With the Warm Springs and San Jose BART extensions running into major funding-related delays, you may be surprised to know there’s an alternative virtually nipping at its heels. It’s not increased Amtrak service or Caltrain running into the East Bay. It’s the state’s high speed rail initiative. CAHSR is being pitched as an alternative to personal intra-state air and freeway travel, particularly trips between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Proponents claim that a trip from SF to LA would be around 2:30, the length of a well-pitched A’s game. Best of all, the 1-2 hour prep time needed to arrive at the airport and check in would be reduced to about 15 minutes. The cost? $40 billion, same as the value of all of the infrastructure bills passed last November. The first $10 billion is supposed to be covered by a bond measure that’s slated for referendum in 2008. That appears to be the biggest problem in getting HSR on the ballot, as Governor Schwarzenegger appears heavily reluctant to put his weight behind the proposal unless, as he puts it, there is venture capital or other private means to help out with funding. And it definitely won’t be built in a day, as construction could start in 2009 at the earliest with service actually beginning in 2020. That’s right, 2020.

The project has gone through numerous levels of planning over the past decade, and pretty soon it’ll be time to find out if it’ll happen. Environmental impact reports have largely been completed, leaving a few major issues other than the funding to sort out. Chief among those is the route the line will take between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. One has the line running through Pacheco Pass, whereas the other runs near I-580 through Altamont Pass. Naturally, both have their local advocates. The Pacheco Pass option has new CAHSR board member Rod Diridon (former county supe and transit magnate) and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group behind it. Altamont Pass has Stuart Cohen and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition on its side. Either option would have large unavoidable expenses: Pacheco would require extensive tunneling and is not environmentally friendly, Altamont requires a bay crossing (either near the Dumbarton Bridge or via a new Transbay Tube). As it stands, the South/East Bay layout looks like this (station locations labeled in blue, Cisco Field is the red “X”):

The light green line represents the East Bay section that runs down to San Jose. The nice thing about the East Bay section is that even though it runs on a separate line from BART, it’s set up to link directly to BART. All three Oakland stations, Union City, and Warm Springs would have multimodal operations. There would also be a fast, direct link between Pleasanton/Livermore/Tracy and the South Bay and Livermore-to-SF would finally be real instead of those residents waiting for a BART extension to materialize. However, the service wouldn’t run nearly as frequently as BART, so HSR shouldn’t be considered a complete replacement for BART. There’s potential for other regional rail services to run on the HSR tracks. For instance, ACE Rail could be transformed into such a service and it could serve more stations along the line, while express trains bypass the ACE stations. Another option is a modified version of the Caltrain Metro East concept.

BART and HSR have other differences as well. BART utilizes a wide gauge, electric third rail system similar to the Washington Metro and Atlanta MARTA, and its top speed is 80 mph. HSR would use overhead electric wires on regular gauge rails, similar to high speed trains used in Europe. The closest US-based relative to HSR would be Amtrak’s Boston-to-DC Acela Express service, which uses similar trains but shares tracks with freight trains. Top speed for HSR is projected to be 225 mph, though that speed would only be approached in the Central Valley (Bay Area speeds would be less than 120 mph due to noise concerns and the higher number of stations in close proximity to one another). Both BART and HSR would run on dedicated guideways, free from congestion and the potential for accidents with passenger cars.

The real issue among supporters of HSR is the lack of consensus among them. At some point the Bay Area-Central Valley route will be established, which will resolve a good deal of the infighting. Beyond that, there’s a philosophical issue: How should HSR be positioned? While the original vision was for a cheap, environmentally friendly alternative to 737’s in the air and SUV’s on I-5, others have latched onto the concept of HSR acting as a good commuter train option. Consider a commuter train that makes the trip from Tracy to San Francisco in less than an hour. Or a San Jose to Warm Springs trip in 8-12 minutes (!). It sounds too good to be true, but if you want proof check out the performance of the same technology in Europe – or better yet try it yourself if you ever go there – and you’ll see it’s possible.

The commuter-versus-intercity debate is interesting because it actually pits certain environmental factions against each other. On one hand, the commuter option isn’t getting emphasized because having a fast commuter train – especially one far faster than driving – could lead to increased sprawl as even more workers flee for the exurbs for more affordable and now more accessible housing. That has the land use folks worried. On the other hand, posing HSR as mostly a long distance replacement means you might not win over commuters who could potentially be off the freeways if the plan wasn’t realized.

The great thing about the possibility of HSR is that it could significantly benefit the A’s after they head down to Fremont, and they’d have little to do with HSR’s development. Fresno-based fans could get to the ballpark in just over an hour. A few minutes less if they’re coming from Sacramento. I could conceivably leave work at 3 on Friday and head down to Anaheim to catch the first of a three game A’s-Angels set, since the Anaheim HSR station would be very close to Angel Stadium. That is, if the Angels are staying in Anaheim after 2015.

Whatever your feelings are on high speed rail, the people in power need to get off their asses to get this on the ballot in 2008. It’s already been delayed twice, and delaying it further in hopes of getting a certain type of political climate will only raise the costs of the project and waste large amounts of preparatory work that have already been completed. The governor can’t pussyfoot around. And the private industry groups like SVLG and its member should get their wallets ready if they’re really behind the plan. Then we can know for certain if high speed rail is for real, or as the kids say, pipe.

Notes: HSR supporters have been pressing the media in recent weeks. Former State Senator Quentin Kopp wrote an opinion piece for Friday’s Chronicle. Kopp is CAHSR’s board chair. If you’re looking for a point of comparison, the San Jose/Warm Springs BART extensions will cost an estimated $5.5 billion to go 21 miles. For more information on CAHSR, check out SF Cityscape’s HSR forum.

Earlier this week former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison submitted a letter to Fremont’s City Council (posted in the Tri City Voice) urging caution in their dealing with the A’s. Morrison wrote, “I have long thought this project was one where the cart seemed to be getting far ahead of the horse.” He went on to suggest that “a Fatal Flaw Analysis ought to be performed to find out if there are things in this project which could kill it.” Among those, parking and ingress/egress were considered paramount.

Morrison is absolutely right. It took a while for the Council to get the report and it’s taking longer for them to get the plan, which appears to be getting out to different stakeholders on a piecemeal basis. I don’t know what goes on in the twice-a-month sessions, but I hope that it’s not the same kind of situation.

To the Council’s credit, they’ve expressed their interest in being part of the planning process. Paraphrasing council member Anu Natarajan, she cautioned the A’s that she didn’t want to receive an already packaged plan without going through proper planning steps.

While Morrison’s concerns are well placed, he may be jumping the gun a bit. The key indicator of this is the reported number of condos and townhomes in the project, which seems to vary with each newly released piece of information. It shows that the plan is still undergoing major gestation. What isn’t clear is how much the city is helping to scope it out. If anything, the only part with real detail is the core village area. Everything else lacks detail. It is that “everything else” that will be heavily debated over the next few months.

If the plan were submitted today based on the graphic released for FUSD, it probably wouldn’t pass. Vice-Mayor Bob Wieckowski, who Morrison endorsed previously, clearly said that placing the school on the public parcel outside the neighborhood was a non-starter. And there’s no way the plan would work with only Auto Mall Parkway as the single major freeway access point, especially if the Fremont Boulevard/Cushing Parkway interchange can be utilized. Thankfully, there are ways to address these concerns. They’ll require compromise from both the A’s and Fremont. As I noted in my review of the economic impact report, there are creative ways to make everything work.

Of course, the cart-horse analogy should be studied further. It would appear that in this case, the A’s are both cart and horse. I suppose that makes the City of Fremont the reins.

If you haven’t had a chance to download the ballpark village plan at the Merc’s website, you really should. It’s a good snapshot of what the developer’s vision is now, prior to an inevitable series of changes – hopefully all for the good.

