Monthly Archives: December 2010

12.02.10
by

The chattering class takes their turn

In the Trib, Gary Peterson asks for Bud Selig to show some leadership and settle this once and for all, even though he thinks Selig pretty much already has this figured out. Craig Calcaterra feels the same way.

But our inner realist understands that Selig isn’t nearly that disengaged. It’s entirely possible, bordering on likely, that the great consensus builder knows how MLB owners feel about the Giants’ territorial rights, has a pretty good idea what the outcome of this conflict is going to be, understands why it has to be that way, and has figured out a way to get from here to there. The rest is just time-consuming mechanics — glad-handing, horse trading, making the money work.

Meanwhile, Mark Purdy is pissed and has his talking points in order. So does the Merc’s editorial board.

Keep the comments thread civil, everyone.

12.02.10
by

This train business

I left the Planning Commission study session last night around 10. After walking three blocks to my car at the corner of 14th and Webster, I decided to drive by Victory Court. As I drove down Oak Street, I heard some bells ringing and was forced to stop for this:

Some Victory Court supporters, in an effort to minimize the impact of trains, are saying things like, “Trains only run 15 mph along the Embarcadero” or “Seattle built a stadium next to train tracks” without really going into why or how these situations came about. Frankly, it shows a reckless kind of ignorance that, thankfully, the California Public Utilities Commission and rail operators Union Pacific and Amtrak cannot abide by. Let’s go into the statements.

  • “Trains only run 15 mph along the Embarcadero” – You bet they do. And for good reason. If a freight train were running 55 mph along the Embarcadero, it would take over a mile to stop, or the distance from the Jack London Aquatic Center to Howard Terminal. If you’re going to mix trains at grade with multiple vehicular and and pedestrian cross, those trains need to go slow. Even then, it’s dangerous, as a freight train going 15 mph would take over 1,000 feet to stop, which happens to be the length of the passenger platform and the Amtrak JLS station. Note: You may remember back to the summer, when during my midwest ballpark trip, an Amtrak train on which I was traveling from St. Louis to Chicago hit a car, delaying the train for well over an hour and putting the driver of the car close to death.
  • “They have those trains that run by AT&T Park” – Electrified light rail trains, like the ones in SF and the South Bay, are far lighter and easier to start and stop than their diesel cousins. Often, they travel very slowly along shared streets just to be safer and more cautious. They’re built to operate in an urban environment. Diesel freight (UPRR) and commuter/intercity (Amtrak) trains absolutely are not. The fact that trains run through JLS at grade, sharing the road with cars and people, is an anomaly that should not be duplicated. The only other local example of such a train is the Roaring Camp/Big Trees Railroad, a tourist excursion train that runs between the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and Felton. Coming in and out of the boardwalk, the train runs at a crawl.
  • “Seattle built a stadium next to train tracks” – Actually, they built two, Safeco Field and Qwest Field. But if you walk around the back of Safeco where the roof is stored, you’ll notice that you’re overlooking the tracks. All but one of the pedestrian and vehicular rail crossings around both stadia are overpasses with full grade separation, and the one exception was obviated this year when a new overpass was completed. If trains and cars don’t share space, you can’t have accidents. Grade separation isn’t really possible at JLS as the construction would be extremely expensive and disruptive, so other measures have to be taken to ensure safety. To that end, it’s possible that one or more pedestrian bridges will be required. Already there are three such bridges in place, connecting the waterfront to the JLS parking garage and Amtrak station, plus the ferry terminal’s connection to Yoshi’s. Through the EIR’s circulation analysis, it may be found that these bridges, with some modification, will be adequate for whatever the new pedestrian load is. Then again, maybe not. Even if a new overpass is needed, it will probably be cheaper than a lawsuit emanating from the negligence associated with not addressing the issue.

Still not convinced? Consider this: let’s say the ballpark pulls in 2.5 million fans a year. It’s reasonable to think that 20% of them (500,000) will be going to JLS to eat, drink, or shop before and after games. The popularity of the ballpark will create a snowball effect, making it more likely that even more retail establishments and restaurants call JLS home, further driving up traffic – which is what Oaklanders want. It’s possible that 1 million new visitors will come to JLS annually. To try to cut corners on safety (occasional police presence as the main mitigation, for instance) just so that the project is more affordable or “feasible” is downright foolish.

As for cars, there isn’t much that can be done. I suppose a vehicular/pedestrian overpass from Oak Street to First Street is possible, but the limited amount of car traffic may not warrant the cost.

After the Draft EIR and its findings are made public, the PUC, Amtrak, and UPRR will have a chance to formally comment on the project. They may already have submitted comments based on the project as it stands now. In the PUC’s case, it has the power to dictate how the EIR progresses. It’s incumbent upon the project applicants – in this case, the City of Oakland – to do their level best to make sure the EIR is complete and mitigation measures are properly in place. If not, it’s only going to delay groundbreaking and construction. Given MLB’s 2015 deadline, that’s not something on which Oakland or Keep-the-A’s-in-Oakland types should be gambling.

12.02.10
by

No World Cup for USA in 2022

Sorry 49ers/Raiders, if you were hoping for a future World Cup bid to help pay off/showcase your new stadium(s), that argument has gone out the window. Incredibly, the United States’ bid for the 2022 tournament was beaten in the final vote by the tiny, oil-rich nation of Qatar. As small as it is (1.7 million residents), Qatar has a unique history that might make it the best – and perhaps only – place to host the World Cup in the Middle East. Incidents of terrorism are far more rare in Qatar than in many of its neighbors. Yet it’s strange that in an era when many countries are pulling together for bids (Japan-South Korea in 2006, Spain-Portugal bid in 2018), a nation as small as Qatar can actually pull it off. The scope will be even smaller than the country, as the bid specifies that half of the venues, including the biggest ones, will be built or expanded in the capital, Doha. It’s like awarding the World Cup to Santa Clara County, and having half of the games played in San Jose.

Currently, only Doha’s Khalifa International Stadium has a capacity large enough (50,000) to hold a WC match among Qatar’s existing stadia. To accommodate the large crowds, seven new stadia are planned, all with a capacity of 40,000 or more. Five other stadia will be expanded. Some will have temporary upper decks which could be dismantled and sent to developing countries to help build their own sports venues. Most of the facilities will not be domed, but will instead have extensive roofs covering the seating areas, as is done in Europe. To address the desert heat, some kind of fancy new cooling technology will be in place:

Qatar has employed a number of experts to work on new technology that will keep the temperature of spectator areas to 18C, and the temperature on the pitch to 27C.

The technology has been designed using solar technology so that the cooling systems will be carbon-neutral, according to the bid committee.

Are they being intentionally coy as to what the technology is?

In any case, it’s a lot of money to spend on a month-long event. A new international airport is under construction, and a metro rail project will begin shortly.

BTW, Russia won the 2018 World Cup, beating out England, Belgium-Netherlands, and Spain/Portugal.

12.01.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Session 12/1

I can’t be more glad to be late. Which is saying something, considering I’m habitually late.

The commission hasn’t started to address item #5 on the agenda, which is the ballpark proposal. The main hall is packed, it’s standing room only in the overflow room, and dozens are milling around in the foyer and hallways. I’d say it’s a good turnout so far. They’re about to take a break before item #5.

7:59 PM – Eric Angstadt is explaining the CEQA process now. Emphasizes that this study session is not about whether or not this is a good project, it’s only to get input that’s germane to CEQA. If you need a primer on the process, read this. I imagine that regularly having to explain the process can be a bit tiresome.

8:07 PM – Doug Boxer is laying down the ground rules. Explains that the fire marshal is upset. Gets a show of hands as to who approves, vast majority approve. Asks for signs to be taken down, people in hallways to go to the overflow room. So far there are 26 comment cards.

8:11 – Gary Knecht (thanks V) asks for current traffic counts and perhaps a new economic impact report, in reference to redevelopment funds. Also just ran into Nina Thorsen, who got booted from the main room.

8:13 – Max Allstadt wants to bridge the no man’s land that is the Nimitz.

8:15 – Mike Johnson has been an A’s fan since he was four. Says that the project has to be looked at in terms of business outreach. Ballpark is a good idea. It would tear him apart if the A’s left.

8:24 – The speakers are coming every two minutes and I can’t keep up, but I’ll point out speakers of note. Mike Davie (linusalf) is coming up.

8:27 – Ben Fernandez owns the Portobello condos near the site and enthusiastically supports the project. Refers to China Basin as a good example.

8:29 – linusalf wants to include impact of non-car transportation, especially bike travel and routes.

