CFAH

Warriors Mission Bay Arena Rendering: 11/3/15

The detailed plan for managing the projected traffic and transportation associated with the Golden State Warriors proposed Mission Bay arena, office and retail development has just been released.

The Transportation Management Plan‘s nine (9) stated objectives (and performance standards below):

  1. To facilitate and promote safe use of non-automobile transportation by people attending and supporting Event Center events or office and retail uses on-site
  2. To highlight and optimize the use of transit by both event attendees and event or daily employees
  3. To facilitate and maximize bicycle use by Event Center Development event attendees and event or daily employees
  4. To facilitate a high-quality walking experience to the Event Center Development from adjacent residences, employment locations, transit stations, and parking garages by identifying key walking routes and major street crossing locations, so that wayfinding can be provided and PCOs can be located at critical points to manage the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles during major events
  5. To publicize the non-traditional transportation resources existing in the site vicinity, including the Mission Bay Transportation Management Association (TMA) shuttle service and pedicab ride providers
  6. To maximize safety for all transportation users at key locations around the Event Center Development site and broader neighborhood during event ingress and egress
  7. To ensure the safe interaction of pedestrians and cyclists traveling along South and 16th Street and vehicles accessing the Event Center Development garage entries located on South Street at Bridgeview Way and on 16th Street at Illinois Street
  8. To facilitate the safe and efficient flow of vehicle traffic into and out of the site and throughout the Mission Bay neighborhood during event and no event conditions; and
  9. Under a scenario without implementation of the Muni Transit Service Plan, to maintain a stated maximum auto mode share standard of 53 percent under peak weekday event conditions (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM) and 59 percent under peak weekend event conditions (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM).

In addition to a proposed 950 parking spaces under the arena, which will be shared with the office and retail components of the development, the Warriors organization has purchased the right to use 132 additional stalls located in the parking garage at 450 South Street for their employees.

And the City has identified two off-site parking lots on Port of San Francisco lands to the south of the Event Center that could accommodate up to 1,050 additional cars.

Warriors Mission Bay Arena Off Site Parking

According to the plan, “as long as the Port of San Francisco takes all necessary actions to make the land available for public parking, GSW shall: (1) make commercially reasonable efforts to negotiate with the Port of San Francisco or its designee to acquire sufficient rights for the use of such parking lot(s) through lease, purchase, or other means as necessary; and (2) (if such negotiations are successful) provide free shuttles to the Event Center from such off-site parking lot(s) that are more than ½-mile from the Event Center on a maximum 10-minute headway before and after events.”

And as part of a proposed street restriping, a total of 120 new on-street metered parking spaces will surround the arena development on three sides (South Street, Terry François Boulevard, and 16th Street).  On-street spaces in the blocks adjacent to arena will likely be marked with Special Event parking signs and rates, similar to those found around AT&T Park, on designated event days.

warriors mission bay arena on-street parking plan

In terms of expectations and performance, the transportation plan includes eight (8) specific measures:

  1. Weekday Auto Mode Share: Targeted average auto mode share should be no greater than 53 percent for weekday peak event arrivals (6:00 PM – 8:00PM).
  2. Weekend Auto Mode Share: Targeted average auto mode share should be no greater than 59 percent for weekend peak event arrivals (6:00 PM – 8:00PM).
  3. Vehicle Queuing on City Streets: Traffic entering the parking garage from eastbound 16th Street does not spill back to 16th Street or back to the 3rd Street intersection due to garage ingress.
  4. Vehicle Queuing on City Streets: Event traffic will not block access to the UCSF Emergency Room entrance for emergency vehicles or patients on Mariposa Street between I-280 and 3rd Street.
  5. Pedestrian Flows: Pedestrians do not spill out of sidewalks onto streets with moving vehicles, or out of crosswalks when crossing the street.
  6. Bicycle Parking: Signage is clearly visible to direct bicyclists to event valet and other bicycle parking, which has an adequate supply to accommodate a typical peak event.
  7. Transit Mode Share: All Muni Metro and additional shuttle passengers are able to board their transit vehicle within 45 minutes following an event.
  8. Good Neighbor Policy: Mission Bay TMA shuttles continue to run and maintain capacity for simultaneous neighborhood use.

