Warriors Mission Bay Arena Rendering - Southwest Aerial

We haven’t had a chance to review all 2,304 pages of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Golden State Warriors Arena, retail and office complex to rise in Mission Bay, but we’ll do our best before the public hearing for the report that has been scheduled for June 30.

If you feel like mining for nuggets to either counter or support the opposition, feel free: Volume 1 (Project Summary and Impact Overview, including Traffic and Transportation); Volume 2 (Noise, Wind, Air, Water, Shadow and other impacts along with project Alternatives); and Volume 3 (Appendices).  And if you find any particular gems, feel free to send them our way (tips at socketsite.com).

Having been certified an Environmental Leadership Project by Governor Brown, legal challenges based on the arena’s identified parking, aesthetics and traffic impacts will be mostly off-limits, and the timeline within which any EIR-based challenges will need to be resolved will be capped at a little under a year.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Stop Driving

    As long as taxpayers aren’t buying this arena, I say build it. If they want us to buy it, I want free tickets to one game or concert every year.

  2. Posted by moto mayhem

    as a taxpayer, I would rather pay for this than pay for subsidized housing in the Mission. At least there’s some cultural and economic benefit to the city for this

    • Posted by x

      lemme guess… you’re a white male in the tech industry?

      • Posted by frog

        moto has said many times on SS that they are not white.

        Let me guess, you are a close minded SJW that’s ruining this city for techies that are actually creating something.

        • Posted by x

          sorry that i don’t keep up with the profiles of the commenters on SS. i don’t know the race, ethnicity or gender of anybody on here. i didn’t know that data was available.

          i wouldn’t consider myself a social justice warrior, but i see nothing wrong with that if i was. i’m a business owner in a tech related field that actually cares about people. believe it or not, we’re out here. it’s not all about me, me, me, money, money, money, app, app, app. god forbid there be social justice! i just happen to think that disadvantaged and underserved communities that were here first (before [you] got out of college) shouldn’t get pushed out by entitled tech bros. i’m sorry your rich vanilla city is being ruined by people that care.

          ya know what, we should kick all the social justice workers out of the city. that way more frat boy tech heads could make more apps and drive up real estate prices. actually, better yet, the Bay Area tech firms should buy SF and turn it into a giant campus full of corporate restaurants and stores. It sounds like you belong in the new (last 10 years) SF.

          SF used to be one of my favorite cities in the world until entitled young (mostly white) heartless folks took over. Full disclosure: I’m a white male. I just care about others, community and fairness. let me guess, you’re creating a really cool app that will help me get laid? thanks for the contribution to society. here is an article from SF Gate about how people of color are leaving. wouldn’t it be cool to have an all white sf?

          [Editor’s Note: The Gentrification Of San Francisco And Oakland By Neighborhood.]

          • Posted by Orland

            Did that ever need saying. I wouldn’t have thought that a couple years ago but what I’ve been exposed to following SS has been a real eye-opener.

          • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

            x, you come out with three broad stereotypes – about whites, males, and those in the tech industry. Followed by a screed about how much you care about social justice and community and fairness. Do you recognize the incongruity here?

          • Posted by Orland

            Do you read the comments here? No stereotypes necessary.

          • Posted by x

            JR “Bob” Dobbs. sorry if i came across with broad stereotypes, not my intention. i was just frustrated by the last comment. i thought by disclosing the fact that i’m a white male in tech would help show that i’m not pointing fingers at an entire segment of people and instead, just at those that seem entitled or lack empathy. i’m not saying that white folks, males or tech minded people are bad in any regard. i’m just saying that i’ve come across a great deal of young folks, mostly white, that find poor people disgusting. the comment directed at me was a bit accusatory and perhaps i should have let it go. my apologies if i offended anybody.

          • Posted by frog

            Wrong about me too. Also, I’m strangely not in tech.

            But yes, when people have ideas that quite literally make no sense, those ideas should die.

            Also, people leaving the city is different than people being kicked out of the city. This is where semantics matter. We live in a desirable city. This means prices will be high. There is rent control and prop 13, so the only people being kicked out are being Ellised, and that’s a relatively small number. They are leaving with large 5 digit payouts these days. So what’s really happening is that whenever a unit changes hands for any reason, it is going to someone who can pay more, typically college educated, sometimes white.

            And yes, this is changing the nature of communities, making people feel like they are unwelcome. But very limited numbers are actually being kicked out.

            We are building BMR housing. But the reality is that that’s still geared towards middle class college aged professionals with incomes around 65k.

            There isn’t a single proposal I’ve seen that will change this because the economics are so overwhelmingly moving things in this direction.

            How do you maintain a community without central planning that decides on an individual basis who lives where?

            And SF isn’t becoming only more white. It’s becoming more Asian and Indian as well. Why should this bother me?

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Thanks @JR, that was my reaction too – @x throws out a stereotype, then responds with a screed when called on it.

          • Posted by Orland

            OMG! A supposed “stereotype” at SS. Will wonders never cease? Take away his handle.

            You all are laying it on gim a bit thick for this site, donchya think?

      • Posted by Moto mayhem

        And I’m not in tech. The stadium will bring a lot of cultural events. The mission needs diversifying. It’s one of the neighborhoods [in which] I feel less welcome.

    • Posted by Frisco

      The stadium will be privately funded. You’re only paying for Muni (which you’re paying for anyway)

      • Posted by Jake

        taxpayer costs are at least $40 million upfront for MUNI capital improvements and then a few million per year in extra MUNI operating costs plus whatever it costs for the SFPD and traffic control officers assigned per event (20+ for basketball and other major events). These are all additional costs that SF would not have if this were developed as office space instead of including an arena. Unlike the Giants, the Warriors so far have agreed to pay the full $2.5/ticket event fee, so the city might breakeven. SF has subsidized ATT Park by more than $150 million to date, and it was “privately funded.”

        [Editor’s Note: Fiscal Impact Report For The Golden State Warriors’ Arena.]

        • Posted by Orland

          Re: AT&T “subsidy.” City’s best investment ever, and a drop in the bucket in my event.

          • Posted by Jake

            Yes, the city government can lose money on every business located here as long as it can make it up in volume and trophies.

    • Posted by Moto mayhem

      I’m black, the race that is truly screwed most of the time. I am anti-racism of course, so I am therefore anti- campos and anti-housing moratorium, which are both racist. I also like basketball, but not because of my race

  3. Posted by Alai

    Blah. The pier plan was far superior.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      the pier plan was far superior from a public transportation and traffic perspective, and had iconic architecture and a pristine location. NIMBYs ruined something truly special. Im upset about that, but no reason not to support this one now.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Regardless, the pier plan is dead, it’s time to move on. It’s like critiquing a 2015 intersection proposal in Chicago by saying “Burnham’s boulevard plan was better”. Probably was; shoulda/coulda/woulda. But it ain’t happening, so let’s focus on the present and the future.

  4. Posted by Defu

    Since the EIR was released late on a Friday I’ve gotta think there’s some stinkers in there.

  5. Posted by Frisco

    Legal challenges based on the arena’s aesthetics? What laws would those be based on?

    • Posted by Toby Snozzwanger

      Laws? You are clearly not familiar with the NIMBYs or the similarly reactionary Supervisors we have in this city.

  6. Posted by Rob

    The pier plan was better…but also was NEVER going to happen. Even if it height limit on the waterfront wasn’t an issue it was never going to get done in the required timeframe. The pier 30-32 initial plan was really a pipedream, as is just about any plan for developing on that site due to extreme factors associated with State and Federal EIR’s and rehabilitation costs, long before any vertical building is even realized. Can we please stop bringing up Pier 30-32!

    And while on this subject can we just stick to discussing the realities of what this development is…The exact same development that Salesforce would have built just with smaller multicolored buildings, retail, and open plaza and entertainment venue. If were gonna argue traffic, the only difference is that with the Warriors the traffic will come down to a 3-6 hour window of traffic, but with the potential Salesforce build out, Kilroy development and Uber campus, the traffic would likely be just as bad if not worse. In that case i guarantee there would have been no alliance formed to stop those developments from planting their flags, oh wait there haven’t been at all!

    • Posted by Toby Snozzwanger

      The pier plan was better for blimp shots and very little else.

      • Posted by zig

        Much better regional transit near to the old site and many more hotels and offices within walking distance

        • Posted by Toby Snozzwanger

          MUCH better? The two sites are equidistant from Caltrain at 4th & King – actually Google Maps says it takes 1 minute less time to walk to the new site. Both sites have Muni Metro stopping right in front of it. From the nearest BART station the difference is about 15 minutes on foot. And the new site will have far better parking as well as stopping for buses, taxis, etc. There’s also talk of a ferry landing which would be closer to the new site than the Ferry Building is to the old site.

