Friday, October 02, 2015

Santa Clara 49ers: crappy team, crappy stadium, crappy management



The San Francisco 49ers‘ new stadium in Santa Clara has had some problems since it opened last year — the grass won’t stay put, it was brutally hot, getting in and out by car was often painful, and the stadium lights blinded nearby airline pilots. And now, according to KGO-TV, some seat license holders are fed up and want out of their season-ticket deals:

If you were hoping to get your hands on a San Francisco 49ers Season Builders License, or SBL, you’re in luck. Thousands are now available, but re-sellers say it has nothing to do with the team’s current record. Still, a growing number of fans are very dissatisfied…“Half the stadium, we get beat up by the sun. So if you’re going to watch a game, you want to enjoy, drink a few beers. Here, you drink a few beers, and you get beat up, come home with sunburn, it’s just a bad experience,” [San Jose resident Tuan] Le said.

Other fans complained that the 49ers changed their ticket policy this year, sending only electronic tickets that can’t be printed until 72 hours before the game, making it harder to sell unwanted tickets.

Now, it’s only 3,000 licenses that are up for resale, up only slightly from last spring, and not all that much in a 68,000-seat stadium. And besides, the magic of PSLs (or SBLs as the 49ers call them) is that the team doesn’t have to give a crap about any of this: They’ve sold the licenses already, and it’s the fans’ problem if they made a bad investment.

The more interesting question is what this means for plans to finance stadiums in Los Angeles by similar means: Will L.A. fans, seeing the mess in Santa Clara, be more hesitant to plunk down for Rams/Raiders/Chargers PSLs? Nobody knows, but then nobody knows how viable those PSL sales projections were in the first place. 

This is a cautionary tale for somebody, that’s for sure, but whether it’s for football fans, for city officials in Inglewood and Carson, or for cities that think they have to outbid L.A. for the right to keep their teams is yet to be determined.

Rob's comment:
A "cautionary tale" for the Warriors and City Hall in SF, especially about traffic. Why not move the new stadium further south on the waterfront? 

Labels: ,

More people commuting by car in the US

Pool It


In 1960, 12.1 percent of American workers went to work by transit, which was then largely privately owned. Despite (or because of) public takeover of almost every transit system in the country, transit’s share steadily declined to 4.7 percent in 2000. Then, in 2010, it crept up to 4.9 percent. The 2014 American Community Survey found that it has increased still further to 5.2 percent.

Since 2000, the increase in transit’s share has come at the expense of carpooling, which fell from 12.6 percent to 9.2 percent in 2014. Biking and walking also fell slightly from 3.4 to 3.3 percent. Driving alone, however, grew from 73.2 to 76.5 percent. So the increase in transit’s share did not translate to a reduction in the number of cars on the road. Indeed, using census carpool data and assuming that “5- or 6-person carpools” have an average of 5.5 people and “7-or-more-person carpools” have 7 people, there were 104.2 million cars commuting to work in 2000, 110.8 million in 2010, and 117.6 million in 2014...

Rob's comment:

What about commuting in San Francisco? I posted those numbers the other day. 

Streetsblog's usual biased interpretation of those numbers: 

As San Francisco’s economy booms, a lot more people are commuting, and very few are doing it in a car...The numbers show a clear trend: Transit, walking, and bicycle commuting are each growing markedly faster than solo car commuting.

Not surprising that Streetsblog celebrates the fact that "solo car commuting" declined as a percentage of all commutes in the city. On the other hand, it increased from 159,000 in 2006 to 164,000 in 2014, which you won't learn from Streetsblog's account. As did commuting by "car, truck, or van," from 190,000 in 2006 to 198,000 in 2014. That doesn't seem like "very few" to me.

"Public transportation" commuting---the only realistic alternative to driving for most people---is way up since 2006 in SF, a welcome trend. Another welcome trend: walking to work increased dramatically, perhaps because more people are living near downtown, which makes it practical for more people.

"Bicycle commuting" did increase in the city, but not enough for Streetsblog to celebrate, since it only increased from 2% of all commutes in 2006 to 4% in 2014, a nine-year period during which city residents were subjected to intense anti-car, pro-bike propaganda from City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition.

Actually, according to the city's numbers in the last Transportation Fact Sheet (page 3), it's a lot worse than that: commuting by bike in SF was 2.1% in 2000, which means it has only increased 1.9% in 15 years.

Streetsblog caps off its account with a block quote from Tom Radulovich's anti-car front group, the SF Transit Riders Union:

“In the midst of a population boom and a changing climate, San Francisco more than ever needs to dramatically decrease the amount of single-occupant vehicles on the road,” said Ilyse Magy of the SF Transit Riders Union. “For this mode shift to happen, we need a Muni that can not only handle the extra capacity but also get people to where they are going more efficiently. Otherwise commuters will choose the faster and more convenient option, which unfortunately is often driving.”

That's the biggest problem the anti-car movement has: those wicked motor vehicles are so often "the faster and more convenient option."

Brookings

Labels: , , , , ,