Coliseum redux, football style

As the 49ers continue to pursue their preferred Santa Clara site, the Raiders have been focusing mainly on the Coliseum, despite their brief (and largely fruitless) discussions with Dublin officials. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Coliseum deal, Al Davis, or the politicians involved, the Coliseum remains the most feasible place for the Raiders to get any kind of stadium deal done. Here's why.

• LA can't get it together. Numerous groups with billionaires at their respective helms have cropped up from time to time to declare their viability for an LA expansion franchise. Often their talk would result in further discussions with LA pols, which would result in nothing. At times there would be two groups competing simultaneously. Multiple sites would come up as well, all of which would end up dead thanks to cost or pre-existing political conditions. While the NFL would love to place a team in LA, there's no indication they'd be willing to foot the bill any higher than what was required to get the NY Giants/Jets stadium going. That would leave any LA stadium woefully short of any real cost. At the same time, any team that wanted to move to LA would need the league's financial assistance, forcing such a team to bow to the league's desires. Right now the league is perfectly fine with the increased TV revenues they get from a blackout-free market such as LA.
• Al Davis ain't selling or dying anytime soon. Davis has proven to be the NFL's version of Rasputin. He has survived legal battles. He has outlived nice guy owners such as Lamar Hunt, Wellington Mara, and Jack Kent Cooke. He continues to command from his throne, as evidenced by the current controversy involving head coach Lane Kiffin. He may be showing Nero-like tendencies, but like it or not, he's still there.
• A refurbished Coliseum is far cheaper than a new stadium. The Mount Davis addition and additional renovations, which included the Westside Club and a new baseball/football press box and all new seats, cost $120-140 million depending on who you ask. New NFL stadia being planned or under construction have price tags of $800 million at the very minimum. No renovation plan should have a cost more than half that.

Renovation has many advantages that stem from cost. The site, once the original bowl is demolished, is already excavated and ready to build. New piles may have to be driven because the new western structure would be far taller and more complex than the old bowl. It would likely mimic Mt. Davis to an extent, though it would also include team facilities such as locker rooms and offices, a new press box, and an even more lavish club facility. The end zones would have limited seating, reducing the stadium's footprint.


The new structure would look similar to Heinz Field in Pittsburgh. The overlay above keeps the old Coliseum structure to show how odd the sightlines are for football from the old bowl. The only advantage it has over any new stadium its low profile. The design could eventually evolve into something more like what the 49ers are proposing, though having nearly 100 suites in the eastern section defeats the purpose.

It's hard to say how long it would take to build. Certainly not three or four years as new stadia typically take. Not 10 months as what happened with Stanford Stadium. Probably 24 months thanks to the site's readiness. Process should be quicker too because any EIR work would reflect the same use as the previous structure. That hidden process time and cost cannot be underestimated.

It would be difficult to conceive of the Raiders playing in the Coliseum in the interim. Demolishing the old bowl while leaving Mt. Davis intact would leave only 22,000 seats in place, and to make construction faster builders couldn't be interrupted by the occasional game or other events. It was doable for the 1995 construction, but not for a project this massive. The Raiders won't be welcome at an old or rebuilt Memorial Stadium on the UC Campus. No chance of playing at Stanford Stadium, and Spartan Stadium's far too small. So are the area ballparks.

That leaves Candlestick as the only venue large enough to hold the Raiders. Sounds blasphemous to be sure, but as both the 49ers and Raiders move forward with their plans, they may find themselves in the unusual position of needing each other. The Santa Clara site has at best a 50/50 shot since it will likely need a true citizens' vote in November, not an "advisory" vote that the 49ers were gunning for. Should that proposal lose, the team would be forced back to SF, only to face a city that has no public funds to pledge for a new stadium.

Meanwhile, the NFL will at some point tire of California's inability to get a new stadium built anywhere in the state. Unlike the situation in LA, it can't allow another exodus of teams because there aren't new stadia in other markets just waiting for football teams to move there. It can help the teams' relative plights by encouraging both teams to work together and by pledging a junior version of the Meadowlands plan for a renovated Coliseum. It's a proposal that won't tax the other 30 owners much, and it would allow the league to focus its resources on the remaining three potentially itinerant teams, the Chargers, Vikings, and Bills. From a local practical standpoint, both teams would have a far easier way to pay off the requisite bonds since both teams' stadium revenues would contribute.

There is, of course, a matter of pride. Both teams and their fans would have to come to grips with major territorial issues. The Raiders would have to deal with playing in the 'Stick temporarily, while the 49ers would deal with a far more permanent transition. That said, there is a point where pride has to give way to more practical concerns. Those who really want to see their teams stay in the area in the most financially responsible manner should consider such a plan.

Grand plans abound

When Ray Ratto's Sunday column was published, I had only one immediate response posted at AN. It was short and at the time, I felt it was sufficient. Since then there have been numerous comments here I'll address it further.

There's nothing wrong with having contingencies. While Fremont appears to be moving along now that the process has gotten underway in earnest, one can't always see all of the things that could derail a project. So it doesn't hurt to continue to have an understanding of the Bay Area and even markets outside the Bay Area if Fremont doesn't come to fruition.

My confusion over Ratto's column comes from the highly convoluted machinations that would have to occur for it to even be feasible. Consider what would have to happen:

1. Fremont plan would have to fail either by city council action or applicant withdrawal. Earliest time for that to happen would be a year from now - January 2009.
2. Santa Clara (city, not county as Ratto suggests) 49ers stadium plan would also have to fail. We'll know this in November of this year. Don't forget that the Niners have threatened to take their headquarters with them wherever they go.
   
3. Bud Selig would have to seek out punitive measures against the Giants. Ratto suggests conceding Santa Clara County territorial rights. That action would have to be taken by the owners during the next owner's meetings following points #1 and #2 above. This is despite the fact that the Mitchell Report recommends against punitive actions for "the past." ETA: Who knows?
   
4. Santa Clara would try to pick up the pieces and negotiate with the A's on some land deal, which may or may not include the hotel tax pledged by area hotels. Santa Clara has in the past felt burned by former A's owner Steve Schott when news reports circulated that he was considering selling to Mandalay Sports Entertainment. That news irritated then-mayor Judy Nadler and others, who felt that Schott was not on the level. This effectively ended future talks. To get Santa Clara on board again, the city would have to set aside any residual bad feelings and be willing to slog through another political war - and another vote - to get any kind of ballpark deal in place. ETA: At least 18-24 months after #1 and #2.
5. If San Jose were to be involved in any manner, they would have the Diridon South site and its EIR to fall back on. But that would means potentially being in a bidding war with Santa Clara. What would happen if either city required county support? Who would get it and why?
   

Not to be forgotten in all of this is money. No other sites could be considered unless some financing scheme were in place. Don't think that A's ownership is going to suddenly become magnanimous and offer to pay for the bulk of a ballpark out of their pockets just because it's in San Jose or Santa Clara. Some public or private financing method would have to be identified, and if it's the typical methods we normally see, it's going to be an uphill battle to say the least. The housing crisis has rendered the A's ballpark village financing plan not particularly portable, meaning it wouldn't work in Las Vegas or Sacramento. Portland - maybe if there's a sufficiently large enough piece of land to do so.

I could start to believe the above twists and turns if they didn't so thoroughly violate Lew Wolff's prevalent m.o., which is to take the path of least resistance. At Fremont he has the site, the financing method, and he's gathering the necessary political will. Just about everywhere else he's going to require public votes, massive changes to the financing, or something else that will draw out the process considerably. Lew's joked about getting this done before he dies, and his references to his own mortality are borderline creepy. However, I sense there is an element of truth to it. It may be as strong a motivator as any other factor.

---

The Giants have their own plans for the parking lot across McCovey Cove from AT&T Park. Their plans would allow for a similar amount of parking from the lot as they have currently, while introducing additional shopping and entertainment options. They've even teamed up with Cordish, a development firm working on the St. Louis ballpark village concept. The anchor for the plan would be a 4-5,000-seat concert hall. The closest similarly-sized venues are the outmoded Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, the outdoor Greek Theater on the UC Berkeley campus, and the SJSU Event Center. That is, of course, unless others come up with their own plans for such a venue, such as Santa Clara County or even the 49ers. The Giants will be openly bidding against many other developers, who may have different designs for the Port-controlled parcel known as Lot A. If it's working for the Red Sox and it just might work for the A's, more power to the Giants if they can pull it off.

Introducing the consultants: Short and sweet

I got to last night's work session 10 minutes late. I didn't miss much. Seated in front of the council were familiar faces from Berkeley-based LSA Associates, the firm drafting the ballpark village environmental impact report. They were going over expectations and timelines for the report. Some of the important points from last night:

• LSA had an internal kickoff meeting shortly after the city council approved the study. Since then they've been working on the EIR.
• The next two months or so will be background work.
• A "Notice of Preparation" will be circulated prior to the publishing of the Draft EIR, followed by a 30-day public review period
• The Draft EIR will be distributed, followed by a scoping session and a 45-day public review period
• Comments and responses will be included along with possible changes in the Final EIR
• Public hearings will be held, and the Final EIR will be approved or rejected by the city council.

Unlike many other EIRs which are typically done from scratch, this one will be partly based on the previous Catellus/Pacific Commons EIR, which was completed a decade ago. This may prove to be a double-edged sword as much of the work will involve evaluating various mitigation measures and effects of the original project plan. The big item is the creation of a new wetlands area - did it work as planned? And if so, what measures need to be taken to "preserve the preserve?" LSA has indicated this aspect actually makes the process somewhat more difficult. Don't expect a lot over the next several weeks.

While there wasn't much new detail coming out of the Community Specific Plan, one tidbit emerged that the council found curious: the largest residential area (2500 units) may contain some number of single family residences. When asked to elaborate, LSA said they didn't have a specific number. It also looks like the buildout will progress in the following manner:

• Phase I: Ballpark, mixed-use, and school
• Phase II: Residential east of Cushing Pkwy
• Phase III: Development west of Cushing Pkwy

Questions from the council centered largely around LSA's experience. The firm has been around for over 30 years and has worked on numerous projects of varying sizes. As mentioned previously, they have worked on the San Jose ballpark EIR - which was certified but ended up nowhere. LSA has never worked on a successful ballpark project. (Co)Incidentally, LSA also wrote the EIR for Oakland's Uptown project (I sense tinfoil hats sparking a bit...). LSA cited their previous experience working on other redevelopment projects, which will be very useful since the ballpark really only amounts to a quarter of the project.

The San Jose ballpark EIR came under fire on multiple fronts. Critiques generally came under three categories:

• Traffic. While traffic counts were made for the area immediately surround the ballpark and the nearby freeway infrastructure, some felt that it should have also included additional neighborhoods near the ballpark site.
• Noise pollution. The sound noise curve drawn for the ballpark was considered oversimplified and should have taken into consideration more factors related to how weather as well as how fans attend baseball games.
• Neighborhood impact. A small, quiet hamlet of sorts lay across Los Gatos Creek from the ballpark site. They are already affected by increased traffic and noise from events at the nearby HP Pavilion. Many of them felt their needs weren't taken into consideration.

Point #3 may not be relevant to the Fremont discussion. The first two are entirely relevant and should be discussed and reviewed at considerable length.

There was only one speaker, and he was representing project proponents. The whole thing was wrapped up in less than an hour.

Raiders look to Dublin + Santa Clara moves forward

How does "Dublin Raiders" sound?

No? Try "California Raiders."

Maybe not. In any case, according to the SF Business Times, the Raiders have expressed interest in the Army-owned Camp Parks site in Dublin. So far, Dublin mayor Janet Lockhart isn't a proponent, saying, "My personal opinion is it would destroy the city of Dublin if we even considered it."

One interesting nugget about Camp Parks is at the end of the article, which states that the Army isn't allowed to sell land. They are able to exchange land for construction of additional structures, but my guess is that an $800 million football palace isn't all that well suited for reserve training purposes. There was no mention of how a stadium on the site would be paid for, nor what the plan would look like.

Is it a stalking horse or something more concrete? What about negotiations with the Coliseum Commission? We'll find out soon enough.

---

Down in the valley, Santa Clara city staff have recommended the city start negotiating in earnest with the 49ers for their new digs. I'm still wary of a 100,000-person city taking on over $100 million in financial risk even if it's largely redevelopment money. The biggest obstacle, Cedar Fair, remains in opposition to the plan. Efforts to placate the theme park operator may eventually sink the plan. We'll know by the end of the year, one way or another.

City Council Meeting 1/15 - EIR

And now the fun begins.

Next Tuesday @ 6:00 p.m. (note the time change), the Fremont City Council will have a session to discuss, among other things, the enviromental impact report. Not sure if it's a general Q&A thing, or for comments to the site plan. Regardless, it's the first of many sessions that will help shape the final plan.

Links:
Meeting agenda
Webcast (only live during session)

New South Fremont shopping center brings a benefit

Fremont's quest for sales tax dollars continues as it considers a new shopping center at its southern limit along I-880:

The 49-acre Bayside Marketplace would include several big box retailers, about a dozen smaller shops and 1,993 parking spaces just north of Dixon Landing Road.

The distinction that the retailers would be big box and the usual assortment of smaller retailers is important, as Bayside Marketplace is not expected to be competition for the ballpark village's upscale retailers. Cisco Field and the ballpark village are 4 miles north.

However, the new shopping center would provide competition for other big box-anchored centers in the area. In a small area sandwiched between the bay and nearby hills, it's a curious choice to add additional, similar retail since at first glance it would appear that the area if pretty well serviced already. Here's a partial list of nearby stores:

• McCarthy Ranch (2 miles south, Milpitas): Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Borders, OfficeMax, Sports Authority, Michaels, Ross
• Pacific Commons (4 miles north, Fremont): Costco, Circuit City, Kohl's, Old Navy, Lowe's, Ashley Furniture, DSW, Party America, Office Depot
• Auto Mall/Durham (4 miles north, Fremont): Wal-Mart, Fry's, Home Depot
• Great Mall (4 miles south, Milpitas): Kohl's, Marshalls, Burlington Coat Factory, Home Depot
• NewPark Mall (6 miles north, Newark): Target, Macy's, Sears, Toys "R" Us
• Fremont Hub (8 miles north, central Fremont): Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Trader Joe's, Cost Plus, PetsMart, Pier 1 Imports

Looks like they're pretty well covered, right? If the developer and Fremont are willing to move in this direction, more power to them.

A couple of nice benefits will come out of the project. The developer is also going to build on 49 of the parcel's 150 acres. The rest has already been converted to wetlands (I've biked through there in the past, including what appears to be an old runway/tarmac). Then there's the extension of Fremont Boulevard all the way down to Dixon Landing Road. The extension will provide an alternate parallel route along I-880 along with bike lanes and new trails. Currently, Fremont Blvd hits a dead end at a flood control channel that defines the northern limit of the property. Fans coming from North San Jose (hello, Cisco) can use McCarthy/Fremont to bypass 880, then head onto Cushing, which would take them straight to the ballpark. The extension's been in the plan for years but the downturn in the commercial real estate market forced the developer to pull back. The extension could prove beneficial in lightening the load from the south.

Upper deck reopening - but there's a catch

For the glutton in all of you, the A's are reopening three sections of the vaunted View level/third deck. All 81 games will be available for the low, low price of $35! Borrowing a page from the Dodgers, the A's are designating sections 316-318 as All-You-Can-Eat sections. Fans will enter through a special entrance and will be given wristbands indicating their, um, opportunistic status. Each fan can go to one of the open View level concession stands and get two food items and a soda per visit. The stands will be open until the end of the 7th inning.

The concept was a massive hit at Dodger Stadium, so they're trying it here. I suppose if you can't recognize many of the players on the field, at least you can gorge yourself enough that it won't matter. Whether or not it's really a deal depends on what items will be available. Beer's not on the menu. Some of the premium items such as Saag's sausages and Round Table personal pizzas probably aren't either. I hope that at the very least they have big dogs or polish sausages. Hamburgers and nachos would be good too. If you're going to stuff yourself with ballpark food of questionable nutritional value, go all the way!

One thing the Coliseum will have over Dodger Stadium: Dodger Stadium doesn't include ice cream in their deal.

Santa Clara Chamber & Hotels Support 49ers Stadium Tax

Steve Van Dorn, head of Santa Clara's Chamber of Commerce and its Convention-Visitors Bureau, wrote an opinion piece for Monday's Merc in favor of a proposed hotel or transient occupancy tax. The additional 2% levy, which would be tacked onto nightly bills for eight Santa Clara hotels near Great America, is projected to raise $35 million in funds for the stadium.

As noted previously, this isn't the least bit surprising because the supporting hotels all see dips in business during the fall, and one of them would likely become the hotel of choice for visiting teams. Undoubtedly they would also benefit if the Santa Clara stadium were awarded a Super Bowl, or if a bowl game were played in the area.

Still, even with the tax there's a projected $51 million funding gap for the Niners' new digs and some sources that were previously considered are now off limits.

You gotta know when to hold em...

...Like the man said.

I don't usually get into moves on the baseball side. I feel compelled to do this now because there's a bit of fervor and backlash about first the Haren trade and now the Swisher trade (guess Swish isn't getting that ballpark-facing condo now, eh?).

I harken back to a game at the Coliseum in 1998. The A's were predictably mediocre, fighting to stay out of the cellar. I sat out in left field for a Wednesday "businessperson's special." The announced crowd may have been 10,000 but I could have sworn only half that many were there.

Late in the game a journeyman utility player named Jack Voigt played mop-up duty for Rickey Henderson in left. A couple of bleacher creatures played a little game with Voigt. They repeatedly begged him for some kind of souvenir paraphrenalia. The exchange went something like this, in rapid fire like an well-practiced vaudeville routine:

Fan 1: Voigt, give me your batting glove!
Fan 2: How about your hat?
Fan 1: Sunglasses!
Fan 2: Jersey!
Fan 1: Socks!
Fan 2: Jock!
Fan 1: Underwear!

Amused, Voigt turned around quickly and saluted the two fans. The fans yelled in delight.

Voigt didn't give the two fans any souvenirs AFAIK. The game would be one of Voigt's last as 1998 was his last season in the majors. He's now a realtor in his hometown of Sarasota, FL.

Throughout the A's eight year run of winning baseball (only surpassed in Oakland by the nine year run from '68 to '76), I've mentally gone back to those games when I was younger. I didn't have a mortgage, much disposable income, or many responsibilities. The team was horrible and somewhat depressing at times, yet I enjoyed going to the ballpark just the same. In fact, in some ways I enjoyed the game just as much then as I relished being present when the A's went up 2-0 on both the Yankees (road) and Red Sox (home) in the ALDS. No matter where the A's play, regardless of record, I'll still love the game and the team the same way. No labor stoppages, drug scandals, or other ills can take that away.

So I look at the two recent trades as the end of an era. I come not to bury, but to praise the first Beaneball/Moneyball tenure. It's given me and many others immeasurable amounts of joy, fulfillment, and sadness. I'm proud to be an Oakland Athetics fan. I'm proud of my team.

That said, Billy sure knows how to rip a fan's heart out, doesn't he? He does it with surgical precision, and who's to argue with the results? Depending on how long you've been a fan, you've seen this tearing down and rebuilding happen already once, twice, maybe three times. Chances are you're used to it. You may have even steeled yourself somewhat as I have. The A's aren't the Yanks or Red Sox, who never really have to go through such a difficult process.

It's for that reason, that sense of history, that I don't understand the conspiracy theory going around. The idea is that the fire sale is being done to help grease the skids to Fremont by alienating additional older fans. I can understand this if you've only been a fan since 2000 and you don't have that appreciation for the A's tenure in Oakland. But if you have been a fan for 20, 30, 40 years, you know this is inevitable. Sure, it would be advantageous for ticket sales and marketing if the A's put together a highly competitive team by the time the ballpark opens, but we don't even know when the ballpark will open. 2010? 2011 or later? We all know how injury-prone this team has been. A couple of injuries can mean the difference between winning the division and packing it in in late August. Should Billy also shift his scouting/drafting plans to move towards less risky players who have lower ceilings?

What we are witnessing is the product of the MLB economic system. Since most teams aren't the big money teams, their windows of opportunity have to precisely defined. Good draft yields and healthy players that proceed through the system in a timely manner are paramount. As a team gets better, it gets worse picks and has to take more chances to replenish the farm system. Over the last couple of years this strategy has not paid off for the A's. Plus the A's aren't in the position to pay exhorbitant fees for international players. They can't make frequent dips into the free agent market for big ticket players. We've had eight years of mostly wonderful, at times heartbreaking, always entertaining baseball. Billy and his current/former assistants have defied the odds repeatedly. Let's take a moment to appreciate this, then move on to the next era. As Billy folds this hand, we know that the next hand's just around the corner.

More TV stuff + 49ers stadium a few bucks short

I'm not usually one to dabble in rumormongering, but this one seemed juicy so I can't really resist. During KNBR's 10 a.m. segment on Wednesday featuring Gary Radnich and Tony Bruno, a caller claimed that the FOX affiliation in the Bay Area is up for grabs, with longtime station KTVU losing grip and Radnich's own KRON in the running. Radnich tacitly confirmed the rumor, saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that the station didn't get involved with MyNetworkTV for nothing. MyNetworkTV is the tiny, failing broadcast network owned by FOX.

Not that the A's are performing well ratings-wise against Dr. Phil, but this would certainly explain why KRON wouldn't pursue a lengthy deal with the A's. KTVU could be in serious trouble if they lose FOX, as they'd become just another independent station with few prospects (yes, I'm including MyNetworkTV). Longtime news anchor Dennis Richmond is retiring next spring, which would put the KTVU news operation in a similar position to, well, what KRON is in right now. KTVU is not owned by FOX. It's owned by Cox Communications, which has long resisted FOX's offers to buy and fostered a sense of autonomy for KTVU. Among the shows of autonomy: KTVU has in the past used CNN national video instead of FOX News, and it still partners with CNN on its website. KTVU is the only one of the Bay Area's four major network stations that is not owned by the parent network. Should KTVU lose FOX to KRON, could it provide an opening for the A's? We'll see.

---

Meanwhile in Santa Clara, rising costs and limited sources of funding put the project underfunded by $51 million. The key appears to be the city's preference not to give up development rights to some key parcels of land north of the stadium site (quotes from Assistant City Manager Ron Garratt):

Revenue from land leases "is the one significant revenue source in the general fund that is locally controlled," he said in an interview. "The state can't come in and take it; the county can't touch it. It's critical. It's 10 percent of the general fund now and it's projected to grow somewhat higher."

The proposal calls for a large amount of gameday revenues being routed toward debt service. However, there are no plans for a land lease payment from the 49ers for the stadium land. It's unclear how the $51 million gap would be bridged. The team indicated that they or the NFL may be able to raise additional money. For their sake I hope so since the city says it's tapped out at their stated $136 million contribution.

Nearby hotels are positive about a plan to create a Mello-Roos district that would levy an additional occupancy tax, helping to fund the stadium. Many of those hotels are also interested in becoming the hotel of choice for visiting teams, so there's some direct benefit there. The backup site, or bus/overflow lot, is looking more and more like the best site with each passing day.

The humorous part of it was the list of demands submitted by Cedar Fair, operator of Great America. Cedar Fair wants to be compensated for the 4 days of lost revenue every year when they'll have to close the park because of conflicts with football games. They also are demanding control of all parking revenues from all events at the stadium. Good luck with that. Does anyone else find it odd that two companies from Ohio are duking it out over the fate of a Bay Area-based team?

Messing around with TV

Over the last few weeks, I've finally taken the plunge into HDTV. The geek in me won't go about it the normal way, so I've been looking at more than just TV's. As much as I like TiVo I couldn't justify laying out cash for yet another monthly subscription, so I decided to find out what TiVo alternatives were available. In the end I went with a neat little product called HDHomeRun from Livermore company Silicondust. It has two digital tuners that pick up free digital feeds from either cable or over-the-air. Those feeds are sent into your home network and can be streamed or recorded by any computer on the network. Not every channel comes through free and unencrypted. Most of the major cable networks are encrypted and require a cable box. YMMV but it's worked well so far for me.