8:30 – BTW if anyone is looking, I’m behind the TV in the overflow room (ducks). Bryan Grunwald is coming up.

8:34 – Grunwald is up after Boxer’s jokey intro. Is explaining 980 Park’s site costs as lower than Victory Court. Talks up social justice aspect. The crowd here is not receptive. Asks for 980 Park to be considered along dual track with Victory Court.

Note: There’s some vague talk about costs. We’ll try to estimate those as well as we can but any numbers coming from anyone outside the City or landowners are uneducated.

8:43 – Bobby Tselentis is taking his two minutes. Wants for JLS to come back, including the Spaghetti Factory (ditto). Gets huge applause in this room.

8:45 – Rep from Alameda County Labor Council speaks. Wants quality analysis of jobs. In ACLC’s study, many Oakland families relied upon the so-called low paying seasonal jobs A’s a major source of income and benefits. Ballpark is good, but there are existing businesses that will be affected, and the protection of existing businesses and industrial land is important.

8:49 – Oak Center head (missed name) is up. Asks what happened to the other sites in the study. Supports 980 Park site.

8:52 – Ben Delaney of Jack London Neighborhood Association speaks. Also asks what what happened to the other sites. Wants to know what mitigation will be put in places for affected residents. Wants to know what measures will be made to have jobs for Oakland first. Says that Lake Merritt BART is suboptimal, freeway infrastructure is inadequate. Thanks the City for not choosing JLS North/West, where his house would be in left field.

9:03 – One speaker cites two different estimates for Caltrans to act on such a project – 18 months or 2-3 years. Given the time crunch, it’ll be necessary to get all of the various agencies on the same page. Another speaker has grave concerns about limited parking, especially because of the Laney College uses (day/night classes, flea market). Brings up eminent domain.

Several speakers, including some representing Chinatown, are asking for a thorough health study.

9:14 – KTRB’s Rick Tittle is asking if Oakland is a big league town as this is a watershed moment. “Are we going to sit around and let another city steal our team away?” Tittle also pleaded for the City not to get bogged down in the details (I’m paraphrasing). But that’s what CEQA is. It’s set up to be legal protection for the little guy, for the disenfranchised. You want to rush through something, move to another state. Or China.

9:15 – Ethan Pintard is up. Like the site but has concerns about a parking nightmare. Biggest concern is for prosperous established businesses at the site. Proposes the Wood Street development (West Oakland) as a possible site, because existing plans aren’t happening soon. 39 acres of adjacent land with willing sellers. Virtually all of the land is vacant. Would like to see the old 16th Street station as part of the development.

9:20 – Jorge Leon is up. He’s endearing, but he isn’t really helping. He’s the “Joe the Plumber” of the Oakland-only movement.

9:25 – The always interesting Sanjiv Handa gives a political retrospective. Thinks the Port of Oakland would be on their knees begging for the Victory Court ballpark plan in light of the failures at JLS (which is changing hands again). Mentions the cautionary tale of the Marine World almost moving to a site near the Coliseum, then bolting for Vallejo.

9:33 – Last speaker asks what will happen if Oakland loses the A’s. Will that be covered somehow? Is cautiously optimistic, hopes Lew Wolff is watching and sees the support.

Speakers are finished, commissioners are taking their turns. People are starting to file out. There’s an older, familiar looking man in a three-piece suit here. I can’t quite place him. EIR consultant, perhaps?

BTW, there are no exhibits or even a presentation. That’s for later.

11:32 – Just got home and the comment board is already lively. Thanks to Nina, David and LeAndre, all of whom I had brief chats with. The crowd was great and I didn’t see any pitchforks or torches. Plenty of different interests were represented, which gave the session a good sense of balance.

Quick note – The site may be down for a bit Thursday for some maintenance. Hopefully not for long.

And from the sometimes you just can’t win department – the same night when Oakland can puff out its chest a bit with this first study session, what’s on the front page of CNN.com? A video report on child prostitution along International Blvd.

12:25 AM – There were some reports earlier today that got comments from Ignacio De La Fuente. IDLF wants MLB to commit to Oakland before the City pays for the EIR and related study work. MLB may well be willing to pay for the EIR, but he probably won’t get his wish. More on that in a later post.

Also, just noticed this from KTVU’s report:

That looks somewhat familiar…