          So the 15 minutes for BART commuters is the only net negative impact, should they opt to walk instead of taking the 16th St. buses. And for that, people would be willing to live with all the trouble of building and having this arena on a pier with water on three sides, completely jamming up traffic on the already crowded Embarcadero?

          Blimp shots, that’s all.

          • Posted by zig

            Parking is not relevant as I said transit. BART is the high capacity rail system we use regionally that carried 400K trips/day and the new site is located where Caltrain is planned to go as well as the main regional bus depot. Please stop with your nonsense

          • Posted by anon

            The 15 minutes for BART is the only important piece, yet you seem to brush that off as nothing lol.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            you must be kidding. BART is the major player for the games. and embarcadero has much better access to all he bus lines and muni. Its not worth talking about anymore, but the Pier location was much better from a traffic /transportation perspectivve

          • Posted by Toby Snozzwanger

            I’m saying that people are exaggerating the difference between the two locations, and I am sticking to that view. I understand that BART people would rather walk down the Embarcadero to an “iconic” waterfront arena than along ugly and dirty 16th St. to Mission Bay. Fine, so would I, but in terms of actual distance and time it’s a small difference. And when you take into account the transportation of all 100% of the spectators then the difference is even smaller.

          • Posted by R

            Now you’re just being willfully obstinate. Nobody cares about the view. The difference is the Pier 32 location was 3/4 of a mile from BART, and the new location is over a mile father from BART, and over a hill. Since math seems challenging, that would be more than twice as far.

          • Posted by Alai

            People may not care about the view too much, but I think the view will be enough to entice a lot of people to walk, which takes pressure off low-capacity Muni lines that are bound to be packed. The walk to the pier is also much nicer in that you only need to cross one street (the Embarcadero), and there’s plenty of room, while the sidewalks on 16th will be overwhelmed by even a small crowd, nevermind the bottlenecks that would be created at every intersection (take the ballpark after a game lets out, then put a crowd like that on 15-foot wide sidewalks where 4 feet are used for poles and utility boxes).

            Not that it’ll matter, since I expect that there will be very few people walking. Muni will have to bring in a fleet of buses. I’m sure the drivers will appreciate all the overtime the city will end up paying.

            It would be interesting to know if there are any studies on how people get to AT&T park from Bart. At 19 minutes straight or 25 minutes along the waterfront, it’s a slightly longer walk than the pier would be (15 minutes along the Embarcadero), but less than the 33 minutes along 16th to the Mission Bay site. I’d like to know whether people prefer the waterfront route, despite the extra distance, and what the breakdown is between walking/Muni/other (cabs?).

          • Posted by Jake

            The EIR says MUNI express buses will run between the 16th St BART station and the Warriors Arena for ‘large events’ which includes basketball games and events with more than 14k attendees. They may even have a MUNI bus only reserved lane on 16th during the pre and post game shuttle. MUNI will also run some other extra buses according to the EIR. They’ve done similar for Giants games.

            FWIW, the walking distance between the planned Warriors Arena and the BART stations at 16th St, Powell, and Montgomery are all about the same. It is too far (~1.5 miles) for most/many people to walk, but 10-15 minutes via MUNI. Also, many Giants fans that take BART get off at the Montgomery station and walk on 2nd street. Probably more than walk along the Embarcadero. The 146-year-old 2nd St cut is still benefiting pedestrians.

            The Caltrain station at 4th is closer to the Warriors proposed MB arena than it is to pier 30-32. It is also closer than BART is to ATT Park. The MB location is much better than the pier 30-32 location for basketball fans coming from the south bay, which the Warriors estimate will outnumber the attendees from within SF.

          • Posted by Alai

            The Caltrain station, according to Google maps, is a 14 minute (0.7 mile) walk to the MB site, but a 16 minute (0.8 mile) walk to the pier site. Not to mention the proximity to the transbay terminal @ 11 minutes.

            I think it’s pretty clear that most people would far prefer a 15 minute walk to waiting to squeeze aboard packed Muni trains and buses for a 10-15 minute ride. And overall usage of transit will reflect this. The MB location is a virtual guarantee of far more traffic than the pier.

          • Posted by Jake

            Yes, the same arena built at pier 30-32 should have a higher proportion of attendees that walk or take transit than at the MB location. However, for SF traffic overall it isn’t as simple as comparing the two locations directly. Salesforce planed to build out the MB location with dense office space. If it was built out that way instead of the Warriors arena plus some office, then it could easily have about another 5k office workers there beyond what the Warriors are planning. And it is very unlikely that a similar office space would ever be approved for pier 30-32.

            So there’s something like 5k people that won’t be added to either the AM or PM commute load for this MB location in future years. At 200 workdays/year that means the Warriors arena will displace 1 million AM and 1 million PM commute trips per year for Mission Bay circa 2020 and beyond.

            With the Warriors target of 200 events/year drawing about 2 million attendees, that should be about 150 events timed for workday evenings with about 1.5 million attendees. So, they still cause somewhere around 1.5 million PM rush hour trips per year, though somewhat reverse direction. And substantial additional non-rush hour traffic nights and weekends.

            But overall, building the arena in Mission Bay reduces the future traffic load for San Francisco by eliminating office capacity in an otherwise congested area, unlike the pier 30-32 location.

    • Posted by Jake

      An office development of the scale salesforce was planning would have generated far fewer person trips total (at least a third less), but the distribution would have been different. The Warriors will generate much less traffic during the AM commute than if it was all office, but they will generate much more during the PM commute. Otherwise, the extra traffic they generate during the late night and weekend is on the scale SF deals with all the time. As long as the city assigns enough traffic control and MUNI it should be better than after a Giants night game.

    • Posted by Orland

      Piers 30 -32 with adjoining seawall lot across the Embarcadero (where the actual structure would have been ) was perfect for Lucas’ vanity museum (redesigned by an architect other than that who has done the Chicago proposal) with the piers redone as parks and playing fields much as NYC is doing on the Hudson and Brooklyn the East River waterfront.

      I was amazed he turned the offer down flat even allowing for the pique of his massive ego. It was the far superior site to any anywhere for such an institution.

      Wonder what the status of it is in Chicago. Still harbor hope he’ll come to his senses if rejected again there. The USC thing has to be an idle threat.

  7. Posted by Jake

    The EIR shows as expected the worst traffic conditions are for 7-8PM on weekday basketball games and the 30-40 events per year they estimate will overlap with an event at ATT Park. The EIR estimates (rounded) for a weekday basketball game ~40% of attendees arrive by car and fill 4,300 parking spaces. During 7-8PM of a weekday basketball game about 2/3 of the people would arrive and the mode breakdown in person trips would be:

    – 6,600 (53%) car trips (2-3 people per car, so more like 2500 automobiles)
    – 4,400 (36%) transit trips
    – 1,400 (11%) trips walk, bicycle, motorcycle, taxis, limo, etc.

    The EIR predicts that for weekday basketball games the kind of traffic conditions that currently exist north of Mission Creek during the PM rush hour will extend throughout MB and into showplace sq to the foot of Potrero Hill, choking Owens, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 16th, and Mariposa. It also shows the already bad intersections along 3rd, 4th, and 5th north of MB worse. Up to 40% of the cars are expected to come from the southern direction, so the 280 Mariposa offramp will back up like it does for a Giants game. There is not much surprising here except for the high number of overlapping events with ATT (I expected ~20).

    For those that care about the details, the transportation stuff is in Vol 1, section 5.2. The key graphics are:

    Figure 5.2-9 Proposed Roadway Configuration and Curb Management (page 5.2-48)
    Figure 5.2-13 Post-Event Controls for Large Events (page 5.2-62)
    Figure 5.2-14E …Vehicle Trip Patterns to Major Parking Facilities…Basketball Game… (page 5.2-99)
    Figure 5.2-17 …Intersection LOS…Basketball Game… (page 5.2-122)

    • Posted by Orland

      The Mod. seems to believe the Governor’s environmental certification already issued would greatly limit the scope of potential legal attack upon the EIR such as excluding traffic concerns. That was not my understanding from what I have previously seen on the subject.

      If not, talk about unintended consequences. The recently suggested future tear down of 280 is understandably not addressed for traffic impact which the Mission Bay Alliance immediately seized upon. Certainly seems a reasonable basis upon which to base a determination of insufficiency.

    • Posted by ElitistPig

      Whoa whoa, people, please. You are overlooking something really important here. People in general, ESPECIALLY Bay Area basketball fans, are exceedingly fair-weathered. Unless the Warriors make it to the NBA finals every year, there won’t be all that much traffic to worry about. Now try not to trip over all the discarded price tags from newly purchased Finals gear left by the ‘hardcore’ fans, I’m sure the Giants ‘fans’ can tell you where they left theirs.

      • Posted by Fishchum

        The Warriors generally have strong attendance in Oakland, even in the down years. Dubs fans are known throughout the NBA as passionate and loyal. Throw in a shiny, brand new arena and I think it’s safe to say they’ll sell out most of the season.

      • Posted by g

        bay area basketball fans are not fair-weathered. the good folks in oakland stand strong behind their teams. the raiders and the warriors always draw crowds, no matter how they are performing. now that they’re in the finals, their fanbase is bigger than ever. i’d expect they’ll lose some deep east bay fans once they move to SF, but i’m sure they’ll gain some SF and south bay fans.

        • Posted by zig

          Since there is one team in the whole Bay Area and Basketball is a downtown type sport demand will be very high and this ownership group is not going to let the team get bad any time soon

          • Posted by garrett

            i agree. this ownership group is committed. i hate to see the team leave oakland, but i understand why it’s happening.

      • Posted by zig

        Based on nothing. The Warriors have had an amazing fan base over so many bad seasons

    • Posted by MarketSt

      Great. With this traffic mess every few days property values within a mile or two should plunge and a large part of San Francisco will be affordable to all of those who supposedly deserve to live in San Francisco but can’t afford it, artists, retirees, recently homeless, etc. Everyone’s happy right? Except a small handful of personally affected wealthy residents on Portrero Hill? /s

  8. Posted by Keepitup

    And the city’s BOS will pass a “statement of over riding consideration”. Stating the “public benefits” outweigh the negative impacts and the arena shall be built…so it has been told…as in AT&T park.

  9. Posted by Oh Dear

    I’m glad I didnt buy one of those fancy condos along Terry A Francois Blvd!

    • Posted by gribble

      Why? The price is going up. You can sell for a profit or stay in place if the idea of a nearby arena bugs you.

    • Posted by Columbo

      The fancy condos along Terry Francois are perfect for walking to baseball and someday, basketball games. Beat the where do I park? question with your very own parking space- 1 with every condo. Prices have done nothing but go up- it was a good investment to get in on.

  10. Posted by ncydr

    Is the parking statistics misguided? Many available parking spaces are private and closed for public use during game hours. Does it consider that the current sites around the arena will be built out with housing or commercial developments in two or three years which will eliminate parking further and add additional traffic?

    Mission Bay is an okay site, not perfect, nor will there ever be one.

    Some mentioned wanting Warriors stadium at Pier 70; perhaps this is not a bad idea. Perhaps we should leave Mission Bay site for bio-tech. Looking ahead, having both engines will help diversify the local economy should another dot-com implosion occur.

    • Posted by zig

      I don’t know if Mission Bay biotech really worked out. Most companies beyond the research stage seem to prefer to be in less regulated SSF, Peninsula and East Bay

    • Posted by Jake

      the parking stats look realistic to me. The quantity of available parking in the area is sufficient except for the days when there is also a Giants game. The city and warriors recently added to the plan creating some parking lots south of the arena, including around pier 80 where there is a huge amount of space. They can always grow that if they need more. The unaddressed issue is how to manage street parking in Dogpatch. Based on the experience of Giants games, we should expect many hundreds of cars to park in that area (about half the cars that come to a Giants game park in the neighborhood, not in the designated lots). Wouldn’t be surprised it they have to install SFPark meters everywhere in Dogpatch to manage it.

      The EIR has a traffic projection for year 2040. Even without this arena, MB is going to get congested — too many people and parking garages, too few access roads/lanes other than a highway. Nothing that couldn’t have been forecast.

      • Posted by Orland

        I’m wondering if they’re contemplating providing shuttle service from Pier 80 or assuming people will use the T. That’s a pretty good hike.

  11. Posted by minka

    It seems to me many fans would come from out of town so why not add ferry service, as with the baseball stadium? I don’t understand why the stadium proponents did not include this. The traffic indicated above sounds pretty bad.

    • Posted by zig

      A ferry stop and a temp stop for Caltrain makes a lot of sense for game days.

    • Posted by Jake

      a ferry has been planned at 16th St as part of the MB plan for a long time. It isn’t funded and may never get built, so it can’t be part of this plan.

    • Posted by shza

      Agreed. It is absurd to try and do this without ferry service — that just guarantees unnecessary car traffic. No one coming from the East Bay is going to take BART, then walk to the overcrowded, tiny, surface-level Muni train, wait for a car they can fit on, and then take that additional trip down. And then do that in reverse after the game.

      • Posted by GoBlueInSF

        Except for the tons of people who do exactly that currently who come from East Bay to go to Giants games. Its the incredibly complicated process that involves getting off at Embarcadero and transferring to MUNI Metro without having to leave the station.

        • Posted by sfjhawk

          Living between the Ferry Building (and Embarcadero BART station) and at&t ballpark for +7 years, it seems like most people I see get off the Ferry/BART and then walk the rest of the way (~10 minutes), avoiding the extra hop on muni.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            I don’t think anybody is walking from the Ferry Building to AT&T Park in 10 minutes. Certainly not Giants fans.

        • Posted by Defu

          The new T line does not connect to BART. And its one car trains will be swamped on event days.

          • Posted by Dewayne

            How does the T line NOT connect to Bart? are you familiar with it’s route?

          • Posted by Columbo

            Yes the T line does connect to BART. The T is not new. Muni and BART overlap at Embarcardero, Montgomery and Civic Center stations. All day. Every day.

          • Posted by zig

            It connects if you like long walks and up likely broken escalators

          • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

            @Defu, once the T line is rerouted, it will connect with BART at Powell. The T stops that currently overlap with BART at Embarcadero, Montgomery and Civic Center will be terminated.

            As I mentioned elsewhere on SS, I’d like to see the rerouted K line, planned to terminate at Embarcadero station when the rerouted T line opens be extended down the Embarcadero N/E line and turn south on the T line at 4th and King and continue down that line to wherever the loop will be.

            I’d also like to see the E line (LRV, not historic cars) be run on its planned path but also turn south like my proposed K line at 4th and King and run south to the loop.

            That would give the arena three multi-car lines (T, K, E) running right to and past the arena, providing at least some relief to traffic congestion. And the funny thing is that this should be a low cost, low logistics alternative that could be implemented fairly quickly and serve a lot of mass transit-taking people coming from all over the city and elsewhere.

          • Posted by Defu

            The new T line passes under BART near Powell station and then has its own station at Union Square, 2.5 blocks away. There will likely be an underground walkway connecting the two, but no, you will not be able to transfer to muni “without leaving the station”. You will gain the opportunity to add muni piss stench and panhandlers to your arena experience.

      • Posted by Orland

        The City should make the Warriors’ building a terminal a condition in the permit process or don’t they expect much of the East Bay fan base to follow to actually attend games? Otherwise, it seems a no-brainer from a practical standpoint and a sure selling point to placate doubters should it come to a ballot initiative.

    • Posted by GoBlueInSF

      The ferry isn’t a serious option for the reason that its a LOT easier to take BART to Embarcadero and transfer onto MUNI Metro, that it is to take BART to Lake Merritt or 12th Street stations in Oakland and then schlep over to Jack London Square to get a ferry.

      • Posted by Orland

        Not a serious option??? It’s a straight shot from Jack London Sq. over to the arena site. Makes so much sense maybe the Warriors are afraid it would cost them too much of the pre-/post-game concessions take.

      • Posted by Jake

        The existing ferry from Jack London Sq to ATT Park takes 35 minutes. The existing BART from Lake Merrit to Embarcadero takes 12 minutes and to Powell takes 15 minutes. MUNI train to the Warriors Arena from either Embarcadero (existing) or Powell (future) takes about 15 minutes. Unless you are standing at Jack London Sq, it won’t be faster to take the ferry. There also would never be many ferries, so average rider time spent waiting to board will be longer than for BART.
        The only reason the Giants built a ferry was that they legally had to justify a ‘maritime’ use of the port property they lease. The Warriors don’t have that requirement. Ferry would be a nice to have decoration, but not going to solve the traffic problems.
        FWIW, the Giants get about 4,000 attendees/game from the east bay via BART. If the Warriors got that many at their new MB arena, that would be about 75% of all the east bay attendees they expect to get total. I’m sure they would be delighted with that.

        • Posted by Orland

          All good points. Still, knowing how much rigamarole the BART/Muni connection will likely frequently entail (not to mention the enticing ambience), if you’re driving to one of the convenient parking structures at JLS, drinks followed by a ride across the Bay seems a mighty easy and attractive alternative.

        • Posted by Pablito

          Interesting point: “… the Giants built a ferry … they legally had to justify a ‘maritime’ use of the port property they lease.”

          Part of the Warriors site is part of the State Lands Commission Public Trust property. Don’t they also have to also have some sort of ‘maritime’ land use connection? Or did Mayor Lee call up Gavin and make the issue go away already? i do not see it in the EIR Land use section…

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *