The Merc’s authority on all things local transportation, Gary “Mr. Roadshow” Richards, fielded a question about redoing streets in the Diridon area and a ballpark’s effect on traffic.
Q Maybe it’s a little early to ask this, but how does San Jose figure on making up for the loss of Montgomery Street if an A’s ballpark is built next to the Diridon train station? A two-way Autumn Street? Reversible lanes? Seems that when events let out at HP Pavilion, it would be a nightmare to get to Interstate 280.
Craig Tomasello
San JoseA The plan is to close Montgomery and convert Autumn Street from a three-lane, one-way road to a two-way street with two lanes in each direction. This would be a key connection to and from HP Pavilion to I-280. Traffic signals on Autumn would be managed to accommodate traffic exiting HP Pavilion. I would not worry too much about this. When the Sharks began playing downtown, naysayers said traffic would be a mess. It hasn’t been as the city has proved it can move people in and out efficiently. Baseball games would attract larger crowds, but light rail, BART, Caltrain and Amtrak would all be within an easy walk of home plate.
We may run into scale involving capacity at Diridon. The are plenty of intersections that don’t rate well. Still, traffic going through the area isn’t anywhere near the catastrophic gridlock predicted before the arena was built (hint: Julian Street is almost always clear). With vigorous enforcement of a revised TPMP, a ballpark and arena combo shouldn’t be gridlock either. A little worse, yes, but not gridlock.
newballpark.org 
BART’s in San Jose already? I thought they wouldn’t have it for 20 years. The Mercury News has been fawning all over BART for years while neglecting CalTrain, which exists today. But yes, claims of “traffic nightmares” from the arena never came to fruition. “Traffic” is the boilerplate complaint about any proposed development.
Can I get an amen for Mr. Richards! Even if you were to erase BART completely from the equation, there’s always Amtrak CC (schedule can include late night service in future) and VTA light-rail/bus (not sure if we can still include Caltrain). And we all know about the future of Diridon; need I say more?
Bart is crucial to a new ballpark, wherever it’s located. VC has this one over Diridon for at least the next 15, maybe 20 years. Amtrak/Light Rail don’t cut it, sorry.
Has BART been crucial to PacBell Park? Or SJ’s arena? or Candlestick, even? Don’t think so. SJ Arena – smashing success, no BART station for 18 miles. …Based on jk’s logic, the Giants should be playing before crowds of 10,000 per night and the A’s 40,000 per night. But actually, it’s the other way around. A’s: Their very own BART station and one of the worst attendance records in the league.
What would the parking situation at VC look like?
Pjk, the muni line and walking distance from Embarcadero and Montgomery BART stations are quick ways to get to AT&T, and quite convenient. The A’s attendance is of course, not based on BART convenience near the coliseum; on this topic, it is based moreso on the fact that many A’s fans don’t live close enough to–in comparison–the small number of BART stations in Oakland and the rest of the East Bay. By “small”, I am referring to the many thousands of fans who either need to drive or take a bus to a BART station. If they feel that their only option is to park at the stadium and they don’t want to shell out the dough for that, many might just stay home and watch the game on the “tube”. Granted, this isn’t the only reason for low attendance, yet I won’t repeat the other reasons which have been mentioned enough times on websites and blogs.
“Bart is crucial to a new ballpark, wherever it’s located. VC has this one over Diridon for at least the next 15, maybe 20 years. Amtrak/Light Rail don’t cut it, sorry.”
There’s little logic behind this statement. In what way is BART “crucial” to a ballpark? Only 15% of A’s fans take BART to the games NOW. The smaller planned size of the Diridon ballpark basically offsets current BART ridership. And VTA will serve more probable season ticket holders at a SJ ballpark than BART anyway. BART is a “nice to have;” your bias is showing.
Hey ML- I’m not sure if I’ve missed it or not, but is there a recent version of the alternative (non ballpark) site plan that shows where Montgomery will be closed and how the area will look with Autumn widened?
@Pastor Phil – I don’t think there’s been any change since last summer’s report. Montgomery would still exist in some form between The Alameda and Stover/Crandall, with San Fernando closed off.
Yeah, you guys are right–Bart’s really not needed at all for a SJ park. Take your car, get stuck in traffic, pay $5-6 a gallon, expand your carbon footprint some more, no prob. For such a huge county (SCC), people love their cars, and public transportation’s not all that popular, hence the comparison to LA.
AC Transit has 236k daily riders, compared to VTA’s buses at 100k, and Light Rail at 30k. Bart’s eastbay ridership is around 165k of the line’s 345k daily users.
