center of the South Bay? Look at a VTA map and see where most lines converge.

      • “People who live in that area adapt to the hour-long commutes and their lives are structured around it so it may not seem as important to them as it does for someone who lives in SF or Oakland and considers 30 minutes a long time.”

        According to the California Department of Labor, average commute time in Santa Clara County in 2005 (latest data available) was 23.6 minutes. By contrast, average commute time in Alameda County was 27.2 minutes. In Contra Costa, it was 32.2 minutes. In San Francisco, 28.7 minutes.

        In other words: Commute times in Santa Clara County are significantly LESS than in any of those other three places. This is logical when you consider that SC is the job center for the region. People pay a premium to live here in order to be close to their jobs. People live in the East Bay because housing is affordable, but then have to commute to either SF or the South Bay.

        At least you are consistent in your complete and total disregard for facts, Nav.

    • freeSJ,
      Light -rail coming from Santa Teresa or Campbell won’t be that bad, as it travels pretty quick in its own right of way (35-50 mph). It does come to a crawl around San Fernando and Discovery Museum stations, but that’s where most fans will get off anyway. Light-rail won’t work as well coming from northern Sunnyvale or Alum Rock, as it is to slow and goes out of the way.

  4. Jeffrey,
    As you alluded to in your post, the A’s move to SJ is more to do about the future than the present. For now: Caltrain, Amtrak CC, Light-rail and drive. The future: BART, High-Speed rail, ACE high-speed rail overlay (in conjunction with present modes of transit). Diridon will one day prove to be the best spot in N. California for a ballpark, with easy/quick access from all major population area’s of the Bay Area and N. California.

    Yes, it will be a little tough for some East Bay fans to get to The Yard in the short term. But my advice, coming from a South Bay A’s/Raiders fan who’s been there, done that…JUST DRIVE!

  5. Drums, Pennsylvania, is up in the Poconos. Perhaps the Giants have claimed it as their territory since Pocono Raceway and AT&T Park both use solar power.

  6. Fremont should get a Major League Baseball Stadium and Oakland should get a Minor League Baseball Stadium. San Jose should not get an A’s Stadium at all. San Jose already have a Giants (minor league baseball) Stadium. They don’t even need a another baseball stadium. We need to keep the A’s in the East Bay not San Jose (1,000 Fans)

    • Every town has a navigator…

    • San Jose does not own the A’s. East Bay do. San Francisco and Giants own San Jose. A’s does not belong in San Jose at all and Oakland has a poor city leadership. What are the only option? Fremont or residents pay for the the terriority rights to allow A’s move to San Jose. Is your choice.

  7. I’ve read this blog since its inception and it has always had a pro-relocation bent regarding a new A’s ballpark but at least in the past Marine Layer made a decent effort to consider Oakland.

    In the past year or so this has changed completely. This is entirely, 100% an anti-Oakland A’s fan site and it is dedicated to moving the team to a different area and away from the bulk of longtime fans of the A’s. Nevermind that any attempts to defend the East Bay market are met with comments of “troll” by smug, self-serving internet heroes who don’t care about the numbers and just want to see the team closer to their house.

    I would like to request that you change the name/banner of this site to reflect this bias. I think the worst thing about it is that you are representing the “A’s fans” on the internet when really you are representing relocation. It would be a bit like Oklahoma City people running a Sonics website a few years ago, dedicated to dissing the city of Seattle’s unwillingness to rebuild Key Arena yet again.

    There’s nothing wrong with being boosters for your community and trying to improve it but please stop pretending to represent the entire A’s fan base just because most Oakland fans don’t spend their lives on the internet running blogs defending their fellow fans. Why should we have to? We know we have a lot of fans because we know each other. We see each other all around the Bay Area and the state and elsewhere.

    The A’s are a popular team. They are popular with the kind of people that don’t really like the Giants, or the atmosphere at their ballpark. That isn’t to say that we don’t go to Giants games or smile when they win but we don’t feel affinity for them the way we feel for our HOMETOWN A’s. This will never change. If you take the A’s out of Oakland, out of greed, you will discard all of these fans. Many more than you think. I know some of you consider us “lesser” fans or “less valuable” because you think we don’t have the “corporate money” or whatever but that only makes YOU look bad.

    We’ve supported our team despite a hostile media, a hostile competing franchise, a hostile Commissioner and hostile ownership. When the team had good media, a cooperating local competitor, a non-hostile Commissioner and supportive ownership the team excelled in fan attendance and on-the-field performance.

    So please, stop pretending that “” is some kind of neutral site. It has clearly become an advocate of relocating the A’s to San Jose. Slap some honesty on your front page to illustrate this. I bet you’re all Giants fans anyway.

    • So you call us Giants fans (a serious insult omg) but say that you go to Giants games and revel in their success? Get on the same page…with yourself.

    • “I bet you’re all Giants fans anyway.”

      And you’d lose that bet. I shouldn’t have to explain myself to the bitter and prejudiced likes of you, anon, but I will do it anyway. This blog follows the news and operates on news cycles. Most of the news the past 2-3 years has been made in Fremont and San Jose, not Oakland. The only news in Oakland has come as a result of the MLB panel and the “Let’s Go Oakland” group. That’s it. If there were feasibility studies, multipage proposals, anything beyond a few overlays of PNC Park on a JLS site – you can bet that we’d be digging into it heartily. I was planning to do walking tours of the sites. However, I can’t do that until I see something more substantive. Don’t blame the blog or its writers for following the news. If the keep-em-in-Oakland wants to see it happen, they need to make it happen.

      Just to be clear, anon here is not navigator as navigator tried to post from his usual perch this morning but since his ban is still up his comment was automatically blocked, whereas anon’s comments keep coming in. At least anon is actually posting from Oakland. That’s a step up.

      • ML: I’m still not convinced “anon” is not Navigator. He may be posting from a different location, but there are any number of reasons, personal and professional, why he might regularly spend time in different places. Plus, his tendency to interpret data which hurts his argument as being somehow favorable is a uniquely-Navigator trait. It’s possible it could be some other member of the Oakland-only Taliban, but I’m betting the other way.
        In any event, the content is the same so it doesn’t really matter.

      • Why was Nav banned? What did he say? I’ve never found his posts to be offensive, or troll-like.
        Just because he supports an Oakland stadium, like myself, and not SJ like the rest of you on here, and some good facts to back them up, he gets banned?
        I better be careful on what I say here too, or I may get the boot.

      • As long as you don’t misrepresent yourself as Nav did, you’ll be fine. Nav is a fraud.

    • I would say the comments on this blog pretty much mirror those of most hard-core A’s fans. Case in point.

    • Anonymous…..your post was well said. Thank you!!

  8. What kind of New Ballpark website is this? A Pro San Jose A’s and Anti-Oakland A’s without mention about Fremont all. This website should talk about the future of the A’s Stadium in Oakland, San Jose, and Fremont.

    Welcome to Pro San Jose A’s or Anti-Oakland A’s website!!!! I’m a favor of changing this website to Pro San Jose A’s with orange and black color background.

    San Jose! San Jose! San Jose! Come on people and stop talking about just San Jose. What happened if Major League doesn’t choose San Jose. I’m hoping you are just talking nonsense and wasting your time talking about San Jose traffic, wants the city to pay for more transportation, and Blah! Blah! Blah! I’m won’t if you talk about San Jose, but you keep talking about San Jose without talkin about Fremont and Anti-Oakland.

  9. So this is about corporate allegiance now? I’m guessing East Bay Fans are left to oblivion. South Bay fans, and quite possibly Peninsula fans can have a party now that it is clear the A’s will be coming to San Jose. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

    • “I’m guessing East Bay Fans are left to oblivion.” You mean SOME are left to oblivion. Jeffrey can probably back me up on this one: there are many East Bay A’s fans, from Tri-Valley to Union City southward, who will catch games in San Jose. Yes, some will have to drive (like we in the South Bay have been doing for years), but as Jeffrey’s thread alluded to, there could be other options.