Apparently the Giants have also been messing around with TV. Last week the Giants bought a sizable stake in FSN Bay Area, which will put them in excellent financial shape for the next 25 years. The details:

• The team bought a 30% stake, which comes out both the Comcast and FOX stakes. Comcast now owns 45%, while FOX has 25%.
• Giants games will continue to be broadcast on the channel, which will officially benamed Comcast SportsNet before the season starts.
• CSN will show at least 130 Giants games now that the Giants' deal with KNTV has a reduced schedule compared to KTVU.
• Existing agreements with the A's, Warriors, and Sharks will be unchanged (those run through the end of the decade).
• CSN will produce a nightly local sports newscast. It already produces Sportsnite for the existing CSN West channel, which is geared towards the Central Valley currently. It's not clear whether the new CSN channel will have a specific Bay Area focus or if it will be merged with CSN West (which is partly owned by the Maloof brothers).

The Giants picked a good time to work this deal out. It gets them a nice new stream of revenue, which along with the $100 million stake in the channel, will raise the team's value significantly. It should be easier to work with sponsors who will now know that the Giants have a 25-year run of stability behind it. And while it hasn't been mentioned yet, should Peter Magowan and his group decide to divest themselves of the team, they could get upwards of $600 million for the franchise.

What about the A's?
If you think the A's have been left out in the cold, they aren't. Right now the broadcasting world is in a major state of flux, with the digital conversion coming in February 2009 and AT&T starting to offer rival services that rival Comcast's cable TV, the rules are quickly going to change.

Let's say the A's wanted to start their own cable sports network. There a couple rules they'd have to follow in order to get started:

• If you want to be carried by Comcast, you must give them a taste. Like Tony Soprano dealing with his capos, Comcast wants their envelope. That's means Comcast wants a piece of whatever new channel you're launching. They'll help you get production going. If you want to go it alone, good luck getting any help from them. Note: When scanning for my local free channels, several networks I didn't expect to find were available: Vs., TVOne, and Comcast SportsNet West. All three are partly or wholly owned by Comcast. If FSNBA becomes CSN West, CSNW won't be free for long.
  
• Don't ask to be on expanded basic. Comcast is pushing all new sports networks to their "digital sports tier." A legacy network such as FSNBA or ESPN/ESPN2 will stay on expanded basic, but everything else is meant for the sports tier. That goes for national single-sport networks such as NFL Network and NBATV, as well as new regional sports networks. Part of the reasoning is that Comcast doesn't want to pass along the often high subscriber fees to regular customers who may not be interested in additional sports networks (they also frequently complain about rising cable bills). Another is that by relegating a RSN to a digital channel, it takes up far less bandwidth than an analog basic channel.
  
• The satellite companies won't offer any favors either. DirecTV and Dish are feeling the pinch as they have to carry hundreds more channels simultaneously than the typical regional cable operator. They'll carry your channel as long as you don't ask for overly exhorbitant fees.

As you can see, right now isn't exactly the best time for the A's to start getting entrepreneurial. At least not in TV land. However, change is afoot.

The Digital TV Transition
On February 17, 2009, all US broadcasters are supposed to switch over from analog to completely digital transmissions. Many consumers won't really notice as they may already have their TV served up to them by some kind of set top box (cable or satellite). That old "cable-ready" TV you may have put in the garage? Or that trusty 4" portable deal you bought several years ago to bring to sporting events? Those will be useless.

Over-the-air broadcasts will be digital, and to help the government is helping by subsidizing $1 billion in new digital set top boxes for viewers who only get over-the-air TV. Digital broadcasts are more bandwidth-efficient than analog, so the government is reclaiming some of that bandwidth for other uses. You may have heard recently about the 700 MHz wireless spectrum auction, scheduled for this coming January. Verizon, Google, and Cox are among several bidders for certain pieces of spectrum, which could carry voice and data faster and more reliably than existing networks. The 700 MHz spectrum has been used by OTA channels 52-69.

For cable, the process may be a little slower as some cable providers are preparing to keep at least a few analog stations (the regular broadcast networks) alive for a little longer depending on customer response. Cable operators are mandated to carry both analog and digital signals for the time being, an extension of "must-carry" rules. As the old analog channels are replaced completely by digital (including HDTV), bandwidth will be freed up. Some of that bandwidth is slated for video-on-demand services and more HD channels, some will be used for higher-speed internet access. (AT&T's U-verse service is IP-based and is far different from what Comcast or Verizon provide.)

Within all of that freed bandwidth should be additional space for a combo SD/HD regional sports network, should the A's decide to launch one.

Still need a partner
Even with all of that, an A's-based regional sports network won't be viable unless there's additional programming. To get that, they'll need to look south to San Jose, and the Sharks. The A's and Sharks are in similar positions relative to the local TV market. They perform worse than other teams that broadcast during the same season (A's vs. Giants, Sharks vs. Warriors). Both will be catering heavily to a Silicon Valley corporate base. Both have limited radio deals and are disadvantaged in the local media market compared to the other Bay Area teams. Chronologically they are the youngest franchises in the Bay Area. And their seasons are compatible, with the A's regular season ending when the Sharks' season starts (and vice-versa). Quakes 4.0 will be an integral piece, and their summer schedule isn't so heavy as to cause frequent conflicts.

The teams can't stop there. There are tons of other teams in the area and no one needs to look under rocks to find them. Did you know that CSN West and the St. Mary's men's basketball team have been expanding their broadcasting deal the last three years? That there are dozens of great high school football rivalries that don't get the regional recognition they deserve because of meager coverage?

The A's recently re-upped with KICU for 3 years. The deal probably isn't much to sneeze at, but that's fine because the market will truly open up at the turn of the decade. Once it does, the A's need to be poised to strike. There'll be a window of opportunity for their own media independence, but that window won't be open forever.

All quiet on the Fremont front

Apologies for not having a post in the past couple weeks, everyone. Honestly, not much has happened with the A's regarding the stadium matters. The environmental consultant was approved as part of a consent vote with other items on 11/27. The city council session still ran 4+ hours, most of it devoted to a single agenda item: a development at I-680 and Auto Mall/Durham called Sabercat Center. The project faced vigorous opposition from residents of the Mission San Jose neighborhood, many of whom have homes a stone's throw away from the project site. Despite the seemingly endless stream of residents opposed to Sabercat Center, the council approved the project 4-1 anyway. Is that foreshadowing for Cisco Field? Probably not, because the two main criticisms of Sabercat Center were its vertical orientation (far different from the SFR's that dominate the area) and its location literally on top of the Hayward fault. Immediate NIMBY concerns don't really affect Cisco Field as it's across I-880 from any nearby residence. It's also a good two miles from the Hayward fault, slightly less than the distance from the Coliseum to the same fault. In any case, nothing's happening until after the New Year.

The holidays haven't halted everyone's work.

• Newark is debating the fate of a parcel at its southern edge near Pacific Commons. Plans for the land known as "Area 3" and "Area 4" include residential development and a golf course. Like Cisco Field, the key is rezoning of land currently zoned industrial. Unlike Cisco Field, some of the project land is wetlands, which means additional wetlands creation will be required.
• The moribund 49ers just hired Andy Dolich to be their COO, while Jed York may been crowned owner/king of Ninerland. Meanwhile, it appears a hotel tax may be what helps raise the public portion of the 49ers stadium bill. Nearby hotel operators (Hilton, Marriott) are on board based on initial quotes.
• The Tampa Bay Rays are looking at their downtown St. Petersburg spring training site as a future permanent home. The new ballpark would be a waterfront, open-air facility with a retractable roof that would deploy like a sail, protecting fans from rain (but not heat, though concourses would be air-conditioned). Financing would come from the Rays, proceeds from the sale of dev rights at the team's current home, Tropicana Field, and other public sources. Eerie resemblance of the mast structure to a similar (and failed) concept at Montreal's Olympic Stadium aside, the design is quite cool. Part of Tampa Bay would have to be filled in.
• Miami pols have unveiled a massive, expansive redevelopment plan that would incorporate the new Marlins stadium at the site of the to-be-demolished Orange Bowl, along with a co-located, 25,000-seat soccer stadium, museums and a tunnel. It'll take a public vote, a stepped-up contribution from the Marlins, and the Marlins building a 6,000-space parking garage for the plan to work.

Oh yeah, some report was released as well. Which leads to the self-explanatory new poll item on the right.

Good ole' Gus strikes again

Opposition has to come from somewhere, and its most consistent form appears to be former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison, who wrote a letter to the Fremont City Council criticizing the A's Community Specific Plan. In this round he assesses the A's parking plan as inadequate, citing the A's as having "only 5,800 permanent parking spaces identified for the proposed 32,000-seat ballpark."

Those who have been reading these pages for a while know that 5,800 permanent spaces only tells part of the story. As mentioned in a previous post, here's the true parking breakdown:

• Interim/opening day buildout: 21,450 spaces (11,304 ballpark/10,146 non-ballpark)
• Final buildout: 20,646 spaces (10,500 ballpark/10,146 non-ballpark)

The interim plan includes the use of the 41-acre West Cushing parcel, which will be gradually built out into mixed development over several years. Just as the City of San Jose has an agreement with the Sharks to maintain a certain number parking spaces, the A's will have a similar agreement with Fremont. Early indications are that the right number is 10,500, which is more than the current Coliseum lot capacity. There are options available to bridge the 4,700-space gap:

• Use of the 40-acre city-owned parcel next to the planned rail station. The lot will be somewhat remote and the city may want to open it up to more uses than just parking (for instance, a public park) which would limit the space available. As the A's negotiate with the city and the school district on space allotted for public use and parking, it's likely the city-owned parcel will be divvied up in a manner that suits all parties. Should that not work out the A's can also...
• Build garages. Keith Wolff has indicated that this option exists if demand calls for it. Keep in mind that they're already building 10,000 parking spaces in garages for residential and commercial use. They'll have agreements in place to preserve required parking for both of those uses, so the ballpark requirement won't be able to infringe. Additional garage space may become a necessity as the West Cushing parcel is developed. That responsibility won't fall on Fremont, it's up to the A's. In the end, having adequate amounts of parking is sound business. At least in this case, the A's have the better part of 10 years to plan and adjust accordingly. Then there's also yet another option...
• Buy additional surrounding lots. I pointed out in my breakdown of the CSP that the A's haven't bought all of the Brandin Court properties yet. Having only 2/3 of that area alone accounts for the aforementioned 5,800 spaces. Add in the remaining properties and you add another 1,000 or so. Having one large contiguous space near the ballpark allows for flexibility if/when a garage comes into play.
  

For some reason, Morrison seized upon this bit from the Parking Facilities description:

It should also be noted that there are approximately 8.4 million square feet of R&D/Office, Industrial and Warehouse space within 1 mile of the proposed Cisco Field with an estimated 12,000 parking stalls. It is very common for a portion of surrounding commercial owners/tenants to sell parking for ballpark related events in evenings and on weekends when their parking stalls are not in use.

He then took the time to count 4,199 non-retail spaces within one mile of the ballpark site, based on calculations using Google Earth. While I applaud Morrison for using such a good application, his worry appears to be misplaced. He's probably right about his estimate, especially now that a large swath of previously industrial-zoned land in the area is being converted into commercial (the old Creative Labs warehouse comes to mind). Still, nowhere in the CSP do the A's factor these third-party, privately-owned spaces into their parking estimates. Nor do they say this type of use will become part of the eventual parking plan. There may be possibilities there thanks to the fact that much of the land in the area is owned by ProLogis and Lam Research, who can act as go-betweens (ProLogis is helping on the parking plan for the existing Pacific Commons center). Even if there isn't a single space that comes from these third-party lots, there will be over 20,000 spaces available for the entire ballpark village. Then there's also this nugget from the same paragraph:

It is also anticipated that a portion of Cisco Field attendees would shop/dine at the Mixed Use District prior to the game and would qualify for a discounted validation to park within the Mixed Use District as they are also patrons of that district.

How many fans would take advantage? There's no estimate and that's a good thing. Fans who choose to take this option end up with a win-win, as they lighten the load on the ballpark parking facility, they get (likely) discounted parking, and they stick around a little longer before and/or after the game to lessen the strain on road infrastructure.

Morrison's next salvo will involve traffic. I hope (and expect) it to be more enlightening than his crying wolf about parking.

Survey says: Yes to A's in Fremont

A survey of 400 registered voters in Fremont conducted by the A's shows that a majority of residents want the A's in town. Results:

• 60% of residents favor construction of the ballpark village
• 69% of residents have a favorable opinion of the A's
• 18% have an unfavorable opinion of the A's

Margin of error was ±5%. Perhaps some were swayed by the various charitable efforts the A's have done in the area (Eckersley Field renovation, attendance at numerous area events). Or maybe people are simply excited. Whatever the case, it's good to know that the populace is at the very least open-minded about the concept. That's all we can ask for.

Tidbits from the Community Specific Plan

Before I begin, it's necessary to point out that the CSP is the first of what will be many lengthy documents supporting the ballpark village. And be forewarned: the CSP is the prettiest. Everything else will likely be very dry, fact-based, and for some, boring. So the CSP is not the end-all, be-all in the process. All other supporting documentation (EIR, traffic study, additional reports) will spring from the CSP. Case in point: the very brief transportation/parking section is only 10 pages long excluding appendices.

I'll start off with some general points. The question about who pays for infrastructure frequently comes up, so I'll let this paragraph explain the situation (from 2.10 - Plan Area History):

ProLogis (and formerly Catellus) have made major infrastructure improvements over the past ten years for roads and utilities surrounding and serving the vicinity, and, in large part, the Plan Area. The existing entitlements and improvement plans that have been constructed provide an “envelope” in which the new proposed land uses can be accommodated.

That, coupled with the already completed and ongoing freeway improvements, have created an excellent base for further development regardless of type. Obviously, it's up to the developer to fill in the space, but that is a cost that will be borne by the developer per standard practice, not by taxpayers. The items that will have to be negotiated are the transit hub, whatever/wherever that is, and the school.

Impacts
Not mentioned in the CSP, but in the yesterday's Mychael Urban article, is this tidbit:

Simultaneous to the environmental review process, ProLogis, owner of the Pacific Commons Shopping Center, will conduct a targeted outreach program with its tenants at Pacific Commons and the adjacent Auto Mall regarding the transportation and parking impacts of the proposed ballpark village. ProLogis will work collaboratively with both the A's and the City of Fremont as this project progresses.

ProLogis is definitely going to be looking out for its tenants in the process, but it's highly encouraging to know they'll be helping to shape the policy instead of simply taking a hardline position. Maybe they're getting a slightly inflated price for the land they're selling to the A's, maybe not. Even with the sale, ProLogis will remain the largest landowner in the area.

Parking
The number of required spaces for the ballpark alone has been debated and discussed at length (10,000+). The CSP takes it a step further by giving the parking estimate for the full village, including residential and commercial uses. Here are the total parking projections:

• Interim/opening day buildout: 21,450 spaces (11,304 ballpark/10,146 non-ballpark)
• Final builout: 20,646 spaces (10,500 ballpark/10,146 non-ballpark)

The non-ballpark figure includes a static 4,600 spaces for residential use. Unless I'm misinterpreting this figure, it appears to be a worst-case scenario that isn't reflective of what will occur during the interim period because housing will be built gradually over a 10-year span. Still, the max demand can be as high as 20,000+ cars, and that will be the challenge to address. Compare that to the original entitlement of the land, which was for 4.7 million square feet of office space. Using the commonly held ratio of 300 square feet per employee, that translates to 15,666 employees. Bay Area transit usage is around 10%, probably less in Fremont. Remove 10% off the top for transit users, another 15% for carpoolers. That means 11,750 cars from the offices, generally during peak-use periods. At the ballpark village, rush hour usage should be far more when the A's are in town, far less when they're out of town. Break those numbers down into night/day and weekend games and the picture becomes muddled. The A's argument is going to be that total parking/traffic demand will be the same or less than what is currently entitled for the land. We'll have to wait for the traffic/transportation study and a further analysis of it to ascertain the true local and regional impact.

The circulation plan will restrict the lot you can use based on which route you took to get to the ballpark. That is, unless you're a patron at one of the nearby stores or restaurants:

It is also anticipated that a portion of Cisco Field attendees would shop/dine at the Mixed Use District prior to the game and would qualify for a discounted validation to park within the Mixed Use District as they are also patrons of that district.

That's one way to entice people to come early and stay late, while getting a better parking location in the process.

Municipal Parcel
The 40-acre municipal parcel at the far west end of Auto Mall Parkway will be a serious negotiating point. The A's want it for 4,000+ parking spaces. The city would prefer to repurpose it as parkland. Either way, it will probably contain a train station. There is a strip of designated greenbelt area that connects the parcel to the ballpark village. It is this strip that has been designated for the parking tram route.

Other notes
Throughout the Fremont Industrial area, street parking is banned just about everywhere. This ban has been in place for years, and the streets sufficiently narrow enough to make street parking impossible (unless you want to get towed). The exception to this is one block between Pacific Commons and the planned mixed-use portion of the village. If you're looking for a free place to park on the street, you won't find it. They're planning for an extensive network of bike lanes instead.

The "Specific Plan Contributors" list contains 17 different firms, from the A's themselves to geotechnical engineer Engeo to residential planning architect Papageorge/Haymes.

Read the Implementation section (11) to get a feel for the process.

Updated: Development app submitted

The A's have a new press release trumpeting the submission of the development application to the city of Fremont. In the release are several interesting nuggets:

• On May 10, Wolff announced the completion of a land transaction agreement with Cisco Systems and ProLogis, giving the A's ownership group control of 226 acres of land in the City of Fremont and enabling the project to move forward.
• A total of approximately 540,000 square feet of high-quality retail/residential mixed use is also planned for the project, with a significant portion of the retail area serving as a regional lifestyle center and neighborhood retail in a "Main Street USA" environment adjacent to the ballpark.
• The estimated cost of the village project is approximately $1.8 billion. The project will be primarily financed by a combination of private equity and real estate development proceeds generated by the ballpark and the surrounding village.

I'll be cozying up with the Community Specific Plan (warning! large - 30 MB - download) this evening.

To answer a question from a commenter: No, this is not a done deal. This is only the first official step. 12-18 months will be required to vet the proposal. Groundbreaking would occur sometime after approval and certification of the plan.

---

Some quick observations:

• The Scott Specialty Gas parcel is not included in the site plan. Is this merely a preliminary vision that will change when the site is acquired, or is it that the two parties can't come to an agreement?
• The interim plan shows over 11,000 parking spaces. The final, depending on buildout, is slightly less than 11,000 spaces.
• As expected, shuttle buses are prevalent. Not expected - the possible use of open-air trams (6.32).
• The appendices have diagrams showing traffic flow for games based on initial and final buildout as well as shuttle routes.

More to come.

Planning transit around a ballpark, Part III

Lew Wolff revealed on Forum with Michael Krasny that the development filing, due in 10 days, will be accompanied by 150 pages of documentation. Keep in mind that this "tome" won't be environmental impact report. It will likely include the much-anticipated traffic and transportation study. It might also contain an amended economic impact report to reflect changes in the development. The actual EIR will come after several months of study and review, first in draft form, then in final form for certification.

The traffic and transportation study will probably contain details about the shuttles that will take fans from either the current Fremont BART station or a future Warm Springs (South Fremont) BART station to Cisco Field. In an effort to provide a preview of this, this post speculates a bit on what the shuttles could look like.

The red, green, and blue lines represent potential routes from the existing Fremont BART station. The dotted yellow line shows routes from Warm Springs BART. The pink dotted line represents routes from the future Capitol Corridor/ACE station as well as the possible remote parking lot. At first glance it doesn't appear that the nearby lots (blue and yellow "P"), which are less than 1/2 mile from the ballpark, would have shuttle service.

This is where it gets tricky. Let's go with Keith Wolff's estimate that 5,000 people would either take transit or walk from the nearby village. How many would come from the village itself? 1,000? 2,000? I seriously doubt that more than 1,000 residents would go to the ballpark. The number of workers from the nearby area that could walk to the ballpark might number in the hundreds at best. So let's assume that 4,000 would come from transit.

Since there would be no direct BART or rail service to the ballpark, all transit riders would be coming via some kind of bus, big or small. So the question is, how many buses will it take? Going from what's in AC Transit's fleet, here's what they'll need:

• 40 articulated (60' long) buses: 63 seated, 40 standees -or-
  
• 60 regular (40') buses: 40 seated, 30 standees -or-
  
• 200 mini or shuttle buses: 20 seated, 0 standees
  

There a couple more considerations to take into account. Would these shuttles provide "express" service between the station and the ballpark, or would there be stops in between? I can't see Fremont officials signing off on something that appreciably clogs their streets without providing at least some service to its own residents. And if the service included stops in between, what about service to parts of Fremont not on the routes? Or service to Newark or Union City? An express bus might take 20 minutes in favorable traffic. In bad traffic or with a bunch of stops, it could take 10-15 minutes more.

This is where our oft-neglected friend the train comes in. While Capitol Corridor won't bring fans the last mile (literally), CC trains can bridge much of the 5 mile gap. They can also overcome some major challenges. A train shuttle running from the Union City Intermodal Station would reduce the need for those 40-100 bus shuttles from Fremont BART. It would also service Union City and Fremont by default, plus a new station along the Newark section of the route could service Newark residents. Most importantly, the remaining shuttle traffic would be largely confined to the Pacific Commons area (the pink dotted line), with few shuttles crossing 880. Shorter shuttle routes translate greater efficiency and lower operating costs. The trip from Union City to Pacific Commons could run around 15 minutes - not as good as BART but better than a bus. Capitol Corridor officials had indicated in the past that they aren't set up to run a shuttle like this, but some creative scheduling can allow this service to be folded into their expanding schedule. Additional trains between Fremont and San Jose will soon be feasible with the completion of several already underway track improvement projects.

Now, on to the dotted yellow line. A study was undertaken in 2001 to determine ways to better move traffic between 880 and 680 during the commute hours. Two identified methods would immediately impact fans traveling between the proposed Warm Springs BART station and Pacific Commons.

Alternative A1 involves the widening of Auto Mall Parkway to 6 lanes east of 880. That alone should make things easier, but two other measures should be taken to mitigate traffic. First, it appears that the parking area located closest to Cisco Field will be largely VIP parking. That alone will reduce the number of cars making left turns from Auto Mall to Christy St. Rules can be established that limit left turns there to VIP parking passes and shuttle buses. Second, since Joe Fan won't get to park that close to the park, he may be forced to use the lot across Auto Mall from Pacific Commons (the uppermost "P" above). It would behoove the A's to build a pedestrian overpass over Auto Mall Parkway. A full lot there would equate to over 5,000 fans walking from the lot. Not putting in an overpass would be borderline irresponsible, as Auto Mall Parkway is 9 lanes wide in this area and only one side has a usable crosswalk. The best thing to do would be to build the overpass and stick some flexible electronic signage on it. The signage can direct traffic on event days. It can also show advertising on other days/hours.

Alternative B1 adds HOV lanes on Fremont Blvd and Grimmer Blvd between 880 and 680. If implemented, it would allow a natural route (the longer southerly dotted line) with built-in bus/carpool lanes.

I'm certain that with the direct discussions the A's have had with all of the area transit agencies, they can come up with more creative methods of serving the A's fanbase. The solutions described above are but a handful that can help bring fans to Cisco Field without huge capital expenditures while leveraging without taxing existing infrastructure.

FUSD trustees continue push for school

There's been an ongoing dialogue between the A's and FUSD, with both at different ends of the negotiations. In today's report from the Fremont Bulletin by Wes Bowers, the district revealed more about their projections for a new school that would service ~3,000 new homes:

The range of elementary students generated from the development is projected between 621 to 931, based on an analysis from a district housing study.

From kindergarten to the sixth grade, the district-wide average from all homes is .214 students per home.

Multiplying that average by the 2,900 homes proposed by the A's, approximately 621 students could be generated by the project.

...

The board said the A's should build a school that can house at least 1,000 students, citing that because it will be a new school, it will attract more people.

"These units will generate a higher number of students," Boardmember Larry Sweeney said. "This will be the newest school in a high-performing district, and it will attract quite a few people from this development. It needs to accommodate 1,000 kids from day one."

This is where it gets tricky. The district doesn't want to run into a situation where the school is underbuilt, especially with an urban design that doesn't have the space to accommodate temporary or portable classrooms. They also have their preferences for proper amounts of play area and fields. All of these issues and more have to be taken into consideration for the school's final design.

Giants move to NBC11

This one's a shocker. Today the San Francisco Giants announced that they will be leaving their long-time TV flagship, KTVU-2, for KNTV-11, the Bay Area's NBC affiliate. KTVU continues to have a small stake in the Giants, which seems, well, awkward.

The deal will run for three years, with the broadcast teams staying intact.

For the Giants, the move shouldn't change things much. KNTV moved their transmitter to San Bruno Mountain a while back, so from an over-the-air standpoint they should cover much the same ground. On cable they're on channel 3 instead of 2. And it looks like KNTV will help produce some additional magazine-style promotional content.

The move's much more interesting for KTVU. KTVU has been riding high on FOX's numerous hits such as 24, House, M.D., and American Idol. All three of those shows air on Monday and Tuesday nights, which are primetime conflict areas for KTVU vis-a-vis the Giants. Even though KTVU has KICU as a fall back when that type of conflict occurs, I'm certain they were contractually obligated not to preempt Giants games for anything else. Those hit shows may also have been better lead-ins for KTVU's 10 p.m. newscast than Giants broadcasts. That's saying a lot since Giants broadcasts trump every other non-NFL Bay Area sports franchise. So if you're wondering if the A's could somehow slide into Oakland-based KTVU's schedule - fuhgetaboutit.

This move is even more telling for KNTV, whose parent network, NBC, has struggled since stalwarts such as Seinfeld, Friends, and Frazier retired. Obviously, NBC-owned KNTV needs a better lead-in to its newscasts than much of its lackluster programming. A look at last week's Nielsens shows not a single NBC primetime telecast in the Top 20 list - which was somewhat skewed by the inclusion of all four World Series broadcasts. Bringing the Giants into the fold has to be a steadying influence, even if an even greater majority of Giants broadcasts will end up on FSN Bay Area. Note to NBC: Please don't mess with the Thursday lineup. I'm tired of you guys killing Scrubs.

From a regional standpoint, I suppose this kind of move should give the Giants better ties to the South Bay, but ever since the ownership change KNTV has been working hard to remake their image as a Bay Area-first station, not a Silicon Valley station. However, both parties might get more Valley advertisers in the process, the same way various Valley companies advertise on Sharks radio broadcasts. The NBC-Telemundo partnership may become an integral part of the broadcasts, though I can't yet say for certain how.

In the long run, the length of the contract allows the Giants to test out a new flagship while exploring other ventures. If the Giants wanted to launch a new regional cable network, they could easily do it starting in 2011. Many teams are moving a greater number of broadcasts to cable, and by the middle of the next decade viewers could face a situation in which no A's or Giants games were delivered over-the-air. It's a day late for Halloween, but it doesn't make the future any less spooky.

Planning transit around a ballpark, Part II

I haven't had a chance to listen to Lew Wolff on Michael Krasny's show on KQED-FM. I'll pick up the archive later and comment those. Those of you who've already heard it live, feel free to chime in.

---

Haven't been able to past the last couple of days, so here's the continuation of Sunday's Part I.
The yellow line.

That line is the route Amtrak and ACE take through Fremont as they wind they way north and east, respectively. None of these routes have direct connections with BART within Fremont city limits.

Union City may become a vital piece. Just east of the existing Union City BART station, a fairly large development is springing up. It's a mixed-use transit village that will contain office and residential towers. Anchoring the whole concept is a new rail station, one that will accommodate existing Amtrak and future high speed rail lines. Like the intramodal stations in Millbrae, Richmond, and the Coliseum, riders can step off one platform and switch to another fairly easily. Funding for the station will be dependent on the high speed rail initiative and the Caltrain Dumbarton line (red dotted line), which would run between Redwood City and Union City.

Should the Union City intramodal station come to fruition, it wouldn't cover the last mile to the ballpark, since the planned Pacific Commons train station is still 1.25 miles west of the ballpark. Another shuttle or a lengthy walk would be required, since it's unlikely that planners would go for the spur station concept I posed a year ago. The yellow line, which depicts the serpentine route through Fremont, would take much longer than a BART train taking a much more direct route to Warm Springs.

Even if these various rail solutions get built, a shuttle of some kind would still be necessary. If the rail solutions don't get built shuttling fans will be a daunting task. Shuttle options were discussed previously. I'll revisit the subject this weekend.

Planning transit around a ballpark: Part I

First off, I have to admit that the title above is quite disconcerting. The preferred set of actions for a new ballpark would include siting it in close proximity to multiple modes of existing transit or at worst, future transit. Should Cisco Field get approved and built there will be challenges getting fans via public transportation to the ballpark. The 18% of fans that currently take transit or walk (i.e. BART) will likely drop precipitously, despite some overly rosy predictions.

To paraphrase FSU from the last comments thread, just because a transit solution can be built doesn't mean it will. That's the rub. There are numerous factors that come into play when considering how to service an area. Budget constraints are always a reality. Operators want to ensure that the most people get the best available service, and running routes that don't have much ridership is wasteful. At the same time, there needs to be a populace or potential user base already in place to utilize transit solutions, since the car-oriented often don't switch to transit quickly or easily.

Unfortunately, south Fremont is a no-man's land transit-wise. The oft-mentioned 5 miles from Fremont BART to Pacific Commons is already bad. It's another 4 miles south to the county line. Most of that area, especially along the Nimitz, is industrially zoned. AC Transit services the area, and there are certain bus routes that get a fair amount of usage, but for the most part the riders aren't there thanks to sprawling campuses. Driving around the area, one gets the sense transit use drops off exponentially the further one moves away from the BART station. That isn't really anyone's fault. When BART was built Fremont was a relatively new city and was sparsely populated. Much of south Fremont was still farmland or otherwise undeveloped. It made sense to terminate BART at the city center since the greatest ridership potential would be there. In hindsight, it may have been advantageous to bring the line 5 miles south to Warm Springs, to better serve all of Fremont and South Bay riders. There weren't many residents there at the time, but there were jobs at NUMMI. Ultimately, the best solution would have to involve major consideration of users north and south of Warm Springs. The immediate surrounding area doesn't have much density.

The following map (click for a much larger, 800 kb version) is a highlighted version of AC Transit's Tri-Cities local service map. Current and future rail lines and immediate areas surrounding current transit hubs are featured.

What a big disjointed mess. There are 4 current transit centers, all north of Stevenson Blvd, which are supposed to service about 330,000 residents, spread over an area larger than Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville combined. One of these, the Centerville train station (Amtrak/ACE), gets far less usage than the true transit hubs (the BART stations). NewPark Mall's transit center is bus only. ACE and Amtrak take a serpentine route through Fremont that has to be speed-limited because it runs at grade right through residential areas. And to simplify things, I haven't included the high speed rail routes, the optional Irvington BART station, or the Ardenwood Park-n-Ride in Newark, which is for transbay commuter use. This is suburbia in nearly its least transit-friendly form. There is no unifying thoroughfare linking all three cities (880 does not count because people don't hang out on a freeway). All three cities are naturally in competition with one another for residents, businesses, and sales taxes, making joint efforts potentially difficult.

Why focus on this? It's simple. A transit solution for Cisco Field cannot be considered outside the greater context of south Fremont and the Tri-Cities area as a whole. No white elephant solution can work unless it were totally financed and operated privately. Any solutions will require partnerships among the MTC, AC Transit, BART, Amtrak, ACE, VTA, WHEELS, and even Caltrain. So let's start with options that could provide the most benefit:

• Warm Springs BART Extension (WSX). Okay, I know you're saying "duh" but hear me out. It's not that simple. It's not just the fact that even with the extension riders would still be 1.25 miles away from Cisco Field. For AC Transit, WSX would solve a host of problems. Bus routes are usually a hub-and-spoke operation in this area, and since in Fremont they have to start at Fremont BART, any route to south Fremont would run at least 10 miles with sparse ridership. Move the hub down to Warm Springs and routing becomes far easier, tighter, and as a result more efficient. VTA would get the same benefit because it would be a much shorter haul from the county line to Warm Springs. More regular VTA service could run to BART instead of expensive Express bus service. Once that's done, time-sensitive bus and/or carpool lanes could be designated in the corridors between Warm Springs and Pacific Commons. Most of the surface streets in the area are already sufficiently wide or could be widened to accommodate this kind of service. Most importantly, a shuttle from Warm Springs would be a ton cheaper to operate than a shuttle from the Fremont station. Now it's understood that the WSX extension can't be done without the San Jose extension, which is facing an uphill battle. However, there is one change to BART that for some reason has not really been considered, that could push a San Jose extension over the top...
• Dublin-Pleasanton to Fremont-and-beyond BART service. Regular BART riders already know that the system has an all-roads-lead-to-Oakland approach. BART also doesn't run Express or Limited service, and its lack of track siding or alternate routes makes single points of failure potentially catastrophic. Then there are the political issues that make BART difficult to expand (which would require a separate post to cover in even rudimentary detail). Despite all of this, BART is a clean, efficient system that counts 100 million boardings annually. In all of the hubbub about the Warm Springs and San Jose extensions, there has been a vocal outcry from Livermore users and others east of the current Dublin/Pleasanton terminus about an extension east along 580. IMO they're absolutely right. It should've been done a decade ago. For some reason, the Livermore extension supporters and San Jose backers have decided to oppose each other. If they truly want to get their extensions built they should band together. On some websites and in the San Jose extension documents, there is not a single mention of a Dublin-Pleasanton to Fremont-San Jose line. (There is talk of a 680-based BART line but south of 580 - why? Sunol is not a population center, and that median space would be much better suited to carpool or toll lanes.) Back to the new line - from a construction standpoint, this would require one additional set of connectors between the 238/580 extension and the Fremont line, equating to a couple of miles of aerial or submerged track. Currently, the only connectors send trains from westbound 238 towards Oakland/Richmond/SF. The only way to get to Fremont is to transfer at Bay Fair. It would be a challenge because of the lack of available space and the acute angle that would be used, but it would be worth it. Users would finally be able to directly go from Pleasanton and Livermore to Fremont and once the San Jose extension is built, down to the job centers. Yes, there is ACE and buses already run along the Sunol Grade, but if there were a faster, cheaper way to go wouldn't you take it? Proponents would suddenly have increased justification thanks to higher ridership estimates. And for once BART would show signs of flexibility, since the line would dispense with the decades-old Oakland-as-Appian Way approach. ACE might suffer a bit but their riders come largely from the Central Valley anyway. The easily forgotten WHEELS wouldn't have to run a ballpark service bus, which is a big deal because they don't currently have any kind of service between the Tri-Valley area and Fremont. Politically, this kind of project would have to be led by three Alameda County supervisors whose districts would be affected. Scott Haggerty has long been a proponent of both the Livermore and San Jose extensions, and Tri-Valley is in his district. Gail Steele's district contains Pacific Commons, which stands to get more business from this kind of plan. Alice Lai-Bitker, whose husband, Steve Bitker, filled in at times on A's radio broadcasts and was passed over for the similar-sounding Vince Cotroneo (hmmm), would be the linchpin since the connector would be built in her district. The MTC would have to give its thumbs up, and current projects would have to be restructured or amended such as WSX. In the end that tiny connector would be a win-win for Tri-Valley commuters, both extension proponents, BART, and last but not least the A's.

Before some of you start on the "BART is never coming to San Jose" rants in the comments, let me just say that yes, it is going to be difficult to get BART to the South Bay because of the rising costs. Funny thing is, I've talked to a few officials who consider it a fait accompli, sooner or later. It is looking at this project from a regional standpoint, not just as a series of smaller projects, that will give rise to a better transit vision, one that all Bay Area residents can agree upon. One that, with a little savvy and patience, will have positive cascading effects for the A's and A's fans at Cisco Field.

Tomorrow I'll go over that crazy yellow line on the map.

What size school? + Killion wants traffic answers

The Argus' Linh Tat covers discussions by trustees of the Fremont Unified School Board, who want the ballpark village's school to be larger than the 4-acre concept the A's have been pitching:

Sharing their vision for the new school for the first time, trustees agreed at Wednesday night's board meeting that they would like 4 1/2 acres of play area alone, and Trustee Larry Sweeney said he would like the entire school to encompass a minimum of 8 acres. Typical suburban schools are spread over 8 to 10 acres.

This means negotiations between the district and the A's can begin in earnest. The trustees want no more than two stories for safety reasons and more play area, which could include more than one field or one really large field. The A's want a more compact design so that they can conserve land for housing or other uses.

We'll see where they can come to an agreement. It's possible the city might step in here, especially if the concept ends up being a shared school/park facility. The A's have been reluctant to go that route, instead suggesting a series of smaller pocket parks and playgrounds. I've mentioned before that a bargaining chip may be the city-owned 40 acre parcel next to the rail line and near the now-closed-to-the-public landfill. From the discussions that emerged from the school board presentation a few weeks ago, there's a good sense that all parties know how to make this work.

---

The Merc's Ann Killion jumps on the alarmist traffic bandwagon. This time, her critique is two-fold. There are the actual public transportation and traffic issues to address. Then there's the cavalier nature by which Lew Wolff is responding to repeated inquiries.

Killion wants to act as the environmentally conscious journalist when she writes:

Twenty years ago, 10 years ago, even two years ago locating a stadium away from easily accessed public transportation was not such a big deal. It wasn't even that big a deal last year when the A's unveiled their swanky plans for Cisco Field.

But with every passing day, every new horror story about global warming, every new Prius sold, every bump in gas prices, the public becomes more and more aware of the desperate need for better public transportation. That the old model of bigger freeways and longer traffic jams just isn't going to work.

Excellent points. I hope to take a new train from Downtown San Jose to Fremont to attend games, even if I have to take a shuttle. Maybe I'll even buy a townhouse near Cisco Field so that I can walk. I'll try to make my contribution.

Here's the problem I have with these critiques: the writers are jumping the gun by playing the FUD card. Yes, there are concerns about how to properly route ballpark-related traffic and even reduce it. Getting effective public transportation to the site will be no easy feat and will require buy-in from many different entities, including Fremont, Alameda County, the MTC, and several transit agencies. Everyone who is in any way associated with the project is keenly aware of these issues. That does not mean, however, that they are intractable. It will require some very creative planning to put together a solid, usable system of traffic management and public transportation at the site. Let's wait until the traffic and transportation study are released, then we can give a proper assessment. Tonight I'll try to frame the discussion by assessing the local (Tri-Cities) public transportation system, and why the existing suburban buildout might make it difficult to implement any significant changes.

Funny thing is, wasn't it Killion who around this time last year lobbied the Giants to accept a payoff for territorial rights to Santa Clara County? She even wrote this:

I'm less perturbed by Wolff's posturing about leaving Oakland and voicing his frustration over the red tape he is facing than I am about his discussion of one of the biggest hurdles: traffic.

I wonder then, where Killion would like to see the A's located? Definitely to a place that has good public transit infrastructure already in place. Maybe a place that could get both BART and High Speed Rail in the next 15-20 years. Maybe a place like... Downtown San Jose.

Nah. From a San Jose-based columnist? Couldn't be that.

(awaiting first Anthony Rodriguez, er., Dominguez comment...)