I researched these latest figs online, so I didn’t pull them out of my rump, Bartleby.
SJ Arena has CalTrain, buses, VTA Light Rail, Amtrak, ACE etc right across the street. And sellouts every night. The A’s have their own BART station and dismal attendance.
Maybe Jim doesn’t watch local news that shows daily traffic jams on the various bridges, 80, 580, 24, 238, etc. Only BART, which runs on electricity generated largely by fossil fuels, is going to save the Earth.
But keep talking like a smug Friscan because it obviously works for you.
PJK
You are letting your biased San Jose opinions distort facts. A Sellout at HP is 17,000. Thats what the A’s average in Oakland, and its a problem.
“Has BART been crucial to PacBell Park? Or SJ’s arena? or Candlestick, even? Don’t think so. SJ Arena – smashing success, no BART station for 18 miles. …Based on jk’s logic, the Giants should be playing before crowds of 10,000 per night and the A’s 40,000 per night. But actually, it’s the other way around. A’s: Their very own BART station and one of the worst attendance records in the league.”
BART has been crucial to PacBell park. Its a short walk and shorter Muni ride.
Candlestick was a failure for the Giants and one of the reasons was the lack of BART and other transit access. The 49ers draw well, but transit problems are not that big of a deal when you only have 8 games a year.
BART has more riders Than VTA and CALTRAIN COMBINED. (Check daily ridership numbers) Having solid transit access for the entire Bay Area region will be key to the success or failure of a San Jose Ballpark. The A’s cannot survive on Santa Clara County alone.
Once again, this is an alleged advantage to the East bay that exists NOW and is not paying dividends. Same goes for that fabled “central location.”
Dinosaur: I am simply refuting the notion that BART is “crucial” to a ballpark. The A’s have great BART access (I drive from SJ to Union City to get BART to A’s games) but their attendance is dismal just the same…. BART has got to be at least a 15-minute walk to PacBell Park. Not that close at all…
Once again, get ground broken in Oakland and I’ll celebrate. I just don’t see how it happens given the lack of anyone who wants to pay for it.
A’s vs Sharks average attendance. Can’t tell you how many times the Sharks outdraw the A’s on any given night. Pretty sad, actually. More people at an indoor arena than a large stadium.
The other reason they don’t have huge traffic jams at the HP Pavilion was the decision to have less parking directly for the Pavilion. The large parking garage at San Pedro Square used to be free and now it is $3 in the evenings. It is a half mile from the Pavilion and there are a lot of restaurants there so a lot of people park there, eat, and then go to the Pavilion. This causes a wider geographical area on where people are parked so cars are trying to leave a wider area geographically and time-wise.
Also part of the plan is to have ground floor restaurants / bars/ entertainment buildings on the ground floor with offices on top between the A’s stadium and HP Pavilion. This should also disperse the time that the crowd is leaving the area. They also want to have a hotel / restaurant zone along with apartments with ground floor retail along San Carlos south of the A’s stadium. Both of the areas will encourage some people to stop at some of the retail locations after the games.
The other advantage the Diridon area has is relatively close to 280, 87, with 880 just a little bit farther. Once people get onto those freeways, 101 disperses the traffic even more for those people going north or east. Since none of the freeways has interchanges real close to the parking lots, people leave among more city streets going to more freeway interchanges which are on different freeways.
I do think the new garage that they will build for the HP Pavilion will probably take a long time for traffic to leave that garage. People will learn that it will be quicker to walk a little farther will get out of the parking lots / garages quicker. The same will apply for the A’s stadium. I think more of the office garages east of 87 will be opened up during A’s games. Hopefully there will be more retail built along the routes back to the garages.
My point about the A’s vs Sharks attendance was that comparing the two is silly.
BART alone wont make or break the stadium, but adequate transit will, and BART will be apart of that equation. You can’t have an urban stadium with suburban transit.
re: You can’t have an urban stadium with suburban transit.
,..There’s CalTrain, Ace Trains, Amtrak, VTA Light rail, buses, taxis right next door to the ballpark site. Not sure what “suburban transit” means…Some day, when we’re all a lot older, BART might be next door, too. But BART hasn’t proven to be much of a savior at the existing Coliseum. I wish that’s all it took and BART brought in 25,000 a night to A’s games. But it doesn’t
“Yeah, you guys are right–Bart’s really not needed at all for a SJ park. Take your car, get stuck in traffic, pay $5-6 a gallon, expand your carbon footprint some more, no prob. For such a huge county (SCC), people love their cars, and public transportation’s not all that popular, hence the comparison to LA.
AC Transit has 236k daily riders, compared to VTA’s buses at 100k, and Light Rail at 30k. Bart’s eastbay ridership is around 165k of the line’s 345k daily users.
I researched these latest figs online, so I didn’t pull them out of my rump, Bartleby.”
OK, aside from your completely gratuitous slam on SC county, now at least you’re giving me some facts At least, except for your exaggerated estimate of the price of gas, I assume your figures are accurate. I didn’t bother to check, because fundamentally these are irrelevant facts.
The relevant ridership of AC Transit vs. VTA doesn’t matter. Those are macro statistics. We’re talking about a micro issue, and we happen to have micro facts and statistics directly relevant to that issue, namely:
– Only 15-20% of the fans for any given A’s game at the Coliseum take BART to the game. (This statistic comes from ML). That statistic alone tells us BART is nice to have, but not “crucial.”
– However important BART is in Alameda county, it will be far less important in Santa Clara county, even once it’s up and running. BART as a system primarily serves the East Bay. A ballpark in Santa Clara county will draw fans primarily from Santa Clara county. Caltrain and light rail will be far more important than BART.
– For much of it’s history, the Coli seated 40-50,000 or more. A Diridon park is slated to seat only 32,000. If you take BART ridership off the top, a Diridon park will STILL generate less traffic than the Coliseum at peak attendance through much of its history, even before you consider the ridership on Caltrain, VTA, and other systems.
– BART will eventually come to Diridon. The A’s new site could host the team for 100 years or more; it would be extremely foolish to let a temporary issue drive the site decision.
“BART has been crucial to PacBell park. Its a short walk and shorter Muni ride.”
Again, please provide any evidence that BART has been “crucial” to AT&T park. The closest BART station is more than a mile from AT&T Park. I consider that walkable, but most Americans don’t. My understanding is that transit planners don’t consider anything more than about 1/2 mile walking distance. If you have any evidence that significant numbers of people are riding BART to Giants games (i.e. actual numbers), please share.
(I have no doubt that lots of people ride MUNI to games, but suspect most of them originate within San Francisco).
“BART has more riders Than VTA and CALTRAIN COMBINED. (Check daily ridership numbers)”
Maybe true, but completely irrelevant. We all know BART is a more extensive and developed transit system than Caltrain or VTA. The question is how many people do or will ride it to games.
“Having solid transit access for the entire Bay Area region will be key to the success or failure of a San Jose Ballpark.”
Having solid transit access will be a big help to making a San Jose ballpark a success, but it’s not at all obvious it’s “key.” BART hasn’t done much for A’s attendance in Oakland. Many MLB ballparks do well with little or no transit. Anyway, the Diridon site has terrific transit access, and it will only get better.
“The A’s cannot survive on Santa Clara County alone.”
Maybe not alone, but the A’s will survive on Santa Clara county primarily.
ST Hills NAILED IT! and Bartleby taking people to school once again. Just think about it: come 2020 you could be an A’s season ticket holder LIVING IN FRESNO with high-speed rail. Later down the line a season tix holder from Stockton with ACE high-speed rail.
OT: Bartleby, considering the A’s wouldn’t see any new revenue until after Cisco Field opens in 2015, do you still feel some sort of announcement from the “BRC” is tied to CBA negotiations? Probably one of the only times I’ll disagree with Bartleby, but I stand by the thought that we’ll finally hear a decision when the finish line is crossed.
Bart is crucial in SJ if you’re an A’s fan. It will be much easier to take the train up north to see your A’s play at VC than fight the traffic up 880. Or if worse comes to worse, up to the Coliseum (but maybe a new Coli, but I doubt it).
@Bartleby–you have a rabid fan in TonyD. Maybe as our t unofficial lawyer on this site, you can pass him along your business card if he needs any little help or advice. 🙂
With a shambles of a local transit system in perpetual collapse, any increase in traffic might make the trip from Fresno quicker and easier than from Woodside.
@J Mascis – Please use your regular handle. No sockpuppetry allowed, intentional or not.
“Once again, this is an alleged advantage to the East bay that exists NOW and is not paying dividends. ”
.
It’s not the job of public transit to generate ticket sales. The front office has to provide a product people want to see. BART is something the A’s could depend upon to deliver large numbers of people to the ballpark, if only there was a compelling reason to come watch. A low-budget franchise on it’s way out of town isn’t going to sell tickets anywhere. The A’s aren’t selling tickets for one primary reason: because they are bad at selling tickets.
Yeah, it was totally unintentional, left over in my browser cache from the one shot gag post 😉 Never again…
ML runs a tight ship here, and that’s a good thing 🙂
Given that ~80 percent of people now don’t take BART (and presumable most of them drive) shouldn’t parking be a significant factor as well as transit connectivity? Diridon has the Arena parking (current lots/proposed garage) + the San Pedro Square garage as major parking areas nearby. What would that be for Victory Court? I’m not that familiar with the area but don’t see a whole lot of room nearby on Google Map. Would Laney College be feasible as stadium parking?
@TPS,
“It’s not the job of public transit to generate ticket sales.”. Huhh? Appears you missed the entire point of why BART was brought up here in this first place, but whatever.
RM, is it safe to say that Diridon will one day make Santana Row look more like “Santana Strip Mall”? Can’t wait!
@tony d. – No, you’re dreaming.
@all – The BART percentage came straight from the agency a few years ago and has little reason to change. I recently asked about ridership for Giants games, and BART couldn’t provide a figure.
@Nathan – Most parking would come from the other side of 880, including Laney. The EIR calls for a parking garage of some kind onsite, which may be prohibitively expensive and have high enough environmental impact to be a problem.
Tony D,The Giants get some advantage that the traffic experience at AT&T isn’t too uncomfortable because of the high capacity of BART, Muni, AC Transit, etc. Far less capacity (eg. Caltrain + VTA), less comfort for the customer. The same scenario would exist for any major league team in a nice new ballpark with an aggressive-spending ownership friendly to the host city. Any team in that situation would want a transit option like BART nearby, and be better for it. To suggest that it’s not an advantage at all, because attendance is plummeting for a team in an aging facility and halfway out the door, doesn’t seem helpful.
@TonyD–Santana Row is pretty damn impressive, and there’s no way that Diridon, or VC for that matter, can match the size and scope of that awesome complex. It’s too bad Santana Row didn’t come to DT SJ and a Bay St. in E-Ville wasn’t built in DT Oakland. Both DT’s struggle to get retail, but both do have cool eateries /bars/clubs that the suburbs can’t match.
All, think about it: how many of the current urban ballparks are served by heavy rail rapid transit?
Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, Fenway, Wrigley, US Cellular, Nationals Ballpark, maybe Turner Field (?).
Maybe AT&T Park if you count the Muni transfer. The rest, from Petco, Safeco, Minute Maid, Target, etc, etc AREN’T! And they’re doing just fine.
No need to discuss this any further because, at least with MLB, it won’t matter.
@tony d. “Bartleby, considering the A’s wouldn’t see any new revenue until after Cisco Field opens in 2015, do you still feel some sort of announcement from the “BRC” is tied to CBA negotiations? Probably one of the only times I’ll disagree with Bartleby, but I stand by the thought that we’ll finally hear a decision when the finish line is crossed.”
I do think so, because the CBA negotiations will consider both present day revenue and future revenue projections. If an A’s ballpark in San Jose was a done deal, the players union wouldn’t simply ignore the fact that league revenues were going to take a jump in a few years. Even if the new revenue weren’t going to start until after the next CBA expired, knowing the financial picture is going to brighten would weaken owner claims of poverty and demands for player concessions.
The delay could also be partially or entirely driven by waiting for SJ to get its ducks in a row. The reason I think the CBA factors in is because otherwise I can’t understand why MLB would have asked San Jose to delay the vote on the ballpark.
Thanks Bartleby. Very good points indeed. As for the vote you referrenced at the end of your post, my hunch is that one won’t be necessary once this whole thing is ironed out, emphasis on “hunch.” Heck, I had a hunch San Jose wasn’t dead even during the whole talk of Fremont/Pac Commons…hopefully I go two for two! FWIW, no vote for Quakes SSS ;o).
I wonder how the players union would be less informed about “what’s really happening” than you guys?
@tps “I wonder how the players union would be less informed about “what’s really happening” than you guys?”
Obviously, they are not, but I have no idea what your point is.
LOL My point is that you are almost certainly wrong. Why would the owners try and deceive the players union with a stratagem that even you and tony d can see through? The upcoming EIR for Victory Court is a more likely reason to hold back a decision than deception at the CBA talks.
@tps–wow—so all it takes to get a stadium built in Oakland is a draft EIR—impressive….I bet MLB/bs is pacing the floor just waiting to get his hands on this document and of course you already know that this is the golden ticket for Oakland and everyone else on here is just plain stupid–
You know it doesn’t take more than one hostile San Jose Or Bust creep to attack me with lame sarcasm GoA’s. Why don’t you let bartleby handle this, he’s way, way better at it than you.
@tps–amazing how you never address the issues—just more useless bs from you—and your right–bartleby does a good job laying out facts…which you of course ignore—
GoA’s, I am not a miracle worker, this is the best I can do for you: bartleby has a theory that MLB is sitting on an “A’s to San Jose” finding in order to “hide” some future revenue from the players union at the CBA talks. I countered his reasoning directly and presented my own theory. What the hell have you offered besides hostile off-topic insults? Not a thing.
@tps–@GoA’s”What the hell have you offered besides hostile off-topic insults? Not a thing.”
Well said. Couldn’t agree with you any more on this one.
@tps “bartleby has a theory that MLB is sitting on an “A’s to San Jose” finding in order to “hide” some future revenue from the players union at the CBA talks.”
One again, you are mischaracterizing what I’m saying. I never said the owners were trying to “deceive” the players or “hide” revenue. Of course the players know there’s a possibility the A’s will get a new ballpark and league revenues will improve. But there’s a big difference between “possibility of a ballpark” and an actual ballpark.
Right now, MLB can argue there are any number of reasons why a San Jose ballpark, or any new ballpark, might not happen. They can play up the “territorial rights are sacred” angle (even if they know ultimately they will make the best business decision for baseball, regardless). They can point out San Jose still has parcels to acquire at Diridon, and has not yet held a vote. (And in fact, the fact San Jose has not yet completed the site acquisition may be why MLB doesn’t feel extreme urgency, and feels they can drag this out while collective bargaining goes on). They can point out financing for a new ballpark in Oakland is extremely questionable. But as soon as both MLB and San Jose approve the move to San Jose, the new ballpark becomes a virtual certainty. It then becomes a lot harder to argue the resulting incremental revenue should not be considered as part of the next CBA.
As a veteran of two decades worth of high-stakes business negotiations, I believe this uncertainty helps the owners in their negotiations with the union. The players may well play up the chance the ballpark will happen, just as the owners play it down. That’s the way the game is played. But having some uncertainty is a far better position for the owners than having the ballpark be a done deal.
Well the word “hide” was quoted to account for the obvious spin you unnecessarily just spelled out. And thus your statements are not being mischaracterized. You and your San Jose Or Bust cronies are not open to a shred of “uncertainty” and haven’t explained why the players union would be any less certain about the outcome than you. I mean seriously, a 29-1 or 30-0 outcome is pretty much dogma around here, how can there be a molecule’s worth of value to pretending uncertainty in that universe?
TPS,
Why don’t you do us all a favor: why don’t you stop nitpicking at what us “cronies” are saying, what we are supposedly not explaining, bla bla bla, and BUILD UP A REAL CASE FOR OAKLAND-ONLY! You don’t agree with what we have to say…WE GET IT! But damn, build a damn case to back your position (i.e. financing for an Oakland yard, corporate support, land acquisitions, business relocations, etc.) instead of trying to be a smart a$$ here.
Tony D = the Navigator of SJ.
@Dinosaur Jr. – If Tony D. were taking shots at Oakland in terms of crime or other unrelated issues, then you’d be right. He doesn’t do that. Asking how Oakland can pull it off is a legitimate question.
All right show me the financing for San Jose, and we’ll go from there to see how much of that can be re-applied to an Oakland facility.
Show me the list of corporations that have deposited for luxury boxes at Diridon, along with the current Coliseum and AT&T lists, and we’ll go from there.
.
Acquisition and relocation should follow from the upcoming EIR.
Cue up the indignant and condescending blah blah blah.
@tps “Well the word “hide” was quoted to account for the obvious spin you unnecessarily just spelled out..”
What you are calling “obvious spin,” I would call “the foundation of our financial sector.” Whether you are in the insurance industry or on Wall Street, it’s axiomatic that you don’t value a contingent event the same way you value a certain event.
In this case, Bud Selig has an inherent advantage over the union because he has unique insight into/control over one of the main contingencies (i.e. the territorial rights issue). Why wouldn’t he exploit this advantage, especially if the need for some other contingencies to occur anyway reduces the overall urgency?
“You and your San Jose Or Bust cronies are not open to a shred of “uncertainty” and haven’t explained why the players union would be any less certain about the outcome than you.”
You’ve either misunderstood me, are deliberately mischaracterizing my comments, or have me confused with someone else. I’ve never said a San Jose ballpark is a certainty. I have said I’m reasonably certain a privately-financed ballpark will not occur in Oakland, because the economic fundamentals simply do not support it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of ways a San Jose ballpark could be derailed.
