Greener Grass, Episode 7: Transportation Proclamation
by jeffro on Nov 24, 2009 10:33 AM PST
Email
PrintSo far, the frog in my pocket and I have looked at potential relocation markets, Bay Area dynamics specifically, San Jose process progress, potential sites in Oaktown, attendance history in Oaktown, and stadium culture suggestions.
Today we want to talk about the biggest downside to the potential San Jose stadium: Transportation.
First, let's qualify this thesis a bit. Diridon is very well situated from a transportation perspective. There is a freeway within a 1/4 mile of the site. There is a Caltrain, VTA Light Rail and Amtrak station adjacent to the proposed site. Some would point to the eventual HSR terminal as well as BART to Silicon Valley extension as transportation strengths. We won't, however.
We won't for two reasons. First, these two initiatives are still in flux a bit. They are "working themselves out" so to speak. Second, even if they are completed in the original time frames, a stadium would be in Downtown San Jose for at least 5 years before BART or HSR. So what is an East Bay fan to do?
So let's assume it is one year from now. San Jose voters have given their approval to the City's plan for the stadium (details of which we can only infer at this point). MLB has decided that it is in the leagues best interest to keep the A's in the Bay Area and for this market to operate like LA, Chicago and NY and the entire 7 county territory is shared. In Short, Lew Wollf and the Fisher's are moving forward with San Jose. The frog in my pocket says that in this scenario the A's will be playing in downtown San Jose in April, 2014.
This means that the transportation landscape will be pretty much exactly as it is today, minus one new BART station closer to the South Bay but still nowhere near Diridon from a pedestrian perspective. Milpitas is anticipated to follow sometime after, like around 2018. Actually, the linked FAQ seems to imply the entire line being completed by 2018, which at this point means through the Berryessa Station. That puts Milpitas Station's opening around 2016.
A transit system map, just for fun:
The VTA Light Rail, at least the stations germane to our discussion (via obiwan2900)
So this means that the transportation situation in San Jose will be an evolving one. We, the frog in my pocket and I, are going to look at it in three phases. We will call them "Day One through 2016," "2016 through 2020," and "Utopia." So, without further adieu.
DO-2016
The first thing we will all have to do, us East Bay fans is admit we ain't getting there via single mode of transportation unless we drive all the way. That's no fun, to just post driving times we mean. So, we are going to assume that we have to take VTA Light Rail at some point in our journey.
It just occurred to us that "East Bay" is kind of a vast area. We are picking two cities in particular, Pleasanton (cause we live there) and Berkeley (cause Nico lives there) as starting points for our maptastic adventures.
One other stipulation. We are not going to count on shuttles from Fremont BART or any other such imaginary nonsense. Until, of course, it is no longer imaginary.
Berkeley first. My first thought is that traveling to San Jose from this city might be a virtual portal to a bygone era best depicted in one of my favorite movies ever. Or that dumb Babe Ruth pic staring John Goodman.
A Train Ride! (via obiwan2900)
Admittedly, there are problems with this plan. Like for instance, the latest return train on the Capitol Corridor is way before the game is over. It departs at 7:35 per the schedule found here (WARNING: it's a PDF). And, that only adds to the fact that you'd have to be on a train for 3 hours all told.
Second, Pleasanton. For this trip let's drive to a VTA station and train on in to the stadium? Shall we?
This is probably the best bet:
The I880 Light Rail Station (via obiwan2900)
The "A" in the picture above is a Light Rail station near the crossing on 880 and 237. How long would it take to get there from Pleasanton?
A Table showing driving times on Tuesdays trough Thursdays according 511.org (via obiwan2900)
Not so bad. 23 minutes on the quickest route. But according to the VTA trip planner, we'd actually have to leave at about 5:30 for this to get us to the ballpark in time for a weeknight game. Because it would take 52 minutes.Driving all the way is a much better option (thinking about time only, not carbon footprints) from the 680 corridor.
Driving all the way is much quicker from the 680 corridor (via obiwan2900)
So, from two East Bay spots in Phase 1, the transportation options suck raw eggs. Driving from Eastern Alameda County and Southern Contra Costa County isn't horrible, but no BART makes just about all mass transit options implausible. Driving from Berkeley sucks. 511.org puts weekday driving at about an hour and half from the land of the tree sitters. Basically, about as long as the train trip.
2016-2020
A brave new world! BART in Santa Clara County!!!!! Oh, wait. We are getting ahead of ourselves. Oh, wait we are supposed to be getting ahead of ourselves!
East Bay fans, 2016 is waaaaaayyyyy easier than the first 2 years of San JosA's. Why you ask? Cause all you have to do is jump on BART and head to Milpitas Station where you can grab a light rail train. Where is Milpitas Statsion you ask? A picture:
Montague VTA Light Rail ("A" marks the spot), the future connecting point of BART and Santa Clara County (via obiwan2900)
Joyus Day! Or not so fast, because actually taking BART and jumping on Light Rail will probably take longer than the train or the driving for our two East Bay spots. No official estimate could be found by me or the frog in my pocket. But Currently, from Pleasanton to Fremont takes about 30 minutes and then from Montague to downtown San Jose takes an hour... From Berkeley to Fremont takes 50 Minutes. We have to add in some time to go through Warm Springs and get to Milpitas. We have to add some to get from BART to Light Rail.
So even though we are making progress, it will take longer to get from our East Bay spots with the improvements in phase 2 than it took in phase 1. And it won't be anymore convenient than it was. So we make it through 6 years and the transportation situation will be pretty much as it is today. Moving right along...
Utopia
Some time after 2020 (assuming we all lived past 2012 and all) a transportation utopia awaits. Trains moving faster than Superman will be streaming into the depot from all corners of the great state of California. BART will make convenience an option for us East Bay types. Here is the map:
One mode of transport from anywhere! (via obiwan2900)
That'll be the day!
So in summary... people who think transportation is a problem for the East Bay fans are right. Hopefully something will be worked out (shuttles from BART, Capitol Corridor running later). Assuming San Jose is it.
115 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice work
I can’t even begin to imagine how much effort it took you to compile all of the maps/travel times.
The obvious (short-term) solution for East Bay residents is the extension of Capital Corridor hours on game days (IIRC this is already done to get Sactown fans to the Coliseum). However, these issues are definitely a concern, as you note, for the vast legions of A’s fans who are not very close to one of those stops (basically anyone who does not live in West Oakland/Berkeley) such as Contra Costans, who make up a sizable portion of the current fan base. While BART to SJ is in the works, and may come to fruition, we need to remember that baseball fandom is a fickle thing, and a five year spell with complete headaches getting to a new SJ stadium will likely lose many of these fans.
From my own point of view: I live in North Oakland, near Rockridge BART. Right now, travel time to the Coliseum is about 20 minutes, including a train transfer. If the team were to move to SJ, I would surely continue to follow them, as I would be intimately familiar with the development of young players, etc. But if I am unable to attend games because a 7pm start requires leaving Oakland before 5pm, over time it would be only natural for me to begin fading in support. I already attend 5-10 Giants games per year, and although I have many gripes with that franchise and fanbase, I must admit a soft spot for Lincecum and Sandoval (if they could only put some other exciting players on the field as opposed to Randy Winn and Edgar Renteria). Seeing as getting to ATT from North Oakland takes about 30 minutes, and I do work in the city several days a week, attending Giants games becomes a much more realistic proposition than remaining a die-hard A’s fan. After a few years of declining fervency in my A’s attendance and fandom, I would probably end up switching more of my attention (and baseball fan dollar) to the Giants simply because they play closer to my home and work. Even if a BART extension does come along after 5-10 years in SJ, it will likely be too late for me and many fans in my same position (near BART in East Oakland/Berkeley or Contra Costa). The A’s and MLB will have to decide whether or not it will be worth sacrificing us (most of the current fanbase) in hopes of creating a new one in the south bay.
The Giants, on the other hand, should not be so upset about their rights being infringed upon with a potential SJ park—all the current fans in the south bay/peninsula will still have easy access to ATT via Caltrain, and the Gnats will be able to more easily cultivate a fanbase in the East Bay as they will be the more convenient option for a casual fan or late-planner.
I hear you, but why?
Why if the Giants are not expecting any sort of loss in fan base would they be fighting tooth and nail against an A’s move south?
My guess would be more corporate than anything
Look at the sponsors around ATT: Yahoo!, Cisco Systems, etc. would all be likely partners in a SJ park and would hurt the Giants’ ability to attract them. Also—everyone is always more comfortable with the status quo (including fans), and the Giants already know they have a stranglehold on the current situation so will just resist any movement for change, even if in terms of sheer numbers it would likely give them an edge.
My only point is that, in terms of putting butts in the seats, the A’s would have to find a fanbase in the south bay on their own, and should not operate under an assumption that even a majority of current fans would stay with the team for the long haul. I’m not saying it cannot be done, but the recent troubles of the Nats (albeit with an inadequate on-field product) demonstrate the difficulty of trying to establish a fan base in a new area even if there seems to be a baseball void.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 22, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions
I hear you again. My only quibble is
Montreal to DC is not San Jose.to Oakland.
I go and see the A’s play maybe 20 times a year. I follow them mostly on radio and TV. This will not be affected by a move to San Jose. I drive most nights to A’s games because even with parking it is cheaper with a family of 5 to drive then to take BART.
It is really a stretch to compare the Expos to the A’s.
You're right jeffro,
impacts will be different for everyone, as families in southern Alameda County will probably face little change to their current practices (I applaud you for being able to attend 20 games with three kids each year, dads like you spell a good future for our Generation A’s). My point is that many of the type of fan the A’s hope to gain by moving to SJ (young, affluent, “hip”) are the ones they would lose from their existing fanbase along with many others in the East Bay.
The comparison to the “Natspos” is a bit of a stretch, but I think it is enlightening in a few aspects. For one, you’re moving a team into an area that, it can be argued, is within the fan territory of an existing club (the peninsula/SJ for the Giants because of Caltrain and proximity vs. the Orioles for DC even though getting from DC to Baltimore is a much greater headache than SJ to SF). Second, you’re moving a club into an area considered to be saturated with potential sponsors and corporate clients (SJ with IT firms, DC with interest groups) that will buy up luxury boxes, naming rights, etc. While any comparisons do have to be taken with a grain of salt, the Nats do suggest that such a plan is not fool-proof and attendance is not guaranteed just because a team is in an area that seems “worthy of an MLB club”.
As far as following the team via TV/Radio, I agree that the day-to-day fan experience will not be changed too much, but that is not where the A’s are going to make money. The club does not have the kind of regional dominance (or, for that matter, a large enough region) to make truckloads of cash with a YES/NESN-type media deal. While we all hope the TV and Radio contracts can be improved, ticket sales are still the key to team profits (in spite of what Scott Boras may be saying about revenue sharing) and the largest consideration in a new stadium solution needs to be how to get butts in the seats. If relocation does indeed mean that current, East Bay A’s fans will cut back their ticket buying by 20-50% of present value (and I have no idea what kind of number to estimate here, perhaps a poll is in order) , the club needs to demonstrate to their investors that the SJ market will be able to replace that on top of any attendance gains they are expecting (so instead of, say, trying to prove that they can bring attendance up by 15,000/game, it would be more accurate to say they need to identify 20,000 fans added/game).
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
I would expect some kind of rail service for San Jose
Currently, Caltrain has at least one trains that hold until 15 minutes after the end of the Sharks game before departing. If the A’s are smart (yes, a big if), they would work with both Amtrak and ACE to have a train each to and from for Oakland (Emeryville) and Livermore (what the heck – all the way to Stockton) ready to depart at either a scheduled time (say, 10:00 pm) or 20 minutes after the game, whichever is later, with a few minutes between the trains so they don’t get stacked up to close together. The south-bound trains would be scheduled to arrive like 6:45 or so. One complicating factor is that the rail line currently used by Amtrak and ACE is single-tracked from around Santa Clara to southern Alameda County, so all these trains would also have to coordinated with any freight traffic on that line to make sure they arrive in time for the game, and get people back home before it’s time to get up for work the next day. For Oakland passengers, maybe they can work out a deal to let fans park at the Coliseum. Similar scheduling could be done for day games.
Hey Al, just go away, baby.
Looks like Airporter-type minivan system will be viable
compared to traditional Amtrak and ACE.
If you’ve got three people to take to the game from Berkeley, and the train costs $20 RT for each person, you’re hitting some serious money, and the train takes well over an hour to go from SJ to Berkeley, with all the stops, etc (freight moving through).
A minivan with nine passengers would be much faster, and probably cheaper. Traffic, though, is the unknown factor. But you could be delivered on the stadium steps, instead of blocks and blocks away, and depart much faster than a train awaiting a full load after the game. Then wherever the train station is, you then have to “drive home”. More time.
I imagine some enterprising A’s fans in the Vallejo-to-San Lorenzo area would be interested in setting up a “bus-line”, if the A’s management gave them a free season ticket in exchange for driving eight other fans to the game. They’d see the A’s, get a little pin money, and deliver fellow fans who would ride in convivial comfort (instead of with the somewhat unseemly BART denizens).
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 24, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
interesting idea
The only thing that you have wrong is that the train will pretty much drop people off right behind left field. Not blocks and blocks away… but that doesn’t really your point about the long train ride. I like it, guerrilla bus system.
Jitneys
were big in the United States before World War I. They were driven out of business by city regulations, encouraged by the streetcar companies.
Maybe they’re making a comeback. Wikipedia says:
In many countries they create problems that are due to the ways in which they are driven and the conditions of their almost always old, polluting and often dangerous vehicles. Indeed in many places such services are illegal or banned.
Over the last few years the attitudes of planners and policy makers has begun to look on them as solutions as well as sources of problems.
I don’t see the A’s organization getting directly involved, though. No way they want to be seen as endorsing drivers, because then there’s a liability path to them if there’s an accident, mugging, or whatever.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Even if the train station is as close as the Coliseum BART is to the Coliseum
it may still be not as good as being dropped at the “door”, like say the ticket window forty feet away, as can be done at the Coli.
I’m more concerned, say, if you were dropped at the Berkeley Station at University and I-80, and then had to drive to someplace in the El Cerrito hills, you’ve got another slog and another stage of transportation to go through, plus worry about your car parked in the dark near the RR tracks for hours.
The A’s should already be doing this with areas like Danville (have Billy Beane drive the van) and San Ramon, where they could “pay” a driver with a season ticket, to drive eight other passengers to the game, game in, game out. Those are “car bound” areas with no public transport, and the significant savings in fuel and parking, driving anxiety, the ability to snooze on the way home, would make it more likely people would attend games.
There’s liability in every thing, potentially. I read a case in a business law advice book where a truck swerved off a road and hit a power pole with such force, that the pole came down. A woman driving along ran into the power lines hanging low, was killed (electrocuted), and the manufacturer of the power line was found liable.
And liability is why you have insurance.
Jitney was a term I was going to use, but I didn’t think anyone would know the subtleties of the usage.
Say a season ticket is worth $2000. For a thousand drivers, your talking an outlay of $2,000,000, for eight thousand additional fans, more or less. Would those eight thousand buy enough hot dogs?? to defray the cost?
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 24, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder if the A's even really consider the loss of attendance from East Bay fans,
that would still follow the A’s but end up spending more money at the Phonebooth.
MaineA has a good point, a 3-4 hr game plus 2+ hrs to get to a SJ game?
I’d honestly only have time to go on weekends, meaning those weekday baseball game urges would translate into Giants revenue, crap – the Giants arguably played better (and more exciting) baseball this year as it is ( did I just say that? ick ).
Pls don’t let this happen…
weekday baseball urges
you’re absolutely right, brian. The calculation for a lot of East Bay people (especially those who work in the city) would go “well, I could bust my ass, leave work early and get down to SJ in time to see Anderson & Carter play the White Sox…or I could eat an early dinner at home and still get to SF in time to see a duel between Lincecum and Santana and get home early enough to be in bed by 12 (or have time to go to a bar with a friend after the game and not race home).” Seems like a fairly easy decision.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
I must admit, one reason I am open to San Jose
Is because I am an East Bay fan who works in the South Bay :)
Week night games in Oakland are freaking horrible on my sleep schedule. And last year I made the mistake of taking my girls to three weeknight games… ugh.
OOOoooooh, this makes me one fiesty planner
BART to San Jose is a TERRIBLE idea. Not the concept of it, but rather its implementation and the terrible, shady, irresponsible number-fudging that the BART board has engaged in (with implicit chearleadering by SJ politicos) in order to justify bringing BART down to San Jose. Eric from Transbay Blog has some great articles on BART’s insanity as an organization. If you ever wonder why the cars are so crappy, or why there are big delays, or why stuff keeps breaking on the main BART line, or why the transbay tube is so congested during rush hour, look no farther than the Napoleonic impulse of BART to keep expanding their footprint. They always dream of pushing farther out instead of focusing on maintaining their core service area or creating new BART lines within existing service areas that would serve higher-density urban areas or building a much-needed second transbay tube or engaging in sorely needed earthquake retrofit repairs. There’s a reason that a Title VI civil rights case is being brought against them right now, as well as a full audit by the GAO.
What’s more, these BART plans would take away funding from existing VTA services. VTA is already the worst-run public transit agency in the bay area with the lowest ridership per mile. The loss of funding wouldn’t hit the VTA light rail, but the bus system. Nevermind that the bus system consistently out-draws the light rail and serves more areas of San Jose. But the light-rail is the political legacy of a lot of movers and shakers in SJ, and they would be none too happy to see it take a nose dive. Taking funding away from VTA buses would be the nail in the coffin. BART and San Jose’s politicos = big on vision, non-existent on responsibility.
Just another reason to keep the A’s in Oakland. Right? ….right?
by cityplANner on Nov 23, 2009 11:15 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Good stuff
Did you take your Ritalin today?
Just kidding. I love when you go off on stuff.
Transbay is a cool blog. I liek the “Fantasy Transit Maps” post the best. Talk about a deep dive into multidestinational regional rapid transit planning.
I say Right.
The lawsuit will be an interesting one to follow, as is all of the fallout from the OAC, which is, in my opinion, one of the colossal misallocations of resources in a region/state that has had some whoppers (but politics has no place on AN, so we’ll leave it there). I am inclined to agree with your assessment of BART and SJ politicos, and the recent pursuit of both the A’s and Earthquakes has reinforced this view of grandiose statements with little delivery. While all of the prognostications from Reed and his comrades certainly seem like much more than our own elected officials are doing in Oakland (and Dellums seems to have more on his plate in terms of personal scrutiny every week, so it is unlikely we get anything definitive accomplished in the short term unless he takes it up as a last-ditch effort to save his legacy (see Bush, George Walker and Arab-Israeli conflict)), the “powerful” SJ political machine has made very little concrete progress on stadia for either of these teams. As evidenced by MarineLayer’s post today (link), the SJ stadium project has already hit its share of snafus and a final picture with regards to cost and everything are pretty far off. The same can be said for the MLS squad, as the economically easier task of a stadium for the Quakes (a site has been identified, soccer stadiums are cheap in relative terms, other MLS buildings have turned into cash cows because of their ability to host concerts and other events) has also not made much progress.
It will be interesting to see what candidates in the 2010 Oakland Mayoral race say with regards to the A’s, now that Fremont is officially off the table. I would not be surprised to see somebody include the team (maybe with a different ownership group as Wolff is so vehement about bolting Oakland) in a plan for redevelopment/reinvestment in some of the areas we have talked about in this series (notably the Estuary/JLS).
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
Maine Athletic,
you are my kind of hombre.
And for the record, I get all uppity with BART because people, when they find out that I’m a planning student, automatically think that I love public transportation. Not true: I love good public transportation. Let’s not conflate the two.
I'm not a planning student and I love good public transportation.
I’m not aware of any US city that has it. Transportation infrastructure, both inter-city and intra-city is probably worse in the US than any country I’ve been to, other than Indonesia, Vietnam or the Philippines. Really really bad.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Why do you read the newballpark site as a lack of progress?
Just curious. I read ti as the final hurdle in what San Jose CAN do as of right now in terms of building a baseball stadium. Unless MLB votes for a new definition of the Bay Area market all they can do is complete the CEQA process and sit on their hands. They could continue land banking in the area, but why? The price is coming down not going up.
Additionally, SEIR for San Jose covers two things that need to be addressed. 1. Traffic projections, because they used bad traffic data the first time around. 2. impacts on global climate change because it went unaddressed in the initial EIR. Are those the snafus you are referring too?
On the other end of the spectrum, Oakland has yet to identify a site. I get random emails from folks with fake names (obviously fake names like “Ultra Man”) telling me that the plan is going to be at “x” location, all of these are places we have all discussed here or at the newballpark blog. But then months pass and nothing comes of it. I got a detailed email about the HomeBase/Malibu lot about 6 months ago, one about the OFD site that had no detail more recenlty, one about about Howard Terminal which was just regurgitated from the HOK study… I understand you are pro Oakland, but the evidence here seems to indicate the opposite of your conclusion.
I dunno, Jeffro
San Jose had enough political pull to route HSR through the Pacheco Pass even though the Altamount alignment was better for both the Bay Area and for the system’s alignment in general, all just so San Jose would be on the main route and not a spur station.
If they can pull those strings in high places (much, much higher than a measly MLB club), I would have expected the remaining issues for relocation to have been cleared up by now. The fact that San Jose doesn’t have it in the bag yet tells me that there’s something else going on that we don’t know about yet which is holding Jan Jose back. The fact that the “keep A’s in Oakland” movement has mysteriously re-appeared over the last few months (vis a vis Doug Boxer) tells me that there are people in the Oakland political system that know this too.
Granted, San Jose is leaps and bounds ahead of Oakland so far in planning for a new stadium, but Oakland has the advantage of being the A’s extant reality. Inertia can be a heavy thing to overcome, especially in such a politically charged decision like moving a baseball club.
+1 for the HSR comment
While I am less than optimistic about something we don’t know about going on (although it would be the best Christmas ever if a deal was announced that they were going to break ground on Rickey Henderson Park and Wolff had decided to sell the team to all of us ala the Packers—hey, I’m young enough to dream, right?), your point about SJ’s political clout is dead-on. How the higher-ups at CalTrans decided that SJ/the Peninsula and into SF was the right route for HSR is beyond me, as Oakland/Berkeley/Richmond/up through Solano County already has some rail infrastructure and allows for expansion of the main line along the coast and through to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
One problem
Wolff had decided to sell the team to all of us ala the Packers
Arrangements like this are strictly forbidden by MLB’s Constitution. So, it really can’t and won’t happen. The Padres Ray Kroc tried to do this many moons ago.
Another factor in the Pacheco Pass v. Altamont Pass rumble is that Tri Valley residents (of which, I am one) are overwhelmingly opposed (I am not one of these) to HSR coming through the Altamont.
Doug Boxer and crew were posting the Keep the A’s in Oakland stuff for a long time as far as I recall. There has been the OAFC for some time as well. I guess I just see it differently when I say this stuff isn’t new.
I am in favor of a stadium in Oakland, I am just not really ready to bet that it will happen. Especially when you add the fact that MLB’s special panel on the A’s stadium situation recently had meetings with San Jose added to their charter.
Out of everything that's happened so far,
Especially when you add the fact that MLB’s special panel on the A’s stadium situation recently had meetings with San Jose added to their charter.
is by far the least surprising thing I’ve heard in the show-trial that is “MLB trying to find a viable stadium in Oakland”
I dunno about best Christmas ever
But A’s in Oakland fans will at least get some hope in their stocking, say, next week.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 23, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
What jumps out at me
is number one, the new “significant impact to freeways” and number two the lower capacity of the revised proposal. While I agree that SJ is doing all they really can do before some next steps are taken by MLB, for me these two revelations mean increased opposition from NIMBYs who already have to deal with some of the worst freeway traffic in the region/country as well as a less optimistic economic forecast because of the lower stadium capacity (less people going to games means less people eating at restaurants in the area etc.) which could start making the A’s stadium a less politically viable investment for SJ and Santa Clara County.
I am definitely not suggesting that Oakland has anything concrete together, even in the remotest sense. This lack of a plan that us pro-Oakland ANers can reference or point to is definitely frustrating. However, the one thing Oakland does have going for it is dun dun dun The A’s themselves—and the current fans that go with them (however fickle they may be in the current stadium/TV deal).
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
The reduced stadium size
has been part of the plan all along by Wolf/Fisher. It was the plan at Coliseum North and Fremont. That is more of the EIR being changed to match reality. In the original good neighbor meetings, the capacity was supposed to be 32,000, so if anything the capacity in the SEIR is an uptick from the most recent number.
The traffic part, that is a potential big issue. It shall be interesting to see what comes out of the scoping meeting and subsequent public comments. And with much of the fan base in southern Alameda County… public transit isn’t really an option.
It wasn't solely traffic
Irrationally scared NIMBYs were more worried about outsiders invading their neighborhoods. That’s not an issue at Diridon.
yes, but they hid behind the concept of "traffic" to pursue their NIMBY agenda
I’m not saying it will be at the same level for Diridion, but it would be very easy for some squeeky-wheel group to use the same playbook without some infrastructural/public transit changes lined up to mitigate the A’s impact.
Not really
That battle was fought 20 years ago with the arena. All of the players are already well known and are out there. I don’t think you’ll see anything protracted this time, especially since all that’s being done is a SEIR, not a full EIR.
It's not necessarily irrational.
People pick their neighborhoods for various reasons. Some people just don’t want to live near anything that has high traffic. Maybe they chose the neighborhood based on that and now they don’t want it to change.
I’m not saying that means they should be allowed to hold up a stadium several blocks away. I’m just saying it’s not fair to assume they’re being irrational.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
In this case, irrational
There was plenty of thinly-veiled racism to go around. We’re talking about the same people who didn’t want a BART station nearby because they were afraid criminals would BART in from Oakland to steal their cars.
They knew it was just the A's and not the Raiders, right?
(Kidding!)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
It was neither the traffic nor the NIMBY's that axed Fremont
It was the economy, stup…friend!
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 23, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
In California
never underestimate the power of an angry white homeowner
by cityplANner on Nov 23, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
I grew up in Fremont, still work in Warm Springs, and know people who work at City Hall. It was very much about the economy. Lew’s whole plan was a real estate deal involving the re-zoning of current industrial land into housing. The city was going to do it for him, and the value of the land was going to instantly triple. He was planning to sell condos as part of the “ballpark village” to finance the stadium. When the housing bubble burst, the idea that he could pay for the stadium by selling condos went out the window.
That’s when he tried to move the site up the road to next to the future Warm Springs BART site. This is where the local citizens began to get upset.
Yes there were racial undertones, but the city would have pushed it forward regardless if the economics worked out. When the Real Estate opportunity became a lost cause, Lew had to go to Plan B, and Plan B wasn’t very thought out.
I am bummed because the Plan B site was 300 yards from my work…sigh…
"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse
You're reading too much into my post
A short blurb about the EIR NOP is just that. It would be a mistake to infer “snafus” from what is essentially a basic part of the process. I’ve gone to the SJ Good Neighbor meetings, and while there is certainly NIMBY reaction, the prevailing sentiment from even the most skeptical in the community is “let’s do this right and make this work.” Not “let’s kill it because it’s a bad idea.” The political goodwill from the success of the arena trumps just everything else.
Thanks for clarifying
I was definitely getting a bit too hopeful about potential game-changing developments in SJ, and your analysis is more in line with what my impressions have been as far as SJ is concerned.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
Good articles, but this guy really has a bias against San Jose
This guys obvious annoyance of the South Bay really hurts his argument, and it’s a shame because he put a lot of work into it.
The way you hear him talk you’d think San Jose slept with his mom.
As a San Jose native, I feel there are many legitimate reason why both BART and HSR need to go through San Jose, and it has nothing to do with needing San Jose to be a “legitimate city” as this guy mocks.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 24, 2009 11:09 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't be so quick to cry bias on Eric
Me? Sure. I’m biased as hell. But I have yet to see Eric succumb to bias when there is a sound planning argument to be made. Even when he’d rather not agree, he’ll concede the point if it actually makes sense.
The ridership projections BART put forward are more fantastical than Mark Ellis’ unicorns.
HSR – The Altamount alignment was a better route for the reduction of acknowledged areas of congestion (580 Livermore-Dublin-Hayward), for urban growth reasons (Pacheco goes through practically uninhabited areas, encouraging the further growth of sprawl in the southern area of the south bay. The Altamount would go through the comparatively built up Tri-Valley, encouraging more TOD-style housing), and for logistical reasons (keeping a stronger alignment open to Sacramento, sacrificing none of the speed getting to San Francisco, creating the possibility of a spur up the east bay). The only downside would be that San Jose would become a spur line (though still included in the plan). San Jose politicians openly stated during the HSR planning process that they weren’t willing to be a spur line. No matter my personal bias, these are not debatable points.
And BART’s problem is because of BART, not San Jose. San Jose just happens to be their target du-jour. They’re a terribly run public transit agency that screws over their core constituency time and again so they can put themselves into incredible debt wasting money to further expand into suburbanized regions, promote sprawl, and provide further transit subsidy to wealthy commuter communities.
Sorry to dump on San Jose. They’re just better at leveraging their political capital than other cities, namely: Oakland. I just wish that when they leveraged their political capital it would be along the lines of sound planning principles. To date, they haven’t.
by cityplANner on Nov 24, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions
oops
sorry for straying so far afield.
CGV if you must. I kinda earned it.
by cityplANner on Nov 24, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
No, they already sentenced a group to the CVS last weekend.
You’re safe.
….that’s not any different than a CGV, is it?
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Nov 25, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions
Uh oh -- were we supposed to hand out flyers and collect canned foods,
or discuss politics with shoppers and belittle them? I might have gotten confused.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Bit of both, if I know my ANers.
I would’ve told people I was part of a new political party whose sole platform was the collection and redistribution of canned goods.
And then I’d give them a copy of The Lighthouse and gave them the ol’ crazy eyes routine.
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Nov 25, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
So pretty much like a day at the sign shop, eh?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You been following me?!
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Nov 25, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
As Oaklandish, I'm still just offended by this whole notion of moving the Oakland A's
I really just don’t feel that the move proponents have made their case.
The damage a move like this will do to this community outweighs any benefit there would be in moving. Are the A’s going to be competive every season if they move to San Jose? Nope.
This idea put forth by Wolfe et al is just based in greed.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
So, to open a different can of worms
What is the case for the team to stay? The business case that is, not the “community damage” case. Because that means absolutely nothing to MLB.
Well, my feelings are
1. It is a waste of money and resources to build a new stadium in a new location.
2. Culturally and historically speaking the A’s and Oakland are tied and severing those ties would result in major loss for the City of Oakland and MLB if not so much the A’s. So much for the RBI program.
3. When a new stadium MUST be built then Wolffe et al could easily do it in Oakland (central/dense population area close to efficient transit options) and make almost as much money as they would in San Jose(not as central and relativeley sprawled).
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Nov 23, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure what you mean by "made their case". It's pretty clear that the motive to
move is to make more money in a new location. Do they need to make more of a case than that?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
all things considered, most definitely
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Nov 23, 2009 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
What are these other "things" to be considered?
Are they accountable to anyone other than their shareholders, MLB and their current stakeholders? The city they move out of would be a prior stakeholder.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions
I just don't think it is the right thing to do
And I think Wolffe et al owe it to Oakland to do the right thing.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Nov 23, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
When is it the "right thing" to move a baseball franchise?
Should the Browns still be in St Louis? In Milwaukee? The Senators in Washington? The A’s in Philadelphia? The Braves in Boston? The Giants and Dodgers in Manhattan and Brooklyn?
What’s your decision rule?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 3:12 AM PST up reply actions
One other thing
Ten or fifteen years from now baseball people will look back and say “the Oakland A’s and Billy Beane get credit for leading a revolution in the way baseball is played and watched.” It will suck to have to add to that statement “too bad they had to desert Oakland because of financial pressure.”
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
Or people might ask in 50 years, "Why did Oakland ever have a major league baseball team?"
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ouch.
While I understand there are multiple sides to debates about the A’s future, each with its own merits, our little community here at AN should refrain from digs on any of the proposed locations. It’s not going to get us anywhere to make judgmental comments about cities like Oakland or San Jose (and, believe me, there are insults to be found on both sides of that coin). I have no problem with people advancing genuine concerns about Oakland as a viable location, but base them in some evidence that can be scrutinized. From where I am sitting, everyone I talk to about Oakland’s future sees better days ahead, and most of my NYC transplant acquaintances feel that Oakland is going through many of the same things Brooklyn went through in recent years (top restaurateurs locating here as opposed to SF, re-emergence of cultural institutions such as the Fox, establishing itself as a hub for emerging artists and entrepreneurs in the green economy).Although there are definitely reasons to be skeptical, a broad-based comment about Oakland as a dump or a small town is not helpful to any discussion of a bright future for our A’s. I would hope that nobody on this site wants to see Oakland fade into history as a three or four decade sidebar, and if they do they may want to re-consider their baseball allegiances (they wear Oakland across their chest on the road, you know).
By the logic above, people should already be asking “why did Detroit, Cleveland, or St. Louis ever have a team?” considering the economic and crime woes of those cities, and probably others with MLB teams, have been as bad and at times much worse than Oakland.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 23, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
I think the proposal was directed at MaineAthletic
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Of course.
I’m pretty sure we play on the same team.
I never considered taking him out. I had a commitment to his heart. - Johnny King
My curiosity is aroused. It's times like this that I wish I could actually
attend games and meet the folks.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 3:04 AM PST up reply actions
Detroit, Cleveland and St Louis have all supported their teams a lot better than Oakland.
But people do ask, “Why did St Louis ever have two teams?” And it’s a perfectly valid question. The AL Browns were never successful there. What makes Oakland any more special than:
Altoona, Buffalo, Columbus, Hartford, Indianapolis, Louisville, Newark, Providence, Richmond, Rochester, Syracuse, Wilmington, Troy, Wilmington or Worcester?
All have had major league baseball franchises and now don’t.
If Oakland can get its act together and support the A’s they deserve them. So far, Oakland’s not given MLB any reason not to seek greener pastures.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
What makes Oakland "more special" than
the cities you name is that it had a major-league team for more than 10 years and some time after 1915.
You are really stretching the definition when you say “All have had major league baseball franchises”.
Here’s what I come up with:
Altoona Mountain Citys (UA 1884, part year)
Buffalo Bisons (NL 1878-1885, PL 1890), Buffalo Buffeds (FL 1914-1915)
Columbus Buckeyes (AA 1883-1884), Columbus Solons (AA 1889-1891)
Hartford Dark Blues (NA 1874-1875, NL 1876-1877)
Indianapolis Blues (NL 1878), Indianapolis Hoosiers (AA 1884, FL 1914)
Louisville Colonels (AA 1882-1891, NL 1892-1899)
Newark Pepper (FL 1915)
Providence Grays (NL 1878)
Richmond Virginians (AA 1884)
Rochester Broncos (AA 1890)
Syracuse Stars (NL 1879)
Troy Haymakers (NA 1871-1872), Troy Trojans (NL 1879-1882)
Wilmington Quicksteps (UA 1884, part year)
Worcester Ruby Legs (NL 1880-1882)
AA = American Association (1882-1891)
AL = American League (1901-present)
FL = Federal League (1914-1915)
NA = National Association (1871-1875)
NL = National League (1876-present)
PL = Players’ League (1890)
UA = Union Association (1884)
Are those the teams you had in mind?
That was a long long time ago and demographics were very different then. Even Altoona, the least of the cities you name, really was a significant railroad hub then. And even though there were decent sized cities on the West Coast even in the 1890s, travel distance would have made it impossible for them to play other teams in the leagues.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 23, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I just signed the Facebook petition (which you could do too, why not hey?),
and noticed a neat comment/ factoid I hadn’t ever really thought about-
did a quick cursory fact-check and it seems to hold up.
“Ricardo R**** The A’s belong here in Oakland other than the Yankees we have won more championships in the last 40 years and it all happened in OAKLAND where they belong and they should make the G ants leave town”
Could use a bit of punctuation, but made me smile nevertheless.
Since 69’ the Reds come close w/ 3.
Yankees 7, Athletics 4.
SF Giants 0.
Through 1930, the Athletics had won 5 WS and the Yankees 3. The Yankees
didn’t win their 5th WS till 1936. Still the A’s were gone a mere 17 years after that.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 3:09 AM PST up reply actions
Read the history of the Philadelphia Athletics
and you’ll see that they were hampered by the poor economics of Philadelphia, right to the end. Connie Mack knew he had a HoFer in George Kell, and he sold him to the Detroit Tigers because he could get money to operate the club. Kell cried when he heard he’d been moved. Less than ten years later the A’s were in KC, because of a “sweetheart” deal involving a buddy of the Yankee cabal/ownership. The wealthy scions of Phillie (including Grace Kelly’s father) made a late attempt to retain the Athletics, but they slept too long. The Athletics had left town.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 24, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, and the point is that things change, and that Oakland has to keep up or
get left behind like these now minor hamlets. It’s true that it was a long time ago and the demographics were different then. The demographics are still changing, and now they are changing in favor of San Jose, Southern California, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and maybe Charlotte.
Oakland has a chance to compete, of course, but so far they’ve not put up much of a fight.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 2:58 AM PST up reply actions
If I may interject
Crap talking about Oakland or San Jose is intolerable from my perspective. That said, where did waddell mention any of the stuff you just put into his/her mouth?
It is a legitimate possibility that the question will be asked in 50 years, as much as anything is a possibility 50 years from now.
My personal hope in all of this is that when the A’s leave the Coliseum for parts unknown, to hang with George “The ANimal” Steele and The Ultimate Warrior, that the folly of Santa Clara Themepark Stadium is replaced by Oakland Coliseum Part 3 (Mt. Davis and Mt. York), home of the Super Bowl and 49ers and Raiders.
At which point, in 50 years the question might be “Why did Oakland ever have a baseball team?” For an entirely different reason than you just assumed.
Just to be clear, I'm not rooting against Oakland. I have lived there, gone to Cal
and have no connection to the South Bay. It’s just that I don’t see them doing anything to make MLB want to be there.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 3:00 AM PST up reply actions
Another excellent, thorough post
A positive about enduring the long train ride south: BART, as most of us know, doesn’t allow food or drink on board (that is, it’s against the rules, though the cars are full of discarded bags of stale French fries and spilled Cokes); Caltrain lets you bring coffee in covered cups as I recall, but Amtrak sells snacks — and liquor. I once took the train to a game with friends who live near Jack London Square. I think it’s about a seven-minute trip to the Coliseum but that was long enough for my savvy friends to run down to the bar car.
It is possible right now, in theory, to get on BART and end up at San Jose by changing over to Caltrain at the Millbrae station. However, as Poppy pointed out when I moved to the Peninsula a few months ago, Caltrain’s current schedules are really oriented toward the 9-5 commuter.
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
High time. The others could have been put there as well.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
It was me, and jeffro my one regret with this excellent series
is that we didn’t know at the beginning that you had this series in mind, when the posts would run, etc. — I would gladly have reserved front page space each week for it.
Just generally, anytime readers intend to devote extra time and care to a series of fanposts, please let one of the front page writers know in case we want to allocate front page space for it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Ha
I didn’t even really set out to write series, just happened that way as stuff came up and questions were asked by other ANers. Hopefully it’s useful to some of us.
I was wondering
if it was him?
I never considered taking him out. I had a commitment to his heart. - Johnny King
THAT frog owes that construction worker a big apology.
What a dick-frog.
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Nov 24, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
Oh heavens no, it's completely useless to all of us
That’s why I put it on the front page.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I know this is BS
or every post I’ve ever made would be frontpage material
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Actually, this comment is leading off tomorrow morning
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I feel as if I've "made it" now, somehow.
All my hard work and perseverance has paid off.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hmm...This one's only worthy of a fanpost
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
THIS is why the A's have been effing with the fans.... IMHO
From The Giants hold territorial rights to San Jose, and major league owners would have to waive those rights before the A’s could move there. It would figure that any ruling on territorial rights won’t come until the committee’s findings are known.
Fisher said in the magazine article that he doesn’t believe the A’s moving to San Jose would hurt the Giants. The A’s ranked last in the majors in attendance in 2009, the sixth straight season their attendance has decreased.
an Oaklnd Tribune article:
"We get two outs, and I was sure, and I had a plan, and I shook Tek off," Schilling said. "And I get a big 'What if?' for the rest of my life."
by Imaseasonticketholder on Nov 24, 2009 11:01 AM PST reply actions
What hurts the Giants is not the A's moving to San Jose.
What hurts the Giants is the A’s getting a new stadium at all. If the Coliseum were magically teleported to San Jose, that would be good for the Giants, because all the Oakland / East Bay people would have nowhere to go, and for most of them SF would be a much easier choice than SJ.
If the A’s do get a new stadium, it would be better for the Giants if it’s in SJ rather than Oakland. The extra market they’d pick up in abandoned Oakland will more than make up for what they lose on the Peninsula.
The real key is that right now the A’s can’t attract fans anywhere because fans don’t like the stadium, so everyone goes to SF instead. So the most important thing for the Giants is that the A’s don’t get a good stadium at all. That’s why it’s in their interest to block the San Jose plan.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
however, it's in the other 29 MLB owners' interests to not block it
because a new stadium means more revenue, and potential revenue sharing.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Or at least one less team that needs to receive revenue sharing.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
From the league's point of view, I think SJ is better
It covers the entire Bay Area more thoroughly than two stadiums nearly side by side but on opposite ends of the bridge. And if itresults in Oakland residents switching to the Giants while Palo Alto fans switch to the A’s, the league doesn’t care about that.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I agree with this
and with the oft-posed hypothethical “if you added Team 2 to the area today, you’d choose San Jose.” Fortunately, the A’s are in Oakland now, and incumbency still matters.
But since you’re right that MLB sees it that way, I still put Oakland’s chances of keeping the A’s at < 50% even with a cool, viable new plan.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 25, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
interesting that in Detroit
a seriously depressed city, the Tigers draw huge crowds.
I have lived in Oakland for over 40 years, and its getting a lot better around here. Sold out Condos, GREAT new restaurants, etc.
The A’s might be a little hasty, trying to run from all the “old money” in Oakland.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
I think the argument is that the "young money" is in SJ
All of the people who work for Cisco, Apple, eBay etc live there. There is certainly old money in Oakland, perhaps just as much as young money in SJ, but perhaps they have tired of the A’s or something. Who knows. We can all agree though that for our attendance to remain stagnant next year would be a victory.
While winning teams tend to put people in the stands, we already knows from jeffro’s prior posts that this may not be true in Oakland. One way, then, would be a new stadium.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Nov 24, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Except San Jose is also seeing a boom.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 24, 2009 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
I'll get there faster from boston
are there any flights from oakland to sjo?
The A's. The SWINGING A's. That's right, the SWINGING A's.
by eastcoasta'sfan on Nov 24, 2009 7:24 PM PST reply actions
Better to go NY to SJO
I think flying to SJO was a bargain from the East Coast for some time.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 24, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
I know I am bringing up an old topic of mine
but maybe the County of Alameda/City of Oakland Joint Powers should offer an “Innocentive” award (do a search on Innocentive) for a technique to (1) tear down an existing stadium to the first tier, tearing out the third and second decks, and (2) re-fitting the “stump” stadium with a new, NON-BOWL set of seats, aisle-ways, etc. Kind of like they rebuild bungalows in Berkeley into 2500 sq ft houses. The sections for rebuilding the stadium would be cast off-site, in a volume operation, and assembled on the “stump” in a very speedy construction operation…..“laying bricks with a crane”. You’d probably have to leave Mt Davis, but you’d have a very nice stadium, still at the Coliseum site. Add some dedicated onramps, flyovers, and offramps for vehicle ingress/egress…COLISEUM ONLY.
I do not believe enough innovation and energy has been put into designing a quick build stadium from modular pieces. Stadium building IMO is about where aircraft builders were when the Caproni Flying Boat was introduced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGZBhrrlMk
Impressive?? Better was to come…
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 24, 2009 11:06 PM PST reply actions
This was done and locally
It’s called Stanford Stadium. They redid the whole bowl, used same-sized pieces in the structure, used modular steel/aluminum construction in the entire upper bowl, and reused the press box. Concrete seating sections are already cast offsite for most modern American stadia. One Central Valley company – can’t recall the name – has done multiple stadia in the Bay Area, floating the sections through the delta.
It wouldn’t be cost effective to do what you’re describing at the Coliseum. The foundation is layed out in a radial pattern in keeping with the circular bowl. Pull all of that stuff out and you have to put in new foundation and structural work to support whatever the tiers are. At Stanford, they kept the old-school method of building much of the stadium on top of a dirt berm, making things much cheaper and faster.
Dirt berm, you say?
A’s should relocate to the Circus Maximus.
by cityplANner on Nov 25, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Didn't they sing Can't Stop Thinking About It?
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Nov 25, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm, let's see
There’s those 8000 square feet of “foul area” between the seats and the RF and LF lines and behind home plate. If there was a foundation there, or a new one put in, then it could be built?
I’m glad to hear a similar method to what I described was used at Stanford.
The radial pattern IMO is not a “show stopper” but simply requires more innovation. You know, ragtops for cars use to require that you stop the car and erect the the thing, snapping snaps and erecting hoops for five minutes. The thought that you could drive along and the top went up was considered only possible in Saturday morning cartoons…until it was finally done.
I believe the biggest problem is the “custom-built” aspect of the stadia construction process…not enough demand for 35,000-seat stadia to get assembly-line cost effects. So the way to economically retrofit an existing site may be the development of structural pieces that can be manufactured continuously for a variety of customers. This may mean pieces smaller than “barge sized”.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Nov 25, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
I think it is fair to say
we most likely won’t be seeing the Coliseum retrofitted for baseball. But… it could become the home of two NFL teams if things go well. Maybe innovation will make for a quick remodel in that case.
Wolff is done with Oakland
In that article the other day, he said, plainly and simply, that he expects Oakland A’s fans to become Giants fans when the team moves to San Jose. He cites falling attendance citing lack of interest - and of course ignoring the way he’s been creating a self-fulfilling prophecy over the past five years through his push for San Jose, his closing of the upper deck, and the incredibly horrible promotion of the team. He has said a swift FUCK YOU to all of us.
I don’t think Billy Beane, on the other hand, has been deliberately doing anything except creating as good a team as he can, and I don’t think ownership is doing anything different than they’d do given their revenues. A team that tanks consistently doesn’t help Beane’s reputation, and it’s no fun, even for owners, to watch a team that sucks year after year. In fact, a winning team over several years will probably draw fans from San Jose as they get excited about the opening of a stadium.
The good news is that Wolff is 73 years old. If MLB, environmental impact reports, and the San Francisco Giants hold up the stadium for another half-dozen years, then it’s possible Wolff will lose interest as he moves toward old age, and withdraw himself from control. At that point, it’s possible an Oakland group will emerge to buy the club to keep it in town.
To me, that’s the only way the team does NOT move to San Jose. For a long time, I was convinced that Wolff wasn’t as wretched as he appears to be. Now I know he is.
I pressed “actions” by mistake on my above post.
I should add I will continue to buy season tickets until they move to San Jose, then I’ll probably go to an occasional game. My interest in the A’s pre-dates Lew Wolff back to the days of Charlie Finley, so I’ll continue to root for the team.
The only advantage of San Jose, to me, is that we’ll still see games on television.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