And if the performance standards are not being met, the Warriors “will explore additional travel demand strategies, operational efforts, or minor redesigns” to meet the goals above.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    “And if the performance standards are not being met, the Warriors ‘will explore additional travel demand strategies, operational efforts, or minor redesigns’ to meet the goals above”

    Translation: there aren’t any Penaltie$ for not meeting the goals. (Tho maybe the Mission Bay Alliance gets a freethrow or two)

  2. Posted by Mark

    So, does MUNI plan on hoarding trains by the arena like it does at AT&T park? This will certainly mess up the Central Subway flow, like it does now when there’s a ballgame and trains are infrequent in the Market St. tunnel, especially during rush.

    How does MUNI expect to operate trains during concurrent events?

    • Posted by timbad

      with the new Muni cars they have already ordered (namelink)

  3. Posted by Frank C.

    These plans are worth doing, but will barely make a difference. Traffic is a regional disaster already. Nothing short of multi-billion-dollar investments that include massive capacity expansions with new tunnels could stanch the bleeding that this region’s quality of life is suffering.

    It’s not just bridges, although that’s the focus of this article.

    God help anyone who has to drive anywhere near there on a weekday with work traffic, and with events at the new arena and at ATT park. Throw in something at Moscone and leaving SOMA proper by vehicle could take 90 minutes,

    Wanna take the train instead? Enjoy a sardine-can, smell your neighbor’s armpits ride. Already got that on Giants days alone. Also really great for those of us who need to work on the train and need a seat and need to get home at a reasonable hour.

    • Posted by cfb

      90 minutes to leave SOMA?

      ….suuuure. Nice hyperbole.

      • Posted by Frank C.

        It once took my wife 60 minutes, this was during Dreamforce and something else that same day. 60 minutes is unbelievable. But it happened. 90 is not at all out of the question. It’s speculation about a worst case scenario.

        • Posted by Futurist

          Relax. go have a drink. life in the big city does not always have work instantly on demand.

          • Posted by Mark

            A drink sounds great. You buying?

            SF is hardly “the big city.” Provincial at best.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Of course, it’s a big city. Calling SF provincial has nothing to do with the size of the population, but rather one’s judgment and narrow view of who we are.

          • Posted by Frank C.

            Love to see your reaction to traffic backed up in front of your own house. I’m sure you’d raise esthetic objections.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Seriously Frank? When is the last time any traffic backed up on a small street in Noe Valley?

            You need to focus.

          • Posted by skyscraperluvr

            What does someone who lives in Noe Valley know about living in the Big City?

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Sure, yeah – why bother trying to get home to the spouse, or pick up the kids from day care, or deal with the myriad other things that one wants to do – “oh, thanks to poor SFMTA planning and NIMBYs, my commute is hell – guess I’ll stay in the city and drink”. Sheesh.

        • Posted by Jake

          When it takes your wife 60 minutes to travel a mile through SF, then she is part of the problem.

          Many days during the PM commute some Fidi and SoMa roads that feed the freeways are slower in a car than walking. It has been that way for at least 25 years (since the earthquake closed the elevated feeder ramps). Sure it happens increasingly often, but hardly a new phenomenon.

          All the Warriors are doing is spreading that joy to the base of Potrero Hill. Their own EIR shows they expect to worsen the traffic up to a half-mile away. That is their plan and their own forecast. A consequence of this area joining the CBD, traffic congestion and all.

          These “measures” will join a long list of metrics SFMTA publishes and mostly fails. FWIW, there are some modest costs to the Warriors if they don’t meet some traffic targets in the MOU with UCSF.

          • Posted by Frank C.

            Hah, my pregnant wife who needs to get home because of caltrain schedule gaps is part of The Problem.

          • Posted by Jake

            My sympathies for your wife and her 60 minute SoMa crawl. And as well to the thousands of other people whose trips were made that much slower because she was in her car contributing to the congestion.

            Doesn’t mean she was wrong to do it if that was the best for her at the time, but any pretense that people driving cars in the worst gridlock are not contributing to the very problem you are complaining about is irresponsible. So, yes, on that day your wife was part of the problem, or did being pregnant make her car any smaller?

            We have met the enemy and he is us.

            Hopefully, structuring your days or your lives to fill gaps in the Caltrain schedule with your car has brought compensatory benefits. I imagine there were many others on that day that also suffered for similar decisions.

        • Posted by cfb

          If you want zero traffic problems, maybe you shouldn’t live in the core of one of the biggest and densest cities in the US.

          • Posted by Frank C.

            So you somehow think I think “zero problems” is possible? And therefore, you think the status quo is fine then? You have no complaints about the pace of development, jobs growth, and the lack of development of infrastructure? That’s all you got, just a “stop complaining?” Just, wow.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      A train’s primary function is to transport as many people as possible from Point A to Point B, not act as a stand-in for your office.

    • Posted by donjuan

      There’s a ton of transit options in that area already and more on the way. If you must drive, you can park at one of the caltrain stations in millbrae and train into that area. From East Bay, you can park at BART parking lot and come into the city through BART and take the Central Subway to 4th/King. If you’re commuting from the North Bay, you’re already SOL because that whole county basically rejected public transit for the last 30 years and its paying the price today.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      at a minimum, we need another cross bay tunnel, another cross bay bridge, a geary subway and a Van Ness Subway line, and the central subway to extend to the wharf. I consider these minimum steps to getting to transportation minimum accepted by other cities that are close to size and density of SF.

      The warriors arena is a minor issue (if one at all) in the big transportation shortfall we are in. I live 13 miles from my work and it is ~1hr 30 minutes on public transit (vs, 40-45 by car, although it was <30 5 years ago). My wife lives 3.5 miles from her work and it takes her 50 minutes on the bus. Many others are in the same mess. Completely shameful and doesnt even provide an option

      • Posted by Orland

        Absolute yes to your first paragraph though the 2nd vehicle and train Bay crossings could probably best be accomplished as one.

  4. Posted by invented

    And let’s add 50,000+ units within 15 blocks over next 10 years and not discuss undergrounding transit. We need to Incent developers and create funding for top-notch transit.

    • Posted by Mark

      Talk to Wiener about his “master plan.” Meanwhile, expect another decade before Caltrain is extended to the $2B+ bus station.

    • Posted by van nessident

      The plan is to reroute the M underground through Parkmerced, if that counts.

      • Posted by Mark

        Lol. That doesn’t count one bit. First of all, the plan only included building a tunnel for one of the tracks. Once it weaves its way along the surface through Park Merced the travel won’t be any faster than what’s in place today. If Wiener’s plan was more concrete that just an abstract concept, the M fix could be something more robust and useful like an underground line from SFC through Park Merced where it could be incorporated into a dual mode BART station at Stonestown or SFSU (like the stacked tunnels in the Market St. subway).

  5. Posted by Pablito

    It’s a plan – but reading it doesn’t give the reader much faith that transport will work. When one of the main objectives is “pedicabs” you get the feeling the City is grasping at straws.

    The City is still looking at taking down I-280 – dumping 100,000 cars a day on Mariposa; and it also still has not figured out the High Speed Rail tunnel out between Potrero Hill and Downtown. What happens with Caltrain tracks in this area? The Central Subway will not be open until 2-3 years after the stadium opens…. The things the plan does not speak to, the things the City is being mum about, have a much larger impact on transport than the things the plan does speak to.

  6. Posted by unlivable city

    There is no engineering to traffic management in San Francisco. There’s ideological buffoonery and that’s it. As we have removed lanes for traffic there is zero margin for error. So one double parked vehicle stops all traffic (no way to go around) or worse causes a crash (to get around requires driving in bike lane or oncoming lane). Under these circumstances traffic in in an increasingly perpetual cycle of jammed, unhealthy and dangerous. So now throw in a giant 6-day a week venue. One fender bender on the bay bridge, one CHP chase on the 101 or 280 et voila: this meaningless, fantasy traffic plan goes out the window.

  7. Posted by Rod

    Why can’t they build a Cal Train game day station at 16th Street?

  8. Posted by sassyboyfrisco

    Nice…if I give birth at a game, UCSF hospital is carry distance 🙂

  9. Posted by Orland

    Not thrilled about what apparently is to be a surface parking lot right on the fringe of the Pier 70 development.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      … especially if that obligates the Port to continue providing parking at that location. It could interfere with Pier 70 from reaching its potential.

  10. Posted by Orland

    How did the Giants get away without a similar vehicle-pedestrian traffic flow management program? The practices for years now are deplorable. I’ve been to every Major League park in the country and have never seen anything like it. I’m amazed no pedestrian (to my knowledge at least) has been killed by someone trying to exit Lot A at Third/Channel after a game. If you’re reading Larry, please….

  11. Posted by Louis

    I was never, so far, a fan of this stadium and I dont care whether SF has the Warriors of not. But this discussion gets absurd.

    Muni and the streets have to get crowded when there’s a game with 20,000 people. You cant build capacity so peak event traffic is a NON issue. That doesn’t make sense. There will be SOME crowds. If the team doesn’t manage it, to some degree it will show up in their ticket sales.