At this point in time, I’d actually handicap the most likely possible outcomes as follows:
a. New privately-financed ballpark in San Jose: 55%
b. New privately-financed ballpark in Oakland: 5%
c. No new ballpark for 5-10 years; A’s struggle along in the Coliseum until a new venue pops up elsewhere: 35%
d. Something else I haven’t thought of: 5%
If MLB and San Jose both granted necessary approvals, I would immediately adjust my predictions as follows:
a. New privately-financed ballpark in San Jose: 90%
b. Some unforeseen event prevents completion of the ballpark. No new ballpark for 5-10 years; A’s struggle along in the Coliseum until a new venue pops up elsewhere: 5%
c. Something else I haven’t thought of: 5%
These are just my numbers. I’m sure your numbers would look different. The union’s numbers might also look different. But the basic point is, the uncertainty arising from open contingencies are going to affect valuation of future revenue streams until those contingencies are resolved.
You might ask, why would I assign a 5% chance to an Oakland yard if I’m so sure it won’t occur? The answer is solely because I recognize I am an outsider, must rely solely on public information, and don’t have all the hard, actual data. I’m smart enough to recognize what I don’t know. But I assign a very small probability to a ballpark being built in Oakland because the people who actually do have the data seem unanimous in their assessments of the financial potential of that market under current conditions.
@tps – How about you contact Wolff to get his list of commitments? I’m sure he’ll be willing to share. /s Then you can apply whatever arbitrary criteria to prove the vast majority of those commitments will be in Oakland as well, because obviously you are the ultimate judge of that subject matter and have no inherent bias.
“All right show me the financing for San Jose, and we’ll go from there to see how much of that can be re-applied to an Oakland facility.”
Mr. Wolff says he has the financing for a San Jose facility. The Oakland-only side is constantly saying, “Fisher is a billionaire, he can build whatever he wants, whenever he wants.” So why would you doubt Wolff on this?
It’s quite probable that much of this financing wouldn’t be available for Oakland, because lower projected revenue will necessarily reduce the amount banks are willing to lend. But the bigger point is, even if the banks were still willing to lend, why would Wolff/Fisher want to go forward if they felt they weren’t likely to break even? Why would your theoretical white knight East Bay billionaire want to ride out of the hills and buy the team and pay for a ballpark?
“Show me the list of corporations that have deposited for luxury boxes at Diridon, along with the current Coliseum and AT&T lists, and we’ll go from there.”
Another disingenous comment. Of course there are no deposits yet for a theoretical ballpark in San Jose. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to assess the economic potential of the market and notice there are several hundred more large corporations in or near San Jose who are likely customers for premium seating than there are in Oakland, combined with lessened competition from the Giants. That’s why the folks with actual money at stake are only willing to invest in San Jose/Fremont. It’s also why the Giants are doing everything in their power to prevent them. It’s also why no East Bay white knights have raised a hand saying they want to buy the team.
You refuse to admit this, but building a new park in Oakland results in a zero-sum game struggle between the A’s and Giants for fans. As ML’s recent map demonstrated, the primary geographic markets for AT&T Park and a VC park are functionally the same – except for the existence of the Bay Bridge. The bridge is a major disadvantage for the A’s, because while there are more than enough regular joes on their side, nearly all the corporate base you keep claiming as part of that area is on the other side. So if a VC park is built, the likely outcome is as follows:
a. A’s attendance goes up somewhat as they capture some casual fans from the Giants, especially those who live in the East Bay.’
b. Giants attendance goes down somewhat because of a, but they’re willing to live with this because-
c. Giants keep about 80-90% of the Bay Area corporate market, which is where the money is.
Meanwhile, the existence of the new park does very little to grow the market for MLB in the Bay Area overall.
Conversely, if a new ballpark is built in San Jose, suddenly several million affluent South Bay residents have convenient access to MLB for the first time. New fans start going to games; old fans start going to more games. MLB is able to tap into a much higher percentage of the Bay Area’s corporate base. San Francisco, East Bay and North Bay fans retain convenient access to baseball at AT&T Park. The market for baseball grows overall.
Thanks for hitting your mark, right on cue, ML.
.
And round and round we go. Bartleby fixated on his anecdotal wall-across-the-bay damnation of an Oakland ballpark. And his love of bogus stats.
.
Here’s a classic from our favorite fact hater -> “suddenly several million affluent South Bay residents have convenient access to MLB for the first time.” Exactly how big an exaggeration is this? 10 percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? More? Well, it’s hard to say what he really meant by “several million” but I wouldn’t use that term unless I was thinking, at the very least, close to 3 million. Now, figuring that all Alameda County South Bay residents can ride BART “conveniently” to the Coliseum, and 9% of South Bay residents are below the poverty line, there is no way the actual people he’s describing could number higher than 1.5 million. This is the typical 100% error expected from nearly every number bartleby tosses out. And we’ll ignore the fact this area already provides an appreciable number of ticket buyers for the A’s and Giants. The gains to be found there just aren’t remotely as sexy as he wants it to sound, hence the outrageous fudging.
Again TPS,
You need to become “fixated” on what will make Oakland work and provide REAL stats to boost your case. Continuing to insult and deride isn’t getting you anywhere or anything (except a bunch of laughs from this A’s fan!).
OT: What’s it with sports fans appropriating the adjective sexy recently. I hear it on the radio, in interviews, here… It’s really creepy and it must be stopped. I’m sorry Brian Sabean, but a stat can not be sexy.
Agreed with Tony D. Advice for Oakland-onlyers– the time for action is now. You need to mobilize in a real way and stop sulking on internet message boards. It might be too late, but it’s the only option.
What facts will possibly work for you? I’ve listed giant companies that are signed on to Let’s Go Oakland, giant companies that are within 10 miles of JLS, other nearby giant companies like Chevron and Safeway, pointed out that it’s only 35 miles to the core of Silicon Valley (HP, Google, Oracle), etc.; I’ve posted the demographics showing there’s a much larger, faster growing population in the East Bay than any other part of the Bay Area, and how the next big growth area for the region is to the NE where biotech is the future, and the advantages of BART, Muni, and AC Transit for moving over a MILLION people a day over a vast area… And a lot more. But when the response is eseentially always variations on,”That’s not enough… people in the east bay are too poor to make it work… and san francisco already built their yard so there’s no point even… and if the East Bay is so great why is Lew leaving???” — your mind is just made up and so really, what’s the point? How many times do I have to try to reason with someone who isn’t reasonable? The bottom line is Lew Wolff wants to move the team down a few blocks from his hotel, and that’s all you or I can say about the matter with any certainty. If you don’t want to hear facts supporting a ballpark in Oakland, don’t ask for them!
Who’s sulking? MLB is working with Oakland which is producing an EIR. I’m interested in that, but the mere mention of it elicits immediate and retarded sarcasm from San Jose Or Bust. It’s okay to act like an idiot on behalf of San Jose, but try to hold a conversation about on the ground current events in the A’s host city, and sheesh you’re a whiny loser boy… I’m only trying to point out how embarrassingly biased you guys are.
@tps: Not all the SJ supporters are necessarily in the same boat. Even though Tony D and I are both behind the SJ option, the way we perceive these unfolding events are drastically different—and that’s fine. My intent was just to encourage Oakland supports to mobilize in a meaningful way to have your voice heard. We all realize that it’s MLB and economic conditions will determine the fate of the A’s but it doesn’t hurt to use a proactive voice to endorse Oakland rather than a reactive voice if that makes sense.
Good point Briggs. These forums are for and by San Jose advocates, so discussion of Oakland is a reactive presence. And I was not too bright to think otherwise once. I’ll let you guys have your fun.
@tps – Nice job twisting Briggs’ words there. It’s impossible to have a cogent debate with you.
@tps Wonderful, another bunch of disingenuous mischaracterizations and misdirection to respond to. Ok, I’m game.
“And round and round we go. Bartleby fixated on his anecdotal wall-across-the-bay damnation of an Oakland ballpark.”
Um, no, not a wall-across-the-bay. Try “excruciating rush hour traffic bottleneck.” Anyone on the site (besides TPS) disagree with this characterization?
Again, this is another bunch of blather to disguise the complete illogic of your idea that Wells Fargo or some other San Francisco corporation is going to tell an important client “Never mind that beautiful ballpark just a few blocks from our office. We’re going to go sit in bridge traffic for an hour to see a game in Oakland!” Oh, and that they’re going to buy about 3-4000 club seats on a full season basis.
“And his love of bogus stats.”
Said the man about to spew a bunch of stats I never said and make up a bunch of others.
.
“Here’s a classic from our favorite fact hater”
Mr. Kettle…
“suddenly several million affluent South Bay residents have convenient access to MLB for the first time.” Exactly how big an exaggeration is this? 10 percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? More? Well, it’s hard to say what he really meant by “several million”
I’ll stick with zero percent. If you admit that “several million” is a vague term and you don’t know what it means, how can you in the next breath claim I’m off by 50 percent? (Answer: You are fundamentally dishonest).