    • “So this is about corporate allegiance now?”
      It has nothing to do with “corporate allegiance,” whatever that means. But the reality is big corporations will be paying to build the ballpark which all of us will enjoy. They’re not going to do it if it’s not in a location convenient for them. It’s just not going to happen.

  10. No matter which side the A’s will be heading, the other side will have problems getting to the game. Whichever way you look at it. In order for any side to make it easier on transportation, infrastructure would have to be built in place to serve the fans, casuals, and non-game days too. You can’t build something that only operates during baseball days. If it’s a shuttle your asking, then you would need dozens of shuttles to move fans to the ballpark, and back. Only the planners, committee, and MLB know how to access this. We can only guess, but not as proven facts.

  11. wow. a post about trains turned into this</i?

  12. Don’t forget about the VTA express bus lines. For East Bay fans, taking the VTA 180/181 from Fremont BART to Dirdion I think would be the best best. The 181 line is somewhat new and doesn’t stop in Milpitas anymore but goes straight to Dirdion (weekdays only). I live in Milpitas and have often taken the 180 both to downtown SJ and Fremont BART and it’s pretty quick. It’ll be even faster once the Warm Springs BART station opens.

  13. Off topic Jeffrey and R.M.: Do you think we’ll hear from the MLB Committee before the start of the season? Every rumored “deadline” has come and gone, with nothing. And now we’re on the verge of Spring Training and the 2010 MLB season…Wow! Anyhow, thought I’d ask.

    Again off topic: Best hockey game I ever saw! USA! USA!

  14. ML, can you ban the SF/SJ Giants troll who keeps spamming those sites?

  15. You know what’s completely ridiculous about all this speculation about corporate sponsorship, transportation, etc etc? No one ever acknowledges who has the power to do what and why they would do a certain thing over another. Wolfe can’t arbitrarily move the A’s to any city he sees fit to move them to. Selig has more authority over the matter, but even his reach is limited. By the same token, Neukom is also powerless to inflict his will on the A’s. You know who decides? Thirty owners. So there it is. All one needs to do is ask themselves what they would do if they were one of those owners other than the Giants or A’s. All of these people are in the game for one primary reason. Money. So the question to ask is what would you do if you owned the Reds? Allow the A’s to stay in Oakland and continue to live off league largesse? Like it or not, Oakland is a proven commodity. I’m fairly certain that the owners don’t like it one bit. Selig already knows what he has to do, but ego’s being what they are, it’s in his interests to move the process at a glacial pace. Not one of those owners will tolerate another being steam rolled by the Commissioner. But then again, they also know the end result is a forgone conclusion…..because they’re going to see to it. Bud’s role is merely to broker a semi palatable deal between the affected parties. But very soon now the other 28 owners are going to lose patience with Neukom. He knows it, they know it, everyone knows it. It’s a matter of fixing a price within the lodge. Nothing more.

  16. On the subject of comments, I have to say that I am somewhat annoyed with the way the comments are laid out. I feel like its very hard to find what comments are new. I have to sort through and read all the comments before to find out what new comments have been posted.
    -Is there a new comments system we could use? It is also annoying that everything gets crunched into 1 paragraph, with no formatting.

    • I agree 100% with Zonis on this. I’ve found it harder to keep up since the format switch when I haven’t visited the page after a day or so.

      • Comments support most html tags like blockquote, pre, br, and others.

        If I get enough feedback supporting a switch to unthreaded comments, I’ll make the switch.

      • Its not just that. I find that threads/comments appear at random places sometimes when they are posted. This one, for example, should have been near or at the bottom. But for me, its 16+ comments up, ahead of a comment I posted earlier!

      • I agree, I’m finding it more difficult to follow the different discussions in this format. I noticed that there is a “forum” option above. Is there a way to move the discussions to over there?

      • I agree, the commenting system leaves a lot to be desired in terms of ease of use. Honestly, the best system I’ve seen has been the one at SB Nation. I was hoping that one day this blog would move there. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.