While studying the plan further over the weekend, I noticed that some graphical elements would quickly flash on the screen and then disappear as I scrolled through the drawing. I had seen this with my own mock-ups, which got me thinking there was more to this document than met the eye. I proceeded to open the file in a graphics program. Lo and behold – there was more under the surface!

I thought it was odd that the condos (yellow-gold) would be arranged in large, monolithic buildings. Upon further inspection, there was a good deal of extra space set aside for parking. Since there are 560 residential units in the core village area, there would have to be at least that many spaces for residents, plus a set number of visitor spots. The rest of the parking could be split between the retail part of the village and the ballpark. I’m assuming there’d be one level of garage parking, but it’s possible there could be two levels. The layout of the residential-only buildings allows for large plazas above the parking, which will be needed as all of the elements are set rather tightly with limited amounts of open space at street level.

When looking at the plan it’s easy to ignore the legend at the right. The legend’s explanations pull everything together – sort of. The numbers deserve to be explained further – and once that’s done it starts to really take shape.

• Building B1 – Ballpark
• B2 – Left field building, mixed use, 11 residences
• B3 – Right field building, mixed use, 13 residences
• V1 – Residential, 89 units
• V2 – Commercial, 140,000 s.f.
• V3 – Residential, 87 units
• V4 – Mixed use, 44 units, 48,000 s.f.
• V5 – Residential, 57 units
• V6 – Mixed use, 24 units, 56,000 s.f.
• V7 – Mixed use, 28 units, 71,000 s.f.
• V8 – Commercial, 30,000 s.f.
• V9 – Mixed use, 100 units, 77,000 s.f.
• V10 – Mixed use, 23 units, 34,000 s.f.
• V11 – Mixed use, 52 units, 29,000 s.f.
• V12 – Commercial, 3,000 s.f.
• V13 – Mixed use, 54 units, 30,000 s.f.

V11, V12, and V13 are not labeled in the drawing, but I’m certain that V11 and V13 are the J-shaped buildings attached to B2 and B3, while V12 is effectively a glorified kiosk in the middle of the park. BTW, it looks like B2 and B3 will have residences overlooking the field.

V9 has to be the busiest piece outside of the ballpark because it contains the hotel, a relatively large amount of parking, and 100 housing units to boot. V2 and V7 are potential homes for larger retailers.

The core village is over 20% smaller than Santana Row in terms of acreage and retail/commercial space. There are fewer than half the residences as well. While the buildings will vary in height and cladding, they probably won’t be as tall as their Santana Row counterparts.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the ballpark’s footprint. The artist placed a bitmap over the top of the footprint, but I removed it and what’s left is a most unusual outfield design. There’s no indication that the Polo Grounds-like outfield will carry over to the final project. Nonetheless it is a change of pace from the all too commonplace bandbox design we’ve seen elsewhere. This is one element I’d take with a grain of salt.

The overview planning document that was shared with the Fremont Unified school board is now available, courtesy of the Merc and Barry Witt.

Witt’s article has quotes from former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison, including a “scathing critique of Wolff’s proposal.” The excerpt:

Morrison, the former mayor, said he doesn’t see how a shuttle bus system would function from the remote lots given their distance from the park and the absence of mass-transit close to the stadium.

‘You’ve got to move about 500 people a minute’ into and out of the stadium, he said. ‘It just doesn’t work.’

That assumes a shuttle bus system is in play. There’s certainly no guarantee of a shuttle bus going to the remote parking lots. Should the Warm Springs BART extension materialize, it is thought that shuttle buses would be running from the station, which would be 1.5 miles away. Add shuttles from the remote parking lots and the area traffic associated with the existing shopping center, and you have a recipe for gridlock. When Wolff mentioned “a comfortable walking distance” previously, I think it means walking, not shuttling. I’ll let the individual decide if 3/4-mile is overly arduous.

In reference to the proposed school site, Vice Mayor Bob Wieckowski asked, “Who wants to be next to the dump?” He argued that the community will not support the proposed site.

Another coming bone of contention is the layout. The light green areas are housing sites, while the dark green areas are parkland of some sort, whether they are pocket parks or greenbelt space. 14 acres of parkland are in the plan. My worry is about the greenbelt established at the edges of the housing area. To preserve the wetlands area next door, there should be a much larger buffer, and I sense there will be an active fight to expand and define that greenbelt, at the expense of land available for housing and potentially for other public purposes, such as a school.

The plan looks similar to the mock-ups I’ve put together in the past, but there’s a surprise. The parking area closest to the ballpark village includes the concrete plant, but only a portion of the Brandin Court properties. The Scott Gas property, in particular, is not included in the parking assessment. Is that a sign of continuing uncertainty regarding negotiations, or is it simply that those properties are currently occupied? An additional 1000 spaces are available if the entire Brandin Court area is included.

The last several months I’ve written a few articles about casual fans and their impact on the A’s. Not season ticket holders, not hardcore fans. Why? Because casual fans are the bulk of attendance, and have been for a long time. They are also the great variable, since numerous factors can affect their desire to choose the A’s over other forms of entertainment, whether the substitutes are Giants games, other sporting events, or entirely different types of entertainment.

The casual fan, who usually brings a spouse/SO or friends/family, has his own decision-making process. Maybe he wants to tailgate before the game. Maybe he’s interested in the opponent or star players. Maybe the A’s are doing well, maybe they’re not. Maybe they don’t care much for baseball or sports in general. Race may be a factor in determining whether he wants to go or not, but how much? Please enlighten me, because I can’t see how casual fan gives it that much thought.

How much does the black/latin player disparity matter? Is that phenomenon something that can even be linked to something as localized as attendance patterns? Do casual fans care much that Milton Bradley was a black player? Or that the team’s makeup is mostly white, then latin?

Now there are some that choose not to go because the stadium is in Oakland and they feel it’s unsafe. Then there are others who’ll go to Oakland only for A’s games or other Coliseum events but never go elsewhere in Oakland because of their own prejudices. Which is worse? Is that institutional racism? Or is it someone expressing their personal preference, even if it is ignorant? When does the abundance of personal prejudice become institutional?

To extend that further, let’s say ownership knew that the above attitudes were somewhat prevalent and they factored that into their decision-making on where to build a ballpark. Can they quantify it? And can you? Because if they/you can’t, it’s very difficult to say it’s anymore important than, say, access to BART, land availability, municipal politics, or true economic factors. These days it’s difficult to run a business on a notion that’s hard to substantiate. Quantify it, and we can have a real discussion. Until then, it’s just a hot-button topic that unfortunately hasn’t changed much in the A’s nearly 40-year residence in Oakland. If the perception problem is as bad as some say, it’s even worse that not much has been done to change it.

Chris De Benedetti reports that Keith Wolff and A’s consultant Jim Cunneen will present their plan at a FUSD board meeting tonight. FUSD has been keenly aware that there’s no elementary school at Pacific Commons and at the very least one would be required there for the projected 700 grade school students. Some accommodations would have to be made for a large number of secondary school students as well.

New to the plan is the concept of placing the school on the city’s 40-acre parcel, where a train station and park are planned. It seems like a reasonable use for the property, but there’s one issue: the school would be separated from the neighborhood by at least the 0.6 miles I cited earlier. The school would be far more attractive if it were well integrated into the neighborhood, but using city land would be a much cheaper alternative. FWIW I’d rather see a land swap between the two parties to make the school work within the neighborhood confines – important since the residential area will be a gated/limited access area.

Not much happening right now regarding the Fremont project, but I’ve heard noises about another report in the offing. We’ll see soon enough. On a related note, Fremont officials and staffers held a closed session last Tuesday to discuss the 40-acre parcel west of the planned ballpark village. The A’s are looking at this parcel for parking, while prior plans originally called for a mix of a public park next to the future transit hub/train station. The parcel’s eastern tip (closest to the ballpark site) is approximately 0.6 mile away from the ballpark.

Over in Phoenix, debt raised to build Chase Field (previously Bank One Ballpark) is about to be retired an astonishing 19 years earlier than expected. The “BOB” opened in 1997 and was funded by a 59%-41% public-private mix, the public part being a 1/4-cent sales tax hike in Maricopa County. According to the article, “All tax revenue portions for funding the stadium were met before it opened, meaning no taxes have been used toward the stadium since November 1997.” Before you ask, don’t think this is in any way feasible in the Bay Area. Paying off the BOB worked because the Phoenix metro’s staggering growth over the last 20 years. That kind of growth is not anticipated in the Bay Area, where redevelopment has become the operative word, not sprawl.

Down in San Jose, Lew Wolff and Merc reporter Barry Witt appear to be firing a few indirect jabs at each other. First up was Witt’s interview of Wolff for Valley AM station KLIV-1590. I didn’t listen to it myself, but many Quakes faithful apparently like how Wolff went after Witt’s line of questioning. Sunday’s edition of the Merc had a Witt article describing how other area developers oppose rezoning of the Edenvale property, which would largely fund the Quakes’ stadium project. Among the opposition is billionaire Carl Berg, who wanted some nearby Evergreen land that he owns rezoned. Berg was denied the zoning change, which not coincidentally was industrial-to-residential, similar to what Wolff is seeking but without the promised additional development (stadium + commercial west of SJC at the old FMC plant). To add more intrigue to the situation, Berg was once owner of the Quakes in the early 80’s. Witt also threw in the prospect of IKEA placing a store on the Edenvale property. I’ve heard little to suggest that IKEA is really interested even though its plans for a Dublin store fell through.

The Quakes’ situation brings to light something I hadn’t thought about until recently. One thing that could sink the Quakes’ stadium deal is the possibility of capital gains taxes that the developers (Wolff et al) would have to pay post-rezoning. It stands to reason that an even larger capital gain would occur with Fremont. While I’m certain they’re investigating all manner of ways to mitigate the impact of capital gains taxes (*cough* loopholes *cough*), for a non beancounter such as me, it’s still a head-scratcher.

So this is what passes in the Bay Area as a bidding war. Two cities, separated by 40 miles on a major freeway. One is a world-renowned city with image and attitude to spare. The other is a much smaller suburb hoping to bring in entertainment and tourist dollars.

What do San Francisco and Santa Clara have in common? Both have two of the original missions founded by Father Junipero Serra. Both have Catholic, West Coast Conference universities. The City counts GAP and Bechtel among its corporate headquarters. Santa Clara has Intel and Applied Materials. And of course, both have pieces of the 49ers: SF has the history and current stadium on its side, Santa Clara has the current headquarters/training facility.

The media is painting the situation as a tug-of-war for the team, and the NFL is doing whatever they can to perpetuate this notion by having officials visit both cities on consecutive days. Gavin Newsom gave a pull today when he said there was “no way to justify” a potential $180 million stadium investment by Santa Clara. Great America’s operator, Cedar Fair, also entered the fray by announcing their opposition to the Santa Clara project, saying that the stadium could adversely affect their operations. Cedar Fair left an opening for compromise.

There’s a fundamental problem with all of this posturing: Nobody’s offering anything. Since a report in April about the possible use of a utility reserve, Santa Clara has been skittish about pronouncing any level of financial support, let alone a method. Cedar Fair’s position mucks up the works a bit because it is essentially a hand outstretched (enormous parking garage, anyone?) San Francisco, despite its bluster, hasn’t really pledged anything except for a site, which may or may not be ready by the time the team wants to start construction.

Unfortunately for the 49ers, they’re stuck with the economic reality. It’s all too easy to compare the A’s plans favorably (no cash outlay by Fremont, financing method fairly transparent). But let’s keep in mind that the 49ers’ stadium will be twice as big and twice as expensive as the A’s. Value engineering won’t net big savings. Uncertainty causes delay, and delay means money. The Niners are counting on a revamped loan program from the NFL to provide the bulk of funds, yet the NFL can’t just rubber stamp a deal since the Raiders, Saints , and Vikings are still in play and they’ll be looking for loans as well.

The Niners aren’t perpetuating the bidding war myth. They’ve been upfront about Santa Clara as Plan A, while SF is a far off Plan B. That could be to curry favor with Santa Clara. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the reality is that it’s too damned expensive to build a NFL stadium these days. I’m not a Niners fan, but for many of my friends’ sake, I hope they stay in the Bay Area. I’m just glad I don’t have to figure it out.

Back from some other responsibilities, and I figure we’re overdue for a new installment of Attendance Watch. As you can see from the sidebar, this year’s A’s are nearly 100,000 better than last year’s. They’re also nearly 50,000 above 2005’s YTD mark. 

So why are the A’s doing better? It’s not on-field performance since the A’s have the same 37-31 mark as they did at this juncture last season. There are a few possible explanations:

• Yankees. Last season’s opening homestand featured the Yanks, who sold out all three games. However, this robbed the A’s of an additional sellout because they could’ve had any team visit on opening night and have gotten a sellout. This season, the Yanks were the second team in, allowing the A’s to have four sellouts during the first homestand (3 Yankees, 1 White Sox). Each sellout represents an additional 10,000+ attendees.
• Red Sox. The Red Sox did not visit the Coliseum in 2006 until the second half, and the series was your garden variety weekday, three-game set. This season’s visit from the Sox was also a weekday set, but it was four games, not three. Surprisingly, there were no sellouts this time despite the Sox holding the best record in baseball when they visited (though Sox fans were by no means underrepresented). 
• Weather. Some have dismissed my theory that weather plays a part, but there definitely appears to be some effect, albeit one difficult to measure. The dry spring we’ve had in California has been much more conducive to bringing out casual fans than the wet spring of 2006. Temperatures have been fairly steady (cool), but rain has to be a huge deterrent. Simply watch the A’s day-of-game ticket operations when rain has fallen prior to a game. There’s a difference. 

As well as the turnstile performance has looked, expect the curve to flatten out over the rest of the season. The A’s are on pace to break 2 million. Once again, the A’s second half on-field performance will play a factor. Should they remain close in a race with the Angels and Mariners, the fans will come. If not, 2 million could be a reach.

This week’s series against the Reds should find the gap between 2007 and 2006 shrinking ever so slightly. The weather forecast? More of the usual for Monday and Tuesday, temps around 60 degrees at first pitch and dropping down a few ticks by the end of each game.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel baseball columnist Mike Berardino praised the A’s ballpark plans and thinks the Marlins should consider downsizing its planned 38,000-seat ballpark in an effort to to reduce their current $30 million funding gap. Not a bad idea, IMHO. It doesn’t resolve the need for a retractable roof in the Miami area, but that’s another kettle of fish.

Berardino goes on to laud other aspects of the project:

Another aspect of the A’s plan that is refreshing is the limited reliance on public funds.

Wolff, 69, has already secured purchasing rights for 226 acres that would be used for the proposed Ballpark Village. The A’s new home would eat up $450 million of the planned $1.8 billion redevelopment deal, a project that would include a hotel, nearly 3,000 luxury townhouses and 550,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space.

There is also talk of an A’s-funded school on the property.

The club would fund the vast majority of that overhaul. No bond issues. No grab for general funds.

“I’m basically a developer that does urban redevelopment,” Wolff said. “I’ve learned over the years, the more cookies you take out of the public jar, the sicker you get. It’s really good for the public and private side to minimize trying to use funds that can go to other priorities.”

Now you might say Wolff has little choice but to go this route after the Giants built their new home across the bay without taxpayer assistance, but it’s still nice to hear such straight talk from a member of baseball’s ownership fraternity.

Talk of an A’s-funded school? If there’s one thing that could really make the project a winner, that’s it. That said, let’s wait to find out the true infrastructure costs before declaring it a no-brainer.