    The city’s role is to manage the neighborhood effect so nearby facilities like UCSF don’t get impacted beyond a “reasonable” degree. I dont know exactly how to define that impact level but i think that’s what the EIR review process is for.

    But the level of whining about not wanting to have to wait on MUNI or in traffic in general is ridiculous. Ever been to Yankee stadium , West End theaters, etc. etc.? To anything that comes form the concentration of resources and people in a major city? That’s what density within a shared public realm is.

    The narrowness and non-reality of the some of the opposition arguments on this have turned me from an opponent to a supporter of this project.

    • Posted by Mark

      Re: MUNI, it’s more than just waiting your turn on a crowded platform for a train to arrive after a game or event. The reality is that the way MUNI operates during games/events just messes up the entire system for all riders, not just at one or two stations.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Yes. Never understood why they insist on running all those extra N and T (becomes K) lines all the way out west. Change them when they get to Embarcadero to serve other lines – other systems do this; Boston’s Green Line changes car designations if there’s an unexpected gap in service – yes it’s an annoyance for those on that particular train to have to get off and wait for the next one going to their original destination (though that next one is usually right behind, and empty), but it amply benefits all the people going to the revised destination line who were facing a big gap in service.

        Even worse is the fact that Muni doesn’t even re-designate trains on NON-game days. There can be a backup of people at Embarcadero (and stations west) waiting for, say, an L, while multiple N and K and J go by… but if an inbound J comes into Embarcadero, it turns at Embarcadero and remains a J even though an L is desperately needed. Stupid.

        • Posted by anon

          That sounds like something the unions would block at all costs.

    • Posted by Futurist

      I agree. The whining here about some inconvenience at SOME times and SOME events is ridiculous. So many spoiled, self-entitled complainers here in SF about every little thing that has to make them adjust a little now and then.

      Ridiculous.

      • Posted by Frank C.

        Almost like the whining of the self-appointed esthetic judges here re: architecture. Narcissistic.

  12. Posted by B

    Also, all this talk is about a packed house. There is a very real possibility they don’t stay great forever. Look around the NBA at the mediocre teams, very thin crowds.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      Except that even when the Warriors were terrible, they were still selling out Oracle Arena. Not saying sparse crowds definitely won’t happen, but history suggests otherwise.

    • Posted by alberto rossi

      As soon as all the political approvals are secured and all the naming rights and seat licenses are sold, you can be assured that the current winning team will be dismantled and sold for scrap, just as the 49ers were, as soon as all the money for their new stadium was in hand.

    • Posted by Jake

      Since they will own the venue outright and all the profit/loss exposure, the Warriors have a strong financial incentive to pack the house.

      The worst traffic will be when a Giants game overlaps with a major event at this arena. As the baseball and basketball seasons have very little overlap, almost all of those will be non-basketball events. The Warriors EIR lays this out. It also makes it clear that even with every mitigation measure they can throw at it, the traffic and parking will be very bad on those days.

      FWIW, Oakland and Santa Clara took exposure on the downside by putting so much money into their stadium deals, while SF’s exposure for this and for the previous Giants ballpark deal is mostly on the upside: how much it costs to transport/handle the crowds.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      it will always be packed. its easy to sell out small NBA stadiums in a city as large as ours, and the Warriors have sold out every game for many years. And their team is very young. They should be great for another 8 years.

  13. Posted by Orland

    According to today’s news accounts, support for the arena amongst SF voters has dipped to 47%-42% in favor. Of course, the poll was commissioned by Mission Bay Alliance.

  14. Posted by steve

    Looks like the best spot is that Muni train yard between 25th and Cesar Chavez, with Illinois as its border. The spot where they _just_ built the train yard. Oops. Half block from the muni on 3rd, Cesar Chavez to channel cars to 101 n/s, 280 south. They could have put the train yard at Leland and Bayshore, or is that area marked for redevelopment?

    • Posted by steve

      The best spot for the arena itself. And it’s right next to their 800 Proposed parking spots. Does that solve everything? Except paying for the relocation of the muni train yard?

  15. Posted by DPR13

    I assume they looked into a ferry service and putting a dock in? It seems obvious to explore this option but I haven’t seen nor heard this was explored.

  16. Posted by sfparkripoff

    The arena will create gridlock traffic in Mission Bay, destroying quality of life in the neighborhood, threatening the educational mission of the University, and impairing the ability of patients to access life-saving care at the Children’s Hospital.

    The city is putting a sports team before the health and safety of hospital patients. These are not San Francisco values.

    • Posted by anon

      Nothing like a healthy dose of hyperbole in the morning.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles