This installment comes from San Jose City Hall’s Council Chambers, where the third ballpark EIR outreach meeting is being held. There are less than twenty people in the gallery this time, due in part to Soccer Silicon Valley calling off the dogs for now. As new items come up during the session, I’ll post them here.

Update (22:15): The Q&A was focused on perceived inadequacies in the Draft EIR. They ranged from expanding the traffic study to cover a larger area and the 6-7 p.m. timeframe, to questions about mitigation costs (not currently covered).

That brings up a source of consternation. While there have been recent updates to the Diridon/Arena and Midtown plans to cover new projects, there’s a lack of clarity on how the ballpark will affect more than just the study area. The EIR aims to cover some of this, but there’s a general feeling that there’s no overall vision. Impacts from individual projects are narrowly studied and focused, so there’s no sense of how they are woven into the fabric of the whole community. Whatever happens with the EIR, there will be some heated debate when the Planning Commission holds its hearing on July 12. The first mayoral election will have taken place and the results should at the very least thin the herd for a November runoff.

The start of the baseball season is usually accompanied by two neat statistical news releases. Forbes Magazine’s 2006 team valuation figures are not available, but Team Marketing Report‘s newest MLB Fan Cost Index is. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the elimination of the Coliseum’s third deck led to a 25% increase in the average price of a seat. What is surprising is the fact that many teams with new stadiums are towards the bottom of the list. Granted, most of those teams (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee) have been perennial cellar-dwellers in medium-to-small markets, but there appears to be a clear correlation between on-field success and ticket price. Baltimore and Seattle charged a hefty premium when their teams were more successful and their stadia were newer. As both went into the tank in the last few years, price hikes have been fewer.

To put things into perspective, here are a few more bullet points that you might find interesting:

1. In 1999, the A’s average ticket price was $10.10. That means that in seven years, ticket prices have gone up 118%.
2. 1999 payroll was only $26 million. The current payroll is $62 million, a 138% increase. Pay-to-play is the name of the game.
3. There’s no better indicator of MLB clubs’ revenue disparity than ticket prices. Ten years ago, Boston had the highest ticket price – $15.43. Cincinnati had the lowest – $7.95. Boston still holds the mantle of as ticket price champ, with its average price at $46.46. Kansas City now has the lowest – $13.71. There’s also a multiplier effect because teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs routinely sell their seasons out, as opposed to the oft-lackluster attendance records of the lower-revenue teams.

The Fan Cost Index is frequently cited by analysts and economists, but it tends to paint the fan experience with too broad a brush. Before his untimely passing, Doug Pappas wrote an article for Baseball Prospectus that deconstructed the FCI and sought to obtain more granular, circumstance-based data.

Now that the A’s have raised ticket prices 25% over last season, what’s in store for the remaining years on the Coliseum lease? And what can we expect when a new ballpark is opened? Will it have a China Basin-like pricing structure, or will it look like PNC Park’s tiering system?

A new piece in Slate by SF Weekly contributor Tommy Craggs provides a nice forward for today’s upcoming post on ticket prices. Craggs bemoans the loss of the Coliseum’s upper deck, especially section 310, where he and his friends frequently sat during games. Perhaps a little too romantically he writes, “Underpoliced and sparsely populated, the coliseum’s scruffy upper deck was perfect—the ballpark equivalent of Wyoming.” There’s value in being able to stretch out, place one’s jacket on an adjacent chair, or use the next row of seats as a footrest. It’s also nice to be able to render a printed row and seat assignment useless. Plus it doesn’t hurt that vertical circulation in the Coliseum has always been excellent, making “trading up” quite easy.

Of course, Craggs doesn’t mention that sitting in 310 often made one feel like he was watching the game while actually sitting in Wyoming. Believe me, I’m a cheap guy who loves my bleacher seats and used the “View level” as a reliable fallback when the bleachers were sold out, but the seating bowl’s curvature was not conducive to actually watching a ballgame. I’ve had a chance to sit in every section in the Coliseum, even the odd Loge boxes in the corners that act as not-quite skyboxes. I absolutely sympathize with AN’s Brian in 317 and FreeSeatUpgrade, who have championed the upper deck ever since the announcement to close it was made. Unfortunately, they’re a small subset of A’s fandom, and their counterparts in other cities have been slowly becoming extinct over the past two decades – or at the very least homeless.

The funny thing is that the upper deck vibe hasn’t completely evaporated. It appears to have moved to the Plaza Outfield area (formerly Plaza Bleachers). While these sections are more likely to be sold out for high-demand games, the typical weekday series against Texas or Kansas City will render the Plaza Outfield a veritable pasture. There are far fewer desirable seats (front row for the most part) in Plaza Outfield because so much of the outfield is obstructed by the sheer height of the deck. It’s still an interesting vantage point, especially if one get there early enough to sit in dead center.

My cynical side points to a strictly business ethos in the closing of the upper deck, in that sections 315-319 were too good. Similar seats in other stadia cost upwards of $20. Yet A’s fans were only paying $9, or $1 on Wednesdays. For many, the price of a View level ticket acted as a cover charge, and upon entering the stadium they made a beeline for the Field level. If not trading up, finding a slightly better perch in the upper deck was likely as long as there were plenty of empty seats in the area.

Last September, Craggs also wrote about the ballpark design Wolff unveiled in his August press conference. He alluded to the scarcity issue in that piece as well, though in the throes of a pennant race I doubt anyone was even considering the idea that Wolff would experiment with the stadium in such a drastic way. The days of an A’s being an inexpensive social scene are coming to an end.

Or are they? Certainly there are potentially innovative ways to bring these fans in without completely destroying their wallets, right? The A’s transitioned several season ticket holders from the 300’s during the offseason, but what about the young, spur-of-the-moment types? For them, I think there is a good solution: student sections. It works in college basketball and football, why not at an A’s game? The student sections could be specially designated areas of either the bleachers or upper deck, with discounted tickets and special green T-shirts. Student sections at college hoops and football games tend to be loud, so they’d naturally work for cheering and heckling in baseball. Non-students would be welcome too, but a certain percentage of those seats would be set aside for students – say 500-1,000. At the new ballpark non-premium bar could be built into the stadium for the kids to visit after games – with a ticket stub acting as free admission. The best part is that it would be easy to market ticket packages to schools and students.

Some may argue that this environment is already in place at the Coliseum, but not the way I’ve defined it. The LF bleachers are always raucous due to the culture that’s been there for decades. When the A’s move to new digs, tickets will become even more scarce, which could further push fans away. Why not take a proactive approach and give it a new marketing twist? The more of those young fans can be kept in fold, the more likely they’ll sign up for better seats as they get older, earn more money, have families, etc. Wolff said he likes the “neighborhood” concept being deployed at many new ballparks. Well, Lew, here’s a group of fans just waiting for a neighborhood. What can you do for them?

Furthering the effort to dispel any notion of a hidden agenda, Lew Wolff spoke with Merc scribe Mark Emmons and gave a little more insight into the business operations side of the A’s. Apparently Wolff owns 12% of the team, a partnership (which I assume includes members of the DiNapoli family) owns 13%, and John Fisher controls the rest.

After the warm-fuzzy stuff in the article, they get down to the ballpark issue, which doesn’t reveal anything new on the dealmaking front. However, there appears to be clarification on a number of subjects.

On looking outside the Bay Area:

He will look elsewhere “only if we bomb out here.”

Regarding Oakland:

Wolff said he has not closed the door to Oakland, although there has been no sign of meaningful talks in months. He has been in discussions with Fremont and calls the site adjacent to Interstate 880, currently leased by Cisco Systems, “an excellent location.”

Then onto San Jose (emphasis mine):

Then there’s the question of San Jose, which has twin hurdles: A ballpark presumably would need voter approval, and baseball gave the Giants territorial control of the market. Wolff, who also has been talking with Major League Soccer about bringing a new franchise to the city to replace the Earthquakes, insists he won’t “tilt at windmills” and fight the Giants’ claim.

Added Selig: “San Jose is a dead issue. The thing that holds the sport together is its own internal rules. If you start to break them, you’re going to have anarchy.”

But look at this from earlier in the article::

Yet ask Wolff, a prominent figure in San Jose redevelopment for almost four decades, what would be a good next step in the revitalization of the city’s core, and he says: “If they could get the A’s, that would help.”

After reading the article I had to re-read it again twice. Frankly, I don’t know what to think. Some of the OAFC-ers seem to believe that Wolff and Selig are playing good cop/bad cop on this, though Selig hasn’t been nearly as visible as Wolff and Selig’s given more soundbites to the Marlins’ cause than the A’s (which is likely a vote of confidence in Wolff, not in Loria/Samson). I find it interesting that those who have dealt directly with Wolff have given a near-universal appraisal of the man as a “straight shooter” or any number of words that are synonyms for “honest.” Those who haven’t dealt with Wolff tend to have a more cynical or negative view. I’ve never met Wolff myself, so I can only temper things I’ve heard as a San Jose local (also positive) with the various bits of circumstantial evidence that exist.

Shrugging my shoulders as always…

One more thing – I’ve added “Attendance Watch” to the sidebar. In my previous attendance analyses there has usually been a mention of standard deviation. I haven’t done that yet with the figures because as the statheads usually say: Two weeks into the season is too small a sample size.

Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus wrote a piece analyzing attendance revenue for the four two-team markets. He wondered what effects one team’s success had on the other. After running attendance revenue figures through a regression analysis, Silver surmises that for the most part, one team’s success would have a symbiotic effect on its rival. The notable exception is Chicago, where loyalties seem to run the strongest.

As for the Bay Area, Silver wrote that either team had a slight but positive effect on the other:

Not much to look at here. Multiple choice–this is because (a) there’s a cleaner geographical distinction between the West and East Bays; (b) whatever Mapquest says, you couldn’t get from the Coliseum to SBC Park in 20 minutes if you were flying a Concorde; (c) Bay Area fans are characteristically non-committal and indifferent.

The last point is painfully true. Bay Area people are accustomed to having to drive an hour to get to work and at least 30 minutes to get to entertainment. I know plenty of Peninsula/SF people who never visit the other side of the Bay and East Bay folks who have little idea what the South Bay looks like. That begs the question, “How distinct are the four ‘sides’ of the Bay?” I’ve always thought it was a rather fluid dynamic because of the way I live, but maybe it isn’t. Where does Fremont fit into all of this?

Elsewhere, Chris Isidore of CNN/Money looks at how scarcity is affecting ticket prices and demand. He noted that the average ticket price of an A’s game went up 25% from 2005 to 2006. That number coincides with the newest Fan Cost Index numbers released by Team Marketing Report.

I’d go further into the FCI, but I’ll save that for next week.

The typical questions I’m getting now are “Where is the site?” and “How far is it from BART?” I’ve put together a couple of photos that give a pretty good representation.

First up is wide view of central and south Fremont. The yellow line represents the planned Warm Springs extension. The extension would run 5.4 miles, south from the existing Fremont terminus to Warm Springs. There is also an optional station that could be built in Irvington, roughly halfway between the two ends.

The aerial distance between Warm Springs BART and the Pacific Commons eastern boundary is 1.25 miles. Driving distance is 2.25 miles because there is no straight-line route. The next picture shows potential routes, yellow representing a bus/car route and pink an elevated guideway route for a BART, people mover, light rail, monorail, or aerial tram.

Now let’s look at possible infill transit options. The assessment of positives and negatives is based on data I’ve seen for other transit projects and should be judged as speculative since there are no formally studied cost estimates. It also assumes that the Warm Springs Extension will be built, which is no certainty yet. BART could be extended west to the Pacific Commons site, but it could cost at least $200 million per mile. Because of the cost I will leave a BART extension off the list of solutions in the poll.

• Light Rail (LRT) could run on either surface streets in the area or on an elevated guideway to the area. Cost: $40-70 million per mile. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 5-7 minutes.

  

  Positives: Use of existing street infrastructure, familiarity, proven technology.

  Negatives: If street-based, would be the slowest system due to train sharing the road with cars. Some impact on businesses in affected area as roads are fitted with rails.

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) are buses an “express” variant of the a bus route, with high-tech features (GPS) and fewer stops. Cost: $5-10 million per mile. This would involve separate lanes for buses either along the median or along the curb. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 8-10 minutes.

  

  Positives: Usually will bypass unnecessary stops. Can use existing bus fleets if necessary. Traffic signals can be programmed to detect buses and let them through. Lower infrastructure costs than rail or dedicated guideway options.

  Negatives: May not elicit the same kind of public response as a solution with a dedicated guideway. Shares roads with other traffic.

• Shuttle bus. Cost: unknown. This option would probably use as much existing infrastructure as possible without building new infrastructure. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 10-12 minutes.

  

  Positives: Lowest startup and capital costs. Can accommodate the most stops. Can use existing bus stock, though new buses may need to be ordered as new routes are added. Buses can be easily added to accommodate demand.

  Negatives: Lesser public perception of buses when compared to rail-based service. Can add to short-term congestion before and after games.

• People movers are used throughout the US in airports for inter-terminal automated transportation. Cost: $30-60 million per mile. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 5-7 minutes.

  

  Positives: Less required right-of-way than BART. Lower construction costs when compared to other elevated guideway systems. Often fully automated. Can operate on high frequency headways.

  Negatives: Requires dedicated guideway which may be expensive.

• Aerial tramway (gondola) Cost: $40-70 million per mile. A project is underway in Portland, OR to ferry passengers between two sites using such as system. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 5-8 minutes.

  

  Positives: Possibly lower right-of-way and construction costs than rail options. Less environmental impact than other options. Could have lower maintenance costs. May become a tourist attraction on its own.

  Negatives: May hold an image as less safe than other options because the Bay Area is Earthquake country. Not a mainstream technology that immediately comes to mind as a mass transit solution.

• Personal or Group Rapid Transit (PRT/GRT). Cost: $30-60 million per mile. PRT uses numerous small, 4-8 person cabs on an elevated guideway. GRT uses larger cars that can hold 30 or more. Can run fully automated. Estimated one-way trip time from WSX BART: 5-7 minutes.

  

  Positives: Good on-demand potential. Supporters tout low startup costs.

  Negatives: May not be suited for event-based, high-demand usage such as baseball games. Not a widely deployed solution.

For now I’ve ruled out a pedestrian bridge option because of the 1.25-mile distance between WSX BART and Pacific Commons. The Warm Springs extension could open as early as 2012 should funding materialize. If this funding does not come through, or if the San Jose extension is not funded, the only solution for BART riders would be a bus that runs from the Fremont station. The trip would take 20 minutes. BART carries 15-20% of A’s fans on any given game date. I have not included a monorail in this discussion for the time being because its benefits and costs are covered by other options like the people mover.

In what can be construed as the only positive news to come out City Hall re: the A’s in some time, Oakland officials and the Coliseum Authority agreed to a three-year extension for the A’s. The extension could potentially keep the A’s in the Coliseum through 2013. The structure of the deal is such that the pre-existing deal, which was guaranteed through 2007 and had one-year options through 2010, now guarantees the A’s stay through 2010 and push the options out to 2011-2013. Some of the finer points:

• The lease allows the team to leave with 120 days notice without penalty if it moves to a 40,000-or-more capacity stadium in Alameda County.
• Should the team leave the area, it would have to pay the remainder of its lease and a $250,000 penalty.
• Whether the 2011-2013 years are optional or guaranteed has not yet been finalized.
• The payments will be higher than in the pre-existing lease, totalling $4.7 million over the last five years. The A’s payment for 2006 is only $500K.

On the surface this sounds like a nice reciprocal goodwill gesture, but as I wrote earlier on this matter, simply pushing the options out three more years mostly benefits the A’s since they get a nice safety in case a new ballpark is beset with delays. I suppose it makes City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente look better during an election year, and he certainly needs the help.

Taking off my cynical cap, it’s possible that once the election’s over, Oakland pols can get to work on a good Oakland site. Council member/mayoral candidate Nancy Nadel nixed my Broadway Auto Row idea. I think it deserves a second look.

A second Argus article by Chris De Benedetti has Wolff fielding questions about the seemingly endless rumor mill (yes, I’m partly responsible for this) regarding the A’s intentions. Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty comes to Wolff’s defense:

“I don’t think in any way are the A’s playing us against another community,” said Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents Fremont and grew up there. “The Wolffs are genuine people. They’re the most sincere people I have ever met.”

Wolff tried to quash the rumors as well:

“We don’t have any hidden agenda,” Wolff told The Daily Review last week. “Anyone who’s a sports fan thinks everyone has a hidden agenda. Even if I wanted to go, I couldn’t go.”

Both Wolff and baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, a longtime friend and former college fraternity brother of Wolff’s, also have said they have no intention of challenging the Giants’ territorial rights in Santa Clara County. But supporters of bringing the A’s to the South Bay point out that Wolff has several real estate holdings in San Jose.

The Mulcahy-DiNapoli connection was downplayed as well, simply as longtime business associates:

… the day after meeting with Fremont leaders, television cameras showed Wolff at the A’s-New York Yankees game in Oakland, sitting next to San Jose mayoral candidate Michael Mulcahy.

Mixed messages?

“There is no intention of that,” Wolff said.

He said there was little significance to their visit during the game, adding that Mulcahy owns A’s season tickets near Wolff’s seats and the two have known each other for years. Mulcahy’s cousins are John and Jason DiNapoli, who own a small interest in the A’s and have partnered with Wolff in some San Jose real estate deals.

“I’ve been a friend and a business partner with Lew Wolff for 30 years,” Mulcahy said. “He’s a supporter of mine.”

Finally, Wolff issues a “firm” denial:

“We really want to stay in California, in the Bay Area, in the East Bay,” he said.

“I don’t know how many times I have to say that.”

So are you satisfied with the responses? I know one thing: when this saga has finally played out and the A’s have a new home, this blog will make for some interesting – and at times painful – retrospective reading.

Props to De Benedetti for tackling the rumor mill head-on.

The Argus’s Chris De Benedetti reports that Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz is exuding confidence regarding the city’s chances of luring Fremont.

“I think we are the lead candidate for the new home of the A’s,” Diaz added. “If there’s a deal to make for both the A’s and the City of Fremont, then we’ll find it and make that happen.”

Though little news has emerged in the last week, the article appears to further confirm Fremont’s now frontrunner status. Lew Wolff even has a few words for naysayers who dislike the current lack of transportation options at the Pacific Commons site:

“Everybody is looking for the negative here,” he said. “There are lots of issues, and we’ll deal with all of them. I don’t have all the answers this minute.”

There will have to be three or four distinct mass transit solutions.

• Shuttle from the existing Fremont BART station
• Shuttle from the planned Warm Springs BART station (if it’s built)
• ACE/Amtrak to the planned Pacific Commons station
• Bus/shuttle from Santa Clara County

Wolff also reaffirmed the notion that he’s not looking for a public subsidy.

The long, bitter battle between Santa Clara County and San José appears to finally be over. A $33.5-36.5 million settlement to be paid by the City will go towards a new crime lab (excellent idea IMO). City and County had squared off in dueling lawsuits over County’s desire to build a 7,000-seat, House of Blues-run concert hall on the County Fairgrounds. City wanted the concert hall downtown, either next to the new City Hall or across the street from St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The settlement doesn’t mention anything about the concert hall, which leaves County with a dilemma: Do they go forward with it? Frankly, putting a swanky auditorium on County Fairgrounds makes little sense due to its location and lack of ancillary development, and when accounting for rising costs and litigation expenses, the concept may be less feasible than before. There happens to be one other venue that, because of a similar white elephant status, is now closed: Henry J. Kaiser Center in Oakland. SF’s Bill Graham Civic Auditorium and SJ’s Civic Auditorium have also struggled at times. Here’s a suggestion for County: a soccer/football stadium with adjoining fields.

Beyond the concert hall, there are a few important impacts. Chief among them is that City will be able to go forward on its North San Jose development plans. City will still need to contribute other money for transit projects and it has issues to iron out with neighboring Santa Clara and Milpitas, but this is basically a green light. While most of the first phase of 5,000 housing units is spoken for, plans eventually call for up to 32,000 homes and 26.7 million square feet of office space. The glut of available commercial space makes office expansion unlikely, but homes can work should related infrastructure be built accordingly.

This potentially opens the door for the A’s, who would have difficulty putting 2,000 homes anywhere near the Diridon South site (my guess is about 800-1000 tops). As part of a ballpark deal, SJ Redevelopment could local steer local tech firms with excess land towards the A’s. That would allow the financing of a ballpark to take place and, more importantly, create a more palatable ballot measure for June 2007 that looks quite similar to the deal SF made with the Giants – only the A’s wouldn’t be overly dependent on ballpark-based revenue streams to pay the mortgage.

One problem with the deal: the settlement will come out of City’s Redevelopment funds – the same funds that are being used to buy Diridon South. Will City have to sell additional land to finish the Diridon South purchase? Or will the payment occur after Diridon South is purchased?