“but I wouldn’t use that term unless I was thinking, at the very least, close to 3 million.”
Or if you were going to make up a number I never said to discredit me and try to draw attention away from your fundamentally ridiculous logic.
I think a figure between 2 and 3 million is fairly characterized as “several million,” and clearly at least that many people will find a San Jose ballpark more convenient than one is downtown Oakland. Try this: 1.7 million in Santa Clara county. 250K in Santa Cruz county. 200K in Fremont. Plus all the folks in Alameda county who actually work in Santa Clara county (I don’t know the number, but its at least a few hundred thousand). That’s at least 2.5 million. We won’t even talk about the people in San Mateo county who will find it easier to get to a ballpark in San Jose than Oakland, since they admittedly already have easy access to MLB in San Francisco.
If you still want to nitpick about this, clearly its because you don’t want to engage on the fundamentally ludicrous concept that, in a market of 7 million people, it makes little sense to place two ballparks within relatively easy reach of about 4 million people and zero ballparks within easy reach of the most affluent 2.5 million people and at least half the regions business base.
“Now, figuring that all Alameda County South Bay residents can ride BART “conveniently” to the Coliseum,”
Well, if we ignore the fact that large numbers of them work in Santa Clara County. And if we ignore the fact that, for whatever reason, relatively few of them actually do ride BART to games.
“and 9% of South Bay residents are below the poverty line,”
Funny how, after all this time, this “poverty line” angle didn’t surface until you were trying to poke holes in my entirely reasonable (and general) estimate. Can we assume you’ll remove all the people in Alameda and Contra Costa counties who are below the poverty lines from your future estimates (since you’ve never done so in the past)?
“there is no way the actual people he’s describing could number higher than 1.5 million.”
Horseshit. It’s at least 2.5 million, and I could argue for more. And – more importantly – at least half the Bay Area business base.
“The gains to be found there just aren’t remotely as sexy as he wants it to sound, hence the outrageous fudging.”
And thus the reason that everyone with real data and a financial stake in this (e.g. two A’s ownership groups and two Giants ownership groups) agrees with me and disagrees with you.
@tps
“What facts will possibly work for you? I’ve listed giant companies that are signed on to Let’s Go Oakland, giant companies that are within 10 miles of JLS, other nearby giant companies like Chevron and Safeway,”
You’ve named about 5-10 big corporations, ignored the fact that at least half of them are in San Francisco or elsewhere and have little reason to buy massive amounts of premium seating for the A’s, and ignored the fact that SLVG alone (which does not include every big corporation in Silicon Valley) numbers several hundred corporations. You’ve also ignored the facts that, currently, there is so little demand for suites at A’s games that the A’s give them away with PARTIAL season ticket packages, and that the Raiders have struggled mightily to sell club seats and suites the entire time they’ve been back in Oakland despite the fact the Niners have very little competing product. And of course, you consistently ignore the fact that everyone with real data and/or actual money at stake disagrees with you. Does that about cover it? No, you’re no friend of facts.
“pointed out that it’s only 35 miles to the core of Silicon Valley (HP, Google, Oracle)”
Again, you are constantly (and disingenuously) throwing out mileage stats, when everyone knows what matters is drive times. Ask people in LA how far 35 miles can be. I’ll say it again: In rush hour traffic, it takes 1 1/2 to 2 hours to get from Page Mill Road in Palo Alto (which is ground zero for Silicon Valley corporate and venture capital money) to your seat at the Coli, versus about an hour to AT&T Park. I don’t care what Google Maps says the “with traffic” drive time is, they’re wrong (just like they’re wrong about how long it takes to get over the Bay Bridge during rush hour). I’ve done this many, many times; I know what I’m talking about.
“The bottom line is Lew Wolff wants to move the team down a few blocks from his hotel, and that’s all you or I can say about the matter with any certainty.”
Oh, crap. Lew Wolff also owns a stake in the Fairmont San Francisco, which according to you might as well be in downtown Oakland. (And as I understand, his stake in both hotels is a minority percentage).
In all seriousness, since you keep spouting this gibberish, I want to see you work up some estimates to show how, if San Jose and Oakland are truly otherwise equal economic opportunities, the increase in value in Wolff’s stake in the Fairmont resulting from an A’s ballpark nearby makes up for compensation he may have to pay to the Giants, delays in the project, etc. Seriously, an A’s ballpark may sell a few more hotel rooms, but it’s going to be noise level. If you disagree, throw out some actual numbers.