HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04201999 - C127 ga-7
TO: :. Board of SupervisorsC i r
i a
s..
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP i� Costa
Community Development Director County
DATE: April 20, 1999
SUBJECT: VISION AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOIAI ENDABONS
REFER to the Transportation and Water Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) the
Vision arra Conceptual Design report for the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative
(Exhibit "A"), published by the Bay Area Council and Bay Area Economic Forum.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE.
BACKOROUNDfREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
TIONS
Under the direction from the State Senate, The Bay Area Council and Bay Area
Economic Forum established a Blue Ribbon Task Force to study the expansion of
high speed transit service in the San Francisco Bay. The Task Farce is
circulating the report to obtain comments from stakeholders.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 20, 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES. NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Daniel Pulon (9251335-1241 extension) ATTESTED April 20, 1999
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DPtjf
lbotdaniapd120.bo BY DEPUTY
G
F
F
}
i
EXHIBIT A
Vision and Conc' eptual
Design
Bay
High-Speed
T ♦ A f Water
j i f Transit System
for t Century
February 1999
A Bold New / Inviting
PublicDiscussion and Input
SCOUNOL
BAY AR •
BAY AREA
ECONOMIC
BAY AREA NATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
Bay Area High-Speed 'Water Transit System
for the 21st Century
-February 1999-
Preface
1. Vision
11» Conceptual Design
111. Appendix
A. Information About the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative
1. Senate Resolution#19
2. Adopted Scope of Work
3. Roster of Work Team
B. Summary and Analysis of Major Water'Transit Systems
C. History of Ferries on the Bay
D. Surrunary of Existing Bay Area Ferry Services
E. Summary and Analysis of Environmental Issues
F. Summary of Bridge Corridor Traffic Data
G. Summary of Vessel Technology
H. Summary of Safety and Access Issues
I. Overview of Water Transit at Former Military Bases
J. Overview of Disaster Mitigation and Emergency Response
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
Charting the Course
February 1999
PREFACE
Transportation and mobility rank among the Bay Area's most significant challenges. Rated the
"Number One" concern year after year in the day Area Poll and by record numbers in 1998,
transportation problems and traffic congestion diminish the region's economic vitality, erode the
quality of life, and threaten competitiveness in the global economy. Working pro-actively to
promote a set of solutions, major business associations and economic development organizations
throughout the Bay Area collaborated in 1996 in an unprecedented show of unity, issuing a Call to
Action and adopting a Transportation Action Plan. A new regional water transit system is featured
Prominently in the Transportation Action Plan.
Recognizing the potential That water transit has for regional mobility and quality of life, the
Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum cooperatively convened a wide spectrum of
regional experts, stakeholders, and key decision makers in a series of symposia, interviews, and fact
finding sessions during 1996 and 1997. These sessions were conducted in cooperation with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, and CalStart
During this same time period, Mr. Ronald H. Cowan, Chairman and CEO of the Doric Group and a
long-time champion of ferry services, retired from full-time involvement in his business and
volunteered to lead a renewed campaign to establish a world-class water transportation system in the
Bay Area. More than a decade earlier he had spearheaded a two-year project partially funded by the
Urban Mass Transit Administration that demonstrated the feasibility of operating a hovercraft to
destinations throughout the Bay Area, With his continuing passion for water transit and more time
to contribute to public service, Mr. Cowan consulted Senator Bill Lockyer, who was then President
Pro Tempore of the California Senate (and now California Attorney General), San Francisco Mayor
Willie Brown, and Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris. San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer and city officials
were also consulted. Senator Lockyer and the mayors encouraged Mr. Cowan and the Bay Area
Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum to join forces around a united effort, which became the
Bay Area Water Transit Initiative.
These cooperative efforts culminated in September 1997, when the California State Senate under the
leadership of Senator Lockyer unanimously passed Senate Resolution 19, authored by Senator
Barbara Lee (now a member of Congress), directing the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area
Economic Forum to form a Blue Ribbon Task Force, study and explore the feasibility of greatly
expanding water transportation, and report back with recommendations and an Action Plan(see
Appendix A). Congressmember Lee has continued to provide extraordinary assistance at the federal
level to explore opportunities to advance water transit.
None of these developments would have been possible without the pioneering efforts of State
Senators Quentin Kopp and Bill Lockyer. Over the decades of service as Chair of the Senate
Transportation Committee, Senator Kopp became steadfastly committed to water transit services,
laying the groundwork for the recommendations from the Task Force. Together with Senator
Lockyer, he legislated the inclusion of water transit as an eligible spending category for toll bridge
revenues when the 1988 Regional Measure One was passed by the voters. These elected leaders also
advanced legislation which permanently rescinded the restrictive language concerning transbay ferry
transportation in the Streets and Highways Code and were instrumental in having $30 million
earmarked for ferry services in Proposition 116 which was approved by the voters in 1990.
Since the launch of the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative, State Senator John Burton, currently
President Pro Tempore of the California Senate, has provided dedicated leadership to advance the
concept and potential for water transit in the region. Senator Don Perata, Chair of the Senate Select
Committee on Bay Area Transportation, is setting the example for bold action by authoring .
legislation to implement the recommendations from the Task Force. And, Assemblymember Tom
Torlakson, now Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, has continuously encouraged and
supported the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative. In addition, several elected state and federal
representatives from the Bay Area have followed the work of the Task Force and provided input and
counsel to the Initiative. We are grateful for their interest and involvement.
Formation of the Task Force. As directed by the State Senate, the Blue Ribbon Task Force was
appointed by the Chairman of the Bay Area Council, T. Gary Rogers, Chairman and CEO of
Dreyer's Grand lee Cream Inc., and the Chairman of the Bay Area Economic Forum, Dr. Chang Lin
Tien, NEC Distinguished Professor of Engineering and former Chancellor of the University of
California, Berkeley. Fifty-two distinguished Bay Area leaders serve on the Task Force, coming
from the top ranks of regional government, business, labor, environmental organizations, and
community groups. Ronald Cowan serves as Chair. Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown serve jointly as Vice Chairs. Before their retirement, former
Mayors Elihu Harris of Oakland and Susan Hammer of San Jose provided significant leadership in
launching the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative and moving it forward.
Scope of Work. The members of the Task Force met for the first time on March 30, 1998 in San
Jose. This was a historical gathering with all three mayors of the largest cities in the region in
attendance to launch the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative. At this meeting, the Task Force adopted
a Scope of Work(see Appendix A) and approved a process for engaging professional expertise and
other necessary resources to carry out the investigation. According to the Scope of Work, the
primary objectives of the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative are:
1. Develop a broad-based consensus on a bold vision, ensure the vision makes good
economic sense, and prepare an Action Plan that will increase regional mobility
through expanded water transit on the San Francisco Bay.
2. Identify and resolve the institutional issues necessary to implement the Action Plan.
.3. Formulate a realistic and achievable funding strategy in order to execute the Action
Plan.
Embedded in the Scope of Work was the task of investigating successful water transportation
systems in other regions to determine the characteristics of a world-class system. Once identified,
these characteristics or"success factors" associated with a world-class system have become the
defining parameters for a new water transportation system in the Bay Area. The Task Force further
adopted this working hypothesis: In order to develop a world-class system capable of achieving a
measurable improvement to regional mobility, there would need to be established a certain"critical
mass" of a system that incorporated all the world-class success factors. In other words, the working
premise rejected an incremental approach to expanding existing services as doomed to failure
because, short of the"critical mass," the service by definition would be incapable of attracting
enough ridership to make a significant impact on the increasing regional traffic congestion and
mobility challenge, Thus, the Task Force started work from the premise that only a bold vision
would be capable of becoming a viable reality.
Although dedicated to a bold vision, the Task Force also directed that any effort to develop a
comprehensive water transit system must protect the ecological integrity of the San Francisco Bay
and must embrace an ethic and spirit that celebrates the majesty of the Bay.
Consultant Selection. An extensive, open Request-for-Qualifications process was used to invite
proposals from professional and technical experts that resulted in responses from over 40 firms and
consultants throughout the United States and abroad. The bids were reviewed by staff and by
technical experts on loan from the Ports of Oakland and San Francisco, as well as the San Francisco
Planning Department. The Dames & Moore Group of San Francisco was selected as the lead
consultants on the project. Other consultants were added to the Dames & Moore team as specialized
expertise was needed for the investigation. A complete roster of the investigative staff is included in
Appendix A.
Funding. To finance this effort, significant investments in staff and other resources by the Bay Area
Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum were matched by the Part of Oakland, the Port of San
Francisco, and the San Francisca International Airport, each of which contributed$50,000 to the
project. The Ports of Oakland and San Francisco also submitted a joint application to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a portion of the Bay Area toll bridge funds specifically
earmarked for water transportation, and received an additional $50,000. The remaining funding was
provided by the State of California, which allocated$600,000 for the project in the state budget for
the fiscal year 1998-99.
Advisory Oversight and Public Input. More than merely the result of independent analysis, the
findings presented here are informed by significant input and advice from a number of advisory and
oversight bodies, as well as from the public at large. Three separate advisory bodies have been
established to provide guidance to the Task Force:
1. A Technical Work Group, composed of the executive staff of cooperating
organizations and agencies.
2. A Stakeholders Conference, composed of current or prospective providers or
sponsors of water-based or water-linked transportation.
3. A Policy Advisory Group, composed of interested federal and state legislators or
their representatives.
Additionally, a series of six public forums were scheduled as listed below in order to gather input
and feedback. Five have been held to date. Each forum drew large numbers of participants who
were very positive and enthusiastic about the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative.
May 9, 1998 Martinez
May 29, 1998 Redwood City
September 25, 1998 Sausalito
October 19, 1998 San Francisco
October 29, 1998 Oakland
March, 1999 San Jose
Compelling Conclusion. It is on the basis of the above investigation, analyses, and public input
that the Blue Ribbon Task Force presents its findings and recommendations in the pages that follow.
They are informed by a broad array of experts and decision-makers, as well as considered opinion
from the general public, they build upon the leadership that has gone before, and owe their pressing
insistence to the urgency of the situation engulfing us.
The overarching conclusion is very clear: the time has come to build in the Bay Area the best
high-speed water transit system in the world.
iv
With the Bay such a dominant feature of the regional landscape, it is impossible any longer to
minimize its potential as a travel corridor. This document provides substantial evidence and analysis
to support this conclusion and chart a course for the future. As important as it is to address the
mounting traffic problems in the region, implementing the bold vision will have a far-reaching
impact: A majestic body of water, the Bay is the unifying feature of the region. A proud fleet of
vessels spanning its great expanse would weld profound psychological linkages, between our
disparate sub-regions, and with the natural beauty that defines the region. The effect on the
collective psyche will be immediately perceptible. The service will inaugurate an enduring symbol
of the region, inspiring identification and affection here and elsewhere--in this respect the boats will
accomplish for the Bay Area what the cable car accomplished for San Francisco. The pleasure in
their use will attract a continuously growing stream of visitors to the region, who will be eager to
experience for themselves, say, the enjoyment of an on-board tailgate party before a big game,
afternoon on-board jazz concerts, or the excitement of joining a group for a jaunt across the Bay to
catch the symphony or a play.
With a comprehensive system in place, the region will be poised to respond to natural disaster.
Exposed as we are to periodic seismic events, it behooves us to have transportation systems fully
established and operational that are capable of operating during times of emergency and to assist in
disaster recovery. In the case of a major earthquake, the water will likely be the only unaffected
transportation mode, making this investment more than merely desirable.
The press of daily events, however, is where we find the justification that connects at the most
visceral level with the region's traveling public--the same public that rated transportation and
mobility their number one concern in the 1998 Bay Area Poll. As the century comes to a close, our
prodigious economic success has combined with the attractiveness of this region to create a situation
that is simply untenable in the long run. We cannot continue losing thousands of hours in traffic
congestion; we cannot ignore the harmful effect mobile emissions have on regional air quality; we
cannot sustain the long-term economic drain on the world-class corporations that are headquartered
here; we cannot expect to keep a highly-educated workforce in residence if the quality of life is no
longer appealing.
These are formidable public policy problems that admit to no simple solutions. Nor is water transit a
panacea for the litany of transportation-related ailments we suffer in the Bay Area. But it is the most
sweeping powerful action available to us and it comes packaged with an unusually impressive array
of salutary effects. It is rare, in the policy realm, to happen upon a solution that has such an
overwhelming level of public support, that ignites the same degree of positive sentiment, and whose
implementation doesn't require financially intolerable and politically impossible aquisitions of right-
of-way or other harsh trade-offs with affected constituencies. Of course, the system will indeed
require hard choices. Terminals will have to be sited. A dedicated source of funding will have to be
identified. New governing institutions may have to be created. Our report turns now to a detailed
description and analysis of these very issues, and a set of carefully considered recommendations
which we enthusiastically encourage our elected representatives to endorse and enact.
V
1
i
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT TASK. FORCE
t
LM-01,
Mr.Russell D.Albers Mr,Thomas C. Escher The Honorable Mary King
Vice Chairman of the Board President Supervisor,County of Alameda
Herman Goelitz Candy Co. Red and White Fleet Chair,Bay Bridge Design Task Force
John Keith-Berkley President,ABAG
The Honorable Ralph Appezzzaato Commissioner, MTC
Mayor The Honorable Gloria R. Exline
City of Alameda Mayor Mr. Bruce Lange
Al DeWitt City of Vallejo Vice President,
Pamela Belchamber Real Estate and Treasurer
The Honorable Jerry Brown** Oracle Corporation
Mayor Mr.Arthur Feinstein
City of Oakland President Mr.Stephan C. Leonoudakis
Shanna O'Hare Golden Gate Audubon Society Attorney
Ruth Gravanis Director,Golden Gate Bridge,
The Honorable Willie L. Browny* Highway and Transportation District
Mayor Mr. Charles Foster Gene Rexrode
City and County of San Francisco Executive Director
Maria Ayerdi Port of Oakland Mr.Terry MacRae
John Glover Chairman
The Honorable Rosemary Corbin Hornblower Marine Services
Mayor Mr.Thomas J.Graff .Toe Wyman
City of Richmond Senior Attorney
John Marquez Environmental Defense Fund Mr.Owen Marron
Executive Secretary
Mr.Jorge Costa The Honorable lames Harberson Alameda Central Labor Council
Vice President Supervisor,County of Sonoma
Stadium Operations& Security Board of Directors Mr.John Martin
San Francisco Giants Bay Area Air Quality Airport Director
Management District San Francisco International Airport
Mr,Ronald Cowan* Jon Ballesteros
CEG The Honorable Greg Harper
The Doric Group Councilmember, Ms.Jean Matsuura
City of Emeryville President
The Honorable James L. Datzman Chair League of Women Voters
Mayor Bay Area Air Quality of the Bay Area
City of South San Francisco Management District
Ms.Amy McCombs
The Honorable Shirley Dean Mr.Frank C.Herringer President&.CEO
Mayor Chairman&CEO Chronicle Broadcasting Company
City of Berkeley Transamerica Corporation Janette Cider
Mr. Rod Diridon The Honorable Diane Howard Dr. Henry McDonald
Executive Director Mayor Director
Mineta International Institute for City of Redwood City MASA Ames Research Center
Transportation Policy Studies Jennifer Kuhn David Morse
Mr.Ron Duckhorn Ms. Marcella Jacobson The Honorable Michael M. Menesini
President Board Member Mayor
Blue and Gold Fleet Save San Francisco Bay City of Martinez.
Sandra E'iles Association Nello Bianco
Nancy Wakeman
Mr.Craig Dunham The Honorable Julia Miller
Forty Niners Stadium Associates,LLC Councilmember
City of Sunnyvale
Page 2
Mr.Tom Moore The Honorable Annette Rose Ms.Cleopatra Vaughns
President Supervisor,County of Marin Chairwoman of the Board
Chevron Shipping Company Commissioner San Francisco Convention&
Steven Hillyard San Francisco Bay Conservation Visitors Bureau
and Development Commission
Mr.Peter Nardini Joe Kott Mr.Michael Wismar
Past President Partner
Recreational Boaters of California Mr.Bruce W.Spaulding Nossaman,Guthner,Knox&
Robert Hoff'ntan Vice Chancellor Elliott,LLP
University Advancement&
Mr.BrianO'Neil Planning Mr.Douglas F.Wong
Superintendent University of California, Executive Director
Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Francisco fort of San Francisco
Mike Savidge Lori Yamauchi Larry}Florin
The Honorable Charlotte Powers The Honorable James P. Spering The Honorable Mary Lou Zoglin
Councilmember,City of San Jose Mayor,City of Suisun City Mayor
Immediate Past President,ABAG Chair City of Mountain View
Don Rocha Metropolitan Transportation Ralph Faravelli
Commission
Mr.Paul Reimer
President Mr.Joel Suty Ex Officio:
Reimer Associates Vice President,Operations
(Retired) Ms.Sunne Wright McPeak
Mr.Jon Q.Reynolds Lockheed Martin Missiles& President&CEO
Chairman of the Board Space Bay Area Council
Reynolds&Brown Katherine Strehl
Mr.R.Sean Randolph
Mr.Daniel D.Richard Mr.Robert R.Tufts President
Senior Vice President Chairman,SF Bay Conservation Bay Area Economic Forum
Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Development Commission
Director Angelo Siracusa
Bay Area Rapid Transit District Will Travis
Mr.Steven A.Roberti Mr.Norm K.Tuttle
Secretary's Representative Partner
U.S.Department of Labor,Region 9 Crosby,Heafey,Roach&May
Clinton Killian
Deputies in italics
Executive Committee in bold
*Chair
**Vice Chairs
Founded in 1945, the Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy organization that promotes economic
prosperity and quality of life in the region. The Bay Area Economic Forum is a partnership co-sponsored by the
Bay Area Council and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
BAY AREA 'NATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
A BOLD VISION
Paul Burnham, San Francisco, 1906
IMAGINE . .
You live in Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, or Solano
County and you work in Oakland, San Francisco, Redwood City, or
San Jose. Or you live in the South Bay and work in the East Bay,
.forth Bay, or West.Bay. In the morning a clean, modern shuttle bus
or local light rail train picks you up at a convenient neighborhood
location and carries you to a Bayside ferry terminal Or,perhaps you
are picked up at your front door by a subscription service. The
operators of the Buses and trains are courteous and professional
Other passengers arrive at the terminal by bicycle or walk,from the
near-by neighborhood: The terminals have quiet, comfortable seating
areas protecting you.from wind and rain. An advanced high-speed
ferry soon whisks you away to one of dozens of Bayside destinations.
You sip a warm beverage on the way, work on your portable computer
or catch up on the sports page, all against the magnificent backdrop
of the Bay.
At your destination,you transfer to other public transit systems,
meet dedicated shuttle buses coordinated with your ferry, or enjoy a
short walk There is no need to buy a separate ticket. Using a single
pre paid fare card purchased at a neighborhood kiosk or over the
Internet,you can travel on any transit system in the Bay. You arrive
at your destination calm and refreshed. And,your trip was more
convenient and,faster than driving, about the same cost, and free of
delays and,,frustration caused by traffic congestion.
1
The return trip is equally enjoyable. .Retailers in the same safe,
clean, well-lighted ferry terminals offer books, magazines and other
amenities as you easily board the ferry. On board,you use the time to
reflect on the day's work or to socialize with fellow passengers. As
you exit the ferry, concessionaires offer gourmet meals to go, cut
flowers, videos, and other conveniences. You arrive home free of
driving stress and fatigue.
Perhaps you work a flexible schedule or have several
destinations to reach during a given day. This same frequent and
efficient service is available throughout the day around the Bay. And,
you are able to catch a water taxi or pick-up at the terminal a
non-polluting car that you "share"from time to time--thus affording
you the flexibility and mobility you need for your work or lifestyle.
On other days or on weekends your.family and firiends are able
to use the same fast, convenient service to go to a Ball garage, visit a
regional park, or enjoy one of the Bay Area's endless places of
interest and entertainment. Residents of San Jose and the"South Bay
can travel by water to PacBell Park, Fisherman's Wharf, Treasure
Island, Jack London Square, Oakland Coliseum, Marine World,
Candlestick Park, and the Fine Country. Residents of the.North and
.East Bay can easily reach NASA Ames Research Center, great
America in Santa Clara, the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose,
the Opera in San Francisco, Coyote Point in San Mateo County, and
Golden Elate.National Recreation Area in the West Bay, And, in
addition to the convenience of the trip,you are comforted by the sights
and sounds of wildlife, knowing that this system is compatible with the
ecology of the Bay and more environmentally-friendly than driving.
If you are an airline passenger and need tofly out of the Bay
Area,you proceed from your home to a remote airport terminal.
There,you can leave your car in secure long-term parking facilities,
handle ticketing, check luggage, and clear security. You then board
an amphibious hovercraft which zips across the Bay, taxis unto the
airport, and delivers you directly to your final terminal for departure.
In every case,your travel has been a convenient, pleasant
experience, another of many reasons to live and work in one of the
most vibrant, innovative, and scenic regions in the world:
2
The New Vision
Is such a bold vision realistic? Certainly. An extensive, high-speed water transit system in the
Bay Area is entirely within the realm of possibility. This is especially true in light of what has
happened historically in this region and what now happens in ether regions around the world.
Furthermore, in the face of mounting traffic congestion, it also is emerging as an urgent
imperative to promote economic vitality and quality of life in the Bay Area.
Although assuredly bold,this vision is far from being an "impossible dream"--it is anchored in
bedrock reality. And while the vision seeks to add significant new capacity to the Bay Area
transportation system, in this regard it does not demand anything beyond what has already been
done in the past in the Bay.Area and achieved elsewhere in the world. The "possible" is known.
There was a time, before construction of the great bridges,when ferries dotted the Bay,carrying
goods and people across an impressive network of routes that were integrated with landside
facilities. People made as many as 50 million trips annually until regulations related to
construction of the bridges and rapidly-growing vehicle use essentially grounded the operations.
That was at a time when the population of the Bay Area was less than 2 million. Today, with a
population of over 6.6 million, there are fewer than 4 million trips per year. In other comparable
regions around the world, water transportation systems carry the equivalent of more than 7 to 10
times this volume. And while there are notable geographic and demographic differences between
those regions and the Bay Area, disciplined analysis shows that increasing the volume of annual
water transit trips by at least 4 to 5 times the current levels is definitely reasonable and
achievable. Thus, the historical experience in the Bay Area and the contemporary success in
other regions should make us ask: Why not today? And why not here?
Further, traffic congestion--and frustration about it--are at an µ74 ##V4WX# to ealk mea
all-time high. In the 1998 Bay Area Poll, transportation
problems and traffic congestion were rated the "Number °#Olee 0, vare'r &444a kf AwaVa a 9,%e& 74C(ane problem by a greater percentage of respondents than 4 �.
ever before in the 19 years this survey has been conducted. opte."�t* e"urc&Ot, 4aAoie
To exacerbate matters, without dramatic concerted dod WcVA&dw iC rUUdU ae&as
intervention to alter current trends, conditions are projected mm$gd
to get much.worse. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission(MTC) Regional Transportation Plan forecasts eoo mayor Willie Brown �
a staggering 249 percent increase in traffic congestion by the City ofSan Francisco
year 2020.
Thus, there is a deep and pervasive need in the Bay Area for bold action to address the growing
transportation problems. Policy-makers and civic leaders alike must confront this challenge and
answer this overriding persistent question: What actions will add significant capacity to the
regional transportation system, improve mobility, relieve congestion, provide a viable
alternative to driving alone, and at the same time avoid or minimize impacts on the
environment and enhance the quality of life in the Baty Area?
3
In responding to this mobility challenge and answering this question, some conclusions are
emerging among civic leaders that also are reflected in public sentiment:
d The freeway grid is essentially defined and is being completed.
• Plans to improve and expand existing public transportation systems have
been developed and are being pursued.
• The Bay, therefore,presents the last, best alternative remaining,the single
most promising source of untapped mobility.
Further, as a centerpiece component of a comprehensive regional transportation network-, an
extensive high-speed water transit system in the Bay Area would have three distinct advantages:
• Water transit is the most economically-feasible and environmentally-compatible
capital investment in transportation that can significantly reduce congestion and
improve mobility.
• Water transit has greater flexibility than other components of the transportation
system because new-routes and destinations can be established more easily by
redeploying vessels.
• Water transit has the ability to serve as a primary transportation mode in times
of emergency and can assist in disaster recovery, unlike other systems that are
more likely to be severely damaged or substantially disrupted.
Thus,there is one common-sense compelling conclusion in the face of the mounting traffic
gridlock and in light of all the available data and analysis: The time has come to build the
world's best high-speed water transit system in the Bay Area.
This new high-speed water transit system will incorporate the essential factors characteristic of
successful water transportation systems in other regions--improving on the best experiences from
around the world and tailoring the design to embrace the unique features of the Bay Area. It will
replace incremental planning and expansion efforts that have characterized recent development
of ferry services in the Bay Area. In contrast to existing ferry services primarily serving singular-
purpose routes, a true water transit "system" will serve the needs and lifestyle of Bay Area
residents. It will involve a comprehensive network of modem efficient terminals ringing the
waterfront, a fleet of specially-designed high-speed vessels criss-crossing the Bay to connect
existing major urban areas, and dedicated intermodal ground transportation linking points South
with the far Northern reaches and East with West,and making multi-destination travel easy and
convenient. And, the new high-speed water transit system will respect and protect the
environmental quality and ecological integrity of San Francisco Bay--celebrating the "majesty of
the Bay" in all dimensions,
4
The service, including ticketing, will be fully integrated with other modes of transportation,
facilitating transfers in the most seamless fashion possible. It will match or exceed the frequency
and reliability of the region's best-performing bus and rail systems with headways as frequent as
15 minutes during peak demand periods, and the hours of operation will be sufficient to make
riders confident they can travel where they need, whenever they need. The fleet of vessels,
including water taxis, will be built and sized to best match demand and travel patterns. The
boarding and unloading capabilities will use and advance state-of-the-art efficiency, making
travel times competitive with overland transportation.
On board, the rider will have easy access to the M range of information-age amenities, including
designated cell phone areas and power and modem hook-ups. The concessionaires will be issued
a challenge to match the culinary accomplishments of the on-board chefs during the 1930s, when
ferries were a vital part of the social scene. Larger vessels with sufficient deck space will
continue and expand the tradition of live music, which has proven so popular on the Golden Gate
system. -
The terminals will be appealing: clean, safe,
dry, well-lit, offering a broad array of amenities "74 Pate a a*ewd#A4aaxe a4va Pd
and conveniences, featuring architectural
design that is interesting and compatible with Vd&t 7WW4& We 4w e4vwN4
the local landscape,and fully accessible to the 664off a d4w& ok W&W"M 4 at at de
disabled. Walkways and boarding ramps will S" �7wwa �" v , 4wt4 auw.�gd
be covered and protected from the elements. w&6Aeaeaw4 494~f a4 ea4 44 4exe
Development of these terminals will stimulate Doug Wong, Director
future land uses consistent with a more
sustainable growth pattern regionally, including Port ofSan Francisco
various forms of joint and mixed-use
development. -
The new water transit system will serve more than the needs of traditional weekday commuters.
In the 21st century economy the workforce will have flexible hours, often traveling mid-day and
off-peak. For this reason, the new system will be fully operational during hours outside of the
traditional peak,operating from early morning to late night, weekdays and weekends alike.
Evening workers, sports fans, and patrons of the symphony, theater, ballet and opera will be
assured of water transportation for their return trips. Lovers of the diverse cultural centers and
arts institutions will take to the water to visit these attractions. Visitors will utilize dedicated
shuttles that meet the high-speed boats, in this way opening up the great cultural assets around
the Bay to the entire region. And,the fleet will be deployed as needed to facilitate travel to
periodically-scheduled large entertainment, sports and other recreational events, eliminating
traffic back-ups and avoiding costly parking.
The new water transit system also will greatly enhance the Bay Area`s tourism and visitor
industry by expanding operations serving numerous intriguing and spectacular destinations.
These include the various sites of theje a, exccted tie ct
Golden Crate National recreation #w' '
Area, Muir Woods, Fisherman's w4ve dastae 4 d" W4� asrd Aaue
Wharf, Marine World, East Bay adz4 a Aatesctted 4ae�n�m* mete
Regional Park District, Jack Londoni
aw�". " Vew"d ew&Azi�� duct ow
Square, Coyote Point, MASA Ames ,cea.s a a Iey, sit aasrceru '
Research Center, San Jose Tech
Museum, historical buildings and d A404 a 6�e 94~4wd
ships on the former.military basses, 4" o:� 4 "d a due e4d 4 rim
wildlife refuges, and connections to 0&4& aFW-0 is "404W. -0"0AI&W=4 4 ''
the wine country---to name only a few. roweete apse aw4*, ascd esc&oa49_dae
The high-speed, water transportation
service also will revolutionize the way Larry Thraikill,Acting President
passengers access Bay Area airports.
San Francisco 49ers
Officials at the San Francisca
International Airport have already documented the feasibility of a system in which air passengers
clear security and check luggage at remote satellite locations and travel directly to their final
terminals using amphibious hovercraft. Additionally,the airports will be linked by water transit,
allowing,the smooth passage of both passengers and airfreight across the Bay. This will allow
u su adtr edtie aze krv�" 4arr4iee Avg �"/�ontUtf� � cit a rhtGi xrvc eas<s�asreict a�
Ge a04t&Z ar'towAaiue. 7.1I4t we ew"iaia.c a tea acrd t!e donee to r��;�i t`arcrt �e�
auw&k eq &a&rf " mwli fie fe aeAmo ear de &,ed#am 44 "4,4" ' a
Ad"eKq m nt r/M 4400'a<..ct & ass ukA mtaat de wewt 4 tle 4U ca+r rue
at a owd to carr«uct. 744 4&(4 ast qzd woazeauw
i w4zed Kate, 44-0e 60'u94 au ru4d Ilse ltaaia'e asrd
a b ed ascd ue c" t'sr eactst(M zi'^-st eowxsrtkutC'ax 4 4eo, t ,&,
r/ww at e4e ktq# &Wgod as dot 4"U a#i a z e r o z`u+rx;*t ae &V mea,
John Martin, Director �nffte �.dChink Faster, Executive Director
San Francisco International Airport Port of Oakland �
the airports to integrate service in ways that will provide the customer a broader range of travel
alternatives and a degree of flexibility that is
not currently passible. ",9 4-W aWue °r a tex�twat adaw 0&r
ata�n #aw �tt%ana I
The system also will capitalize on a major fag, � � �. �ate��°
opportunity to redevelop the dozen closed d"494 ae
military bases currently being converted to 2."-4enw at we4&`; 'a.td a prup ee c
civilian uses, all but one of which are d,19U#e4v u &t4i deed° e �n tice
located on the Bay. These facilities are Laae. " William Perry, Deputy Director
prune locations for new housing and jab NASA Ames Research Center
6
centers with supporting commercial and community services. Appendix I provides a summary
overview of the bases and the potential they hold for the region. The military bases also offer to
visitors many interesting facets of military history as well as restored wetlands. The use of these
bases as strategic nodes on the new water transit system will be a potent catalyst for their
economic conversion.
Further, this new world-class system will not be limited solely to the movement of people. The
express mail and light freight industry(DHL Airways, United Parcel Service, Federal Express,
U.S. Postai Service and others)will use this opportunity to remove many of their trucks from the
overcrowded roads and bridges, replacing them with specialized vessels carrying packages and
containers. Currently, the routine operations of these overnight delivery business involves scores
of trucks traveling each day during afternoon commutes across bridges to reach the airports. A
new water transit system would include a fleet of cargo ferries servicing the airports from
strategic staging locations. The removal of so many trucks from the roads and bridges during
peak commute times will have a positive effect. It will also make later deadlines possible for
"just-in-time" manufacturers and businesses
using express delivery services'because m4d'e" e" ltdr l aenxae
overnight mail and light airfreight will have ku"er a4d 141
faster uncongested access to the airports.
464t4 4V to 44&4'a is fle
The new Bay Area water transit system also 4me mZw d mw4,6er rwwU Awae
will add substantially to regional disaster extha ANot Jaz d&d4 4f e6&ee c 44 44 eaio
preparedness because it will be able to assist in avte.c, 2pok ee aevAaw 410,&�v f 700,OX
recovery from natural catastrophes, such as
earthquakes. Water transit can keep the region
moving even if there is major damage or s
disruption to bridges, freeways, or fixed-rail Steven Grossman, Director ofAviation �
services. Port of Oakland
And finally,the establishment of a comprehensive water transit
"°ice a exec system fully integrated with the ground transportation network
Aulqu . Ze 4e d wew will not only add significant capacity to the regional
ftK#*TWZw mediu*a roe transportation system, but it will also generate hundreds of new
, � ac jobs in the Bay Area. These jobs will not only involve
operation of the water transit system from the vessels to the
exce 404 ea terminals, but also will be related to maintenance of the fleet.
Ata&Nail&4a"' - .Ideally, the vessels would even be designed and manufactured
The Honorable.lames Fong in the region,reviving an industry that once flourished in the
Chairman of the Board Bay Area.
In other words, the new high-speed water transit system will be extraordinary, meeting the real
needs of the population,creating neva market and employment opportunities, forging better links
between transportation and land-use, removing mobile-source pollutants from the air, providing a
significant new increment of regional mobility,and making the Bay a bridge—not a barrier.
7
The Success Factors for a World-Class Water Transit System
in order to build the bold vision--the best water transit system in the world--it is necessary to
have a thorough understanding about what makes systems in other regions successful.
Accordingly, a comprehensive analysis was conducted of the most successful water
transportation systems in other regions of the world,whose geographical configurations and
operating environments most closely resemble those of the Bay Area. Appendix D summarizes
this information in detail, providing an overview of the operating scope and economies of scale
developed by Sydney, Hong Kong, Seattle, and Vancouver.
The comparison and analysis of these exemplary systems, although highly particular to their
respective localities, illustrates several common characteristics that appear to be fundamental to
the success of any new system. Specifically,there are "Ten Success Factors"that emerge from
the investigation of Hong Kong, Sydney, Seattle, and Vancouver as defining characteristics of a
world-class system. They are:
• Scope and Geographic Coverage
• Frequency of Service
• Travel Time
• Reliability
• Quality of Service
• Efficiency of Landside Facilities
• Cost and Fares
• Intermodal Interface
• Safety
• Public Information and Education
In addition and just as important, for a new water transit system to succeed in the Bay Area, it
also must be exceptionally environmentally-friendly. The designers,developers, managers, and
operators of this envisioned "best-in-the-world" water transit system must embrace from the very
beginning an environmental ethic and moral commitment to protecting precious wildlife and vital
habitat. The sum total of this environmental ethic plus the Ten Success Factors provide the
framework for the bold vision: they are the essential elements and foundational components for
the new Bay Area high-speed water transit system.
The Success Factors are further defined and discussed in Attachment B. The following describes
what each Success Factor means for the new Bay Area water transit system. It should be
underscored that these Success Factors are inter-related and affect one another: they are all vital
parts of an integrated system.
Scope and Geographic Coverage. First and foremost, to build a world-class water transit that
adds significant capacity to the regional transportation capacity, provides an alternative to
congested roadways, and attracts passengers who otherwise have to drive alone, the system must
be comprehensive. Success derives from the confidence users Will have that travel almost
anywhere in the region► is possible by traversing the water and connecting with other public
8
transit services. The overarching premise, in other words, is that "critical mass" can only be
achieved when there is an extensive comprehensive network of routes connecting points
throughout the nine-county Bay Area, catering not only to current travel patterns, but also
facilitating new ones.
This concept of"critical mass" argues strongly against incremental approaches, in which
piecemeal additions are made to the current system on a demonstration basis. Although the
realization of the vision may require phased implementation, the undertaking must be
understood, from the very start, as a commitment to create a new, integrated, comprehensive, and
truly regional high-speed water transit system.
The next section of this report regarding"Conceptual Design"provides an extensive layout of the
new system, ultimately incorporating some 35 to 40 terminals both existing and new into the
system. The system also will have the routing flexibility to meet changing travel demands
because the new water transit system is expected to stimulate different land use and travel
patterns.
Frequency of Service. Flexibility in departure time is one of the most important factors in travel
mode choice. Volumes of research and survey information show that travel behavior is strongly
linked to frequency. For water transit services to compete with driving, frequent departures are
required. During peak demand times, successful systems operate as frequently as 15-minute or
I 0-minutes intervals. The annual Bay Area Commute Profile 98, compiled by the ridesharing
organization RIDES, is a recent affirmation of this relationship,the 1997 Harbor Bay:'Maritime
Ferry Survey is another. Both surveys surfaced data stressing the willingness of riders to take to
the water if the departures were frequent and continuous throughout the day.
Travel Time. Studies and experience have shown that time spent en route is the most critical
consideration. A competitive water transit system will match highway driving times,or make a
reasonable approximation so that the extra time factor on the water is easily offset by the duality
of the riding experience.
Increasing congestion and longer travel times(including parking difficulties) for given distances
coupled with breakthroughs in vessel technology have resulted in making high-speed water travel
time-competitive with driving. Catamarans in use today have the potential to exceed 45 miles
per hour on longer distance routes, and improvements on that figure(in the 10 percent range) are
fully expected by the time the Bay Area implements the new system.
Fortunately,advances in hull design mean that the wake generated by high-speed ferries is much
smaller than that generated by conventional monohulls and may mitigate a key environmental
concern. Although a comprehensive list of the environmental issues to be addressed is presented
in Appendix E, it should be noted that these critical advances in hull design have already made
successful the Larkspur and Vallejo services(30 and 53 minutes to San Francisco,respectively).
Can shorter routes, where travel time on the water is a smaller percentage of total door-to-door
travel time, vessel speed recedes in importance, and the efficiency of the landside facilities
becomes paramount.
9
Reliability. Consistent "guaranteed" on-time service and available seating are essential to
sustain ridership. Exemplary world-class systems report on-time arrival rates exceeding 95
percent. The new Bay Area system must match and exceed this. The means of achieving the
threshold has mostly to do with the size of the spare vessel fleet, so that neither routine
maintenance needs nor unexpected incidents cause service interruptions. The system will be
designed accordingly, requiring new maintenance facilities and injecting hundreds of high-skilled
jobs into the regional economy.
A challenge to total reliability of the new system is the occurrence of fog which can cause vessels
to slow down and thus delay trips. Statistically, fog which could slow vessels occurs 15 nays a
year in the Bay Area, but is usually limited to morning hours. Approximately I%of trips are
delayed by fog at present. And, while fog will continue to be a challenge at times in maintaining
operating schedules for the new system, new technology for both vessels and safe operations
make it possible to achieve an acceptable standard for reliability in the Bay Area. In poor
visibility,the key variable is the speed and ability of the vessel to stop, which is why boats
reduce speeds through fog. Although new-generation vessels will continue to reduce speeds for
safe operations during fog episodes, high-speed catamarans are far more maneuverable, and
capable of faster stops at.much shorter distances. When combined with state-of-the-art electronic
detection and location technology, high-speed vessels will operate safely in inclement weather
and achieve on-tune reliability equal to or exceeding that of alternative travel modes.
Quality of Service. The ride will be comfortable, and very pleasant, particularly in contrast to
fighting congestion and sitting in traffic jams. Regular ferry users know the experience is calm,
scenic, and amenable to any variety of productive activities. Providing amenities conducive to
working on board coupled with quality food and beverage services will provide;a superior
experience in comparison to other travel mode choices. The new system will extend this
experience to the'land as well, providing courteous shuttle drivers and appealing terminals that
are convenient hubs for services and shopping.
Efficiency of Landside Facilities, In a very real sense, the landside facilities are as important as
the vessels themselves. Door-to-door travel time is the operative factor. Speed on the water
accomplishes little if riders are subjected to long queues during loading and off-loading, if
transfers to ground transportation systems aren't easily available, if an appropriate amount of safe
secure parking isn't available, or if pedestrian circulation isn't foremast in design considerations.
Total travel time, quality of service, and intermodal interface are all functions of the efficiency of
landside facilities. The Bay Area water transit system must address all of these factors in the
landside facilities with state-of-the-art design and efficiencies. The terminals must be designed
to provide maximum convenience and comfort plus optimal utility for passengers, including
intennodal access. In order to optimize the efficiency of landside facilities there will need to be
standardized design and construction criteria for bath terminals and vessels.
In order for this vision to be realized,the system will be designed in full cooperation with the
landside transit providers, who have publicly pledged staff and resources to the development of a
network of services interfacing with the terminals. Parking will be a critical aspect of landside
10
facilities, although the amount and design at any specific terminal will be determined
cooperatively with the local community and surrounding neighbors. Satellite airport terminals
will include long-term parking options. There will be ample loading and drop-off zones,and
handicapped access will be a central design feature. Impacts on the environment and the Bay
from parking facilities must be minimized. Public transit,bicycle and pedestrian access must be
maximized.
Cost and Fares. To succeed, the fare for riders must be competitive with both other forms of
transit and the door-to-door costs of driving, including parking. Public officials must ensure that
there is sufficient initial public investment in capital facilities and operational support to establish
the "critical mass" needed for a world-class system. And once established and attracting the
expected ridership, ongoing public support for operations must be comparable to other modes of
transportation and adequate to ensure the fare is competitive.
Intermodal Interface. Connectivity of ground transportation and pedestrian access to the water
transit system is pivotal in ensuring ridership. Transfers between modes must be seamless, and
should be facilitated by single-fare transactions. Schedules between modes and different services
must be coordinated.
As an example, Sydney uses a large fleet of mid-size"midi"buses that meet every ferry. The
other systems studied also provide well-integrated connections with bus and rail systems. The
Bay Area had the seeds of such a system in place in the 1930s,when street and cable cars left the
San Francisco Ferry Building every 20 seconds. Today,the region is host to 28 separate transit
providers who are effective in their own spheres, but who lack coordination. The success of the
new system, however, will be critically dependent upon smooth working interfaces with all
existing ground transportation systems, including AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Contra Costa
County Connection, Delta Shuttle, Emeryville Shuttle, SamTrans, San Francisco MUNI, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and a host of others.
A comprehensive integrated regional transportation system also requires the introduction of
supplementary feeder services to the major transit components, including the water transportation
service. A large fleet of dedicated shuttle vans and buses, making frequent suburban connections
from a multitude of near-home locations, would greatly leverage the positive impact of the water
transit system on relieving congestion. A shuttle system such as this would both induce ridership
and reduce the demand for parking. Terminals should also be designed to accommodate a
facility for renting or "sharing" on a time basis low-or zero-emission(LEV or ZEV) vehicles.
The new water transit service will incorporate state-of-the-art electronic ticketing and will be
greatly promoted by the use of a universal ticket, currently being developed by regional
transportation officials. A universal ticket is a fundamental component of a seamless multi-
modal comprehensive integrated regional transportation system.
Safety. Landside and waterside safety must be assured. The new system will greatly increase
the number of vessels operating on the Bay along with existing commercial shipping, recreational
boating, and fishing. Rigorous new control procedures will have to be implemented. Just as the
Il
Federal Aviation Administration controls the skyways, the new system will be controlled and
directed by a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) and cooperative arrangements with the Marine
Exchange and the Maritime Partnership Initiative to determine the exact location of vessels or
hazards, providing the operators a data-rich environment to ensure safety. The system also will
be designed with a system of lanes, including some reserved exclusively for high-speed traffic.
Public Information and Education. A successful water transit system will require an
outstanding public information program. There are at least two dimensions to such a program.
First, ridership is sustained when the public receives easily readable timetables and other forms
of user information. These include maps, transfer schedules and information, real-time
arrival/departure information through the media and on electronic signboards, and an excellent,
user-friendly website. Second, a successful system embraces an aggressive marketing campaign,
not relying solely on word-of-mouth advertising. Fart of this campaign will include an element
designed to educate the public about the real costs of driving and the attractiveness of water
transit by comparison.
Trends in Transportation Conditions
Bay Area traffic congestion is increasing at an exponential rate,creating more miles of freeway
congestion every year, for more hours of the day. The latest Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)
released by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission estimates that traffic delay will increase
by 249 percent by 2020, even with an$88 billion expenditure for roadways and transit over the
next two decades. The Bay Area cannot build its way out of this problem in the traditional
manner. New freeway costs are enormous, may cause unacceptable relocation of people and
jobs, and often contribute to environmental degradation. However, whsle spiraling levels of
congestion on the highways and bridges have
increased highway travel time, advances in fast "71k Sam 64#
ferry technology and vessel speed have decreased �A' ect�Ae eeoe4
water transit trip time. The point has been
reached where water transit is actually faster than a ftafaz 4w ae. `1,t rezw4 4+e'er, q4
vehicle travel between several locations during 237, 1101, and U0 acre a ` cane, ` Ve
peak demand period, and thus a far more viable 4u 6#4warw fat a ae4w&u "t&t tka raa
option than in past years. aV&w, &,.d wce 1w# ewe aur'good
Level-of-Service(LOS)on most Bay Area }u"d uFaut'a°e i"t o e# a
freeways is degrading quickly(LOS is ranked A /" adct� fa Gturts,Yceeeggt WC4 4e ache
through F). LOS rank E, which represents stop- 44 opa��"4d4zu Kal a &zw-,.�
and-go conditions, and. LOS rank F, which. Joel Suty, Vice President Operations
represents gridlock, are the common conditions Katherine Strehl, Public Affairs
during peak periods on Bay Area freeways. A trip Lockheed Martin Missiles And space
from Mountain View to Hayward in the afternoon
peakk period, a distance of about 25 miles,
commonly takes about 75 minutes (20 mph). The Regional Transportation Plan estimates that
the automobile trip from Union City to Moffett Field will take about 50 minutes by 2020, and
12
a� that the Palo Alto to San Francisco trip will take
about 45 minutes. It also estimates that the San
Rafael to San Francisco commute will increase
_ . 7k vwd ok cower from an average of 41 minutes to 62 minutes by
dW4re4 a d&444% 4f to&ow Aot&w 4ad 2020 and that the Oakland to San Francisco trip
P.,Zw °°'7l W& 4 6k aacr9f.'aadtat' time will slow from 34 minutes to 51 minutes.
ok&&ZAOW & ge a ` _ aKd c� In a historical nutshell, as the Bay Area grew,
Vi Mewea "` tue. - bridges added new commute capacity that
Honorable Duane Bay exceeded the capacity provided by the old ferry
East Palo`alto City Council system BART added another form of
transportation, now reaching capacity during
peak fours. BART extensions, however, cost millions of dollars per mile, and the BART
transbay tube has a fixed upper limit of capacity--no more than 30 trains per hour--only eight
more than BART currently operates during the peak hour. Total daily travel along the"Bay
Bridge corridor" is about 274,000 vehicles on the bridge,approximately 134,000 BART
passengers, 14,000 AC Transit bus passengers, and 4,000 ferry passengers (Vallejo,
Alarn.eda/Oakland, Harbor Bay Isle).
In the last 10 years, however, the number of
vehicles crossing the Bay Bridge has increased by � j °� alt acrd
more than 30,000, or about 12 percent. The RTP d a d�at'axce die
estimates that daily person-trips will increase by
about 30 percent by 2020--well above the ability
of planned BART or bus improvements. Even a P Ge Ilse 4"&M 71te 4OA4,ee ;
10 percent increase in vehicle counts in the next tle 4dA egce "e tke
10 years (less than one percent annually) would 44 �
generate about 28,000 new trips, severely limiting Honorable Marland Townsend �
travel in the corridor, even with improvements Foster City Wiry Council
planned by BART and AC Transit. Other bridge
corridors are also very busy as shown in
Attachment F.
Bridge traffic is projected to increase between 30 and 40 percent in the next 20 years. Bridges
simply don't have the capacity to handle this projected growth. They are already at, or
approaching, full capacity. The Bay Bridge is already carrying 10,800 vehicles per hour in one
direction during peak hours. It has no capacity to carry more traffic. The current Caltrans plans
to rebuild the East Span of the Bay Bridge include no additional capacity for the Bay Bridge,
either vehicular or transit. The other bridges are at 90 percent or more of capacity during peak
hours. The current total weekday travel on the Richmond-San Rafael and Bay Bridges ranges
between 900,000 and 1.2 million trips daily. Bridge truck counts indicate that more than 37,000
trucks use Bay crossings daily.
13
a ad a&04&W yet out o ccvza at
The potential does exist to divert
' aw'a: 4au' eVA4'a, `d'W° " ` ° ` some of these truck trips related
opal taco . 7 &,ore a.W# ,au c A4"ea *m&-i to express mail and light
�mf to ae '30", &d o y 3 od . It ca airfreight to water transit,
moue r4w a 06 a 0or d WW ww'eAr' ,ix 4 u w4e&# however. By 2020, according to
s u� MTC estimates, the total weekday
Honorable Mike Nevin travel in these corridors could
San Mateo County Board ofSupervirorsrange from 1.1 to 1.5 million
trips.
Visionary Pragmatism
With the Bay such a dominant feature of the regional landscape, it is impossible to minimize its
potential as a travel corridor. In recent decades since the construction of the bridges, water
transit has begun to figure once again in the regional transportation planning,even if actual levels
of investment have not matched the potential. Periodic earthquakes, gasoline crises, or transit
strikes have underscored the need for viable, fully-functioning water-based alternatives. For this
reason regional decision makers have provided at least a modicum of funding to this mode, and
highlighted water transportation as a subject for continued attention.
Progress in the current decade traces to 1990 when California voters approved Proposition 116, a
$1.99 billion statewide bond issue for rail transit and related projects. The measure earmarked
$10 million for ferry service between Vallejo and San Francisco and $20 million for other water
service around the state. In order to develop a spending plan for these funds,and to maximize
available matching funds, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) and the City of
Vallejo sponsored a 1992 study, the Regional Ferry Plan. The Plan offered a number of short-
and long-term recommendations for improving the ferry network. A number of those
recommendations have been implemented; others have not.
Meanwhile, new information shows major prospective growth in demand for water transportation
services. The tourist and excursion markets are expanding, including the construction of new
sports stadiums near the waterfront. The conversion of the regions military bases holds the
promise of new housing stock and job centers,both of which-could be served naturally and easily
by water transportation. And, officials at the Oakland and San Francisco airports are
investigating service and capacity upgrades by having their facilities accessed from the water
side.
At the same time, Highway gridlock grows worse by the month. In the intervening years since the
1992 Regional Ferry Plan, the State Department of Transportation(Caltrans) reports that
roadway congestion in the Bay Area has swollen to more than 100,000 hours lost per day by the
commuters in the nine Bay Area counties, a figure that translates into more than$850,000 in
daily productivity losses and wasted resources.
To be sure, Bay Area planners and transit providers are working diligently to improve the
existing transportation infrastructure and relieve congestion. Major rail expansions are under
14
construction or coming on line under the leadership of the major regional systems--BART(to the
San Francisco Airport),the San Francisco Municipal Railway(IN-Line extension to Mission Bay,
the Third Street Corridor Project), the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(Tasman light
rail extension), and a new Joint Powers Board bringing commuter express service on refurbished
Southern Pacific tracks through the Altamont Pass. Bus operators are maximizing service under
budgetary constraints, and working within a welcome new state legislative mandate (Senate Bill
1474)to provide more coordinated, cross jurisdictional service. Some expansions and additional
capacity are being added to the highway system, mostly through a number of county-based self-
help
elfhelp taxation measures. These will be matched by a limited number of state-financed, regionally-
planned capacity improvements at some of the key regional bottlenecks and choke points.
Although these investments are adding capacity to the system, the region's papulation is growing
and, fortunately, the economy is strong and expanding. The California Department of Finance
has released reports showing the state's population doubling by the year 2040,with a significant
portion corning to the Bay Area. Within 20 years, the Association of Bay Area Governments
estimates 1.4 million new jobs will cluster primarily in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and
various Bast Bay locations. Without a stunning reversal of trends, however, the housing stock
will stay relatively fixed in those areas, lagging seriously behind the job growth. The major
residential developments will be in Solano, Sonoma,Napa, and Contra Costa:.counties. And
although transit usage will grow in absolute numbers, vehicle ownership will outpace these
figures,as will vehicle miles traveled. And despite the best and most concerted efforts of the
region's planners and transit providers, there is projected a staggering increase in traffic
congestion, a sobering prospect that should jar the region's public officials and civic leaders into
action, fashioning an altogether different--and bold--response.
Consider the cost of expanding capacity and increasing mobility by conventional means; the
BART system costs upwards of$70 million per mile; additional highway capacity runs at least
$32 million per mile; the construction of a single freeway interchange can cost more than$300
million, and the Bay Bridge east span seismic replacement will exceed $1 billion. Meanwhile,
the Bay is seriously underutilized as a transportation facility, both as a mode and a corridor. An
advanced high-speed ferry costs $10 million and a modern efficient terminal up to $15 million.
In fact,the initial capitalization of a world-class water transit system in the Bay Area could be no
more than the cost of approximately four freeway interchanges or the new Bay Bridge span. In
light of present circumstances and future demographic trends, can the region afford not to use
one of the world's finest natural harbors and waterways?
Fortunately, the vision for a water transit system in the Bay Area is very timely. Public interest
in an integrated,comprehensive regional water transit system is running at an all-time high. The
1996 Bay Area Pall reported 82 percent of respondents favored expanded water transportation
services; the 1998 Bay Area Poll duplicated this result and revealed that 80 percent of residents
favor tax increases for transit expansions and improvements. Further, even without the benefit of
this vision or conceptual design, 48 percent surveyed last fall said they would support increasing
bridge tolls an additional $1 to pay for increased ferry service, a robust result coming so soon
after the 1998 $1 toll increase. It appears that Bay Area residents are ready for a world-class
water transit system in their region.
15
The Past is Prologue: It's Back to the Future
In truth, this has already been done. The Bay Area was once the ferry capital of the United
States, with water transportation playing a long and historic role in the development of the region
--not to mention a fashionable role in society. Appendix C summarizes a great deal of this
history,but the story dates as early as 1850, the year California.entered the Union, and the
Kangaroo entered service on a route between San Francisco and the Oakland Estuary. By the late
1800s,22 passenger-carrying cross--bay ferry companies were in operation. Later, an additional
five companies carried only automobiles. The ferries served approximately 30 destinations,half
of them on the San Francisco-Oakland corridor(see Figure 1).
Most ferry lines were established and operated by railroads seeking means to extend their service
across the Bay. Consolidation took its toll, however, and by the early 1930s only 10 passenger
operators remained. Of these, the Southern Pacific Company was by far the largest operator,
with 22 vessels in full-time service in 1935. The Key System and Northwestern Pacific Railroad
(NWP), a subsidiary of Southern Pacific, held second and third place. Between them,the three
operators carried 49 million passengers annually.
The vessels were large and stately. The NWP Eureka had seating for 2,300 and standing room
for an additional 1,000 people. All of the Southern Pacific major vessels had seating capacity of
greater than 1,000; the Golden Bear could seat 2,2.00.
By modern standards, these ferries were slow, powered by steam until the 1920s when diesel
engines made their appearance. But even with diesel engines,the thirty-mile run between
Vallejo and San Francisco took nearly two hours, at an average speed of 15 knots. The slower
pace brought on-board restaurants into vogue, passengers took advantage of their time in transit
to consume a substantial meal, and social historians report that the galley chefs were as well
trained in the culinary arts as any of their counterparts on shore.
The peakk ferry transit years were 1935 and 1936, when as many as 60 million people crossed the
Bay annually on a fleet of 50 ferries. As many as 250,000 passengers flowed through San
Francisco's Ferry Building each day, loading onto streetcars that left every 20 seconds. All total,
the ferries made 34€3 arrivals and departures daily.
Then carne the great bridges: first the original Dumbarton Bridge and Carquinez Bridge in 1927,
followed by the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1936 and the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937.
These were followed by the Richmond-San Rafael, Benicia-Martinez, San Mateo, and the new
Carquinez, Antioch and Dumbarton bridges. With their completion, decline of water transit was
precipitous, and nearly immediate. By 1958 there were no more ferries, period. Moreover, in the
case of the Bay Bridge, entrepreneurs thinking to offer ferry service were statutorily prohibited
from doing so within a 10-mile span, a provision the State Legislature had enacted to ensure the
bonding agents a reliable toll revenue stream.
They needn't have worried. By the 1950s it was apparent that congestion would reach a critical
stage, and the traveling.public would require alternatives to the bridges. But the water-based
16
alternatives would not assert themselves in the minds of the region's officials. Instead, heavy rail
and rapid transit captured the imagination of the region, and the Bay Area's history records a
long, interesting chapter on the creation of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District(BART).
A portion of the bridge tolls were used to finance the construction of the BART transbay tube as
a replacement for the railway tracks removed from the lower deck of the Bay Bridge. Ferries,
however,were still prohibited from competing directly with the bridges.
The Seeds of a Comeback
Mounting congestion,occasional transit shutdowns, and natural disasters provided the
justification required for a new generation of water transportation, starting with the Golden Gate
Larkspur Ferry Project and the Tiburon Ferries in the 1960s.
By 1982 water-based service had reached a turning point. Until then, most observers regarded
the Larkspur Project as a noble but failed experiment,over-budget and substantially below the
targeted patronage. Then came the 1982 mudslides in Marin, which eliminated automobile
access to San Francisco, Suddenly, it seemed-water transportation wasn't merely a quaint, costly
redundancy. On one day alone, three 700-passenger Larkspur ferries carried more than 12,200
passengers.
Concurrent to these developments came a decision to convert gasoline-powered engines to diesel
fuel. Until then, the Golden Gate ferries had been powered by three gasoline turbine engines
which proved enormously expensive throughout the gasoline crises of the 1970s and 1980s.
While the conversion to diesel lowered speeds, it also lowered costs substantially. When these
lower costs were coupled with the favorable new, mudslide-induced disposition for parallel
systems, the Larkspur Project found itself on a stable public policy course. The service was not
growing to speak of, but it was not contracting either, and local policy decisions were supportive.
Meanwhile, congestion on the other, state-owned bridges continued to grow, and there were
occasional calls for new water transit links. Events such as the 1978 transbay tube shutdown
catalyzed the Berkeley Ferry Committee, for example,to provide new San Francisco service
from the Berkeley Marina. When the tube reopened, however, the operation lurched into
financial deficits, and vanished.
In 1984 the Harbor Bay Isle development in Alameda sponsored a two-year demonstration
project that was partially funded by the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which documented
the feasibility of operating hovercraft throughout the Bay Area. In conjunction with this
demonstration project, more than 20,000 signatures were gathered from Bay Area residents in
support of ferries. In response, the State Legislature rescinded the statutory restriction on ferry
service in the Bay Bridge corridor when the bonds were refinanced following the passage of
Regional Measure One in 1988.
The October 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake was the crucial path-changing event. The month-long
closure of the Bay Bridge pressed ferries into immediate operation, many of the vessels on loan
17
from the Washington State system and elsewhere. Within two weeks, ferries from Alameda,
Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and Vallejo carried 6,800 passengers in the morning peak.period
(about the same lead that three lanes on the Bay Bridge could sustain, per hour). All-day totals
of 20,000 passengers were normal during the rebuilding period. This experience of this event
also gave rise to two new ferry services,the Alameda-Oakland Ferry and Harbor Bay Maritime.
The 1989 Earthquake did more than establish ferries as a critical link in the region's emergency
preparations. Because the capacity of the service and the experience of the riders were both
much better than expected, water transportation carne to be understood as more than merely a
coping strategy in times of duress. When the Bay Bridge re-opened, ferry ridership diminished,
to be sure, but it did not evaporate, and Bay Area leaders took their cues from these riders to
introduce new measures that would re-establish water transportation as a vital contributor to the
overall regional transportation infrastructure. The Legislature enacted post-quake emergency
legislation enabling ferry service in the transbay corridor and permanently rescinded earlier ferry
prohibitions in the various transbay corridors. In addition, Regional Measure One made all the
state-owned toll bridges a uniform $1. And when the California voters approved a statewide
bond issue for rail and other transit projects in 1990, $30 million was earmarked for ferry
services.
As the current decade began, water transit had come back to the fore, and the stage was set for
quantum advances in the way the region leveraged this important transportation mode. The
timing coincided with technological breakthroughs, especially marrying reliable diesel engines
with proven catamaran hull designs, enabling large passenger vessels to achieve higher speeds
with lower operating costs. Until the mid-1980s, the fastest passenger boats operated at about 18
knots(20 mile per hour), a pace that competed poorly with the automobile. But the introduction
of the high-speed catamaran, powered by conventional diesel engines, brought ferries into the
realm of marketability, as well as financial viability.
Today, some high-speed catamarans achieve speeds up to 40 knots (in excess of 45 miles per
hour). The high-speed vessels from Vallejo and Larkspur presently achieve speeds approaching
35 knots (in excess of 40 miles per hour), substantially increasing their marketability.
Accordingly, these have quickly become the preferred, standard vessel technology in the Bay
Area, Catamarans servicing Vallejo and Larkspur are so successful that passengers are being left
behind on the dock, signaling the beginnings of a new era on the water.
Appendix D summarizes the current state of water transit in the Bay Area,detailing service,
patronage, and farebox recovery figures on the region's six passenger routes, all of which connect
with a terminal or landing in San Francisco. All total, 11,250 passengers board ferries daily in
the Bay Area, roughly 3.5 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998. Fiscal year 1999 is
expected to reach 3.8 million passengers. The figures show that overall costs (per seat mile)car.
be lower for ferries than for rail systems, and about the same compared to bus service, And,
because additional, new ferry service doesn't require expensive right-of-way acquisitions, the
capital requirements are orders-of-magnitude less than rail and highway systems. A
comprehensive, high-speed mass water transit system would achieve significantly higher
operating economies, and produce a significant new increment of mobility for the Bay Area.
18
Conclusion. Time for Baud Action
With rapidly increasing traffic congestion and decreasing mobility, there is an urgent need for
bald action to preserve the economic vitality and protect the quality of life in the region. All
reasonable common sense and rational analysis leads to a compelling conclusion: The time has
come to build in the Bay Area the hest high-speed water transit system in the world.
19
BAY" AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Overview
The purpose of the Conceptual Design is to describe quantitatively the "Vision" for the Bay Area
High-Speed dater Transit System which is set forth in the previous section. The Conceptual
Design by its very definition is "conceptual" and will be further refined and quantified as more
environmental assessment, detailed financial analysis, and engineering studies are completed.
An extensive public review and stakeholder discussion process will provide vital input to help
define the system. Thus, it must be underscored that the Conceptual Design is a starting point for
building the best water transit system in the world and the actual design will be determined
through an open iterative public process.
The focus of the Conceptual Design is two-fold: (1)to describe the full potential in scope,
function and capacity of the "best in the world" comprehensive system at "build-out" in the Bay
Area; and(2)to identify the initial "critical mass" components of the system which are essential
to achieve success and lay a viable threshold for"build-out."
A successful system in the Bay Area is one which accomplishes at least the following Three
Goals for continued economic prosperity and enhanced quality of life:
I. Improves regional mobility in a cost-effective manner and relieves traffic congestion
significantly by attracting a large number of passengers who currently drive alone.
2. Operates with an exceptionally environmentally-friendly ethic to avoid, minimize or
mitigate impacts on the San Francisco Bay ecosystem and wildlife.
3. Supports "smart growth" by stimulating more sustainable and efficient land use patterns
in the region.
The Conceptual Design is based on considerable study, analysis and public input, including: (a)
a comparative analytical study of successful systems in other regions of the world; (b)an initial
assessment of environmental concerns, characteristics and constraints throughout the San
Francisco Bay ecosystem; (c) identification of state-of-the-art technology and design for
components of a successful system; (d) analysis of present and future forecast travel demands;
and (e) widespread stakeholder and citizen input from public forums and interviews. The
envisioned Bay Area Nigh-Speed Water Transit System at "build-out" would be the most
extensive, efficient, state-of-the art water transportation system possible, that also is
economically feasible and environmentally friendly. In other words, it would optimize high-
speed water transit as a centerpiece component of a regional Bay Area transportation system in
the 21 st century. The notion of"critical mass" is based on the conclusion from the analysis of
successful systems around the world that there are certain essential components and operational
criteria, called "success factors," which must be incorporated into a system from the very
beginning in order to attract significant ridership.
I
Explicit in the notion of "critical mass" is the understanding that anything less than this order of
magnitude of comprehensiveness and investment in a new water transit system will fall short of
the above goals. In other words, an incremental approach to expansion of service that does not
incorporate the requisite "success factors" will not optimize the full potential of water transit
because it will not attract sufficient ridership to make a measurable impact on mobility in the
region. Further,an incremental approach falsely presumes that ridership should drive system
design. This results in a self-limiting dynamic that sub-optimizes ridership. Rather, the
approach of"critical mass" recognizes that system design-will drive ridership to a significant
degree, especially given the increasing constraints and time delays associated with the regional
highway and bridge network. While the precise details of the "critical mass" for the new system
are open to further debate and refinement, the approach is indisputable. There must be sufficient
initial capital investment in facilities and operations for the system to-be successful.
For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the following description of the Conceptual Design refers
to the "critical,mass" magnitude of system development as Phase I. Phase II refers to the full
complete "build- out" of the system.
Performance and Operational Criteria
The Conceptual Design is based on a set of performance objectives and operational criteria
related to the "Three Goals" stated above and the "Ten Success Factors" identified in the analysis
of major water transit systems in other regions.
Performance Objective: Improve!Mobility and Relieve Congestion
The mobility performance objective for Phase I "critical mass" is to attract up to 15-20 million
passengers annually-4 to 5 times the volume of annual passengers today. This is approximately
equivalent during the peak period of the "people capacity" of 4 lanes on a bridge. The intent is to
complete development of Phase I within a 5-10 year timeframe. The mobility performance
objective for Phase II "build-out" is to attract up to 2530 million passengers annually.
Translated to peak period travel at current ratios,this is approximately equivalent to the BART
transbay tube capacity. The intent is to complete development of Phase II within a 10-20 year
timeframe. It should be noted that realization of ridership will follow completion of the system
phases and is not likely to be achieved immediately. Further,the annual ridership objectives do
not include truck trips avoided due to the express mail and light airfreight water transit
component of the system.
Performance Objective: Protect Environmental Quality
The environmental performance objective for both Phase I and Phase II is tc protect and preserve
the ecological integrity of the San Francisco Bay ecosystem. Specifically, this means that
terminals will be sited and the system will be operated to. (a)avoid as a first priority any
significant negative impacts on existing wetlands, habitat and wildlife; (b)assure no net loss of
wetlands, habitat, and wildlife; (c) support and promote the intent of the Bay Area Wetlands
Goals Project; and(d) expand the total acreage of wetlands and habitat in the ecosystem should.
.mitigation become an appropriate remedy as a result of an environmental assessment process.
2
Performance Objective: Support Smart Growth and Sustainable Development
The smart growth performance objective for both Phase I and 11 is to work with local and
regional civic leaders to develop and design terminals and routes that are consistent with
sustainable development principles and that will stimulate development of more efficient land
use patterns in the region as well as new urban vitality around the terminals.
Operational Criteria: Incorporate Ten Success Factors
Operational criteria for the Conceptual resign related to the'fen Success Factors include:
Scope and Geographic Coverage: Phase 1: 15-20 million passengers annually.
Phase II: 25-30 million passengers annually.
Frequency of Service: At least 15-minute departures during peak periods
on routes with heaviest projected demand in the
corridors. Some routes may initiate service with 304
minute headways depending on projected demand.
Service provided at least 16 hours per day.
Travel Time: Vessel Speed: At least 40 knots on longer routes.
May use a mix of vessels with speeds down to 25
knots for shorter routes. Maximum efficiency for
loading/unloading and intermodal access.
Reliability: 99%
Quality of Service: Hated by passengers superior to driving and
equal or better than other public transit.
Efficiency ofLandside Facilities: Load/Unload: At least 100-150 people/minute.
Standardized design and construction criteria for
both vessels and terminals. Terminals designed to
facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and intermodal access.
Cost and Fares: Cost-effective capital investment for mobility.
Comparable cost for riders to other mode choices.
Intermodal Interface: Coordinated schedules with ground transportation.
Systemwide average of 50%of passengers
accessing terminals by walking, bicycle or public
transit.
Safety: 100%
Public Information and Education: Ongoing public information and marketing
program. Readily accessible route and schedule
information. 80%awareness by the public.
3
Concept for Full System "Build-(butt,
The Conceptual Design for the full system "build-out" recognizes and responds to the need for a
comprehensive network of terminals and routes that connect all reaches of the region--North Bay,
East Bay, 'West Bay, and South Bay--with one another. It is especially important to establish
routes that connect people from where they live to where they work, particularly North Bay and
.East Bay to South Bay. Today, existing ferry services link only some parts of the North Bay and
East Bay to San Francisco. However, given the significant job growth and severe lack of housing
in Silicon Valley, there needs to be connections to the South Bay. Further,population growth
projections coupled with freeway constrictions in the North Bay warrant a thorough investigation
of the possibilities to establish terminals and routes that reach farther into the North Bay than
existing services. There will need to be focused investigation to find environmentally acceptable
terminals in the South Bay and North Bay.
In order to establish a system comprehensive enough to achieve the mobility objective of 25-30
million passengers annually for the system at full build-out, it is envisioned that more than 35 to
40 potential terminals location will be connected by 30 or more routes. This network of
terminals and routes will serve passengers for trips related to work, personal needs, and
recreation and entertainment. A fleet of more than 120 high-speed vessels, with a range of
capacities to fit route functions, will be needed to provide the service. The Conceptual Design
for the full system also envisions a network of 5 remote secure airline passenger terminals
connected to the airports. The secure remote airline terminals may be co-located adjacent to
other passenger terminals but with separate security areas. The Conceptual Design also envisions
a set of 2 remote cargo terminals and 5 routes for transporting express mail and light airfreight to,
from, and between the airports. This cargo network will be established during the "critical mass"
Phase 1.
Concept for System "Critical Mass"
The Conceptual Design for the Phase I "critical mass" system envisions a network of 28
terminals,some of which will be used primarily as entertainment and recreation destinations.
These terminals will be linked by up to 20 basic routes and up to 6 primarily recreational routes.
In addition, special route service will be added as needed to specific destinations for major
events, such as sports games or community celebrations. A fleet of approximately 70 high-speed
passenger-only vessels and approximately 5 specialized cargo vessels will be needed to provide
the service in Phase 1. Phase I also envisions at least 2 remote secure airline passenger terminals
and the cargo network described above. The Phase I system is estimated through initial computer
model analysis to attract between 40,000 and 60,000 riders each weekday, and between 12 to 18
million passengers annually, thus approximating the mobility performance objective stated
above.
The Phase I system will consist of more than 300 route miles for general passenger and
recreational services plus 140 route miles for airport passengers for a total of 440 route miles.
This would mare the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative upon the completion of Phase I the
largest ferry route system in the world and would carry more passengers than Sydney or
Vancouver.
4
The ridership estimates for Phase I are used on projected year 2020 travel patterns and on the
assumed induced travel that would be created by the system. This induced travel could be
attributable to new infill construction near the proposed terminals, enhanced economic
opportunities, or even shifts in regional travel patterns. The consultant team projected ridership
using the MTC ferry service model, which places values on travel time, waiting time and cost,
coupled with professional estimates of"induced" travel which would be created through changes
in land use or regional trip patterns as a result of a comprehensive water transit system.
The experience gained through implementation of phase I will provide essential information for
the actual design of Phase II build-out. This approach to development and design of the full
system build-out embraces the opportunity to learn in Phase I in order to optimize the ability to
attract ridership in Phase II.
Attached are Figures I through 7 which show Conceptual Design for Phase I and Phase II in
comparison to the existing system of terminals and routes. Included are the fallowing:
• Figure 1: Existing,Terminals and Routes and Potential Terminals.
• Figure 2. Phase 1 "Critical. 'ass"System Potential Routes. This system is based on
existing and Phase I demand for water transit passengers. Terminals that received overall
rankings of I and 2 are included in this system option.
• Figure 3: Phase H "Build-Out"System Potential Routes. All potential terminal sites except
those that received an environmental ranking of 3 (severe impacts anticipated-currently
unacceptable environmentally) are included in this system option.
• Figure 4: Airport Passenger Routes for Phase 1. This system option addresses passengers
originating and/or terminating at the three Bay Area international airports; San Francisca
International Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose International Airport.
• Figure S: Airport Passenger Routes,for Phase H. This option shows the concept for a
complete network of remote secure airline passenger terminals and access to the airports.
• Figure d: Air Freight Routes. Cross-bay freight routes have been identified in Figure 6. The
freight is basically express mail and light airfreight to and from the three regional
international airports and two deepwater seaports,the Port of Oakland and the Port of San
Francisco.
• Figure 7: Recreational Routes. This system option shows the potential for significantly
increasing the number of recreation and entertainment destinations accessible through a water
transit system in addition to the existing recreational routes which serve Alcatraz and.Angel
Island.. The routes offer new opportunities to the Bay Area visitor and tourism industry.
5
Terminal Locations and Design
Over 60 potential terminal sites were originally considered and 48 were evaluated,characterized
and ranked. Potential terminal sites were nominated through a process involving public forums,
interviews of local government officials and civic leaders, review of topographic and nautical
charts, a survey of the Task Force members, and the professional knowledge of the consultant
team. Table 3 lists the potential terminal locations and provides an assessment of environmental
issues and overall viability. The environmental analysis involved a review of large-scale habitat
maps prepared for the Bay Area Wetlands Goals Project,other published data,an evaluation by a
research associate from Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and the professional knowledge of the
consultant team. Appendix E also provides additional environmental information and it
description of each potential site.
There are significant environmental issues and constraints associated with some of potential sites
that will have to been fully addressed consistent with the environmental performance objective
for the system before they could be incorporated into Phase II. Further, the sites which were
ranked "Y' in the environmental evaluation(severe environmental impacts anticipated-currently
unacceptable environmentally)were not included in the Conceptual Design. However, given the
demand for travel between the North Bay and South Bay,there will be a continuing effort to
identify environmentally acceptable sites in the North Bay above Larkspur and along the East
Bay corridor between San Leandro and Moffett Field. Intermodal connections-by bus or rail that
reach into the North Bay and South Bay will also be explored.
The actual selection of terminal sites will require a cooperative process between local
jurisdictions,environmental stewards and those responsible for building the system. However,
the terminal selection process must be rooted in further analysis of corridor trips, market demand
and forecasting, environmental constraints, economic considerations, and the selection of the
most appropriate transit mode for each corridor.
To achieve minimum travel time, there must be maximum efficiency in the loading and
unloading of passengers at the terminals. This will require standardized design criteria for both
terminals and vessels. It is also recognized that terminal design should be a function of the
volume and peak through-put of passengers and the level of intermodal access. In order to
provide a framework..for developing standardized design criteria the consultant team proposed an
approach for classifying terminal types by predominant use. Six different terminal types were
identified. These six types are listed below and are displayed in Figures 8 through 13. A
general description of each terminal type is included in Attachment 1.
• Major Destination (Figure 8)
• 'Major Origin (Figure 9)
• Light Destination (Figure 10)
• Light Origin (Figure 11)
• recreation (Figure 12)
• Cargo (Figure 13)
6
A summary matrix for the key design components for each of the six terminal types is shown in
Table 4 attached. This matrix breaks out the waterside, landside, and systems operations
components. It should be noted that this classification approach uses somewhat arbitrary terms
to begin the task of developing standardized design criteria. It is recognized that most terminals
will serve a variety of passengers and purposes. Further, it is expected that several terminals will
transform their predominate use over time.
Routes
The Conceptual Design of potential routes for the Phase I "critical mass" system and Phase II
"build-out" are illustrated in Figures 2-7. The potential routes for Phase I are described in
Attachment 2. The potential routes for Phase I is an example developed by the consultant team
to illustrate a scenario that will achieve the mobility performance objective. The potential routes
for "build-out" are simply an illustration of the numerous options and combinations once the
network of terminals has been established. The actual route configuration will be developed
based on additional analysis and modified over time by forecast and realized demand.
Vessels
Vessel speed and technology are critical considerations in the establishment of routes and the
viability of the system. Further, there is a complex equation between vessel speed, capacity,
operating costs and passenger demand on any given route. Thus, the exact vessel technology and
composition of the fleet will be determined in the future with considerable additional analysis.
The fleet vessel composition also is expected to change over time as a function of evolving
technology and the success of the system. However, given the importance of travel time to
achieving ridership and the mobility performance objective, it is anticipated that the system will
need to deploy primarily high-speed vessels of at least 40 knots(48 miles per hour) on most
routes. It may be feasible to initiate service on shorter routes with vessels operating at speeds
down to 25 knots (30 miles per hour) if terminals are built which maximize efficiency in loading
and unloading to make the total travel time competitive with driving. The system also will
deploy smaller "water tars" to facilitate convenience for passengers and to further help relieve
traffic on local streets and along heavily congested corridors. The Conceptual Design for the
Phase I "critical mass" system projects a need for 70 passenger-only vessels.
Appendix G provides a summary of vessel types and technology. 'based on current technology, it
appears that high-speed catamarans, with their reliability, proven ability to attract ridership, and
their superior environmental characteristics, are the best known vessel for most routes in the neve
water transit system. Fortunately, the new-generation high-speed vessels are also more
environmentally friendly,causing smaller waves and wakes, than the older slower ferries. The
remote secure airline terminal system may deploy high-speed hovercraft, however. And, the
cargo route system will require specialized non-passenger vessels.
7
Standardized design criteria for the vessels will be needed to ensure the most efficient loading
and unloading at the terminals. The operating criterion for efficient landside facilities will
require the ability to lead and unload at least 100-150 passengers per minute. The vessels will
have to be specifically designed and constructed to achieve this operating criterion and to most
safely and efficiently interface with the terminals and dock facilities.
Ticketing. Universal Pass
The"Universal Pass"concept, requiring only one ticket or pass for all public transit systems,
should be implemented for the Bay Area Water Transit system. Such an integrated fare and
ticketing system allows passengers to move"seamlessly" between water, rail and bus systems.
Integrated ticketing encourages use of all transit systems as the perceived barrier between various
modes is broken down. Commuters are attracted by both the convenience and time saving
benefits of single fare transactions.
The introduction of a seamless fare systems in Sydney, Seattle and Vancouver has encouraged
ferry patronage. Single fare transactions were designed as part of the SeaBus system in
Vancouver and have recently been added in Sydney and Seattle. Seattle's Smart Carel used on
ferries in the Puget Sound has been popularly received and is now being used by most patrons.
In Australia, the Public Transport Authority of New South Wales is taking the Universal Pass
concept one step further, advancing the"Sydney Pass"which will include both public and private
transit carriers. Transit passengers in Sydney already have access with a single ticket to the
public State Transit buses and ferries, and the Light Rail city train.system. The multimodal
integrated ticketing system will allow travel with one ticket on private buses and ferries,
including two rail systems, CityRail and bight Dail, and the State Transit bus and ferry systems.
Safety
A summary discussion of safety is presented in Appendix H. The following provides an
overview of the issues for safety related to vessels, passengers, and terminals.
Vessel,Safety
Components of vessel safety which must be incorporated in the system design include the use of
the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) system for reporting vessel locations during transit and
operation under safe vessel speed, including during times of limited visibility. In the near fixture,
VTS will be upgraded with the addition of the Automated Information System(AIS), which will
facilitate much more detailed vessel tracking. The Coast Guard also requires the submittal of a
Vessel Security flan.
8
Passenger Safety
The extent of Coast Guard safety regulations for passenger vessels increase generally with vessel
size and passenger capacity and as their waters of service increase from benign to fully exposed.
Requirements include the existence of safe refuge areas where all passengers and crew can be
temporarily sheltered from fire and flooding until they can disembark, safe routes to the refuge
from all stair towers and from the refuge to vessel disembarkation areas. These areas can present
problems for persons in wheelchairs and other mobility impairments as well as the sight and
hearing impaired. While disabled persons may be able to gain access to the refuge areas, they
may cause problems because of crowding, an inability to proceed to disembarkation areas,hear
grew instructions or see exit routes. These problems can be solved primarily through crew
training and assistance to passengers.
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA)regulations for land-based facilities are
well established allowing disabled persons the same opportunities for employment and access to
services, accommodations,transportation, commercial facilities as for non-disabled persons.
Although ADA omits water transportation, vessels and access to them at terminals, from specific
requirements of the law because passenger vessels present much different design issues than
buses and trains, is clear that ADA was intended to apply to all public and private sector services,
facilities and transportation. Unfortunately, this has left passenger vessel owners, designers and
builders in the position of having to meet the intent of ADA without knowing exactly how the
law will be interpreted and put into regulation form at a future time. Efforts are underway,
however, to develop standardized ADA guidelines and regulations for vessels.
Terminal and.facilities Safety
Safety issues related to compliance with local building codes must be addressed during the
construction or reconstruction of water transit terminals, including seismic, fire, fire resistive
standards, construction materials, elevators and escalator,and construction safety.
Operating procedures to ensure the protection of life, health and safety are recommended for all
terminals and facilities of the water transit system. Operating procedures for the following areas
are recommended for further development and implementation: clean-up procedures,a
Contingency Manual for Emergencies, rules regarding damage to terminals and related facilities,
a Security Program, and provisions for the suspension of operations during unsafe conditions.
Maintenance and Shipbuilding
Vessel Maintenance Facilities
A Bay Area Water Transit System will also require new facilities for storage, maintenance, and
fueling of vessels. Present vessels operated by Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District receive routine"in the water" maintenance at a facility at the LarkspurFerry Terminal.
9
The City of Vallejo has a small maintenance facility on Mare Island, and Blue and Gold Fleet
uses Pier 9 in San Francisco. Larkspur has fuel tanks that store 300,000 gallons. 'Vallejo has less
than 100,000 gallons stored at present. All other vessel fueling is done directly from tanker
trucks. The maritime industry in the region is currently pursuing the use of alternative fuels, such
as compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas, in order to be even more environmentally
friendly.
At present, the only shipyard that drydocks ferries in the Bay Area is Bay Ship and Yacht in
Alameda. There is a shortage of drydocking capacity at present,and a substantial increase in
vessels will require one or two facilities dedicated to the fleet. Logical sites for this activity
would be at Hunters Point and Mare Island, two former Navy bases that provided that function
for larger vessels. Facility rehabilitation would be required,but the space is available.
Facilities for routine maintenance(vessel cleaning, fueling,oil changes, etc.) must take place
closer to the operating terminals so that excessive "deadhead"time and cost are not required to
move vessels every night. While some vessels can overnight at their service docks, b to 10 sites
should be committed to serving as a maintenance facility for 5 to 10 vessels each. Candidate
sites would include: Larkspur,Alameda, Richmond, Redwood City and Moffett Field.
A facility, that can accommodate five vessels would only require one to three acres along the
shore,but up to 700 feet of wharf if the vessels were tied up alongside. Floating docks and a
channel width, which allowed vessels to be perpendicular to shore,would allow a five-vessel
facility to operate with 350 feet or less of shore access.
A fleet of 70-75 vessels will require approximately 180,000 to 240,000 gallons of fuel a day
when operating the Phase I "critical mass" system. 'Thus, 8 facilities with 300;000-gallon storage
capacity each would provide a 10 to 13 day fuel supply, which would be a valuable resource if an
emergency prevented normal truck deliveries.
Shipbuilding
Discussions with shipbuilders indicate the possibility of setting up vessel construction in the Bay
Area. While it may be unlikely that all new vessels would be built here,construction of at least a
third of Phase I vessels, approximately 25 vessels, would generate approximately 1,0003 person
years of labor. If built over five years, it would be a new industry supporting 200 or more jobs.
Skills required would range from management to aluminum welding to component installation of
electrical, mechanical, and interior outfitting. A minimum 10 to 15 acre site would be required.
This would require a building with overhead crane for assembly,enclosed space for parts and
material storage,and office space for engineering and management. Finishing and outfitting can
be done inside or outside, and obviously space must be available to launch the vessel. Sites
should be available at Hunters Point or Mare Island.
10
Costs and Capital Investments
At this stage of Conceptual Design, the estimates for costs and capital investments for the Bay
Area Water Transit Initiative are very preliminary and based only on limitedinformation.
Additional financial investigation is in progress. Decisions about the fleet composition, types of
terminals to be developed in specific locations,and amount and nature of augmentation for
ground transportation services necessary to achieve optimal intermodal access have a significant
effect on the initial capital costs. The amount of required public financial support for operations
is likewise a function of several variables that require further analysis. Thus„ the figures
presented for the Conceptual Design are intended to provide policy makers and the public with a
range and order of magnitude for the purposes of furthering public discussion about the Bay Area
Water Transit Initiative. However, it must be underscored that even the range of estimates are
subject to substantial further review,evaluation and refinement.
The following sets forth the basis for calculating the range of estimates for requisite initial capital
investments in the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative.
Vessels: Up to $10 million for state-of the-art high-speed vessels.
Terminals: Up to $5 to $10 million, depending on the type and size of terminal
(exclusive of land acquisition costs).
Buses: Up to $170,000 for larger vehicles.
The consultant team developed a "least cost" scenario for the Phase I "critical mass" system
using: (a) a mix of vessels in the fleet ranging in size(150, 350 and 400 passengers)and speed
(20,25, and 35 knots); (b) a professional judgment about the various terminal types; and (c)a
modest base feeder bus system to augment existing services. The consultant team estimated that
such a "least cost" scenario would be in the range of$600 to $680 million. If any of the variables
in the scenario were changed, (such as: (a)the fleet composition involves a greater proportion of
the faster vessels; (b) more terminals are in the upper range of cost to develop; (c) land
acquisition or environmental remediation costs are added, and/or(d)a more extensive feeder bus
system is needed to achieve the requisite intermodal access),then the initial capital costs could
be as much as $1.5 to $2 Million. The Action Plan being developed for submission to the
I gislature and the public by May 1999 will contain a refined analysis and assessment of both
initial capital costs and operating support.
The consultant teamm estimates that the initial capital investment of$600 to $680 million would
establish a system capable of attracting ridership in the 40,000 to 60,000 range each weekday.
They further project that at the pear hour the system would carry about 9,000'passengers. This is
the equivalent of about 4 freeway lanes of bridge traffic assuming the standard 1.1 people per car
which represents the Bay Area average. However, one of the advantages of the water transit
system is that it does not provide additional capacity in one corridor, as does a freeway, bridge, or
rail system. With the Phase 1 "critical mass" Conceptual Design,there would be benefits to the
Route 101 corridor through Marin County and across the Golden Gate Bridge, the 1-80 corridor
between Vallejo and the Bay Bridge,the I-880 corridor and the Bay Bridge from Oakland and
Alameda, the 1-880 and Route 237 corridors from San Leandro to Sunnyvale, the San Mateo and
Dumbarton Bridges, and Route 101 from Sunnyvale to San Francisco. It is difficult to identify
Il
BAY AREASSSCOUNCIL
Bay Area Water Transit for the 21st Century
- Prospectus and Scope of Work -
April 1998
UICMODUCTION
The Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum have joined forces in
cooperation with other regional organizations and leaders to improve mobility in the Bay
Area by significantly increasing water transportation services and facilities. Through a
series of public forums, symposiums, and stakeholders workshops, widespread support has
emerged to pursue a coordinated, collaborative effort to make dramatic increases in
existing ferry services in order to develop a world-class water transit system in the Bay
Area for the 21st Century.
The California State Senate, in endorsing this effort, passed Senate Resolution 19 in
September 1997. Advocated by President Pro Tempore Bill Lockyer and authored by
Senator Barbara Lee, the Resolution directs the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area
Economic Forum to create a Blue Ribbon Task Force which will direct a study and report
recommendations, including an implementation Action Plan, to the Legislature.
Importantly, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, Senator Quentin
Kopp, has long advocated for expanded water transportation on San Francisco Bay. And,
vital to the success of the study, the leaders of the region's three largest cities--Mayor
Willie Brown of San Francisco, Mayor Elihu Harris of Oakland, and Mayor Susan
Hammer of San Jose--have all announced their support for this effort.
The primary objectives of the study will be:
• To develop broad-based consensus on a bold vision, ensure the vision
makes good economic sense, and prepare an Action Plan that will
increase regional mobility through expanded water transit on San
Francisco Bay.
• To identify and resolve the institutional issues necessary to implement
the Action Plan.
• To formulate a realistic and achievable funding strategy in order to
execute the Action Plan.
It must be underscored that any effort to develop a Bay Area Water Transit System for
the 21st Century must also protect the ecological integrity of San Francisco Bay and
must embrace an ethic and spirit that "celebrates the majesty of the Bay" through an
integration of economic vitality and environmental quality.
BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITY
Transportation mobility in the Bay Area is a growing challenge. Rated the number one
concern in the most recent Bay Area.Poll, transportation congestion diminishes the
region's quality of life and threatens global economic competitiveness. To aggressively
address this problem, major business associations and economic development
organizations have joined forces in an unprecedented show of unity, issuing a Call to
Action and developing a Bay Area Transportation Action Plan.
A new regional water transit system meets the criteria set forth in the Call to Action
and is featured prominently in the Bay Area Transportation Action Plan.
There was a time, before the construction of the great bridges, when ferries dotted the
Bay, carrying goods and people across an impressive network of routes that were
integrated with landside facilities. People made as many as 50 million trips annually, until
exponential growth in vehicle usage essentially grounded the operation. Today there are
fewer than 3 million trips per year.
With the Bay such a dominant feature of the regional landscape, however, it is impossible
to minimize its potential as a travel corridor, even in the face of current statistics on
commute modes. Through the years since the construction of the bridges, ferries have
continued to feature in the region's transportation planning, even if actual levels of
investment have not matched the vision of the planners. Periodic earthquakes, gasoline
crises, or transit strikes have underscored the need for viable, fully-functioning water-
based alternatives. For this reason the region's planners have provided at least a modicum
of funding to this mode, and highlighted ferries as an opportunity requiring continued
attention,
Progress in the current decade traces to 1990 when California voters approved
Proposition 116, a $1.99 billion statewide bond issue for rail transit and related projects.
The measure earmarked $10 million for ferry service between Vallejo and San Francisco
and $20 million for other ferry services around the state. In order to develop a spending
plan for these funds and to maximize available matching funds, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission(MTC) and the City of Vallejo sponsored a 1992 study, the
Regional Ferry Plan. The Flan offered a number of short- and long-term
recommendations for improving the Bay's ferry network. A number of those
recommendations have been implemented; others have not.
Meanwhile, new information shows major prospective growth in demand for water
transportation services. The tourist and excursion markets are expanding, including the
construction of new sports stadiums near the waterfront. The conversion of the region's
military bases holds the promise of new housing stock and job centers, both of which
could be served naturally and easily by water transportation. And, airport executives are
discussing the concept of improving service and capacity through water access. At the
same time, highway gridlock is only worsening. In the intervening years since the 1992
2
Rezional Ferry Pjayl, highway congestion in the region has swollen to an astounding
90,000 hours lost per day by the region's commuters, a figure that translates into $841,000
in daily productivity losses and wasted resources.
In addition, the potential demand for greatly expanded water transit service was further
highlighted during the DART strike this past September when ridership on the Alameda-
Oakland ferry zoomed from 1,500 people per day to 10,800. After the strike, ridership
settled in at 1,800--a 20%gain over pre-strike levels. Other ferry services have posted
similar increases. This experience is spurring operators throughout the Bay Area to boost
service. The Oakland-Alameda line plans to double its passenger capacity with a new
catamaran. Vallejo Bay Link will add two ferries. Golden Gate Transit plans to increase
service to Sausalito, and the Red&White Fleet hopes to initiate commuter service to
Richmond.
Extending the BART system costs upwards of$70 million per mile. Adding additional
highway capacity runs $32 million per mile. The construction of a single highway
interchange is at least$310}million. Although the region is leveraging local, state, and
federal money to add additional rail and highway capacity, the expansion programs are not
funded at a level that will provide huge increments of mobility. Nor is it clear that a
majority of Bay Area residents would support this approach as the only solution to
relieving congestion and improving mobility.
Interest in an integrated, regional water transit system, however, is at an all-time high.
The most recent Bay Area Poll(December 1996)reported 82 percent of respondents in
favor of expanded water ferry services--the same poll in which transportation was rated
the number one concern of the population. It appears that Bay Area residents are reaching
some provisional conclusions: the freeway system is essentially completed; rail systems
are doing about as much as can be expected within the current resources and
configurations; the Bay, therefore, may be the last mode and corridor remaining, perhaps
the single most promising source of untapped mobility,
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
In accordance with the Senate Resolution, a Blue Ribbon Task Force will be established to
develop a bold vision, ensure that it makes good economic sense, formulate an
implementation Action Plan, and report recommendations to the Legislature. The Task
Force will be comprised of high-level civic leaders from business, government and the
community. The members of the Task Force were appointed in December. The Task
Force will convene in March of 1998 and approve the final Scope of Work, adopt a
working budget and timetable, and determine how to provide professional support and
requisite expertise to complete the study. The Task Force will submit a progress report to
the Legislature before the end of the session in September 1998. When the Task Force
completes its work, it will submit its vision of an expanded integrated system, a
3
substantiation of the economic soundness of such an approach, and an Action Plan for
achieving it. The Task Force also will brief the Congressional.delegation.
In order to carry out its work, the Task Force may organize itself into an Executive
Committee and one or more sub-committees, and may appoint advisory groups. It is
expected that the Task Force will consider appointing the following three advisory groups
1. A Technical Work Group, composed of the executive staff of cooperating
organizations and agencies.
2. A Stakeholders Conference, composed of all interested parties who are current or
prospective providers or sponsors of water-based or water-linked transportation.
3. A Policy Conference, composed of all interested federal and state legislators or
their representatives.
The Task Force and its sub-committees will meet as often as necessary to accomplish its
primary goals. It is expected that the full Task Force will meet at least three times before
July, 1998. In addition, the Task Force will also hold community forums and public
hearings to obtain expert testimony and community input. The advisory groups will work
at the direction of the Task Force to assist in completion of the study. All meetings will be
noticed and open to the public.
The Bay Area Council, Bay Area Economic Forum, and the Task Force members will seek
public and private resources to support completion of the study goals and preparation of
the Action flan. It is expected that cooperating public regional agencies may be able to
contribute in-kind expertise and resources towards the effort. However, it is also
anticipated that additional professional expertise will be required to carry out the Scope of
Work set forth below.
SCOPE OF WORK
Improving regional mobility by significantly expanding water-based transportation, will
require a bold new vision--one that not only builds upon"what is" but also explores the
feasibility of"what could be" based upon new technologies and models from around the
world. Therefore, it is prudent to update the 1992 Regional Ferry Plan as well as
demonstrate the potential for a greatly expanded system and ensure that such a system
makes good economic sense.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(NITC)has now entered into a process with
operators to update the 1992 Regional Ferry Plan and identify short-term opportunities to
improve service and expand ridership. The Blue Ribbon Task Force will direct and
oversee the "bold vision" study to define the parameters of a significantly expanded water
transit system and delineate a pathway for implementation. The MTC Plan update will
4
any other transportation improvement at this cost range that can positively impact all these
congested Bay Area freeway and bridge corridors.
Further, although the estimates above involve a wide range of prospective costs, they do provide
an idea of the "order of magnitude" of public investment that will be necessary to establish a
"best in the world" high-speed water transit system in the Bay Area. And, by comparison to the
costs of other options for improving the regional transportation system, the investment in water
transit appears to be very cost-effective with many more benefits. The following presents some
examples of the costs of recent transportation projects in the region that provide a context for
understanding the cost-effectiveness of water transit.
Additional
Project Cost(millions)
Capacity
Interstate 80 HOV Lane $355 yes
Interstate 680/Highway 24 Interchange $315 yes
Bay Bridge East Span Replacement $1,300 no
Carquinez Bridge East Span Replacement $300 no
San Mateo Bridge -2 Lanes $180 yes
Cypress Freeway Replacement $900 no
Highway l01/SFO Interchange $100 yes
Interstate 580/680 Interchange $120 yes
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit $200 no
BART to SFO $750 yes
Source: Transactions, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,May/June 1996 and GGBHTD
It must be acknowledged that the challenge of improving mobility in the Bay Area requires
investments in the entire regional transportation system. Thus, the Task Force has pledged to
seek funding for the new system from sources other than those supporting existing services.
However, while water transit is not the only strategy, today it is the biggest missing link in the
regional network. Furthermore, many of the alternatives would be one-corridor solutions,
solutions which are vulnerable to disruption by earthquakes or other natural disasters. A water
transit system, by nature and design, would be resilient to natural disasters, as has been well
demonstrated in the past. Thus, mobility and economic vitality for the 2I'`Century argue for
making the investment today in this obvious void in the regional transportation system.
Conclusion: Charting the Course
The envisioned Bay Area High-Speed Water Transit System is one of the most cost-effective and
environmentally-friendly solutions to adding significant transportation capacity to the congested
Bay Area. The time for bold action is now to chart the course for the 21st Century.
12
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Proposed Types of Terminals and Key Components
Attachment 1
Six different and distinct terminal types have been identified for the Bay Area High-Speed Water
Transit Systeme These six types are listed below and are displayed in Figures 8 through 13. A
description of each terminal type follows below. For each terminal type, specific criteria have
been defined for waterside, landside, and intermodal facilities and vessels.
• Major Destination (Figure 8)
• Major Origin (Figure 9)
• Light Destination (Figure 10)
• Light Origin (Figure 11)
• Recreation (Figure 12)
• Cargo (Figure 13)
Major Destination Terminal,
A Major Destination Terminal is defined as a water transit passenger terminal that functions as
an attractor of commuter, airport, air cargo, and/or recreation traffic. Most of such terminals also
can function as disaster recovery facilities. Large volumes of destination.-oriented traffic are
generated at this terminal,with annual estimated ridership of at least 500,000 passengers. MD
terminals are typically concentrated.in Central Business Districts, large-scale employment
centers, and/or recreational areas. Major Destination Terminals also have expansion potential.
Examples are the Sari Francisco Ferry Building, Moffett Field, Oyster Point, and Redwood City.
Ivey components of Major Destination Terminals are shown in Figure 8 and listed below
• Transit Connections and Intermodal Access Circulation
• Kiss-n-hide
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
• Significant Amenities and Public Information
• Staffing and Terminal Attendants
• Covered Terminal
• Weather Protection for Passenger Queuing
• Parking
• Cargo Holding Areas
• Baggage Claim Areas
Major Origin Terminal
A Major Origin Terminal is defined as being oriented to passenger commuter and recreation
traffic being generated within a particular catchment area. Large volumes of origin-oriented
traffic are generated at this terminal,with annual estimated ridership of at least 300,000
passengers. Major Origin Terminals are typically concentrated in high density residential areas
or within areas that have high potential for residential growth. Major Origin Terminals may also
stimulate development of surrounding land uses such that they are transformed over time to a
Major Destination Terminal. Examples are Alameda, Berkeley, ,lack London Square, Larkspur,
and Vallejo. These terminals could also serve as a disaster recovery facilities.
Key components of Major Origin Terminals as shown in Figure 9 and listed below:
• Transit Connections and Intermodal Access Circulation
• Kiss-n-Ride
« Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
• Significant Amenities and Public Information
• Covered Terminal
• Parking Lot/Structure 1,000— 1,500 spaces
• heather Protection for Passenger Queuing
• Staffing/Terminal Attendants
Light Destination Terminal
A Light Destination Terminal is defined as a water transit passenger terminal that functions as a
generator of commuter, airport, air cargo, and/or recreation traffic. As shown in Table 3, the
PacBell Park, Jack London Square, Sausalito and Tiburon terminals also function as disaster
recovery facilities. Smaller volumes of destinationaoriented traffic are generated at this type of
terminal than at Magor Destination Terminals. Light Destination Terminals are typically
concentrated in airports, recreation,and small scale comsnercial/retail centers. Examples are
PacBell Park,Jack London Square,Pier 43, and San Francisco International Airport.
Key components of Light Destination Terminals are shown in Figure 10 and listed below:
• Transit Connections
• Covered Terminal
Weather Protection for Passenger Queuing
« Pedestrian.and Bicycle Access
« Staffing/Terminal Attendants
« Cargo Holding Areas
« Baggage Holding Areas
2
Light Origin 'terminal
A Light Origin Terminal is also defined as being oriented to passenger traffic being generated
within a particular catchment area. A number of the terminals also capture, besides commuter
and recreation traffic, airport and air cargo traffic, and a few are designated as disaster recovery
facilities. Light Origin Terminals either generate smaller volumes of origin-oriented traffic or
have expansion limitations. Light Origin Terminals are typically concentrated in medium to low
density residential areas. Examples are Harbor Bay Isle,Martinez, Sausalito, and Tiburon.
Key components of the Light Origin Terminal are shown in Figure 11 and listed below.
• Transit Connections
• Kiss-n-Ride
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
• Covered Terminal
• Public Information
• Parking Lot/Structure 100—500 spaces
• Cargo Holding Areas
• Baggage Holding Areas
• Staffing/Terminal Attendants
Recreation and Entertainment Terminal
A Recreation and Entertainment Terminal is defined as a water transit passenger terminal that
functions as an attractor of recreational and entertainment traffic and is typically associated with
sports facilities and parks/recreation areas. The terminals that solely function as Recreation and
Entertainment Terminals include Angel Island, Candlestick Park, Fort.Baker, and Fort Mason.
These terminals would handle large volumes of passengers during special events, such as
baseball or football games, community celebrations, and art festivals. The majority of passenger
traffic would be concentrated during off-peak periods. Some of these terminals also function as
disaster recovery facilities and some are shared with Light Destination(PacBell Park), Light
Origin(Half Moon Bay), and Major Origin(Jack London Square)Terminals.
Key components of Recreation and Entertainment Terminals are shown in Figure 12 and listed
below:
• Covered Terminal
• Weather Protection for Passenger Queuing
• Pedestrian Ingress/Egress, Bicycle Access
• Public Information
3
Cargo Terminal
.Light airfreight and express mail cargo within the Bay Area has been targeted as a potential
market for the Bay Area Fater Transit System. Moving freight across the Bay to and from
airfreight distribution centers(U.S. Post Office, DHL Airways, United Parcel Service, and
Federal Express) is an important function of the Bay Area Water Transit System. A Cargo
terminal is defined as a water transit terminal that facilitates the transport of light freight and
express mail cargo across the Bay that would typically be carried by trucks using the highway
network:. The target would be airfreight moving in and out of the Bay Area airports. None of the
existing Bay Area water transit services currently carry freight.
In a study that was conducted by the San Francisco International Airport(SFO) in 1998, the
freight industry was surveyed for opinions on the transport of airfreight within the Bay Area.
Preliminary findings are summarized below.
• highway congestion is considered a serious and growing problem for air cargo, i.e. for
the transport of cargo to/from the airport.
• Air cargo is a candidate for freight ferry diversion from trucks.
• High speed ferries are essential since air cargo is extremely time sensitive.
• Amphibious ferries would provide greater flexibility in sites and routes. Due to limited
water depth and the restrictions on locations of potential shoreside facilities,the possible
use of amphibious craft should be studied.
• The courier airfreight market, based.on SFO's small market share, does not seem to be a
logical market for SFO to pursue. However, SFO's courier air freight market may be
able to be handled in conjunction with belly carriers.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission conducted an air cargo truck survey in 1997.
Locations in and around the three Bay Area airports, i.e., San Francisco International Airport
(SFO), Oakland International Airport(OAK), and San Jose International Airport(SJC)were
analyzed. Key findings are summarized below.
• SFO accounts for 52 percent of air cargo trips entering and leaving the three primary Bay
Area airports; OAK accounts for 35 percent, and SJC accounts for 13 percent.
• On an average work week, Monday through Friday, the three Bay Area airports combine
to accommodate 33,457 air cargo related truck trips. Friday is the busiest day for SFO
and SJC. Wednesday and Thursday are the busiest days for OAK. Tuesday is the least
busiest day for all.
• Airport truck traffic is heaviest between S.OtI p.m. and 12:011 a.m. for SFO. Since SFO
accounts for 52 percent of the region's air cargo truck trips, truck traffic is generally
heaviest in this time period.
• Airport truck traffic is heaviest for OAK.and SJC between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
• Federal Express is responsible for 13 percent of the regional truck trips while the I.J.S.
Postal Service accounts for 8 percent of trips. Federal Express is the dominant airfreight
source at OAK, accounting for 22 percent of OAK's truck trips.
4
Ferry design studies have been underway that address the increased demand to carry freight,and
to integrate freight with passengers(Fast Ferry International, 1997). Assuming that sufficient
demand exists to transport freight separately from passengers on ferry vessels in the Bay Area, it
is possible to utilize the same terminals to unload passengers as well as freight. A high speed
project currently underway involves a deep sea monohull freighter capable sof carrying 192
twenty-foot containers at a service speed of approximately 35 knots (Fast Ferry International,
1997). The vessel design is derived from existing passenger ferries,removing the passenger
spaces and converting the garage spaces into a closed cargo hold.
Another project that has reached an advanced stage involves the development of a fleet of high-
speed cargo catamarans servicing the Western Caribbean market. The vessel is being designed.
as a.shallow draft, fast catamaran configured for high speeds for both passengers and cargo. The
cargo deck of the vessel would be maximized by elevating the pilot house and passenger/crew
areas. This allows cargo, including trailers, to be loaded forward under this structure. The large
deck area would provide flexibility to carry low density cargo which requires large volume.
Key components of Cargo Terminals are shown in Figure 13 and listed below:
• Loading Docks
Gate Complex
• Security Fencing
• Public Access
• Ingress/Egress
Cargo .Bolding Areas
5
BAY.AREA NATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Potential Routes for Phase I "Critical Mass" System
Attachment 2
The Conceptual Design for the Phase I "Critical Mass" System has been developed to meet the
performance objectives and operational criteria set forth in the"Conceptual Design" section of
this document. The potential routes have been proposed by the consultant team to respond to
their forecast of prospective ridership based on computer modeling and professional assessment
of induced demand from future land uses. The consultant team estimates that the Conceptual
Design Phase I System will attract 12-18 million passengers, thus meeting the mobility
performance objective. The following proposed routes and vessels are one scenario for how the
Phase I"Critical Mass" System could be.operated to meet the performance objectives and
operational criteria. It may be possible to achieve similar ridership with a different set of routes
and vessels. The organizational entity responsible for managing and/or operating the Bay Area
High-Speed Water Transit System will make the final decision about routes and vessels after
considerable additional study and analysis. Each of the potential routes listed below could be
served by faster vessels, thus altering the travel time on the water and possibly attracting
additional ridership.
North Bay Routes
+ Benicia/Martinez to San Francisco covers a 27-mile route and is estimated to carry about
1,000 passengers weekdays. Service could operate every 30 minutes. Service could be
provided by 350-passenger vessels capable of 35-knot speeds.
a Both Sausalito and Tiburon to San Francisco cover six-mile routes and would each carry
about 2,000 passengers daily. The service from Tiburon could continue to a terminal at
Mission Bay to serve the new UCSF campus and the Bayview corridor. Service could
operate every 30 minutes. 150-passenger, 25-knot ferries or could be used.
+ Larkspur to San Francisco covers an 11-mile route in an unconstrained time of 23 minutes
and with 15 minute service. patronage increases from the current 5,€300 passengers daily to
about 8,000. Service could be provided by 350-passenger vessels capable of 35-knot speeds.
• Vallejo to San Francisco covers a 22-mile route in 50 minutes with 15 minute service.
Patronage is projected to increase to 3,500 weekday passengers. 350-passenger, 35-knot
ferries could be used.
Efforts to establish routes with direct connections between the North Bay and South Bay and
East Bay also will be farther studied and evaluated.
East Bay Routes
Service on all Bast Bay to San Francisca routes could use 1.50-passenger, 25-knot vessels. Or,
faster vessels could also be deployed.
• Alameda to San Francisco to Hunters Point could operate every 15 minutes from the existing
Alameda terminal on the Estuary to the Ferry Building and then to Hunters Point. Travel.
time would be about 15 minutes between San Francisco and Alameda and about 10 minutes
between San Francisco and Hunters Point. About 1,200 passengers are estimated to use the
service.
• Berkeley to San Francisco to Mission Bay to Alameda Point(Seaplane Harbor at NAS
Alameda) could operate from a new terminal at Gilman Street in Berkeley to San Francisco,
seven miles distant. The route could then continue to Mission Bay and then to Alameda
Point. Between San Francisco and Berkeley travel time would be about 21 minutes, and
between Mission Bay and Alameda Point about 15 minutes. About 3,500 passengers are
projected to use this service each weekday.
• Harbor Bay to San.Francisco could follow the existing route but could be upgraded to operate
every 15 minutes weekdays. Travel time would be about 20 minutes. Patronage is estimated
at about 1,000 passengers daily.
• Oakland to San Francisco could allow for faster travel between San Francisco and.Oakland
.lack London Square without a stop in Alameda. Service could operate every IS minutes,
travel time would be about 20 minutes,and patronage would be about 1,200 weekday
passengers.
• Oakland Army Base to San Francisco could operate every 15 minutes. Travel time would be
about 15 minutes, and patronage could approach about 1,000 passengers daily, depending
upon base reuse options.
• Richmond to San Francisco to South San.Francisco would link the East Bay with service to
San Francisco and then to the bio-tech industry in northern San Mateo County. Service could
be provided every 15 minutes,with travel time between Richmond and San Francisco at 25
minutes, and between South San Francisco and the Ferry Building at about 15 minutes.
About 1,000 passengers are projected to use this service.
Treasure Island could be linked to San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland with boats leaving
every 10 to 15 minutes. About 5,000 daily passengers are expected to use these services.
Efforts to establish routes with direct connections between the East Bay and South Bay and
North Bay also will be further studied and evaluated.
2
East Ray to PeninsulalSouth Ray& San Francisco to PeninsulalSouth .Bay
Several of these routes are efforts to change regional travel patterns and to encourage
development of transit oriented communities near water transit terminals.
• San Leandro to Redwood City could operate every 30 minutes and could connect the San
Leandro Marina with the Redwood City port development area. About 1,000 people would
be induced to make this trip. 150 passenger, 35-knot vessels could provide this service.
• San Leandro to Moffett Field could operate every 30 minutes and would connect the San
Leandro Marina with the Moffett Field, Sunnyvale, ?Mountain.View high-tech industries and
office parrs. About 1,000 people would be induced to make this trip. 150-passenger, 35-
knot vessels could provide this service.
• Redwood City to Mission Bay and San Francisco could operate every 30 minutes using 150-
passenger, 35-knot vessels. About 1,050 passengers are projected to use this service, and the
Mission Bay stop could be designed for parking for reverse conu-nuters.
Moffett Field to Mission Bay to San Francisco could operate every 30 minutes using 150-
wriger, 35-knot vessels. About 100 passengers are projected to use this service, and the
ission Bay stop could be designed for parking for reverse commuters.
Efforts to establish routes with direct connections between the East Bay north of San Leandro
and South Bay also will be further studied and evaluated.
Pans and Recreational Routes
The recreational water transit route service will include. a main San Francisco Terminal(such as
the Ferry Building or Pier 39), an East Bay connection(such as Berkeley), Fort Mason, Crissy
Field,Fort Baker, Sausalito, and.Angel Island. These sites could be linked by a circle-line type
service, as well as direct connecting ferry services for special events demand. Excluded from
this description are the existing Alcatraz service due to the extraordinary demand directly to that
site on a regular basis. Additional new routes are envisioned(see Figure 7). a Military Bases
cruise,operating between various military bases to promote tourism and development; a Presidio
of San Francisco service, operating between downtown San Francisco, Fort Mason, Crissy Field,
and Fort Baker; and a South.Bay route to Coyote Point and Moffett Field. All services could
operate hourly for about eight hours daily, primarily when service frequencies are reduced on
some basic ferry routes.
3
Airport Passenger Routes
Four routes are proposed for airport passenger service in Phase 1 with additional routes
envisioned (Figures 4 and 5). All service would use amphibious hovercraft which would access
terminals directly. At the remote terminal, passengers would be able to check-in and check their
luggage.
San Francisco International Airport would be connected to downtown San Francisco, Moffett
Field, and Oakland International .Airport. At Moffett Field, a 2,0004car parking lot would be
available for remote airport parking. In Oakland, the Part would also provide parking for
hovercraft passengers. In both cases, parking would be paid. In addition to these routes,
Oakland International Airport would be connected with downtown San Francisco. All routes
would operate every 20 minutes. About 8,500 daily passengers are expected on these services.
Airport Cargo.Routes
Shippers have increasingly become concerned that poor highway conditions are hindering the
shipment of their most critical, time-sensitive loads. Water transit afters an opportunity to
bypass the congested freeways and instead use the relatively uncongested waterways, Service is
envisioned from Moffett Field.to San Francisco International,where the primary market is
international cargo (Figure 6). Another international market is downtown San Francisco to SFO.
Oakland is the Bay Area's major air package express airport, with both LIPS and FedEx
operating aircraft to the facility. Satellite package express facilities in Moffett Field and
downtown San Francisco,with connecting water transit services to Oakland Airport, would
reduce the number of trucks on Bay Area roadways and increase transit speeds for these
packages. Finally, a route between Oakland Airport and SFO is also proposed.
4
Table 3
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL WATER TRANSIT TERMINAL SITES
Location Environmental Status Function Overall
Rank Rank
Alameda I Existing C, D I
Alameda Point INAS I Old-Seaplane C,R 2
Alviso 3 New C 4
Angel Island 2 Existing R I-R
Antioch 1 /2 Marina C 5
Bay Model I Pier R 3-R
Benicia 1 /2 New C 2/3
BerkeleyWbany I New C, R.,D 2
Candlestick Park I New R, D 2-R
China Basin I New C, R,D 2
Crockett I Piers C 5
Fast Palo Alto/Cooley Landing 2 New C 3
Foster City 2 New C 3/4
Tort Baker 2 Pier R, D 2-R
Fort Mason I Piers D,C,R 2-R
Fremont 3 New C 3
Half Moon Bay 2 Pier C, R,D 3/4
Hamilton Field 3 New C 4
Harbor B!X Isle I Existing C, D I
Hunters Pt I New M,C 2/3
.lack London Square I Existing C, D, R I
Larkspur 2 Existing C, D 1
Mare Island 1 /2 Wharf M,C, R 3
Martinez 2 Marina C 2
Mission Bay I New C, R, D 2 i
Moffett Field 1 /2 New C,A,Cr, D, R 2
Oakland Army Base 2 New C 5
Oyster Point/SSF I Marina C, D 2
PacBell Park I New C, R 2
Pier 35/41 1 Existin C,R, D I
Pier 43 1 New C 2
Icier 43 % 1 Existing C,R,D I
Pittsburg 2 Piers C 5
Point Molate 2 New R 5
Port Sonoma 3 Marina C 4
Presidio/Crissy Field 2 Wharf R,C 3
Redwood City 2 Port C,D 2
Richmond I Port C, D,M 2/1
Rodeo 2 Waterfront C 3
SF Intl Airport 1 /2 New A,Cr 2/ 3
SF Ferry Building I Existing C, D I
San Leandro/Oakland.Airport I Marina C, D,A,Cr 2
San Mateo,Coyote Point I New C 3
Sausalito I Existing C, D I
Tiburon I Existing C, D I
Treasure Island 2 New C, R 2
Vallejo 1 /2 Existin C, D I
Table 3 Dotes
Primary Function Cedes for Planning and Architectural Design:
A: Airport Passenger C: Commuter/Passenger
Cr: Air Cargo D: Disaster Recovery
M: Maintenance R: Recreational 1 Entertainment
Environmental stank(PRBC?assessment based on issues&mitigation potential):
1 light or marginal impacts anticipated
2 Moderate impacts anticipated
3 Severe impacts anticipated—currently unacceptable environmentally
Overall Ranh(incorporates present planning,environmental,operational,demand,growth):
I Existing
2 Level l Demand (greatest existing demand and immediate potential)
3 Level 2 Demand (future and system created growth potential)
4 Level 3 Demand (longer term demand potential)
S Level 4 Demand (very long term potential)
Locations for Future Consideration (not considered at this time for a variety of reasons including:distance from
Bay Area, isolation,exposure,environmental challenge,proximity to other locations,conflicts with commercial
maritime use):
Aquatic Park
Bel Marin Keys
Old Town Sacramento
Muir Beach
Pacifica
Pinole
Shoreline Amphitheater
Stinson Beach
Suisun City
Table 4
Summary of Design Criteria by Terminal Type
DESIGN COMPONFNT =MD MO LD LC3 R CR
Waterside
Dock x x x x x x
Platforms x x X x x
Fueling(remote) X X X
Navigation Aids X x x X X X
Shoreline Stabilization x X X x x X
Landside
Covered Passenger Waiting Area X x X x x
Commercial Land Use x x x X x
Weather-Protected Queuing x x x x X
Mechanical/Electrical Room X X x
° Restrootns x x x x x x
Telephones x 6 x x x x x
Cargo folding Areas x s
Loading Docks X
Gate Complex x
Baggage Facilities X X
Pedestrian x x X x x
Pail X
Ecus X x x X
Kiss-n-Ride x X X '
Parking x x X x
Bicycle Storage X x x x X
Taxi Stands X x x x
Shared Car Facility x X x x x
Scheduling X x x
Public Information x x x x
Systems Operations Components
Ckeck-Intricket Counters x x x
Security x x x x X x
Communication x x x x x
Maintenance Facilities X ! x
Table 5
Design Criteria Considerations-Major Destination
Component Design Criteria
Waterside
Dock Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress and egress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should accommodate vessel
ran e.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m.and p.m.peaks and '
vessel characteristics.
Fueling N/A
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shoreline Stabilization Based on vessel wave and wake analysis.
L,andside
Terminal Footprint Passenger waiting,ticketing,commercial land use,and maintenance areas should be
separate operating areas.Total site should include building,parking,driveways,Bicycle
access and landscaped areas. Note: total site property may include the vessel docking
and berthin areas in addition to the landside terminal foog2rint.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per person
` Waiting Area should be a minimum of 7 square feet.
Commercial Land Use TBD
Weather Protected. Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths persons/min/ft.
G Mechanical/Electrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restrooms Based on local zonin code for passeager throupput.
Telephones Minimum 5 public telephones
Cargo bolding Areas N/A
Loading Backs Service entrance to be included for commercial land use deliveries. Loading docks
should accommodate anticipated delivery vehicles.
Cate Complex N/A
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrian Define pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources. �
Bicycle Access and storage. ?dote: regulatory ermits may require trails for public use.
Rail Shuttle service to be rovided if not within'/<mile of terminal.
Bus Minimum bus bas at 9 feet width and 50 feet len
Kiss-n-Ride Located at front of terminal(see Fig. 8).
Parking Limited parking' to promote use of transit
Taxi Stands Taxi pickup curbside;supply staged within a holding area.
Scheduling Electronic arrival schedules.
Systems Operations Com orients
Check-Int'I'icket Automated ticket vending machines. ,
Counters
Security Security office and video monitoring.
Communication. Communications stem to include public address.
Maintenance Facilities Routine onl . All heayx maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations offsite.
Table 6
Design Criteria Consideration e..Major Origin
Component Design Criteria
Waterside
Dock Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress and egress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should accommodate
vessel range.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m. and p.m.peaks and
vessel characteristics.
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers at all docks.S ill contin enc Ian must be ado ted.
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shoreline Stab_ilization Based on vessel wave and wake analysis.
Landside
Terminal Footprint passenger waiting,ticketing,commercial land use,and maintenance areas should be
separate operating areas. Total site should include building,parking,driveways,
bicycle access and landscaped areas.Note: total site property may include the vessel
docking and berthing areas in addition to the landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
Waiting Area person should be a minimum of 7 square feet.
Commercial Land Use TBD
Weather Protected Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths persons/min/ft.
MechanicaVElectrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restrooms Based on local zoning code for prisenger throe h ut.
Telephones Minimum 5 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas N/A
Loading Docks Service entrance to be included for commercial land use deliveries. Loading docks
should accommodate anticipated delivery vehicles.
Gate Complex N/A
Baggage Facilities Remote airline baggage check-in.
= Pedestrian Refine pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources.
Bicycle Access and storage. Note: regulatoty perrnits may require trails for public use.
Rail N/A
Bus Minimum bus ba s at 9 feet width and 50 feet len h.
Kiss-n-Ride To be located at the front of the terminal.
Parking 1,000 -2,000 spaces. Recommend policy to limit parking spaces to promote transit
use,
= Taxi Stands NIA
Scheduling Electronic departure schedules.--
Systems
chedules.S stents Operations,Components
Check-larricket Staffed ticket office and automated ticket vending machines. Remote airline ticket
Counters counter for MOs with direct airport service. i
Security Securi office and video monitoring.
Communication Communications stem to include public address.
Maintenance Facilities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations off
site.
Table 7
Design Criteria Considerations- Light Destination
Corn anent 'Desion Criteria
Waterside
Dock locks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress and egress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should accommodate
vessel range.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m.and p.m.peaks and
vessel characteristics.
Fueling N/A
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be followed. i
Aids
Shoreline Stabilization used on vessel wave and wake analysis.
Landside
Terminal Footprint Passenger waiting,ticketing,and maintenance areas should be separate operating areas.
Total site should include building,parking,driveways, bicycle access and landscaped
areas. Note. total site property may include the vessel docking and berthing areas in
addition to the landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service, Available space per
Waiting Area person should be a minimum of 7 square feet.
Commercial Land Use N/A
Weather Protected Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths persons/min/ft.
Mechanical/Electrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restrooms Based on local zoning code for passenger throughput.
Telephones Minimum 2 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas N/A
Loading Docks N/A i
Gate Complex 'til/A
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrian Define pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources.
Bicycle Access and storage. Note: replatory permits may require trails for public use.
Rail Shuttle service to be provided if not within 1/4 mile of terminal.
Bus Minimum bus bays at 9 feet width and 50 feet length.
Kiss-n-Ride Located at front of terminal. :
Parking Limited parking to promote use of transit.
Taxi Stands Taxi pickup curbside;supply staged within a holding area.
Scheduling Electronic arrival schedules. I
Systems Operations Components
Check-In/Ticket Automated ticket vending machines.
Counters _
Security Video monitoring.
Communication Communication system to include public address,
Maintenance Facilities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations off
site.
Table 8
Design Criteria Considerations- Light Origin
Component Design Criteria
Waterside
Dock Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress and egress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should accommodate
vessel range.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m. and p.m. peaks and I
vessel characteristics.
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers at all docks. Spill contingency plan must be adopted.
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be fo€lowed.
Aids
Shoreline Stabil'izati'on Based on vessel wave and wake analysis.
Landside
Terminal Footprint Passenger waiting,ticketing,and maintenance areas should be separate operating areas.
Total site should include building,parking,driveways, bicycle access and landscaped
areas. Nott:: total site property may include the vessel docking and berthing areas in
addition to the landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
Waiting Area person should be a minimum of 7 square feet.
Commercial Land Use NIA
Weather Protected Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths persons/min/ft.
Mechanical0ectrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restrooms Based on local zoning code for passenger throughput.
Telephones Minimum 2 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas N/A
Loading flocks N/A
Gate Complex NIA
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrian Define pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources.
Bicycle Access and store e. Note: re ulatopermits may require trails for public use.
Rail NIA
Bus Minimum bus bays at 9 feet width and St}feet length.
Kiss-n-Ride To be located at the front of the terminal.
Parking 400--500 spaces. Recommend policy to limit parking spaces to promote transit use.
I Taxi Stands N/A
Scheduling Electronic departure schedules.
Systems Operations Components
Check-intricket Automated ticket vending machines.
Counters
Security 'Video monitoring.
} Communication Communication system to include public address.
Maintenance Facilities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations off'
site.
Table 9
Design Criteria Considerations - Recreation
Coin anent
Design Criteria
Waterside
Dock Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress and egress that meet operational criteria. freeboard should accommodate
vessel range.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at peaks and vessel
characteristics.
Fueling N/A
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shoreline Stabilization Based on vessel wave and wake analysis. {
Landside
Terminal;Footprint Passenger waiting,ticketing,and maintenance areas should be separate operating areas.
Total site should include building,parking,driveways,bicycle access and landscaped
areas. Note. total site property may include the vessel docking and berthing areas in
addition to the landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per '
i Waiting Area person should be a minimum of i square feet.
Commercial Land Use N/A
Weather Protected Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths persons/min/ft.
Mechanical/Electrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restrooms Based on local zoning code for passenger throughput.
Telephones Minimum 3 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas NCA
! Loading Clocks N/A
I
Cate Complex
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrians Define pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources.
I Rail N/A
Bus Minimum bus bays at 9 feet width and 50 feet length.
Kiss-n-Ride N/A
Parking Shared parking facilities.
t Taxi Stands N/A
Scheduling I Electronic arrival and departure schedules. i
Systems Operations Components
Check-lnfricket Automated ticket vending machines.
Counters
Security Video monitoring. -
Communication Communication system to include public address.
Maintenance Facilities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations off
site.
Table tO
Design Criteria Considerations-Cargo
Com onent Design Criteria
Waterside
Dock Backs should be appropriate width and length to accommodate large deck areas of vessels and
to accommodate the dual purpose use of the berthing facilities. For terminals that handle large
volumes of ferry passengers,sufficient number of docks will be needed to simultaneously
-handlejLassenger and freight vessels se aratel . Freeboard should accommodate vessel range,
Platforms Platforms should allow for movement of cargo handling separate from passengers. Flexibility
1
to accommodate various cargoes,e.g., Ro/Ro,pallets,bundles,air cargo containers,will be
included in design.
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers to be located at all docks. A s ill contin enc pan must be adopted. i
Navigational Mater draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard regulations
Requirements and Aids trust be followed.
Shoreline Stabilization Based on vessel wave and wake analysis.
` Landside _
Terminal Footprint Administration,customer service,maintenance,and cargo holding areas should be separate
operating areas. Total site should include building,parking,driveways,and landscaped areas.
Note; total site property may include the vessel docking and berthing areas in addition to the
landside terminal footprint.
1 Coveted Passenger N/A
`
Waiting Area
Commercial Land Use N/A
Weather Protected Truck queuing widths should be sufficient to handle l trailer/2 axles and delivery vans.
Queuing and Widths
Mechanical/Electrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
i
Security Fencing around airport distribution hub,as per operator and U. S Customs regulations.
Restrooms Restrooms for employees only.
Telephones No public telephones needed.
Cargo Holding Areas Cargo holding areas should be large enough to accommodate local and airport distribution.
Loading Docks The number and lend of loading docks are dependent on whether the facility is an airport
` distribution hub vs.a local distribution hub,where public access is more fre uent.
Gate Complex Gate complex should be a minimum of 2 lanes,one lane in and one lane out. Gate complexes
should be located far enough away from driveway access to allow sufficient queuing. All
applicable electronic operator requirements will be considered.
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrian Pedestrian access limited to local distribution hub with customer service operations.
Bicycle N/A
Rail On-lock or distribution warehouse rail service not required.
Bus N/A
Kiss-n-Ride N/A
Parking High automobile and truck parking demand. For every square foot of building distribution
space,equal outside parkingshould be available.
Taxi Stands N/A
Scheduling For dual purpose terminals,i.e.,those shared with passengers,the transport of air freight
should not conflict with arrival/departure of passenger ferries. 1
Systems Operations Components
Check-Wricket Public service counters should be separate from cargo holding areas.
Counters
Security 'Video monitoring.
Communication Communication system should be connected with airport and local distribution centers. 1
Maintenance Facilities To be located only at MD or MO terminals that would only allow for routine. All heavy
maintenance would be conducted in dEZ dock o erations off site.
�au
: Aden &-othersr Co. (5San Fraztaism a North Pacific R.R.
t Atchison,Topeka& Santa Fe ,xc Sect Francisco 9c Oakland R.R.
S Cowornia Northwestern Ry. Sausalito Land a Ferry Ca.
+ Cetitomk Pacific Railroad xs Six Minute Ferry � Hord
e Cer0rd Pacific 3tlircad {zs Southern Pocula Co.
a Contra Costa Sim.Nov CO. (zs)Southern Poeft-Golden Geta Ferries,Ltd.
Golden tats Ferry Co. xe S eth Pacific Coast Ry.
s Key System zr Western Pocifia Railroad Pori Chicow
e more Island Ferry Ca.
to Mortinez-Senicla Ferry Ca,
u silo Steamship Co. �!'r�k T �s 'a
at Nickel Ferry Y#itJ�e LJ
Oftis Wrth Pacific Coast fty. eµ� Crocke"P0 Casts
ca Narih Share Railroad
is Northwestern Pacific R R.Co. ja
ltadaa
m Rkftwmd-San Rafaai Ferry Cc. Fc r
a Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry ♦ a
is Socromento Northern Ry. SAN PABLO j
to San Francisco a Alan*51ta R.
doochua Lar.dhtp
n
PAZ
r'y SAN"may{ !2
$iii 7
� SAN RAFA£Li Y e
sw 10
Y
szi #
'Piburars cs
<Sca n x es
a 4
i
Source: G.Harlan,San Francisco Bay Ferry Boats,1967
HISTORICAL SAN FRANCISCO
BAY FERRY ROUTES
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
DAMES&MOORE FIGURE C-1
1212219$ sv ..14{tQii C#ltaslbfY.cd=
�-�, '•,--� ,` `-•,,, �.�,. �, t t .i."�� ,� „ ,, ' d lis
5 �=~ v. +rte*•'s•E``'� �" {�+� �� ����`~ ��`
�� `Li �+, `� y�y tf L F�. jp+ciuYi -•q � ,.
i ,Hamilton r~2efd.• ' ! _a; ' r
a PtttSllttt-g
tOCl2
�Trt'.
$at5 faQ
Sart LR-h "l • �]lr. Y
Potrrt'l Y1 o'lt•Tte +a•1C'
123
Rrrl2rravr2d
B' ' ocl C Berkete} J 478rzrr3y
• Ail'' ellsl01d
Treasure Is an .
F Yt Baker y O land
'resiDin 4aklaiArnlp "".3
of ��
' tt ,soT!
r + 7
Pier 4 :, � Y Poit Attzrnecla
'�` 8 Oaklalyd Itrtl./Cblisetrrn `•:
S'aro Marina
f ysterf?tTtrttlr-l�tattf r s ri�r2t 3 I i Sane.Leandro
# Caradfestr'ck Ptak
71
' .
yf2rf F arrc cv Atrpot t 35
Hayward
. w K f-0 16. �Otlrt kASM
1 .Y San afe0
easter Czty s<
ffalf�Yloon Bay t�RertYuriott Crt� �:J
�� East�C'ralo Alto
���•ala> Ito �<. ai8�.0 t .h-'t'�
35
s ,�M ffettCd Alvrsar
x an E .•
0—S_
as 1 8rt. ,
iso
Source:DeLorme,Street Atlas USA, 1996 LEGEND
Existing Bay Area Ferry Service Routes and
Terminal Locations
0 Potential Water Transit Terminal Locations
NOTE:Seasonal and tourist service to Alcatraz and Angel island
are not show on this rnap.
5 c 5 10 nll!ies
5 0 5 10 kilometers
Scale 1:500,000 EXISTING WATER TRANSIT ROUTES AND
POTENTIAL TERMINAL LOCATIONS
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
212/99 jdg ...40011-01%ewtrptl.cdr DATAES$ MClL3RE FIGURE 1
2l10100 sv a ��� �
..,>,,g%.hep •.� r CvY � ,''��v. `sSa.
t
t
��+5 rt crraaarir
�-• ,„'�”{ p�,�•'`*�`,;rFlarrtrtt0rs Fuld.• .. ,� f _
+� ��� € t itis. + t�r• _ �f n.^'� -�'
.Arttroclr
� *� � ���� y r� <r artr7 EZ `x'r '` ��•'�Tr s
`l) E
3
�-.� • I� � � .r ��Tr asE ure�7lslatrd � �� -
Ytlr t �,
. r a d X$rnr BaSE, ,
oil
1'iEY 4<,
01!t Alameda
t wG'� 4 _ ^T'.•� Y
Bay U'®JYlti Y
• �` � ' -, ii Cluli"larrd lrrtl./COlrsernrr��' �
Ma sirrn B Y Sart LEarrdr0 Marina 1p
Hazrtf is 1' lrxt lt�yst�rwFOrtrt • • ,�: �. ``Vattt Leattd'rz� �}
n Frurrcrst0 lrort
Hayward
F
eJ
al r1 Wit Biz � REdi�ta0d'Ci �
3' �Frerntrrrt
338 EastrRnto�ittr:+ ��� � �' h �•
K -- ,# ' c Yt i a�� "L.ik�"^tdr - t�` -,•gdy yz;i
X �s ,., ffEtt FrEltl � Alvrs
t a .
Source:DeLcrme,Street Atlas USA, 1996 LEGEND +y
Potential Passenger Water Transit Routes
Potential Water Transit Terminal Locations
N
i
5 0 5 10 mifes
5 0 5 10 kkrneters
Scale 1:500.000 PHASE 1 CRITICAL MASS
PASSENGER WATER TRANSIT ROUTES
February 9999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40019-001-149 Bay Area Council
712/9911 dg ...4(},11-01\P1cmcwtr.cdr DAMES&A/1C}ORE FIGURE 2
2/10199 sv
f � r � �• t tom-�^e'� t
w
- I <
+ ; � +Belticl •
15Carrrrtton>Freld • ,
'rrtckett ..�
Pitts
f+ rttrr�.
W j t
ftrrtr`ocCr
,
fldetr s
San fas . r. � �.., ..MartirzPZ
fi
Z 1 , 1 ,SP Ss a'.l • •,�. S � Y S.
�`. .fan 1:a a awnr + vr, o1a.
r;a•C��.. iY?`�- ,�r ,123 - -
B el a Berl ere} / llbtrlt3A,,
• '�jr � Arr ellsCrrr3d
a Tretrstrt=e Island
Fart Blrker / �-(� land
� Oakland Arnr�a Basi, j
Pert Mrisoil
I"r`er d
iss Pvirit�ran:eda i
' � M r •
B gala
,t'ti� ' rl Plrrk 4 � .� �� ;,' �' 17irkland IntLl�olrserint
;Lfissrx�rt � ,; t y
.F Saar Leam7lro 4feirrrra
ffarnter's Ptlfirt tlj5ter.Pcrrnt San Leandro
.t
35
C�anllCestirk P+t71;1f �� '( �:. N��
a
Sate Fralrcr3cUtrrport Hayward
�U
Utt'-PUIJt
i
f
San Mateo,
:
's:.��Uster.
C"r .
II
I !'
VIII
r
-r Ha Mr
UUr Ba r r -
'�E'trrii
ood.�i
Frelttvrrt
26
E
st.Prirtt.Alt
�w
a.`
h
T [lo ett� reCd ' Arvrs"o
an
^ orf
�. ,� r�� z � ez ':-' • ,.< .� '' .� ??' `ter
iN
Source:DeLorrne,St<eet A!Eas USA,1996 LEGEND
Potential Passenger Water Transit Routes
0 Potential Water Transit Terminal Locations
N
1
5 0 5 10 miles
5 0 5 10 Mometers
Scale 1:500,000 POTENTIAL BUILD-OUT
PASSENGER WATER TRANSIT ROUTES
February 1999 Say Area Water Transit Study
40911-0301-141 Bay Area Council
21299 jdg ...40011-Oitpbopwtr.cdr DAMES&lv1C1C712E FIGURE=?
2/10/99 sv is
M Sw. .�• ?ter" �rs.p i� ,L,��`'�
tF,7s S> v 1
{
� ai �ti�` r PrIY"L'f '�7T17f1tf�X�r• � ,,J •` � /��+v {
1Vrare �siallt!
Nov #
_s rgr
HalrlilttirlY�ld'• .. .R, .: ....
y • *Grrett • I'ittsbflrg
lDV e r�frtYlJGl1
MartrrTez
Sari
fi f' PIr1t Molate
�iciinftar'
wt
Via,i a e
a' Wei,
�7r ells"irrrld
rt�a#c r • •Trensirre Islalrrl : ��
!and
�rLklafrrl Arrrr�r�asc;��
4
Ozer 4`3 '� f n � '��' Pvirit Alrrfrrerla
Octlr&nd I1rtLlCtrlisertnl
ae Ali rk
Sar Leafrdro Afarilla '
Lfrnt is F' irzt ��i� y trl�orlrt Sart Leandro
k•
Y�
+ S n I'rallclsctr rrpr� t
li T Hayward
G
(p'We !!Lilt r �T
San
s
ISI ��� �'`� �:�F'o'stem•J�: 's< '•. �.
�t
„r
�e
s �
a «,
1'1 1 T
j
a t11'flor Ba Redrs.
) oad City
`"� n :�'4'�-�c f '�,..-:. ''p`rerrTorrt 5°`= •
n� .Enst:PaCa Altri
iPalo Itt� r r t y
We t"�A}Oise 1
rp
Source:Derorme,Street Atlas USA, 1996 LEGEND
_
Potential Airport Water Transit Ratites,
' Remote Airport Terminals, and
Airport Destinations
N
I
5 0 5 10 miles
5
C. 5 10 kilometers
Scale 1:500,000 PHASE 1, CRITICAL MASS
PASSENGER AIRPORT WATER TRANSIT ROUTES
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
':;29199 jdg ...40'011-01\P1cmpawtr.cdrUAhR#5 Mt1ORE FIGURE4
2/10/99 sv DAMES
Island• e't iA
NVYatC} ,
Ilanrrltoi_I Id
Crockett Pittsburg;
r"
U e < artriza
�iflz �' r d rlrrtioch
San fael
`�.
Sall Rd' ..
Paint rtTolate
re. RrclrlIXonll.
Lt trCleC k Berkeley/Alnrz}<�,
Aif !Island
T Treasure Island,
rf B(rker +3
and
4rzklarrCC.4rrlr�r Base �
Fort Iorr
'�5 .. Pviirt ACarrrerC(z
Utr'ki(Xrrd Isrt1./Coli.seunr
Pne' e1llf'�rk
Mission day . SamLeartclro Marina
zrnter Roint G7yster.Tr-virrt San Leandro
Carr(llesfick .reel 3
.Sara Frarrcraco r�zrlrvr.t 4
Hayward
50
� r�
L(ijrlJfL'ISfJ.Int� � � ' i
1 Sara
r, t,Vo L'l G-7tJ ac I
IIaCf'Aloorr Bzzi, . - Redruovrl�`ity-; i
\\ `Frentont
g� East-C'ad ACi(!
Palo it
35
,41 vrstr
rJal7
237ase `
x as
!r
T 101 170.
Source:DeLorme,Street Atlas USA, 1996 LEGEND
Potential Airport Water Transit Routes,
Remote Airport Terminals,and Airport
Destinations
N
i
5 0 5 10 miles
5 0 5 10 kilometers
POTENTIAL BUILD-OUT
Scale 1:500.000 AIRPORT PASSENGER WATER TRANSIT ROUTES
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
212199 jag ...4001 1-011pboairport.cdr FIGURE 5
2/10/99 sv )ANISMCtl
,Y
3•..IMXp e
,,4'�''� G ,,f✓ '�+, ..T Z4`T may.
» ._via .• � x
i
' � Harnilf[isr Field• � {
ez
14f Gil
fact a� WN ,
$ � t
1101
I3riint Malate 3 l
. »` • nr�lii7�iljnd � r c u �` t
a
' `� ' ('7aiklirrrd Arrrry Base +,,, �"
z �t
� Clirkland trrYl./C`vlrseurrr'�X �, -° ,
�Itssltr stt' x . Sar . earrdro Marina
Burst r� it to ter:Porrrt�.= r ;Sari L.eandro'.
rt F ari rsco airport
#iayvvard
C'tryoteYl'oarrt
t Sanji,
Fos teWP
r
half Moorr 13a}, fed od,Cti j' f '
Fas 1'alo��lto=
ttFaeCd�. * Alvrs �, .
IT
83 •.e `� �..7
Source:DeLorme,Street Afas USA; 1996 LEGEND
Potential Cargo Water Transit Routes
and Terminals
i
N
5 0 5 10 miles
5 0 5 10 kiicneters
PHASE 1, CRITICAL MASS
Scale 1:500,000 AIR CARGO WATER TRANSIT ROUTES
February 1999 gay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
2f2i99 jdg ...d001i-01\P1oargowtr.cdrejAM c � FIGURE 6
2110199 sv •: -.
' 4 [
L
Novato Y `
Harnrftai1etd • ;
j :Crockett Pitt burg
Oc
4rttrfr
.��� Sett #ael� � , � Rocfev d �rVlartrrre� •..,�.
5arr Riz gf
.� 1c,"irnt r'Llolcrte
pu Vy i
kB15 fori f Berkefe�l/,4lfian}za41
�t t Aia-' f Islam!
• 1 '' Treasum fslrrizcl
ortBrtker "� �. 5_ land
17akfatrrl 4rrr1r}j Base
13 rfio �` • `� L.d'��+t�t� Vic-, �
:. 1'Oiirt Afarnerfa
• .� s, �lirkrrErrd irttf./�Ofisetrrtr
issiorr� �,
Lean`rfro ruarina rx`
fllrrtter's f' irrt t)ysterf'orrrt Sian Leandro
Carrtffestic t' rk � �R�• �l
Ps s
Sarr arrcratO r#rt ftvr:t
Hayward
1
�O)T(rt6'0,1111
i San ateta >
�tfaft M0011 Bay . 'Rerelliolit
ta`�riOd
East.PrzfO Afto
Pato -Ito d:e xl
a as Moffett Frefd C7 A1vr'sZi
r San
ird �r
239
� Alrp
84
to. .
Source:DeLorme,Street Atlas USA,1996 LEGEND
Potential Recreational Routes
N
NOTE:Seasonal and tourist service to Alcatraz not show on this mag.
I
5 G 5 tJ miles
5 B 5 10 kilometers
Scale 1:5130,000
RECREATIONAL ROUTES
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
7/2/99 idg ...40011-01\recwtr.cdr DAMES& MC1C7ftE FIGURE 7
2!93/99 sv
afzf-:1o�+C w
.LJSE
�W
kN
Y # -17"ot
t
i` IIGI�IVI�AY '?
EllmA
17
\11 f✓ 4
t
PARKING PEDESTRIAN r ..
r
— N ER
NTI S
N= e PASSENGER WAITING
1
EFFICIENT
DOCKING 3
E
! j
i I
s
CHANNEL
APPROACH
A
7
7
I
I
t
t
_ TERMINAL TYPE _MAJOR DESTINATION
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Ceunci!
1/22199 Sd ...40011-911majordestcdr LQ DAMES&MOORE FIGURE 8
t
1 l
i
I
t r'
PEDESTRIAN I
ENG
PARKING NTIES
i PASSENGER WAITING
I t
}
MAINTENANCE EALITIES
EUElING(RE t TEI
E
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
i 3
I
i
9 I
i
i I
CHANNEL �
APPROACH
I I
i
i
4
I
TERMINAL TYPE-MAJOR ORIfiIN
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay_Area Ccunc4i
1/28/99 5v...40011 01\rrajoror{gin..cd, DAMES&1Y MORE FIGURE 9
1LL"�;'y7 rn•Mn.Mau.zwaa+xxa+�N --
3
3
I
1
}
r
PEDESTRIAN i
E
�. r. SENDER
ENTIES
PASSEN ER WAITING
i
1
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
I �
CHANNEL
APPROACH
i
i
i
i
_ TERMINAL TYPE - LIGHT DESTINATION
February 1999 Say Area Water Transit Study
40911-001-141 _ Bay Area council
1/26199 sv ...k40011-0%gh1dest.edr DAMES&MORE F!GURE 10
i
3 :
d
t t
f
i
COMMERCIAL LAND USE
f 3
It i
PEDESTRIAN
ENGER
NTIES
PARKING PASSENGER WAITING
a
{
E
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
I
k
f
CHANNEL
APPROACH
1 �
i
I
_ TERMINAD.TYPE —LIGHT ORIGIN
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
FiGt1Ft 11
1/29199 sv...40011-014ight9rigin.cdr NAMES&MOORE
j
3
's
I II
1 (�iil� Ili is Ilii9h
ENTERTAINMENT i
PEDESTRIAN
ER i
l _ . ER
TIES
PASSENGER�VAITING
i
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
CHANNEL
APPROACH
1
9
i
i
i
3
TERMINAL TYPE -RECREATION
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
1/29199 sv ...\4001'-0'\recreation.cdr DAMES&MOORE FIGURE 12
i
i
t 7
t
i
IGHWAY
CARGCJ �,�
TRANSFER � PARI"'
A ING
CU OMER SERVICE
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES \
FUELING(RE�QTE) f
i
i
€
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
i
I
CHANNEL
APPROACH
i
3
i
I
i
3
i
i
a I
i
TERMINAL.TYPE -CARGO
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
3/29/99 sv._400'59-041cargo.cdr Im DAMES&MOORE FIGURE 13
xry 3/� � q>Dbt - riY t^ • � Tim'
y Tlf's i.'i r "f,Ter. 'rt �f
.710
41
.. }.. F ,tea•
' F F
f {f
r� f�4
F's aaw
ty
]a*
w7d e + s w
•
� Y
'� Y ✓ 4 q db s5 �' h k k � :.
?- i ��'✓`�+ ,moi r�t,.r �._ �:' �. +�. ,.-^" -
���� �.�s�'t^��y
s ♦ '� 4�.q at�% kt.ca �,w'"'��2a t n,t�� f � �, ��,?r .� ;`zr-,k tis
A
�,3�� .. �}" .:fix •F^h }^''1:'S t.`;� �r .,p'^, :x �ti'�, �F.r'.;".. '�..'.mai err z i.. �y 3'�
5,
5s��• � I
S
b'
4
ie
aa�' _" 3 Vii. � a'+Y tr ; � a-�y - s �,�•aT'� �.u�n} �Ea � t -.�,�' �s r„ i .f-;�1``AF1;°" '.. '4�� � ��r
3 �zn r'°r ,� �, •�; .k' �-r tv r�� ��.ni� -.� .Y °� „R"�§r,5 L;F s ' ;.
t
?Kn'e*�i�
RX
w, ;.
,s"�
/�4.',`k�e +
.t +�• ' e g � <*}�Y � ✓b J1 4X 1;�+F ✓$''C C} 3'"C} 'L'1 xf � 1 9 M$ x���� 'R
.yX 9 :: �v. lig
r "3rX�� a8 ° a � ,'
v
ms's• 'ik nt2 a �` 4..^.Y�I'? "{�,n•��c;�.
h
4� v.
r h u
i
4
�,. `�� h $ 'a ��..;� •, r M ",�c t€' rss's+61+ ?X. .�.. k Z+S! Cis �� � ?�,�, �s i�e �3 '.n�i�. �
-
�
a'ryX ' $ <j3 a^' 'y`� ' .3,, ,. }4 r ° ,� .''� ..'j,+ark �•`!w'�-'1 �+
a <
+-k.:,.-s 'L:-t :.t ,�,..�,+ ?. -Fa-•;,>,c P't•<}"!z �s-�h1y'� k.t.� € :a1�� ��`f :r�Yf', t'z��� r Fn_c'}�+"x w'!.L Yk P'� c � �i�a�t i` sr i,..�. '+;r �,'_
'r•u`4 c{ -.,;� �� i ,P�B r3 'v ; i,..�,{� y aq v. ya �'° r>"�t'�'.�+.�x'`� .,a A �,.t���yT�'"''� x 3 4 i '.��`t �, > 1,, r '.�^� � s�' -y�-
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION ABOUT THE BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
1. Senate Resolution #19
2. Adopted Scope of Werk
3. Roster of Work Team
0 S*Dti C� : M :3 SYS ��. `meq �j CDD (0cm
.`2 2 to �
10
air CJS C C/ su trs C/S CJS C/S jyj
4 t�i� Sa V K tJ 5
rt,�` :z cr
CA
CL to
w CD
.,;, "' �, e-rl -' £D «°7' tet „C7 •+s�s C'S `w5 G €w
ply �1 w ': ctp — 0 t~
OQ
t7 CT st^v " CO a' fy t3 ttj �l W cr�
CS0-0
b cr G +r G7 CS i7 CS en' 9 O
�$ Ds W H 0 0 ►�•+ "'
-.rna tr is rr.
� � -, t3cD` � ;:, m �' iii Ea0 -� C
.' `' ., *�• 0 0 co
�?. QQ m
rb
tz
M cr ,�, nG 0 0,0 C0S- o � � !w- G3 w `n � C7 Cr Oz,
0 Cb
rn �
m m
ccs �
C- �-� t�
cn
c�
w5 c o
m
M
tD C
00 �.
0 "5
cr sIr
BA's AR ASS C UNCI .
Bay Area `mater Transit for the 21st Century
- Prospectus and Scope of f'Fork -
April 1998
INTI2.ODU'CTION
The Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum have joined farces in
cooperation with other regional organizations and leaders to improve mobility in the Bay
Area by significantly increasing water transportation services and facilities. Through a
series of public forums, symposiums, and stakeholders workshops, widespread support has
emerged to pursue a coordinated, collaborative effort to make dramatic increases in
existing ferry services in order to develop a world-class water transit system in the Bay
Area for the 21st Century.
The California State Senate, in endorsing this effort, passed Senate Resolution 19 in
September 1997. Advocated by President Pro Tempore Bill Lockyer and authored by
Senator Barbara Lee, the Resolution directs the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area
Economic Forum to create a Blue Ribbon Task Force which will direct a study and report
recommendations, including an implementation Action Plan, to the Legislature.
Importantly, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, Senator Quentin
Kopp, has long advocated for expanded water transportation on San Francisco Bay. And,
vital to the success of the study, the leaders of the region's three largest cities--Mayor
NNrillie Brawn of San Francisco, Mayor Elihu Harris of Oakland, and Mayor Susan
Hammer of San Jose--have all announced their support for this effort.
The primary objectives of the study will be.
• To develop broad-based consensus on a bold vision, ensure the vision
makes good economic sense, and prepare an Action Plan that will
increase regional mobility through expanded water transit on San
Francisco Bay.
• To identify and resolve the institutional issues necessary to implement
the Action Plan.
• To formulate a realistic and achievable funding strategy in order to
execute the Action Flan.
It must be underscored that any effort to develop a Bay Area Water Transit System for
the 21st Century must also protect the ecological integrity of San Francisco Bay and
must embrace an ethic and spirit that "celebrates the majesty of the Bay„ through an
integration of economic vitality and environmental quality.
BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITY
Transportation mobility in the Bay Area is a growing challenge. Rated the number one
concern in the most recent Bay Area Poll,transportation congestion diminishes the
region`s quality of life and threatens global economic competitiveness. To aggressively
address this problem, major business associations and economic development
organizations have joined forces in an unprecedented show of unity, issuing a Call to
Action and developing a Bay Area Transportation Action Plan.
A new regional water transit system meets the criteria set forth in the Call to Action
and is featured prominently in the Bay Area Transportation Action Plan.
There was a time, before the construction of the great bridges, when ferries dotted the
Bay, carrying goods and people across an impressive network of routes that were
integrated with landside facilities. People made as many as 50 million trips annually, until
exponential growth in vehicle usage essentially grounded the operation. Today there are
fewer than 3 million trips per year.
With the Bay such a dominant feature of the regional landscape, however, it is impossible
to minimize its potential as a travel corridor, even in the face of current statistics on
commute modes. Through the years since the construction of the bridges, ferries have
continued to feature in the region's transportation planning, even if actual levels of
investment have not matched the vision of the planners. Periodic earthquakes, gasoline
crises, or transit strikes have underscored the need for viable, fully-functioning water-
based alternatives. For this reason the region's planners have provided at least a modicum
of funding to this mode, and highlighted ferries as an opportunity requiring continued
attention.
Progress in the current decade traces to 1990 when California voters approved
Proposition 116, a$1.99 billion statewide bond issue for rail transit and related projects.
The measure earmarked $10 million for ferry service between Vallejo and San Francisco
and $20 million for other ferry services around the state. In order to develop a spending
plan for these funds and to maximize available matching funds, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission(MTC) and the City of Vallejo sponsored a 1992 study, the
Regional Ferry Plan. The Plan offered a number of short- and long-term
recommendations for improving the Bay's ferry network. A number of those
recommendations have been implemented; others have not.
Meanwhile, new information shows major prospective growth in demand for water
transportation services. The tourist and excursion markets are expanding, including the
construction of new sports stadiums near the waterfront. The conversion of the region's
military bases holds the promise of new housing stock and job centers, both of which
could be served naturally and easily by water transportation. And, airport executives are
discussing the concept of improving service and capacity through water access. At the
same time, highway gridlock is only worsening. In the intervening years since the 1992
2
Regional Ferry Plc. , highway congestion in the region has swollen to an astounding
90,000 hours lost per day by the region's commuters, a figure that translates into$841,000
in daily productivity losses and wasted resources.
In addition, the potential demand for greatly expanded water transit service was further
highlighted during the BART strike this past September when ridership on the Alameda-
Oakland ferry zoomed from 1,500 people per day to 10,800. After the strike, ridership
settled in at 1,800--a 20%gain over pre-strike levels. Other ferry services have pasted
similar increases. This experience is spurring operators throughout the Bay Area to boost
service. The Oakland-Alameda line plans to double its passenger capacity with a neer
catamaran. Vallejo Bay Link willl add two ferries. Golden Gate Transit plans to increase
service to Sausalito, and the Iced&White Fleet hopes to initiate commuter service to
Richmond.
Extending the BART system costs upwards of$70 million per mile. Adding additional
highway capacity runs$32 million per mile. The construction of a single highway
interchange is at least $310 million. Although the region is leveraging local, state, and
federal money to add additional rail and highway capacity, the expansion programs are not
funded at a level that.will provide huge increments of mobility. Nor is it clear that a
majority of Area residents would support this approach as the only solution to
relieving congestion and improving mobility.
Interest in an integrated, regional water transit system, however, is at an all-time high.
The most recent.Bay Area,Poll(December 1996)reported 82 percent of respondents in
favor of expanded water ferry services—the same poll in which transportation was rated
the number one concern of the population. It appears that Bay Area residents are reaching
some provisional conclusions; the freeway system is essentially completed; rail systems
are doing about as much as can be expected within the current resources and
configurations; the Bay, therefore, may be the last mode and corridor remaining, perhaps
the single most promising source of untapped mobility.
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
In accordance with the Senate Resolution, a Blue Ribbon Task Farce will be established to
develop a bold vision, ensure that it makes good economic sense, formulate an
implementation Action Plan, and report recommendations to the Legislature. The Task
Force will be comprised of high-level civic leaders from business, government and the
community. The members of the Task Force were appointed in December. The Task
Force will convene in March of 1998 and approve the final Scope of Work, adopt a
working budget and timetable, and determine how to provide professional support and
requisite expertise to complete the study. The Task Force will submit a progress report to
the Legislature before the end of the session in September 1998. When the Task Farce
completes its work, it will submit its vision of an expanded integrated system, a
3
substantiation of the economic soundness of such an approach, and an Action Flan for
achieving it. The Task Force also will brief the Congressional delegation.
In order to carry out its work, the Task Force may organize itself into an Executive
Committee and one or more sub-committees, and may appoint advisory groups. It is
expected that the Task Force will consider appointing the following three advisory groups:
1. A Technical Work Group, composed of the executive staff of cooperating
organizations and agencies.
2. A Stakeholders Conference, composed of all interested parties who are current or
prospective providers or sponsors of water-based or water-linked transportation.
3. A Policy Conference, composed of all interested federal and state legislators or
their representatives.
The Task Force and its sub-committees will meet as often as necessary to accomplish its
primary goals. It is expected that the full Task Force will meet at least three times before
July, 1998. In addition, the Task Force will also hold community forums and public
hearings to obtain expert testimony and community input. The advisory groups will work
at the direction of the Task Force to assist in completion of the study. All meetings will be
noticed and open to the public.
The Bay Area Council, Bay Area Economic Forum, and the Task Force members will seek
public and private resources to support completion of the study goals and preparation of
the Action Plan. It is expected that cooperating public regional agencies may be able to
contribute in-kind expertise and resources towards the effort. However, it is also
anticipated that additional professional expertise will be required to carry out the Scope of
Work set forth below.
SCOPE OF WORK
Improving regional mobility by significantly expanding water-based transportation, will
require a bold new vision--one that not only builds upon "what is" but also explores the
feasibility of"what could be" based upon new technologies and models from around the
world. Therefore, it is prudent to update the 1992.Regional Ferry flan as well as
demonstrate the potential for a greatly expanded system and ensure that such a system
makes good economic sense.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)has now entered into a process with
operators to update the 1992 Regional Ferry Plan and identify short-term opportunities to
improve service and expand ridership. The Blue Ribbon Task Force will direct and
oversee the "bold vision" study to define the parameters of a significantly expanded water
transit system and delineate a pathway for implementation. The MTC Flan update will
4
APPENDIX D
EXISTING BAY AREA FERRY SERVICES
This Appendix presents a summary description of the existing ferry services in the
Bay Area. It provides a baseline of activity in 1999 which is a striking contrast to
systems in other regions of the world and the historical experience of the Bay Area.
INTRODUCTION
Ferry service in the Bay Area is provided between San Francisco and Alameda, Oakland,
Harbor Bay Isle, Larkspur, Sausalito, Tiburon,and Vallejo (See Figure 1). The six existing
commuter water transit services are managed by five operators utilizing nine ferry terminals(the
above eight plus Pier 39 at Fisherman's Wharf). Other recreational water transit services are
provided to Angel Island and Alcatraz from various ferry terminals within the Bay Area. Service
is planned to begin between Richmond and San Francisco in June 1999.
Twelve ferries are used on the routes, of which seven are high-speed catamarans. The commuter
routes carry in total between 10,500 and 11,500 passengers each weekday for an annual total of
over 3 million commuter passengers. Overall, Bay Area ferries carried 3.5 million passengers in
the last fiscal year ending June 30, 1998 and are projected to transport 3.8 million passengers in
1999.
The 1998-1999 Regional Ferry Plan Update,prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission(MTC)by Pacific Transit Management Corporation, contains descriptions of the
existing Bay Area ferry systems. The following systems descriptions include selected material
from the MTC report with supplemented information provided by operator interviews and field
observations. The systems are presented in alphabetical order:
• Alameda 1 Oakland
• Harbor Bay Isle
* Larkspur
Richmond
• Sausalito
• Tiburon
Vallejo
Future Improvements
There is excess capacity on the route during peak hours. Residential development near the
terminal and improved access via the cross airport roadway should enhance ridership.
LARKSPUR
Operations
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District(GGBHTD)operates service over
the 11-mile Larskpur to San Francisco route, using four ferries. This commuter service is,the
best-patronized ferry operation in the Bay Area. Since the introduction in 1998 of the new
catamaran, the Del Norte, overall patronage has increased from approximately 3,800 to between
4,200 and 4,400 passengers daily with 1,800 traveling during the PM peak(over 90%towards
Larkspur). Projected annual ridership is well over one million passengers. Over the past three
years, ridership on the route increased at greater than 7%per year.
The response to the introduction of the Del Norte (and the high-speed Vallejo vessels) is
indicative of the potential demand for high-speed ferry service. The Del Norte has reduced the
Larkspur to San Francisco travel time from 45 minutes to 30 minutes, making ferry transit to San
Francisco faster than that possible by vehicle on Highway 101. Peak-period trips for the Del
Norte are usually full (325 passengers), indicating a substantial market for a waterborne service
operating at much higher speeds than conventional ferries, and effectively competing with
highway travel times. The three 20-year old Spaulding-class ferries that seat 725 provide the
remainder of the service. GGBHTD plans to eventually replace all the vessels with high-speed
catamarans, which should substantially increase patronage. The 1992 Regional Ferry Plan
estimated that patronage would jump by about 40 percent with faster service, bringing all day
patronage totals to about 5,500. GGBHTD currently schedules 40 weekday trips.
The fare is $2.75 one way or$44 for a 20 ticket booklet. The current Larkspur service covers
about 25 percent of its operating cost from the fares with the subsidy provided by tolls from
Golden Gate Bridge operations (also managed by GGBHTD). GGBHTD has awarded a seven-
year contract to provide food and beverage concessions on the Larkspur and Sausalito ferries.
According to the concessionaires, their service is profitable.
GGBHTD also provides a network of free feeder buses to ferry passengers. Ironically, the
introduction of the high-speed ferry has resulted in fewer commuters using the buses to meet the
high-speed trips as commuters try to arrive earlier in order to get a seat on the ferry. Rescheduled
feeder service could alleviate this problem. Approximately 85 percent of passengers arrive by
automobile. Bicyclists and pedestrians account for 5 to 10 percent of ferry passengers.
4
Landside and Intermodal Facilities
The Larkspur terminal is a large facility with parking for 1,366 vehicles, bus loading and
unloading zones,a terminal building with protected waiting areas, limited vending machines, and
restrooms, administrative offices and a maintenance building. Two of the four berths are used
for loading and unloadingassengers. Hydraulic ramps,operated by a landside personnel,
provide boarding to the 2" deck of both the 3-deck Spaulding and 2-deck catamaran vessels.
The third and fourth berths are used to moor vessels when they are out of service. The berth
nearest the maintenance facility is also used to moor vessels for maintenance purposes.
Vehicle access to the terminal is from East Sir Francis Drake-Boulevard. During the PM peak
periods the terminal exit is usually congested with delays of 5 to 10 minutes as 250 to 350
vehicles queue to leave the terminal.
The parking lot was reconfigured in 1998 to accommodate the additional cars which the high-
speed ferry was expected to attract. The increase in car parking has proved to be inadequate for
the increased demand created by the high-speed ferry service and the parking lot is frequently at
over-capacity by mid-morning (with parking occurring on sidewalks, in the dedicated bus loading
zones, and grass areas).
Vessels
Three 20.5 knot, 725-seat, Spaulding-class monohulls make the Larkspur to San Francisco
crossing in 45 to 55 minutes. The 325-seat Del Norte, a high-speed catamaran,takes 30 minutes
to make the crossing at an average speed of 36 knots. The Del Norte was purchased for$7.8
million with funds from Proposition 116, FTA Section 3, and GGBHTD.
The Larkspur route is subject to wake restrictions in the Corte Madera Creek channel which adds
five minutes to the Del Norte runs and substantially more time in the case of the older Spaulding
vessels, which create a much larger wake.
Future Improvements
GGBHTD plans to acquire a second high-speed vessel within a few years, possibly by 2000 as
the transition to smaller high-speed vessel continues. Four 36-knot, 325 passenger vessels
operating at 20 minute intervals would provide a capacity of 975 seats per hour. Five vessels
could operate at 15 minute intervals providing a capacity of 1,300 seats per hour. The use of
smaller high-speed ferries with seating less than 400 would also improve egress onto Sir Francis
Drake.
A parking structure was considered as part of terminal access improvement studies and was
found to be viable if outside funding sources could be identified. However, the structure would
attract additional vehicles which would add to the already congested conditions at the terminal
exit. Improved feeder bus service with more frequent service would attract more commuters to
the feeder bus system.
5
RICHMOND
Operations
The Red and White Fleet will start service by June 1999. The distance from San Francisco to
Richmond is about eight nautical miles. Weekday service wil be 2 AM trips and 2 PM trips. On
weekends and holidays there will be 1 AM trip and 1 PM trip. Adult fares will be $5.00 for one
way trips, or$90.00 for 20 tickets; child fares will be$2.50. There will be no subsidies at this
time.
Landside and Intermodal Facilities
The Richmond terminal is located at the foot of Harbour Way South, next to the historic-Ford
Plant. The termional will have two berths and there will be parking on both streeet and off street
for a total of 250 spaces. AC Transit will extend their#74 bus line to the terminal so thaf there is
adequate connecting bus service. Caltrans and the City of Richmond will install directional signs
on HWY 580, 80 and on city streets. There is easy car and bus access to the Richmond Ferry
Terminal straight down harbour Way South from HWY 580.
Vessels
Service will be provided by Red and White Fleet's Royal Prince. This is a 500 passenger
monohull which will make the trip in about 40 minutes. There are three additional back-up
vessels.
Future Improvements
The Richmond Terminal is in a major development area with adaquate space for additional
parking, improved feeder bus service and a passenger shelter and ammenities. As demand
grows, it is planed that new vessels will be purchased and the routes expanded to include
Tiburon, Sausalito, Angel Island, Alcatraz, Oakland and Alameda.
SAUSALITO
Operations
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District(+CGBHTD) operates a service
between Sausalito and the San Francisco Ferry Building, a distance of six miles, which is
primarily used by commuters. Blue and Gold Fleet operates a tourist service between Sausalito
and Fisherman's Wharf.
GGBHTD operates 20 weekday trips and 14 weekend trips. Patronage averages about 1,400 to
1,540 passengers daily with approximately 113 of the patrons on three PM peak trips. Annual
s
...............
............................................
......................................................................
ridership is about 500,000 Passengers. The one-way fare is$4.70, but only$1.76 if a 20-ticket
book is purchased. Fares finances about 45 percent of the operating costs. Golden Gate Bridge
toll funds provide the operatitig subsidy.
Blue and Gold charges$5.50 for the Sausalito to Fisherman's Wharf trip. Tourist ridership,
mainly during non-peak hours,averages about 1,200 passengers per day. This service is not
subsidized.
Landside and Intermodal Facilities
Landside facilities at Sausalito are limited. Dedicated parking is not available,although some
patrons park at the adjacent 200-space public parking lot($10.00 per day). Kiss-and-ride drop-
offs occur at two streetside loading/unloading zones. Sausalito residents can use the parking lot
for drop-offs. Golden Gate transit buses stops one block away from the terminal.
A new gangway with an ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)-accessible float allowing two
vessels to berth was installed-in 1998. The new float does not have the double deck requested by
GGBHTD. Planned future use of the Larkspur Spaulding-class vessels on this route will require
an ADA elevator to be-installed in those vessels if they do not modify the fleet. This is because
the Spaulding-class vessels load in San Francisco from the second deck but will unload in
Sausalito from the'lower deck.
Vessels
GGBHTD operates a single vessel,the Golden Gate, on the Sausalito to San Francisco run. The
Golden Gate is a 575-passenger, 15-knot monohull. Larger Spaulding-class Larkspur vessels
with a seating capacity of 725 are used for backup when the Golden Gate is being serviced.
However, by agreement with the City of Sausalito, GGBHTD will not bring more than 575
passengers on these vessels. The Golden Gate takes 30 minutes to make the crossing.
The Blue and Gold Fleet operates the 400-passenger,25-knot catamaran Zelinsky on the
Sausalito to Fisherman's'Wharf crossing. The crossing takes less than 20 minutes.
Future Improvements
Waterfront and terminal improvements are underway. A covered pedestrian waiting area is being
considered for the new pier. The City of Sausalito is also considering expansion of the plaza
adjacent to the dock. However, Sausalito does not want to lose parking spaces and residents do
no want structures that might block the view of the Bay.
The greatest concern of the Sausalito City Council appears to be the potential of large crowds of
people arriving for vessel arrivals or departures. Frequent service on smaller vessels might be
one way to alleviate this Concern.
7
28 knots when it is fully loaded and therefore cannot make the one-hour turn-around time
required by the present schedule. The high-speed catamarans make the trip to San Francisco in
55 minutes; the Jet Cat in 60 to 65 minutes depending,on the number of passengers.
Vessels are owned by the City of Vallejo,and operated by Blue&Gold under a competitively-
bid.contract. As with the Larkspur ferries,the Vallejo ferries are subject to a two-mile long wake
restriction in the Napa River,which adds five or more minutes to the commute time.
Future Improvements
Relocation and improvement of the Vallejo downtown transit center to include up to 16 bus bays
were recommended in a 1996 study of Vallejo terminal landside access. Better transit access
would enhance ridership, as would paving of the main gravel car parking lot.
Vallejo is investigating increasing seating capacity of the High-speed ferries by 25 seats(to 325
seats)to relieve some of the over-subscription demand on the route. A third high-speed ferry
with more frequent service would achieve the same goal.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
.High-Speed Vessels
The passenger demand indicated by the success of the Vallejo and Larkspur high-speed ferries
clearly shows that the Bay Area has entered the era of high-speed vessels. These vessels are
often over-subscribed,operating at full capacity during peak commuter times and either leaving
early during the AM peak commute because they are full or leaving passengers on the dock. The
combination of rapid transit time, convenience,and traffic congestion make high speed ferries
very attractive to commuters. Of the 12 ferries operating on the Bay, 7 are high-speed craft. The
high-speed vessels are listed below.
Table D-1
High-Speed Ferries Operating on San Francisco Bay
Vessel Speed (Knots) 1'assen ers Owner
Del Norte 36 325 GGBHTD
Mare Island 34 300 Vallejo
Intintoli 34 300 Vallejo
Encinal 25 400 Alameda
Bay Breeze 25 250 Alameda
Zelinsky 25 400 Blue&Gold
Jet Cat Express 28 350 Vallejo
10
serve as a vital component of the overall information available to the Task Force. Some of
the work by MTC and Task Force will be conducted concurrently with information shared
as it is generated. These two separate, but complementary, processes will serve as "reality
checks and balances" on one another. In addition, Golden Gate National Recreation Area
will be examining new excursion markets and San Francisco International Airport will be
studying passenger delivery by hovercraft. The results of these two additional
investigations will be integrated into the "bold vision" study.
The following Scope of Work is organized in three sections related to the primary
objectives for the study: Overall System Design and Operations; Institutional Structure
and Arrangements, and Funding Strategies. The information to be gathered and issues to
be addressed through the study are expressed in the form of questions under each section.
Overall Systems Design and Operations
1. What are the most important factors contributing to the success of transit
systems, particularly water-based transit systems?
• How can the lessons learned from successful operations elsewhere
(such as Seattle,Boston,New York, Baltimore,Hong Kong, Sydney,
Vancouver) be applied to the Bay Area?
• How do current water-based transportation services in the region
compare to the•factors for success and what would it take to
integrate these characteristics into existing operations?
2. How important is the level and frequency of service in attracting ridership to
water transit?
• How comprehensive does the service need to be to succeed?
How important are extended-hour service on weekdays and weekend
service to the overall success of the system?
3. What are the new market segments, origins, destinations, and trip purposes
that could be served by a significantly expanded new water transit system on
the Bay?
• What are the potential origins and destinations throughout the
region and what is the general potential demand and for service?
• How much emphasis should be placed on serving prospective
destinations: employment centers; commercial and retail operations;
recreation and entertainment; sports stadiums, airports; and other?
5
• What added demand and increased economic viability is derived from
providing water transit access to the converting military bases that
front on the Bay?
What is the potential demand for water transit to and between
airports for both passengers and cargo?
+ Can passenger and cargo uses be integrated in vessels and/or at
ternunals?
4. What is the optimal combination of levels of service and fares to maximize
the viability of the water transit operation?
+ What are the most limiting factors in demand—fares, travel time,
level and frequency of service, quality, or convenience?
• According to existing passenger surveys, what are the critical factors
in people deciding to use or not use water transit?
• What are the important lessons that have been learned from Bay Area
ferry operations?
• Is there any advantage derived from joint promotions and ticketing
for multiple destinations?
• What are the inter-relationships between commuter and
excursion trips and routes that should be taken into account in
designing a new water transit system?
5. What types of vessels and new technologies could be used to provide
efficient, comprehensive, and environmentally-safe water transit service
throughout the region?
• What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of new vessel
technologies (such as amphibious buses, catamarans, hydrofoils,jet
foils, and hovercraft)?
• Which types of vessels and new technologies can utilize clean fuels to
reduce craft emissions and improve air quality? How do the
emissions from the various vessel technologies compare to the
avoided emissions from displaced vehicle trips?
• What technologies have been developed to reduce potential of fuel
spills and to mitigate impacts?
6
• What design features are critical to accommodate high volumes of
passengers(access for wheelchairs, baby carriers, bicycles, etc.)?
• Are there any laws or trade restrictions which might apply to leading
manufacturers of desirable technologies(such as the Jones Act)?
6. What improvements to terminal and docking facilities are required to ensure
successful operation of an expanded water transit system that will be able to
replace a significant number of vehicle trips?
• Which locations need to be evaluated for possible new or expanded
terminal and docking ficilities?
• What are the important characteristics and services of efficient
terminals and docking facilities that can move high volumes of
passengers in reasonable periods of time?
• What landside improvements and design features are necessary to
accommodate a diversity in types of vessels? -
What changes, if any,would be required in local General Plans?
• Are there routing models(such as hubbing or point•to-point)that will
make a difference in the efficient operation of a new water transit
system?
• How should low- and zero-emission vehicle technology(including
electric and natural gas vehicles, bicycles, etc.)be accommodated in
terminal and docking facilities?
• What facilities and design features are necessary to accommodate
passengers with disabilities?
7. What are the critical components of ground access services for a successful
water transit system?
• What types of connections will be needed to link the water transit
system with ground transportation?
• What are the key issues related to parking facilities and circulation
patterns at terminals?
• How can other public transit systems be coordinated and integrated
with the operations of a new water transit system to significantly
improve mobility?
7
« Should the water transit system operate a ground transportation
feeder and destination system?
« How should low- and zero-emission vehicle technology be integrated
into the ground access services?
« What pedestrian and handicapped access are critical for a successful
system?
8. What additional fueling and maintenance facilities will be necessary?
9. What are the critical environmental issues that need to be addressed and
resolved, particularly with respect to the Bay,wetlands and the shoreline?
« What are the potential impacts of wake erosion on wetlands, and how
can they be avoided or minimized?
« Can new water transit routes be designed to avoid impacts on rating
waterfowl and on eelgrass beds?
« What are the potential impacts of noise from the vessels?
« Are there any other negative wildlife impacts that could result from
increased service, new routes, or new docking facilities?
I.O. What is the economic feasibility and additional increment of mobility and capacity
that would accrue to the transportation network if the new water transit system(as
designed and operated above)were operational?
« What is the range of projected new passengers if the new water transit
system were operational?
« What is the range of projected costs per passenger for capital investments
and operations if the new water transit system were operational?
« How cost-effective is water transit in achieving that increment of mobility
in comparison to other mortes of transportation?
« What is the value of the alternative mobility capacity gained during
emergencies from a significantly expanded water transit system?
8
Institutional Structure and Arrangements
1. What is the most effective and efficient institutional structure and
arrangement for operating a new comprehensive water transit system?
Should the entire system be operated by the public sector, the private
sector, or some combination?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
2. If the new water transit system was achieved through a combination of public
and private operations, what are the most appropriate responsibilities for
each sector and what are the most effective institutional arrangements to
optimize the roles and strengths of each sector?
3. What rules and regulations should govern the operation of a new water
transit system?
• Do different rules and regulations apply to the public and private
sectors operations?
What operational and scheduling considerations are necessary to
ensure safety on the Bay and to minimize conflict with other
commercial ships and vessels?
• Which federal and state laws and regulations(such as the Passenger
Services Act)need to be taken into account when considering
organizational structure and institutional arrangements?
• How do the roles of various regulatory agencies (Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, State Public Utilities Commission,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, etc.)
affect the organizational structure and institutional arrangements of
the new water transit system?
• What kind of performance standards should be established and how
should they be measured?
4. Should a new agency or authority be established to oversee, manage and/or
operate the new expanded, comprehensive water transit system?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a new
agency or authority with respect to overall coordination, management
and operations?
9
• Are there any existing agencies that could operate such a system?
• If appropriate, how should such a new agency or authority be
constituted and what powers and responsibilities should it have?
• How should the transition from the existing operations and
institutional arrangements to a new agency or authority be
accomplished?
• How should a new system be coordinated and integrated with current
and future private operations that may not be incorporated into a new
agency?
• How should implementation of a new water transit system be phased
over time?
5. What ether institutional issues need to be resolved in order to implement a
new comprehensive water transit system?
Funding Strategies
1. What is the general magnitude of investment and Bending required to
implement the new comprehensive water transit system envisioned above?
• What is the range of capital costs and level of investment needed for
landside facilities and capitalization of vessels and equipment?
• What is the range of operational costs for the system?
• According to baseline figures derived from all foregoing analysis,
what is the potential for revenue to be generated by ridership?
2. What are the most promising sources of public and private investment and
funding?
• What are the prospective sources of public and private investments
for initial capital costs?
• Based on the system design and operations envisioned above, what is
the realistic range of revenues from fares and other fees? What
impact will marketing have on ridership and fare revenues?
• What is necessary to attract significant private investment and what is
a realistic prospective range for private investment?
10
3. Based on the potential range of revenue from significantly increased ridership
with a new system as envisioned above, is it likely that on-going public
funding will be required to support operations and maintenance?
If so, what is the magnitude of the prospective ongoing public
investment?
• What are the most appropriate sources of ongoing public investment
for operations from a public policy perspective?
4. Are there creative new funding options which could be developed to finance
the system?
5. How can the most promising investment options be integrated into a
comprehensive funding and financing strategy which is both practical and
achievable?
EVIPLEMENTATION OF THE SCOPE OF WORK
A draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ)was released and published in
December to invite prospective technical experts and experienced consultants to
submit background information and statements of qualifications. Responses have
been reviewed and evaluated; finalists have been interviewed. The results of this
process and a recommendation will be submitted to the Task Force who will
decide whether or not to engage the services of one or more technical experts
and consultants.
The Bay Area Council in coordination with the Bay Area Economic Forum will
serve as the Secretariat to the Task Force. The Bay Area Council also will serve
as the fiscal intermediary for public and private resources invested in the study
and will manage the contracts with any consultants.
Adopted by the Blue Ribbon Water Transit Task Force on March 30, 1998.
Founded in 1945, the Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy
organization that promotes economic prosperity and quality oflife in the region. In
partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Council co-sponsors the
Bay Area Economic Forum. The Bay Area Economic Forum works to foster an
outstanding environment in the region for a competitive economy to thrive.
WoRK TEAM
DAMES & MOORE GROUP CONSULTANT TEAM
Dames& Mere Group
Ian Austin,Ph.D.—Project Manager
Ken Parkinson
Debra Scott-Queenin
Louise Stall, Ph.D.
Matthew Sutton
CHS Consulting/Korve Engineering
Chi-Hsin Shao
Douglas Wright Consulting
Doug Wright
Pacific Transit Management
Anthony Bruzzone
Michael Fajans
Ken Fox
Seaworthy Systems
George Buffleben
Assistant to Chairman Cowan
Lisa Klairmont
BAY AREA COUNCIL
Sunne Wright McPeak Russell Hancock
President& CEG Vice President
Alana O'Brien Raul Garcia
Executive Assistant Controller
Nancy Seaton Victoria Sherr
Program Secretary Administrative Assistant
BAY AREA ECONOMIC FORUM
R. Sean Randolph Danelle McGrue
President Manager, Base Reuse, Transportation,
Community Relations
Solem & Associates
Don&Anne Sole n
Debbie Mesloh
Emily Kao
1
t
!`
S
is s _ �'Y7.+' -
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR WATER TRANSIT SYSTEMS
This Appendix presents a summary description of the major water transit systems in other
regions around the world and sets forth the common characteristics derived from these successful
systems. These "success factors" provide the essential foundation for the Vision and the
Conceptual Design of the proposed new Bay Area high speed water transit system.
INTRODUCTION
San Francisco Bay is a majestic natural bay and harbor. The Bay provided a base for
development of the area during the Gold Rush and went on to support a major ferry system until
the construction of the great bridges in the mid-1930s. Since that time,the use of the Bay for
water transit has declined and it has become a significantly under-utilized resource. Other world
metropolitan areas located on harbors and bays continue to value and to effectively utilize water
transit as a significant component of regional transportation systems. What lessons and guidance
can be derived from the experience of other major water transit systems?
To answer these questions, the existing water transit systems for Sydney, Hong Kong, Seattle and
Vancouver(British Columbia) were reviewed and analyzed to identify the key factors that lead to
their current success. The State Transit Authority of New South Wales,Australia, operates a
large water transit system in and around Sydney Harbor. Among large regional cities with water
transit,the regional transportation situation in Sydney is perhaps most comparable with that in
the Bay Area. Two franchised operators including the famous Star Ferry Company operate ferry
systems in Hong Kong. Washington State Ferries(WSF) in Seattle operates the largest ferry
system in the USA, serving 8 counties in Washington State and in British Columbia, Canada. In
Vancouver, British Columbia, B.C. Transit operates 'Seabus", a passenger-only marine link
across Vancouver harbor, as part of the Vancouver Regional Transit System.
The key characteristics explaining the success of these systems are termed the"success factors".
The actions the system operators are considering to ensure the continued success of these
systems, such as facility improvements and expansion, were also investigated as part of the water
transit system review.
MAJOR WATER TRANSIT SYSTEM SUCCESS FACTORS
This Appendix describes the four successful water transit systems in detail. These systems were
analyzed and compared to determine common characteristics. These systems were also
compared with the services provided in the Bay Area. The analysis yielded the following ten
factors considered the most important to the success of a major water transit system. The
Success Factors were adopted by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on September 28, 1998.
World-class water transit systems all have the following "success factors":
I. Scope and Geographic Coverage
2. Frequency of Service
3. Travel Time
4. Reliability
5. Quality of Service
6. Efficiency of Landside Facilities
7. Cost and Fares
8. Intermodal Interface
9. Safety
10. Public Information and Education
11.
The Ten Success Factors are defined as follows:
+ Scope and Geographic Coverage: Route-by-route planning efforts must be
replaced with a new effort to build a comprehensive network of routes, allowing
multi-destination travel by water throughout the region.
• Frequency of Service: Flexibility in departure time is one of the most important
factors in travel choice. For water transit services to compete with driving, frequent
departures are required. wring peak demand times, successful systems operate as
frequently as 15 minute and 10 minute intervals.
• Travel Time: In addition to frequency,waterborne travel time needs to be
competitive with other modes of transportation in order to attract ridership.
• Reliability: Consistent"guaranteed"on-time service and available seating are
essential to sustain ridership levels.
• Quality of Service: The ride must be comfortable and pleasant in order to compete
with driving.
• Efficiency of Landside Facilities: Time on the water is not the only factor for
consideration. Door-to-door travel time is the operative factor in the decision to use
a certain mode of transportation. Successful systems minimize travel time by
providing direct pedestrian access to passenger destinations. Short walking
distances to downtown business districts or convenient connections to ground
services are major determinants of usage. On the suburban sides of the system,
convenient parking and transit access are necessary.
• Cost and Fares: Door-to-door costs to the passenger must be competitive with the
perceived costs and convenience of vehicles. Fares are a function of overall capital
and operational costs for a system.
2
Intermodal Interface: Connectivity of surface transportation and pedestrian traffic
to the water transit system is a critical factor in ensuring ridership. Transfer between
modes must be seamless, and should be facilitated by single-fare transactions.
Schedules between modes must be coordinated.
Safety: Landside and water-borne safety must be assured.
�► Public Information and Education: Comprehensive dissemination of information
pertaining to the schedules,comfort,convenience, safety, and system connections is
intrinsic to the success of mass transit systems.
Table B-1 attached summarizes the experience of the for Sydney, Hong Kong, Seattle and
Vancouver systems by the success factors and in comparison with the present Bay Area situation.
Passenger ferry operations in Sydney, Hong Kong, Seattle and Vancouver were analyzed for this
study. The information presented for these water transit systems is based on published reports
and collection of secondary data. Some data have been adjusted because the various authorities
use differing reporting procedures for much of the information.
The following information in 'fable B-2 shows common elements among the regions studied
with respect to geographic coverage in contrast to the Bay Area.
Table B-2
Geographic Coverage of Ferry Systems
Element Sydney Hone Kone Seattle Vancouver Bay Area
Population (millions) 3.3 6.5 2.9 1.8 6.6
Number of Terminals 29 23 20 2 9
Number of Routes 10 19 10 1 6
Mites of Routes 67 100 81 2 60
Riders(millions/year) 13 30 25 5 3.5
It is clear from this comparison that water transit in the Bay Area is significantly underutilized as
a major component of the regional transportation system. Simply based on a proportional
analysis of the number of riders per year in comparison to the population of the region, Sydney
carries more than 7 times the number of passengers annually as the Bay Area, Hong Kong more
than 9 times the volume, Seattle more than 15 times, and Vancouver more than 5 times. Hong
Kong, with a population very close to that of the Bay Area, and Seattle carry numbers of
passengers that approach the concentration of ridership experienced in the Bay Area during the
1920s and 1930s,
In each of the metropolitan areas cited above, the water transit system serves a significant
proportion of the transportation needs of the regional population. The systems support frequent
3
and reliable service and are fully integrated with other modes of transit,particularly buses, trains,
and subways. The systems and the terminals also are designed to stimulate commercial and
residential development in the vicinity--a strategy which both generates more ridership and
promotes more efficient land use in the region. The information below in Table B-3 illustrates
how the frequency and reliability of service in other regions compares to the Bay Area.
Table B-3
Frequency and Reliability of Service
Element Sydney Hone Kong Seattle Vancouver Bay Area
Number of Vessels 27 12 + 74 26 2 12
Frequency(Minutes) 15 - 30 10 30-40 15 30,45+
Reliability 99.5% 99% Very High 99%
For a water transportation system to attract ridership from driving alone,the service must be
frequent, reliable, and dependable. A world-class water transit system id defined by frequent
departures and reliable service,which requires a sufficient size of fleet to provide the service
with reliability that approaches 99%. Any system without this kind of frequency and reliability
cannot support sufficient ridership to be a significant component of a regional transportation
network.
Other important factors contributing to the success of the four major regional systems cited above
are travel time and the quality of service. Door-to-door travel time needs to equal or exceed
vehicle travel time. Door-to-door time is a function of three variables: the efficiency of feeder
bus and other transit services in reaching the terminal, the ease and speed of embarking and
disembarking; and the vessel speed and resulting time on the water. To minimize time spent on
the water, Sydney and Seattle have introduced smaller capacity, high-speed vessels (35 to 40
knots, or 42 to 48 miles per hour respectively) on express routes. The Vallejo and Larkspur high-
speed ferry systems also demonstrate the effectiveness of using high-speed ferries. To ensure
rapid loading and unloading, Hong Kong and Vancouver both use end-loading ferries which have
the highest disembarkation rates, well over 150 persons per minute.
Efficient and integrated intermodal interface--that is,connections to other transit systems and
pedestrian access--is another hallmark of world-class systems. The major water transit systems
described herein have terminals and landside facilities designed to promote swift transfer from
dock to terminal to waiting transit. Passengers want direct pedestrian access to surrounding
business districts and transit alternatives. Sydney, Hong Kong, Seattle and Vancouver all have
automated terminals to facilitate rapid movement. All have a fare structure competitive with
bridges.
4
..................................
..................................................................................................
........................................................................................
Table B-1
Summary of Key Water Transit System Factors
7777771
7, ,
FGraphl
"� drie Han Kart Seattle
9 (WSF) Vancouver Say Area
X 10 routes X 19 routes covering X 10 routes covering Sit 1 route covering X 6 routes
covering 67 100 nautical miles 81 nautical miles 1.75 nautical covering 60
nautical miles with 23 ferry with 20 terminals. miles with 2 nautical miles
e with 29 ferry terminals. terminals. with 7 ferry
terminals. X Service area terminals.
population is 2.9
X Service area X Service area million. X Service area
population is 3.3 population is 6.5 population is 1.8 X Service area
million. million. X Carries 25 million million. population is
passengers 6.3 million.
X 12.6 million X Star Ferry,carrying annually X Ridershipe 5.0
annual ridership. 100,000 passengers million annually. X 3.0 million
per day,connects X Origin terminal annual
Hong Dong Island development is X North Vancouver ridership.
X Priority of new with Kowloon,two geared towards is connecters with
ferry services is of largest acceptable walking Vancouver and is X Recent survey
to support metropolitan areas distances from the only indicates that
harborside in region. within residential passenger-only 82%favor
development. densities. link across the expanded
X A new ferry route is Surrard inlet. ferry service.
X "Transit authority planned between
goal is to Hong Dong and
establish new new airport.
policy relating to
regional =
development
potential to
outlying areas.
Frequency X Weekday X Operators are X Weekday services X Departures from X Weekday
of Service services operate planning to provide operate on 30- each end of the service
on 15-minute to licensed ferry minute to 45- route are about operates 2 to
30-minute services which cater minute headways. every 15 4 a.m.and
headways. to demand,not minutes. p.m.peak
route. trips. Daily I
X 27 vessels round trip '
divided among 5 X Main Star Ferry services range
different classes route runs from from 9 to I5.
of ferries. 6:00 am.to 11:30
p.m. All other X Recent ferry
X Frequency-based routes run from surveys a
timetables were 7:00 am.to 7:20 indicate
introduced for the p.rn. request for
Parramatta River more later
Services. X The 10-minute p.m.trips
j` headways of the from SF to
Star Ferry service suburbs;and
between Hong more a.m. 1j
Kong Island and peak service.
Kowloon makes
service competitive
with other modes of
transportation.
Travel X C3 erators X O erators are X Introduction of 30- X To reduce travel X Accordin to
Factor Sydney Hong Kong Suttle(WSF) Vancouver Bay Area `
Time Continue to considering knot catamarans time, Alameda/Oak
improve exemptions to speed reduced travel turnaround was land Ferry
integration of limits within the times to Seattle minimized by Survey, 14%
fares and harbor to improve from 4 major adopting a flow- cited Aon-
timetables with travel time. commute through loading/ timea as an
different modes. terminals. unloading important
X Proposed purchase techniques. factor in
of faster vessels to X introduction of attracting
decrease travel time 340 knot on X Ferries are ferry riders.
is planned, Chinoock route cut double-ended
travel time in half with equal speed X New high-
X Provision of air and speed ferry
conditioning at maneuverability service from
central piers to to reduce docking Larkspur to
increase passenger time. Ferry I
comfort is planned. Building
reduced travel
time from 45
to 3G minutes.
Reliability X On average, Viewed as most X WSF monitors X On-time X Pier space is
ferries are 99% reliable ferry systema level of servise departures have being
on time according in world. (LOS)to minimize exceeded 99%of increased at
to published passenger waiting scheduled times. Ferry
schedules. times. Building that
could result in
reduction of '
docking
( delays. I
f Efficiency X Integration exists X System provides X Statewide X Passenger X Ferry Building
f of between State convenient covered multimodal system terminals are redevelopment
Landside Transit buses, pedestrian walkways plan includes floating to is underway to
Facilities CityRail trains to ferry terminals. ferries and states compensate for increase
and ferries. that the focus of the tide variations. landside
X Plans being first ten years of the movement of 6
X State Transit is -formulated for plan will be on X A 400-passenger ( passengers
improving the commercial and capital terminal SeaBus can be between piers.
integration of residential projects. loaded and off-
ferry and bus developments in the loaded X Majority of !
through better vicinity of ferry X Bremerton simultaneously in ferry routes I
connections. terminals to attract waterfront to 90 seconds. with high E
more passengers. include mixed passenger
X Planning uses integrated ridership have
underway to make X Upgrading of with ferry convenient
system services facilities at piers and terminal. parking.
more accessible in their adjoining area
line with to promote
Australia--s development is
National underway.
Accessability
Standards. X Feasibility of
temporary facilities
for new suitable sites
with appropriate d
landside facilities
should be explored.
Fare/ X Competetive with X Competetive with automobiles. X Competetive with X Competetive with X Bridge toll
Cast automobiles. automobiles. automobiles. revenues are
X Source of non fare- available to
box income should X The Smartcard X The fares stem offset capital
.....................
.
... ..................
................................................
.
......... ........................
_._................................................................
.............
.....................................................................
...........................................................................................
Factor Sydney along Kong Seattle(WSF) Vancouver Say Area
X New automatic be increased,e.g., was introduced as is fully integrated and operating
fare collection advertisements and a ridership inducer with buses and costs.
system was encouraging more for ferries on the SkyTrain.
installed to commercial Puget Sound X increased
minimize net cost concessions at piers. bridge tolls
of services. X Reduce fare ticket help to make
X Profits generated books for frequent ferry transit
X Fare evasion from real estate users/commuters. more
reduced by development at competitive
introducing piers are used to X The Passenger with auto.
transit liaison defray operating Ferry Account was
officer. cost& created for funding
` projects that
X Low fare for Star benefit passenger
Ferry attributes to ferry service. This
high ridership. was funded
through a special
motor vehicle
excise tax.
X 60%of revenue
is generated by
fare box.
lntermodal X Connections to X Star Ferry and Hong X The system carries X System is X Better bus
Interface CityRail and Kong&Yaumati 18,640 walk-on coordinated with connections
Monorail are Ferry Company Ltd. passengers per day shore-side needed at
underway to provide the majority and accounts for services to form a Ferry
increase of ferry service,but 27%of Washington cohesive Building,as
@ pedestrian do not have common State Ferry transportation per recent
` >reach=of the ticketing. Common passengers. system linking 2 surveys,
ferries. ticketing would municipalities.
facilitate X Every terminal X Bay€ink buses
Aseamless�-=fare except for one X 60%of all SeaBus are an
X A multimodal system. terminal is riders are transfers important
integrated connected to from other transit component of
ticketing system X Ferry transit to be public transit. modes. Vallejo
to extend to included in long service.
private ferry and range transportation X System elements
bus is under plan. are being evaluated
E development. to focus on
AseamlessE�
transportation
connections
between bus,ferry,
car,bicycle and
pedestrian modes.
X Car-and Van-pool
! programs
E implemented to
encourage ferry
ridership.
I
! X Ferry transit now
part of long range
transit plan.
Source:Barnes&Moore Group
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Overview
As in San Francisco, ferries have been part of the Sydney history almost since the first British
ships anchored in Sydney Cove in 1788 to establish the penal colony of New South Wales.
Ferries have played a vital role in the development of communities scattered around the Sydney
metropolitan area and today's modern fleet provides a myriad of inner harbor and river ferry
services as well as services across the outer harbor to the seaside resort of Manly. The Sydney
water transit system serves a population of nearly 3.3 million residents with 29 terminals, 10
routes totaling 67 miles, and transports 13 millions passengers per year.
Organization
The State Transit Authority of New South Wales is responsible for the operation of the public
ferries. The State Transit Authority is the largest operator of buses and ferries in Australia,with
services covering much of metropolitan Sydney and Newcastle. State Transit is a self-sufficient
entity of the Government of New South Wales. The State Transit legislated objectives are:
• Provide safe, efficient, reliable bus and ferry services.
+� Operate as efficiently as any comparable business.
* Maximize the new worth of the State's investment in business.
+ Exhibit a sense of social responsibility towards the community in which it
operates.
• Conform to the principals of ecologically sustainable development.
+ Exhibit responsibility towards regional development and decentralization.
State Transit was established under the Transport Administration Act of 1988 and, like other bus
and ferry operators, works within the regulatory framework of the Passenger Act, 1990. In line
with the Transport.Administration Act of 1988, the State Transit is governed by a Board
consisting of the Chief Executive and seven Directors appointed by the Minister. The Board's
function is to determine the policies of State Transit and guide its strategic direction: The.Board
is subject to direction from the Minister for Transport but any instructions that impact Stag
Transit's commercial interests require Government compensation.
The Chief Executive reports to the State Transit Board. Four General Managers in State Transit
report to the Chief Executive. Two of these General Managers, the General Manager Sydney
Ferries and General Manager Newcastle Buses and Ferries, are responsible for ferries.
In addition to the State Transit Authority, eight private ferry companies in the Sydney area
provide excursion cruises, special event services, and express service.
Operations
The State Transit's ferry services in Sydney covers the.Inner Harbor, Parramatta River and
Manly. The main ferry terminus is Circular Quay, next to the Sydney Opera House. The system
has ten route legs carrying passengers to Manly Cove, located 9.3 nautical miles east of Circular
Quay,and to Parramatta, located 18.8 nautical miles west of Circular Quay. Eight other water
5
transit ferry route legs, which provide access to Sydney's waterfront communities and
employment centers, are located on the Bay and the River between these two water transit routes.
These routes range from 2.3 to 6.8 nautical miles. In total, the Sydney ferry system includes 29
terminal locations and is approximately 67 nautical miles long.
Several of the ferry routes have been designed to have multiple stops thereby enhancing ridership
potential. All water transit routes terminate or originate from Circular Quay located near the
central district of Sydney. The major water transit routes and ferry terminal locations for the
Sydney water transit system are shown in Figure B-1.
The main role of the Sydney operations is to provide safe, efficient and reliable daily commuter
services. It is also an-active tourism operator,with daily ferry cruises and special package fares
to such major attractions as Taronga Zoo,the Sydney Aquarium, OJceanworld at Manly and the
Luna Park fairground. Sydney ferries offer service Monday through Friday, with reduced
service on Saturday and Sunday. The weekday services are operated on 15-minute to 30-minute
headway providing for timely service.
State Transit recently expanded the vessel fleet with two new 150-seat passenger vessels to
accommodate the growing passenger volume on the Parramatta River service. These vessels
operate at two knots and will be used on the Parramatta River and also for some Inner Harbor
service.
The Newcastle services operate over an area extending from Caves Beach in the south, north to
the Hunter River and from Newcastle Central Business District in the east to Sandgate in the
west. Two ferries operate a link across the Hunter River between Newcastle CBD and Stockton.
Recent key operating achievements include the following:
• The Harbor Beaches summer ferry service experienced a 50 percent increase.
• The RiverCat was successfully used to supplement the Manly 3etCat service.
+ The newly refurbished Lady Street ferry was launched to meet the growing needs in the
harbor cruise market.
• The "Two Millionth Passenger"was carried on the Parramatta RiverCat service.
• Fare evasion was reduced on Sydney's ferry services by introducing permanent transit liaison
officers and removing concession tickets from vending machines.
• Frequency based timetables were introduced for the Parramatta River services, resulting in
increased patronage.
State Transit's vessel fleet of 29 vessels separate into five different classes of ferries:
• The Manly ferry (13-meter beam, 70-meter length) has a capacity of 1,100.
• .letCat provide a high speed service between the City and Manly(I0-meter beam, 35 meter
length)has a seating capacity of 280.
• Lady Class ferry(I 1-meter beam, 44-meter length)has a capacity of 600 people.
• First Fleet catamaran(25-meter beam, I 0-meter breadth)has a capacity of 400 people.
• RiverCat, used on the Parramatta River and the main harbor(I0-meter beam, 37-meter
length) has a capacity of 2301 people.
6
A financial summary of the Sydney ferry services is provided in Table B-4. As indicated,
ridership has increased, resulting in slightly higher revenues, with costs being closely controlled.
Passenger revenues increased nearly seven percent between 1994 and 1997, while passenger
costs decreased five percent. During the same time period patronage increased 18 percent.
.New and Improved Services
In the latter months of 1996, State Transit introduced a number of new services, particularly for
the tourist market:
• Service to Pyrmont,after a new ferry wharf was opened in October 1916.
• Service to Fort Denison and Coat Island under contract to National Parks and Wildlife
Services ($135,000 per year).
• "Nightzoo,"provided as part of the regular Mosman night service to provide transport for
visitors to the zoo at night.
• Special event services, such as cruises to Navy open day, Australia Day,New Year's Eve and
garden cruise.
Improved services include the following:
• The Parramatta River service continued to grow, and in 1997, the Parramatta and
Meadowbank services were combined to provide increased frequency and capacity. The
Parramatta River service experienced total growth of 40 percent in 1997.
• Harbor cruises grew by over 30 percent and continue to grow, particularly after the cruise
formats were changed to two one-hour morning harbor cruises rather than one longer cruise.
Tourist services are now a significant growth area for State Transit.
• The Lady Street and Queenscliff vessels were refurbished, and the Lady Street was launched
as a cruise vessel.
• Three additional return trips were introduced on the Stockton ferry services on Sunday nights
and public holidays.
Intermodal Connections
State Transit improved the integration of bus and ferry providing improved bus/ferry connections
at Manly and Meadowbank. State Transit introduced 30 new 32-seat"Midi"buses; 24 in
Newcastle and 6 at North Sydney, to service the inner harbor ferry wharves where
maneuverability is required.
In response to community surveys, State Transit recently implemented the following service
revisions:
• Parramatta Timetable -combined Parramatta and Meadowbank timetables to increase service
and reliability to and from.Parramatta.
• JetCat Evening Service - "P" services adjusted to connect with buses at Manly Wharf.
• Harbor Beaches Services - Summer Hours service- Balmoral, Quarantive Station, Manly and
Watsons Bay.
7
• Intermodal connections with CityRail and Monorail were added to increase the pedestrian
"reach" of the ferries.
Ticketing
Sydney buses, Sydney ferries and city rail have many different ticketing options to make travel
around Sydney economical, simple and efficient. The five ticketing options are:
Travel Ten Ten-ride bus ticket.
Ferry Ten Ten-ride ferry ticket.
TravelPass "Sydney Pass"- Weekly tickets for 7-day use on Sydney buses, Sydney
ferries and CityRail trains.
Bus Tripper - All-day bus ticket.
Daypass - All-day ferry ticket.
A multimodal integrated ticketing system is under development by the Public Transport
Authority of New South Wales, which was created to oversee development of this system.
Integrated ticketing is an unprecedented initiative in New South Wales. It will allow users to
travel for the first time with one ticket on private buses and ferries, CityRail, State Transit,buses
and ferries and light rail. Transit passengers in Sydney already have access to integration between
State Transit buses and ferries and CityRail trains. Full integration will extend this ticketing
system to cover travel on private bus and ferry services.
State Transit is committed to making its services more accessible in line with Australia's
National Accessibility Standards for public facilities. The following steps are being implemented
to improve accessibility to ferries:
• New wider vessel gangways at terminals.
• Ramps were replaced at Mosman Wharf to ensure access for the disabled.
Ferry gang planks at Newcastle terminals were improved to provide for better access.
Future Plans and Strategies
Between 1997 and 2002, State Transit anticipates that its business will expand due to ongoing
and new initiatives and others initiatives is planning to implement. The strategies guiding the
future planning include:
• Improved service by pressing for infrastructure improvements to speed the ferries up, make
them more comfortable and accessible, and put new in services to meet the changing needs of
the community.
• Ensuring that the net cost of services to government and customers is minimized with
maximized returns to provide better services and to attract more people from private cars.
• Improving the urban environment by vigorously promoting environmentally responsible
services and purchasing environmentally friendly equipment.
8
• Continuing to contribute to regional development and decentralization through providing bus
and ferry services to Newcastle and implementing ether relevant programs such as the
Government's purchasing preference policy.
These strategies, to be implemented through a number of programs, are designed to ensure that
services will continue to improve and offer a feasible alternative to the automobile. Significant
programs implementing these strategies include.
• Installation of a new automatic fare collection system for Sydney Ferries.
• Improved integration of fares and timetables with different transport modes.
• Investigation of new ferry services to support harborside development.
• Advocating social and environmental benefits of public transport.
• Reduction of air pollution.
• Improved environmental standards at terminals and with all vessels.
Several customer service improvements have been implemented to increase convenience to the
passenger. These include terminal renovations at Circular Quay to provide portable ticket
offices,and installation of public address systems at nine remote terminals to keep customers
informed of changes to services. To improve security at Circular Quay, extra lighting and video
surveillance were installed on the wharves. Additionally, State Transit promotes internal and
external reviews to better understand customer needs.
9
Table B-2
Performance Indicators
Sydney- Ferry Services 93194 94195 95196 96197 86197
{Actual} (Talet)
'Ectal Revenue(US$=000) $108,945 $99,030 $98,268 $97,763 $99,010
Passenger Revenue (US$--000)' $72, 926 $73,989 $77,524 $77,785 $80,196
Taal Expenditure(US$=000)2 $112,908 $103,745 $100,001 $107,356 $106,850
Patronage (>000) 11,045 91,874 12,695 13,009 13,873
Kilometers(>000) 1,230 1,299 1,308 1,337 1,358
Staff(FTE) 373 387 409 417 408
Passenger Revenue per Kilometer $59.29 $56.95 $59.26 $58.18 $59.06
Total Revenue per Kilometer $88.57 $76.45 $75.13 $73.11 $72.90
Passenger per Kilometer 9.0 9.1 9.7 9.7 10.2
Cost per Passenger $10.21 $8.73 $7.87 $8.25 $7.69
Cast per Kilometer $91.80 $79.87 $76.45 $80.28 $78.68
Passenger per Employee 29,611 30,682 31,039 31,197 34,002
Kilometers per Employee 3,298 3,357 3,3198 3.206 3,328
Ferry Service Reliability(on time) e 99.8% 99.7% 99.11 99.5% 99.5%
Source: 1996197 State Transit Annual Report,State Transit Authority of New South Wales
1. Passenger Revenue includes reimbursements for free and concession travel and pricing CSC}.
2. A year-end adjustment and pricing in 199611997"to Major Periodic Maintenance of$3.809 million has been added
back to reflect the true Operating position.
HONG KONG
Overview
The Hong Kong water transit system serves a population of approximately 6.5 million residents
with 23 terminals, 19 routes totaling 100 miles, and transports 30 million passengers per year.
The ferries in the inner harbor of Hong Kong supplement cross-harbor buses and mass transit
railway transportation. Every day, around 10 million passengers take trips on the public transport
systems,which include two high-capacity railways, trams, buses, minibuses, taxis and ferries.
Approximately 90 percent of Hong Kong's population depend on public transport. There are
approximately 266 licensed vehicles for every kilometer of road in the territory, and the
topography makes it increasingly difficult to provide additional road capacity in the heavily built-
up areas.
Organization
The Commissioner for Transport governs operations of the ferries and terminals in Hong Kong
through two sets of regulations: the Shipping and Port Regulations and the Merchant Shipping
Regulations.
The Shipping and Port Regulations (Hong Kong, China and Macau Ferry Terminals) govern the
designation of terminals and definition of a ferry vessel. These regulations define:
• The control of the terminal including vessel access, control of arrivals and departures, and
the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers.
• The identification of restricted areas and rules applying to employees.
• The governing of business and advertising in terminals, allowance of animals and special
cargo, enforcement of passenger rules.
• The setting of berthing fees and passenger embarkation fees.
The Merchant Shipping Regulations (Launches and Ferry Vessels)apply to vessels not exceeding
300 tons, to other pleasure vessels within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping(Pleasure
Vessels)Regulations, and to ferry vessels of any tonnage. These regulations define:
• General provisions relating to the issuance of license and permits.
• Surveys to be conducted to address passenger space ratios, and passenger loads.
• Certificates of competency addressing the master and a person in charge of the machinery
which is the holder of an appropriate and valid local certificate of competency as engineer.
• Requirements for maintenance, handling and guidelines for reporting of accidents and
damage.
The Government of Hong Kong's policy on ferries includes the following positions:
• Ferries are an essential link to the outlying islands where land transport alternatives are not
available. They also provide a useful alternative between Central and the New Towns. In the
inner harbor, ferries play a supplementary role.
10
• Ferry services in Hong Kong are mainly to be provided by two franchisees, Hong Kong&
Yaumati Ferry Company Limited (HYF) and Star Ferry. Franchises are granted by the
Executive Council.
• A ferry operator may be granted a right to operate a ferry route in the form of a license,
Licensed ferry services cater for demand that does not justify franchising the routes, e.g., non-
essential services, recreational services and special services such as vehicular services for
dangerous goods vehicles. Licenses are granted by the Commissioner for Transport. At
present, there 21 regular licensed ferry services and 87"kaito"routes serving remote coastal
towns. The franchised and licensed services(excluding kaito routes)together carried
200,000 passengers a day in 1997.
• In view of the rising operating costs and declining patronage, ferry franchisees have been
facing great financial difficulties. The Administration has conducted a thorough review of
the existing franchised networks to identify means to enable operators to make the best use of
available resources to maintain and improve essential ferry services. The review has resulted
in the cancellation of some HYFs non-essential routes so that the Company may deploy
resources to maintain and improve essential services to the outlying islands. The non-
essential routes excised from the network,where justifiable;will be tendered out as licensed
services to let market forces determine the value of their continued existence, their service
and fare levels and scale of operations.
Operations
The Hong Kong water transit system has 19 local water transit routes operated by two companies
discussed below. These route legs carry passengers as far as Sam Ka Tsuen to the east and to
Shek Tsai -Po located 31.3 nautical miles to the west of Shueng Wan on Hong Kong Island.
Additional water transit routes mostly operate on Victoria Harbor. Access to all routes is
provided through a total of 23 ferry terminals on the Kowloon(mainland) and Hong Kong Island
sides of the Harbor.
Unlike the water transit systems of Sydney and San Francisco, the Hong Kong water transit
system has multiple hub terminals where routes converge. It is also possible to transfer to other
modes of transit as well as other water transit routes. This regional route structure of 23 ferry
terminals and 19 local water transit routes carries an estimated 80 million passengers annually.
The existence of a dense user population in Hong Kong and Kowloon combined with the short
water transit distance across Victoria Bay provide large ridership for the system. Additionally,
two routes within this route system accommodate cross-harbor vehicle traffic. The total length of
the water transit system is approximately 100 nautical miles. However, 15 routes are two
nautical miles or less. The major water transit routes and ferry terminal locations for the Hong
Kong water transit system are shown in Figure B-2.
Ferry Companies
Two franchised operators, (a) Star Ferry Company, Limited and (b) Hong& Yaumati Company,
Limited,provide most of the ferry service in Hong Kong.
,star Ferry Company, Limited
Star Ferry Company,Limited,running between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, is among the
most renowned and efficient ferry company in the world. Vessels leave from Wanchai and
Central on Hong Kong Island side, and Honghom and Tsim Sha Tsui on the Kowloon side. The
Star Ferry Company operates 12 vessels across the harbor,and during the mid-90's, carried 36
million passengers annually on its three routes.
Star Ferry, which has been operating since 1898,provides a valuable service to commuters and a
memorable experience for tourists. A ride from Tsin Sha Tsui to Central on the upper deck costs
US$0.26, or US$0.22 on the lower deck. Tsim Sha Tsui/Central service runs from 6:00 am to
11:30 p.m. daily. Star Ferry also runs between Central and Hung Hom from 7:00 to 7:20 p.m.
and between Tsim Sha Tsui and Wan Chai from 7:30 am to 11:00 p.m.
The inexpensive and scenic journey explains why nearly 100,000 passengers use Star Ferry every
day,despite competition from three cross-harbor tunnels and an efficient subway line. Current
ridership is down 50 percent from the peak volumes the ferries used to carry when the Star Ferry
was the only cross-harbor ferry transit in operations. Today, the 12-ferry operation manages to
break even,due to added revenue from advertising and shop rentals.
In the spring of 1998,the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong government approved to grant a
new franchise to Star Ferry. The Council gave the Company the right to operate the Central -
Tsim Sha Tsui route and the Wan Chai-Tsim Sha Tsui route for ten years, and the Central-Hung
Hom route for one year. The Government's decision was based on established ferry policy and
Star Ferry's excellent performance record.
The Central-Hung Hom route provided by Star Ferry, provides a supplementary transportation
service to the alternative land transport. The Government is reviewing this route with the other
Hung Hom ferry services operated by HYF, whose franchise will expire March 31, 1999. In the
interim, Star Ferry will continue to operate the Central-Hung Hom route for another year to tie in
with the expiration of the franchise of the HYF Hung Hom routes. In reviewing the operation of
these services,the Government will take into account the traveling needs of local residents,the
commercial viability of these routes and the need to improve the operating efficient of these
services.
Hong Kong& Yaumati.Ferry Company, Limited
The Hong Kong& Yaumati Ferry Company, Limited(HYF) is one of the largest ferry operators
in the world. HYF operates a fleet of 74 vessels,comprising double- and triple-deck ferries,
vehicular ferries, hoverferries and catamarans. Their ferries carry an average of 119,000
12
passengers daily and 6,565 vehicles daily equating to approximately 43 million passengers
annually.
HYF provides a comprehensive network of ferry services across Hong Kong harbor and links
Hong Kong Island with outlying districts. The company operates 24 local ferry services. There
are six cross-harbor passenger services, one cross-harbor vehicular service,two new town
passenger services, six passenger outlying district services, four licensed passenger services,two
excursion passenger services, one frequent vehicular services to Lantau for dangerous Roods and
ordinary vehicles. Fares range from US$0.49 to US$3.42 for passenger services and charges for
vehicles on the cross-harbor services range from USS0.58 for motorcycles to US$18.70 for long
vehicles.
Other Ferry Services
In addition to the Star Ferry Company and the Hong& Yaumati Company, 17 other ferry
operators provide services, including those to Discovery Bay(south side of Honk Kong Island)
and Lantau. These are supplemented by kaitos, or local village ferry services, which are licensed
to serve remote coastal settlements. A kaito is a small- to medium-sized ferry making short runs.
In Hong Kong,these short runs are from Aberdeen to Lamma Island. The 17 ferry companies
are:
• Chu Kong Shipping Co,Ltd. Passenger ferry services from Hong Kong to 20 Pearl River
Delta Ports.
• Fortune Ferry Co, Ltd. Passenger ferry services,hiring of passenger carrying launches.
• CTS-Parkview Ferry Services Ltd. Operates and manages ferry services to Macau&
Shenzhen; offers management service for operators in shipping and transportation field.
• Hop Shing Kung Ferry Co, Ltd. Passenger ferry services; hiring of passenger carrying
launches.
• Jick Kee Motor Boat Co. Providing passenger launch services.
• Kam Fat Motor Boat Co. Providing passenger launch services.
• Laissez Faire Co. Passenger ferry launches, pleasure vessels and high speed vessels services.
• Luen Hop Motor Boat Co. Supplying passenger launches&pleasure vessels; conveyance of
harbor workers.
• New Moonraker Motorboat Co, Ltd. Passenger launch, ferry and tugboat services.
• The Polly Ferry Co, Ltd. Passenger ferry services; hiring of passenger carrying launches.
• The Republic Motorboat Co, Ltd. Passenger launch, &rry services.
• Superich Marine Services Ltd. Passenger launch, ferry and tug boat services.
• Tsui Wah Ferry Service Co, Ltd. Passenger launch, ferry and tug boat services.
• Wing Yip Shipping &Transportation Co, Ltd. Charter & sale of commercial fast launches
with air-conditioning, tug boats, barges coaches &private cars, local tours and catering.
• Wing Yuk Transportation Co. Passenger launch, ferry and tug boat services.
• Yuet Fat Launch Co. Providing passenger launch services.
• Yuet Fat Motor Boat&Transportation Co. Hiring of passenger-carrying launches.
13
Regional Ferry Terminals
The regional ferry terminals in Hong Kong and Kowloon serve the mainland and Macau. They
handle more passengers than the Hong Kong International Airport. The China Ferry Terminal
offers travel to more than 30 destinations in China and the Macau Ferry Terminal serves the
nearby Portuguese enclave of Macau.
China Ferry Terminal
The China Ferry Terminal in Kowloon serves ferries that travel to 30 destinations in China.
About 15,000 people use the terminal every day, resulting in an annual throughput of about 5.2
.million passengers. The growth rate of passenger traffic is higher than that of the Kai Tak
Airport, and a new terminal is now being planned.
In addition, there are over 20 sailings a day to Macau from this terminal, designed to attract
passengers based on Kowloon. Of the ten berths at the terminal,three are on the main pier and
are used by conventional vessels. The other berths are used by dynamically-supported vessels
(e.g.; hydrofoils and jet foils) which have special berthing and draft requirements.
Macau Ferry Terminal
The Macau Terminal is located in Hong Kong adjacent to the Shun Tak Center. Berths which
serve the inner and outer islands are connected to the Shun Tak Center by pedestrian bridges.
The large high speed ferries use the outer berths and all other berths are used on demand by jet
foils, hydrofoils and catamaran ferries. About 40,000 people use the terminal every day,
resulting in an annual throughput of about 14 million passengers.
Future Plans and Strategies
With the continued development of road and rail infrastructure,the role of some ferry services is
expected to change in the future. Routes serving Mui Wo and Discovery Bay will cease to be
essential with the completion of the Mui Wo-Tai Ho road link and the Discovery Bay Tunnel.
However, continuation of the passenger services to Central will provide useful links for relieving
pressure on the road system. Routes serving Western New Territories which currently provide
alternatives to congested land routes will diminish in importance after the completion of the
Airport Railway, Route 3 and West Rail. However, ferry services could play a useful short-term
role in case of any mismatch between the completion of residential developments and adequate
road infrastructure.
Unlike buses and railways with en-route stops, Hong Kong ferries tend to operate between two
fixed points. This limits their catchment area and passenger base. Although public transport
interchange facilities are provided near ferry piers as a matter of policy,their effectiveness in
enhancing the attractiveness of ferry services is constrained by the additional time, fare and
inconvenience involved in interchanging. Adding calling points would not help either as it
would lengthen the journey time considerably.
14
..............
................................ . . ..........
.............................
................................
......................_.........._............
..................................
_..........................._....................
........................................
.................................................
.......................................................................................
............................................................................................. ...
..........................
In addition, the following developments affect the competitiveness of ferry services in the Hong
Kong area:
• New road and rail infrastructure: increasingly comprehensive and efficient road and rail
networks, and the associated expansion of land-based public transport, continue to abstract
ferry passengers.
• Harbor reclamation: piers are affected by harbor reclamation and need to by relocated to
newly reclaimed land before the surrounding areas are fully developed. The longer walking
distance and reduced convenience inevitably lead to a drop in patronage on the affected ferry
routes.
• Speed restriction inside harbor: the increasing volume of marine traffic calls for tighter speed
restrictions inside the harbor for safety reasons. This increases the journey time of ferry
services which makes them less attractive.
• Little incentive to improve: without reasonable financial returns and attractive prospects,
ferry operators are unable to invest on improving the quality of their services to meet the
rising expectations of the public. This leads to a further drop in patronage and results in
decline.
• Hong Kong ferry services are costly to operate: on a per seat per year basis,the capital cast
of a high-speed ferry is four to six times as high as an air-conditioned bus. The number of
operating crew required is also considerably more.
• Although the ferry fare has been kept at a competitive rate(about 25 cents),ridership on the
Star system has declined since the competing under-bay subway system opened. This is
because the subway system itself is an efficient intermodal connection to Kowloon on the
mainland side of the harbor and it has not yet reached a level of congestion that would cause
passengers to return to ferries.
• Viers and the associated public transport interchange facilities are costly and take time to
construct, i.e., a one-berth pier costs about$5 million and its construction takes two to three
years. Construction of new piers is only justified if there is a strong demand for expansion of
ferry services. On the other hand, the shortage of piers at prime locations limits the potential
development of ferry services.
Immediate-Term Improvement Measures
Ferries will continue to provide essential transport services for the outlying islands. These
services have to be maintained and further improved. In this regard, the Administration has been
negotiating with HYF on a pier development package at Central Declamation so that profits
generated from the pier development could be used to improve essential ferry services to the
outlying islands and to reduce the pressure on future fare increases. The proposed improvements
include the purchase of faster vessels and the provision of air-conditioning at the Central piers.
Apart from providing essential links to the outlying islands, ferries can play a useful role in
relieving pressure on the road system and providing an alternative to congested land routes,
including temporary road congestion in case of any mismatch between the completion of
residential developments and road infrastructure. However,the short-term demand for such
services makes the operations commercially not viable. To provide for stop-gap services,the
Administration will explore whether public landing steps or pontoons can be used where there
are suitable sites with appropriate landside facilities.
15
In addition, the Administration is exploring means to improve the commercial viability and
attractiveness of ferry services. These include:
• increasing the source of non fare-box income, e.g. encouraging more commercial concessions
at piers.
• Granting exemptions to speed limits within the harbor. Upgrading facilities at piers and their
adjoining areas, e.g. Yung Shue Wan pier.
• Planning commercial and residential developments above and in the vicinity of ferry piers to
attract more passengers.
• Providing convenient covered pedestrian walkways to ferry piers.
Long-Term Planning
The Administration is examining in detail the market niche for waterborne transport and the role
of ferry services in the context of the Third Comprehensive Transport Study, with regard to the
future population distribution and travel pattern. The study is due to be completed in early 1999.
At the district level, the Administration will conduct traffic and town planning studies to review
the need for ferry services in individual districts, including the feasibility and usefulness of
ferries in providing relief of road congestion. An example is the planning study on Hong Kong
Island South and Lama Island. The table below shows a comparison between capital costs and
staffing requirements.
Table B-4
Comparison of Capital Costs and Staffing Requirements of Hung Kang Ferries and Buses
Capital Cast per staff Required
f Carrying seat on Board
Capacity Capital Cost per Year
Ferry
Catamarans 500 $5.8M $774 7., '
Catamaran2 200 $838,655 $599 3
Triple-decked 1,500 $7.1 M $157 8
0
$US
Air-Conditioned Bus° 130 $260,000 $142 1
Note:
1 Life span of a 500-seat catamaran is 15 years
2 Life span of a 200-seat catamaran is 7 years
'Life span of a triple-decker is 30 years.
°Life Span Of An Air-Conditioned Bus Is 14 Years.
16
SEATTLE -WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES
Overview
Washington State Ferries(WSF)is the nation's largest ferry system, serving eight counties in
Washington and the Province of British Columbia in Canada. The WSF water transit system
serves a papulation of approximately 2.9 million residents with 20 terminals, 10 routes totaling
81 miles, and transports 25 million passengers per year and 11 million vehicles with 26 vessels.
Current 20-year demand projections call for substantial growth for passengers and vehicles in
both peak and non-peals periods. The implications of the projected growth rates are substantial
and, according to WSF's Draft Long Range System Plan, will require significant capital
investments in vessels and terminals over the study period.
Organization
The WSF system operates`both as an extension of the State's highway system and as a means of
mass transportation. WSF's revenue sources,including federal funding, state funding,bond
sales, and fares, are strictly regulated. WSF operating and maintenance expenses are financed
through the Marine Operating Account. This account is funded by WSF fares and other WSF
revenues, as well as the Puget Sound Ferry Operating Account. The Passenger Ferry Account
was created by the state legislature in 1995 for funding projects that benefit Passenger-Only Ferry
(POF) service. It is funded through the special motor vehicle excise tax that municipalities may
impose for public transportation systems. In counties with a population over 175,000 that do not
have any interstate highway within its borders, a portion(4.5 percent)of that special tax collected
by municipalities is deposited to the Passenger Ferry Account. This account is used to fund.
passenger ferry projects such as pedestrian and transit facilities at ferry terminals and the
construction of passenger-only ferries.
Operations
WSF is an efficient means of mass transit and every ferry terminal outside the San Juan Islands
has connecting public transit service. In 1997,the system carried approximately 18,600 walk-on
passengers per day. Walk-on passengers comprised 27 percent of all WSF passengers. The
majority(69 percent)of walk-on passengers are found on routes serving downtown Seattle,
where many jobs are within walking distance of the Colman Dock terminal. In fiscal year 1997,
the Bremerton-Seattle passenger-only service carried 285,043 riders while the Vachon-Seattle
passenger-only service carried 254,891 riders.
WSF first started passenger-only ferry service in 1978, with a POF Jetfoil service for a six-week
trial period in conjunction with Boeing. After that,the concept lay dormant until 1984 when
WSF included in its.Long-Range Plan Update 1990-2000 a recommendation to provide POF
service as a way of relieving traffic congestion on targeted routes. Until recently, WSF operated
three POF vessels on two services. WSF purchased its first passenger-only vessel in 1986, the
Express(Later renamed the Tyee),and began service in 1987 on the Seattle-Bremerton route. The
second and third passenger-only vessels,the Kalama and the Skagit,were constructed for WSF in
17
1989 and placed into service in 1990. At that time, POF service was extended to include a new
Seattle-Vashon service. The Seattle-Bremerton route is 13.5 nautical miles; the Seattle-Vashon
route is 8.5 nautical miles in length
According to A recent audit report on the Washington State Ferry system:
"WSF's success in operating these vessels has been mixed. Engine problems and
poor wake-wash characteristics have resulted in high maintenance costs (including
an engine replacement on one vessel), and operation of the POFs at reduced speed
along the Rich Passage shoreline. The outcome of these problems is that WSF's
POF service is slower and less reliable than planned. It does not offer any
substantial time savings to Seattle-Bremerton passengers over the auto-passenger
services on the same route. POF ridership has declined slightly over the past five
years,but by reducing service, WSF has managed to increase capacity utilization ' '
Current utilization ranges from 22 percent to 27 percent annually,but it may be as'
high as 100 percent on the Seattle-Vashon route during peak commuting hours. In"
comparison,utilization of current Seattle-Bremerton auto-passenger ferries may
reach 53 percent during peak operating hours, with sufficient capacity to support
passenger activity of the POF service as well."
Booz,Allen&Hamilton,Inc.
Department of Transportation Ferry System Performance Audit
(prepared for the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee)
August 3, 1998
The audit recommends that privatizing the POF should be considered, specifically so that a
private operator could utilize lower-cost labor and realize considerable operating cost savings
compared to current operations.
A passenger-only fast ferry, the Chinook, entered service in June, 1998 to meet the needs of the
Seattle/Bremerton route after more than three years in planning, design and construction. The
143-foot vessel has a top speed of 40 knots. The Chinook cost$9.6 million. Funding was
provided from Surface Transportation Funds ($3 million), FTA Section 3 funds ($2.2 million),
FTA Section 9 funds ($4 million)and the State of Washington.
The Seattle/Bremerton route needed a vessel that was capable of fast speeds to reduce travvel
time, while generating a low wake to minimize waterfront erosion along its route. More
specifically, the need was for a fast, reliable vessel that could go through Rich Passage outside of
Bremerton at 30 knots without wake disturbances, making the trip between Bremerton and
Seattle in 35 minutes or less. This class of ferry carries 350 passengers, compared to the 250
passengers that can be carried by the earlier passenger-only ferries(Kalama and Skagit) and 329
passengers by the Tyee. For comparison, the new class of passenger/vehicle ferries,the Jumbo
Mark 11, which includes the Tacoma, Wenatchee, and Puyallup,went into service in 1998. Each
can carry 2,500 passengers and 218 vehicles.
Luring 1996 and 1997, growth in passenger ridership exceeded growth in vehicle ridership. The
average growth in passengers during the two years was 2.3 percent per year. By contrast,the
number vehicles and drivers on the ferry system increased at an average rate of 1.6 percent per
18
Year. WSF categorizes ridership into vehicle drivers and passengers, with the latter category
further subdivided into passengers in vehicles and passengers who walk onto the ferry. The
number of walk-on and vehicle passengers indicates the extent to which WSF is being used as a
mass transportation system as opposed to an extension of the highway system. Of the almost 25
million people carried by WSF including drivers and all passengers in fiscal year 1997,56
percent(14 million)were walk-on or vehicle passengers.
Seattle-Bremerton and Seattle-Yashon passenger-only fares are$1.75 one-way. Within WSl~'s
tariff'structure,there are three major fare categories: full fare,reduced commuter fare, and other.
Those who are not frequent ferry users usually pay the full fare posted at the ticket booths.
Reduced fare ticket books are available for frequent users or commuters.
WSF has been working with the Puget Sound Regional Council and the major regional transit
agencies, including Ding County/Metro,Kitsap,Pierce, Everett and Community Transits,to
automate fare collection and consolidate fares for all modes of mass transit. This project,called
Smart Card,will give travelers a single pass to use for all segments of their commute. The Smart
Card represents a payment option that would help develop"seamless" links among ferries, buses
and trains, meeting a key goal adopted by area transportation providers.
Future Pians and Strategies
A WSF long-range system plan is a key element of the Statewide Multimodal System Plan. The
system plan included a list of capital improvements necessary to meet WSF's future needs. The
20-year plass was divided into two 14-year segments. Investments in terminals would be the
focus of the first decade, followed by investments in vessels in the second. Prioritized capital
terminal projects include improvements at Colman Dock, Edmonds, Mukilteo, Anaeortes,
Clinton, Bremerton, Southworth, Point Defiance, and Tahlequah. In addition, passenger-only
facilities were recommended to be established or expanded at Colman Dock, Southworth, and
Kingston terminals.
WSF,the City of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit, Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap County have teamed
up to support a major downtown redevelopment on the Bremerton waterfront called Sinclair
Landing. The project will include a mix of land uses to revitalize downtown Bremerton,
including waterfront condominiums, a grocery store,office buildings,restaurants, an
entertainment center with movie theaters, a hotel, a conference facility, retail space, and a new
Bremerton Multimodal Transportation Center.
The new transportation center would focus on"seamless" transportation connections between
bus, ferry,car, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. Amenities would include a second level transit
deck with 24 bus bays, ADA-accessible drop-off and pick-up areas,bicycle lockers, and a
concourse connecting the transportation center with Sinclair Landing. The terminal is designed
to accommodate two POFs for 35-minute service between Bremerton and Seattle with a separate
facility located off of the First Street Dock. The project is expected to begin construction in
1999.
19
The"Passenger-Only Ferry(POF)Program Implementation Plan"study and report was
commissioned by the Washington State Transportation Commission and funded by the state
legislature. The report focuses on implementation of two new POF routes: Kingston-Seattle and
Southworth-Seattle, and improved service on the Vashon and Bremerton POF routes. New
passenger-only service from Southworth and Kingston to Seattle is dependent on voter approval
in November.
"There are a number of important lessons learned from the State's initial
experience with passenger ferries. These `lessons learned' relate to the
appropriate design and specification of vessel propulsion systems and engines,
and wake-wash impacts. The state has subsequently established new, more
stringent specifications and procurement requirements."
"The most important consideration in developing a successful POF program is the
provision of consistently reliable and regularly scheduled service. Meeting this
goal requires an appropriate vessel design for Puget Sound; an adequate number
of standardized vessels to provide seamless replacement service during scheduled
and unscheduled maintenance periods; and adequate terminal and maintenance
facilities...`'
"Also, good transit connections on both sides of Puget Sound are critical to the
overall success of the program. Encouraging people to switch from auto to
passenger mode requires effective ferry-transit connectivity."
Washington State Transportation Commission
Implementation Plan: Passenger-Only Ferry Program
December, 1993
The recommended vessel for expanded POF service is a 350-passenger, 30-knot catamaran with
waterjet propulsion and bow-loading. Travel times to Seattle for each route at 30 knots are:
Bremerton, 34 minutes; Southworth, 28 minutes; Kingston, 35 minutes; and Vashon,26
minutes. Optimally, POF service frequencies would be 30 minutes during peak periods on all
routes. Experience with the Chinook POF service during its first two months of service has been
very successful. Travel time has been cut almost in half. Traffic on the state's passenger-only
ferries, including the older,conventional designs,more than doubled after the Chinook began
operating. The boat cruises at 34 knots(about 39 mph). There have been some complaints from
residents on the waterfront of Rich Passage that the Chinook's wakes are damaging shorelines
and bulkheads. These claims have yet to be substantiated. More experience with this new
service needs to be evaluated before firm conclusions can be drawn. Another Chinook-class
vessel is under construction now and four more are planned for the next two years.
20
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Overview
The Vancouver water transit system serves a population of approximately 1.8 million residents
with 2 terminals, I route of 1.75 miles in length, and transports 5 million passengers per year.
Organization
"SeaBus"is a passenger-only marine link across Vancouver's Burrard Inlet. It is a part of the
Vancouver Regional Transit System which serves 1,800,000 people in an area of 1,800 square
kilometers. The route crossing is 1.75 nautical miles. Burrard Inlet is spanned at its western end
by the Lions Gate Bridge and toward the eastern end by the Ironworkers Memorial Second
Narrows Bridge. The ferries went into service in dune 1977.
The total capital cost of the system was $Cdn 36 million in 1977 dollars. SeaBus operating costs
are consolidated with all Vancouver Regional Transit System bus operations,which total $Cdn
283 million for fiscal year 1998-99.
Operations
The"SeaBus"service consists of two ferries and terminals at the foot of Lonsdale Avenue in
North Vancouver and near Granville Street on the south shore in Vancouver, The route crossing
is 1.75 nautical miles. The SeaBus marine link is coordinated with shore-side services to form a
cohesive transportation system linking the two municipalities. The fare system for SeaBus is
fully integrated with that for buses and for SkyTrain(Vancouver's automated light rapid transit
system). The service area is divided into three zones with North Vancouver and Vancouver
being in different zones. Hence, a SeaBus trip is a two-zone trip, the regular fare for which is
$2.25 for an adult. A fare is valid for 90 minutes from the time of purchase.
The system currently has a maximum capacity of 400 persons using only two ferries. Crossing
time is about 12 minutes with departures from each end at 15 minutes intervals. Two ferries
provide service from about 6:00 am to about 18.30 p.m. Between 18:30 p.m. and 12:20 am only
one ferry operates. On-time departures have exceeded 99 percent of scheduled times. The ferries
are double-ended aluminum catamarans with equal speed and maneuverability in each direction.
They are 112' long, 41' wide and are powered by four 12V-71 NA Detroit Diesels. Each has a
crew of four and a service speed of 13.5 knots.
The system is designed to accommodate eight ferries. Two SeaBus ferries carry the equivalent of
one lane of bridge traffic across Burrard Inlet at the current average vehicle occupancy rate. Peak
ridership occurs in the summer with the record for one day tieing over 28,000 boardings. In 1997
boardings were just over 5,000,000. During a time of rehabilitation work on the Ironworkers
?Memorial Second Narrows Bridge, SeaBus increased passenger counts by 35 to 40 percent,
providing a valuable alternative to many new riders who usually travel by car.
21
The tidal range in Vancouver is large. The passenger terminals float in order to automatically
compensate for the approximate 18-foot tide amplitude. To minimize harbor speed for a specific
capacity,turnaround time was minimized by adopting a flow-through loadirig/unloading
technique. For every one minute delay in the terminal, an additional two knots of speed is
required in transit to make up this loss. The total ferry passenger space was designed to form six
equal rectangular areas serviced by wide(5'-6")doors at either end. A ferry can be off-loaded
and re-loaded with 400 passengers in as little as 90 seconds. Maintenance and overhaul berths
were supplied separately and are immediately adjacent to the passenger terminal on the North
Shore. These same berths are used for nightly(2:00 am to 6.00 am)cleaning, refueling,
removing sewage and used oil, and pumping bilges.
About 60 percent of all SeaBus riders are transfers from other transit modes. Of all riders from
the North Shore to Vancouver waterfront station, 55 percent transfer to the SkyTrain, which has
20 stations distributed over a 28 kilometer line between the Waterfront Station and the King
George Station in suburban Surrey.
Riders and management perceive the system as being very successful. Sea$us management
attributes the success of the system to: (a) schedule reliability; (b) rapid crossing time; and.
(c)convenient and abundant public transit connections at each end.
22
REFERENCES
Case, John , Maritime Industries, 1980. The Sea-Bus Story, Vancouver.
China Bureau, 1997. Back to the Future: The Handover of Hong Kong, The Star Ferry,
District Marine Office, 1998. Procedures for Licensing of Local Vessels.
Government Report, March 17, 1998. .Government Approves New Franchise for"Star" Ferry.
Transport Bureau, 1998. Provisional Legislative Council Panel on Transport Future of
Waterborne Transport.
Government of New South Wales. 1996/97 State Transit Annual Report, State Transit Authority
of New South Wales.
Government of New South Wales, Section 80, Shipping and Pc;rt Control (Hong Kong-China
and Macau Ferry Terminals) Regulations.
Government of New South Wales, Section 35, Merchant Shipping(Launches and Ferry Vessels)
Regulations.
Government of New South Wales, 1998. Sydney Ferries Network
Fenko NT .D. Lea, 1972. Feasibility Study of Ferry Mass Transit, Vancouver
Larry Miller/BC Transit, 1984. Vancouver Sea Bus System: The Appropriate Technology
For an Integrated Transit Network
On the Go Traffic Update, City of Sydney, August 1998
SydneyPass, Sydney Buses Ticket Options, 1998.
23
"Awl s
yt
I05
J
3 �
$t l
„q t
?4
l
}
i
yi..''.
Y�.
Z�
APPENDIX C
HISTORY OF FERRIES ON THE BAY
This Appendix outlines the proud history of ferries on San Francisco Bay. It
demonstrates that the development of a world class water transit system for the
San Francisco Bay region is not only achievable,but has been done before.
Bay Area ferry services have played a lung and historic role in the development of the region, at
one time constituting the greatest water transit system in the world. From the gold Rush until
the completion of the Bay and Golden Gate bridges, ferries provided the only transportation
across the Bay.
The first recorded ferry system on the Bay was established in 1850,the year California entered
the Union, when the Kangaroo entered service on a route between San Francisco and the
Oakland Estuary. In 1852 Oakland granted the first Bay ferry franchise to a"reliable"maritime
operator. By the late 1800s, 22 passenger crass-bay ferry companies were in operation, and
another five companies carried only automobiles. The ferries served approximately 30
destinations, approximately half of them on the San Francisco--Oakland corridor( Figure C-1).
Most ferry lines were established and operated by railroads seeking means to extend their service
across the Bay. Consolidation teak its toll and by the early 1930s only 10 passenger operators
remained. The Southern Pacific Company was by far the largest operator,with 22 vessels in full
time service in 1935. The Key System and Northwestern Pacific Railroad held second and third
place. In 1921, these three operators carried 27 million, 15 million, and 7 million passengers
respectively.
Most vessels were large and stately. The Northwestern Pacific's Eureka had seating for 2300
and standing room for a further 1000. All of Southern Pacific's major vessels had seating
capacity of greater than 1,000; the Golden Bear could seat 2,200.
By today's standards, the ferries were slow. Vessels were powered by steam until the early
1920s when diesel engines began to appear. Even in the 1930s, the longest route between
Vallejo and San Francisco, a 30-mile run, took I hour 45 minutes, at an average speed of 15
knots. On the more popular routes, however, service was frequent. The Richmond--San Rafael
ferries ran 30 minutes apart when two boats were running, 20 minutes apart when three were in
service.
"The trip on all ferry lines was of sufficient duration between Oakland, Alameda,
Sausalito and San Francisco to permit consumption of a substantial meal.
Service, by and large, was fast and courteous and the quality of the food
exceptionally high, considering the handicap of space in which it was prepared."
(San Francisco .Ferry Boats, George Harlan, 1967.)
s
.,,.
Terminals
The existing Bay Area ferry terminals are summarized in Table D-2. The table indicates that the
berthing capacity in the Bay is very limited, with 14 berths currently in use. Additional berthing
capacity is essential if the system is to expand.
Internodal connections are a key to the success of any water transit system. The transit
connections available at the San Francisco Ferry Terminal and Fisherman3s Wharf are limited to
the following:
• Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf San Francisco Muni ##32
• Pier 43 %a San Francisca Muni #32
• Ferry Terminal San Francisco Muni#82X
Golden Gate Free Shuttle As 67, 69
BART Embarcadero
Transbay Bus Terminal 5 blocks at Mission Street
Routes and Service
The ferry passenger operational and landside/intermodal information for existing routes is
summarized in Tables D-3 and D-4.
Comparison of the daily boarding records for the ferry routes between Sausalito to San Francisco,
and Larkspur to San Francisco gives an indication of ridership patterns on an under-utilized
service (Sausalito) and an over-subscribed service (Larkspur). Since the introduction of the high-
speed catamaran lel Norte on the Larkspur route, AM peak trips on the catamaran are often full
(325 passengers), indicating a substantial market for a waterborne service operating at much
higher speeds than conventional ferries, and thereby effectively competing with highway travel
times. Demand on the Larkspur route increased significantly with the introduction of the Del
Norte which reduced the trip travel time by 15 minutes, from 45 to 30 minutes. The response to
the introduction of the high-speed vessels on both the Larkspur and Vallejo services indicating
the importance commuters place on transit time.
Daily boarding records were obtained from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District for fiscal year 1998 (July 1997 through June 1998.) Low boarding figures for weeks
with holidays were not included. Corresponding data from other ferry operators were not
available.
The Sausalito to San Francisco morning trips and PM peak hour trips are described in Tables D-5
and D-6. The tables show the service is under-utilized with none of the morning and only one of
the evening trips from San Francisco to Sausalito approaching the seating capacity of the ferry.
The Sausalito ferry has a total capacity of 575 people, 388 of them seated indoors. Table D-6
shows that there is only a very limited demand for morning travel from San Francisco to
Sausalito.
If
The Larkspur to San Francisco morning service is summarized in Table D-7 and the return
evening service in Table D-8. The data were collected when three 725-seat Spaulding-class
monchulls provided 45-minute service from Larkspur to San Francisco (532 seats available
indoors). Published data reflecting the recent addition of the high-speed catamaran Del Norte is
not yet available. Table D-7 and D-8 show that ridership approached the total seating capacity of
the ferries even with a 45-minute trip time. The tables also demonstrate why the 325-seat high-
speed catamaran is over-subscribed during AM peak trips.
The Larkspur service primarily serves commuters traveling to San Francisco with very little
demand for morning service from San Francisco to Larkspur. Approximately 91 percent of
Larkspur service-travel is in the peak direction. During off-peak hours,particularly in summer
months, the route also serves tourists.
REFERENCES
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. San Francisco Bay Area 199811999 Regional Ferry
Plan Update, Section 2: Implementation of 1992 Regional Ferry Plan Recommendations.
Prepared by Public Transit Management Corporation.
12
Table D-2
Existing Terminals
Fe .Ferg Terminal Description
San Francisco Original Ferry Terminal from 1900s,currently four berths with planned
Ferry Terminal expansion to six. Terminal includes ticketing facilities, limited passenger
waiting areas and restrooms.
Pier 39 Two berths. Access to Pier 39 commercial amenities.
Pier 43 ;/3 Two berths. Access to Historic Fisherman's Wharf. 5,040 parking spaces
i
in the area.
Sausalito Two berths. Adjacent to village center. Two kiss-n-ride drop-offs at
terminal with adjacent parking available for daily parking(240 spaces).
i
9 Tiburon One berth. Adjacent to Main Street and commercial establishments. j
Parking (250 spaces) is available at three parking lots along Main Street.
4
7
Larkspur Four berths, two for passengers. Terminal includes ticketing facilities,
passenger waiting areas, restrooms, bicycle lockers, surface parking lot
(1,366 spaces),on-street parking(21 spaces) and bus bays. j
Vallejo One berth. Adjacent terminal building contains ticketing facilities,
restaurant, retail, and convention and visitors bureau. Parking(674 spaces)
and bus bays on site.
Richmond One berth. Parking (250 spaces)and transit connections available (will
begin operation 6/99).
i
Oakland One berth. Adjacent to Jack London Square. Parking(1,000 spaces at
Jack London Square Washington Street Park)and transit connections are available.
Alameda One berth. Lighted shelter, restrooms, bicycle lockers, parking (350 spaces)
and bus bays on site.
Harbor Bay Isle One berth. Adjacent to Harbor Bay Business Park and a few blocks from
the residential development. Glass-sheltered terminal and free parking(250
spaces).
Table D-3
Summary of Existing Operations
Route Operator Schedule Fare Ridership Transit
Time
Alameda/Oakland- City of Alameda . 4 PM Peak Trips • $4.501""a y • 1,300-1,400 15 minutes
SF Ferry Building Port of Oakland . 13-15 Daily RTs . $9.00 RTDaily Alameda
Fisherman's Wharf Blue&Gold . S0.75 per mile . 540 PM Peak
+ $35 for 10 tickets;$60 for 25 minutes
20;$115 for monthly pass Oakland
Harbor Bay Isle- Harbor Bay Maritime • 3 PM Peak Trips • $4.50 1-way • 300.400 Daily 25 minutes
SF Ferry Building City of Alameda . 6 Daily RTs • $9,00 RT • 180 PM Peak
+ Special Harbor Bay- + $0.56 per mile
3Com Park service on . S35 for 10 tickets;S60 for -
game days 20;$99 for monthly pass
Golden Gate W.dge,
Larkspur- Hwy.&Transp. + 6 PM Peak Trips . $2.75]-way Weekday • 4,200-4,400 30 minutes on
SF Ferry Building District(GGBHTD) . 20 Daily RTs • $5.50 RT Weekday Daily high-speed
• 5 Weekend RTs •
50.23/milt Weekday + 1,800 PM Peak vessel
. $44 for 20 tickets 45 minutes on
+ S4.25 I-way Weekend older vessels
+ $8.50 RT Weekend
• S.39/mile Weekend
Sausalito- Golden Gate Bridge, . 2 PM Peak Trips • $4.705 I-way
SF Ferry Building Hwy.&Trans • 1,400-1,500 30 minutes
P 9 Daily RTs + $9.40 RT Daily '
District(GGBHTD) . 6 Weekend RTs . $0.78 per mile • 490 PM Peak 1
. $32 for 20 tickets
Tiburon- Blue&Gold • 4 PM Peak Trips . $5.50 i
SF Ferry Building + I-way 100 Daily 25 minutes
-13 Daily RTs • 5.91 per mile d55 0 PM Peak g r
Fisherman's Wharf • 6 Weekend RFs • $63 for 20 tickets E
w/Sausalito in
itinerary
5 Vallejo- City of Vallejo • 3 PM Peak Trips . $7.50]-way 1,800-2,000 53 minutes
SF Ferry Building Blue&Gold .
1 I Daily RTs . $10.00 RT Daily
• S.22 per mile • 740 PM Peak I
+ 560 for 10 tickets;5140
for monthly pass
Richomond- Red and White Fleet
SF Pier 43'/, 2 AM Trips • 55.00 1-way Adult • Will Start 61/99 35 minutes
+ 2 PM Trips + S 2.50 I-way Child
• 1 AM/PM Weekend • 590 for 20 tickets
r
Source:Dames&Moore Group
................._.......--
_...................................................................._...............................................---
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
._..... ............................. ......... ......... ......... .._........-_
.... ......... ......... .......... ........ ......... ..........
..............................................................................................
Table D-4
Landsidefintermodal Characteristics of Existing Roues
Route Transit Landside Characteristics Terminal Characteristics
Connections
Alameda Oakland— AC Transit As 58,59/59A, Jack London Square is a destination with Canopied walkway leads to loading platform.
SF Ferry Building E T325, restaurants,small shops,entertainment,and Passenger'improvements underway at Oakland
Fisherman's Wharf Ef office. The Alameda terminal is situated between including shelter and info kiosk.
i US NAS and Alameda Gateway site. Lighted f
shelter,bicycle lockers; free parking.
Harbor Bay We— AC Transit,4 49/49M,63 Bus transit stops at ferry terminal; some Glass shelter and ADA-accessible floating adjacent i
SF Ferry Building t residential neighborhoods are within walking to parking lot.
distance of terminal;free parking, Terminal is
adjacent to Harbor Bay Business Park.
l
7 Larkspur— GGT As 1,13,15,19,25, Frequent congestion on East Sir Francis Drake On-shore ticket collection and wide gangways. A
SF Ferry Building 28,29,30,31,37,41,51, Blvd.;2:50-3:50 p.m.vehicles queue at terminal 4th berth has been developed.
70,71 exiT. Sidewalks and bicycle paths provide
access to terminal. Possible use of abandoned
Northwestern Pacific Railway ROW for rail or
bus transit service to terminal.
Sausalito— GGT As 2,3,5,8,10,20, Kiss&Ride Drop-Off,570/day parking;Golden New gangway and ADA-accessible float. New
SF Ferry Building 50 Gate Transit located 1 block away. fixed dock and passenger waiting plaza to be
completed in fail,1998
Tabu on— GGT As 8,9,10,11 Tiburon Blvd.is primary access;no dedicated Nearby Guaymas Restaurant has awning shutter that
SF Ferry Building terminal parking. provides weather protection. Proposed
Fisherman's Wharf improvements shall not obstruct view of Bay.
Vallejo— Benicia Transit,Napa No congestion during peak periods;Short walk Terminal relocation to a down channel location
SF Ferry Building Valley Transit,Vallejo from downtown Vallejo;long walk to reach would reduce ferry travel time by 7 minutes.
Transit As 7,7,80,85 existing Marin and York Street downtown transit
center;express bus rinks to ferry terminal.
Richmond— AC 474 Easy highway access. 250+parking spaces. AC ADA accessible. No passenger shelter.
SF Pier 43'J: Transit connectins at terminal
Stara: 6/99
Table D-5
Sausalito and San Francisco AM Trips
Time/Lv From Capacity Ave. Boardings High Boardings Low Boardings
Seats/Total
7:05 Sausalito 388 /575 114 161 89
7:40 San Fran 388 /575 8 40 3
8:15 Sausalito 388 / 575 119 167 64
Table D-6
Sausalito and San Francisco PM Trips
Time l Lv From Capacity Ave. Boardings High Boardings Law Boardings i
Seats/Total
i
4:10 San Fran. 388 /575 69
159 25
4:45 Sausalito 388 /575 91 275 4
5:30 San Fran i 388/ 575 166 306 58
6:05 Sausalito 388 /575 40 162 13
i
6:40 San Fran 388 /575 103 231 83 ,
i
E
lito 388 /575 30 108 6..ran 388/575 54 97 35
_........_
...............
......................
. ......................................................................................................................................................................................_..._._. ..
....._..... ......... .....__ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....
.._.__...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Table D-7
Larkspur and San Francisca AM Trips
P6:00
e/Lv From Capacity Ave. Boardings High Boardings Low Boardings
Seats/Total
Larkspur 532/725 160 375 35
6:50 San Fran 532 /725 12 28 0
7:00 Larkspur 532 /725 352 681 65
7:30 Larkspur 532/725 299 494 0
7:50 San Fran 532/725 14 30 1 `
_
8:00 Larkspur 532/725 275 670 54
8:40 Larkspur 532 /725 160 290 75
g 8:50 San Fran 5321725 13 54 3
Table 17-8
Larkspur and San Francisco PM Trips
Time/Lv From j Capacity Ave. Boardings High Boardings Low Boardings
Seats/Total
3:35 San Fran 5321725 121 355 64 E
3:45 Larkspur 532/725 40 166 4
i
4:15 Sari Fran 532 /725 194 378 95 I
4:25 Larkspur 532/725 28 11 l 6
4:50 San Fran 532 /725 226 465 97
_
5:05 Larkspur 532/725 38 98 11
5:20 San Fran 532/725 403 702
5:40 Larkspur 532 /725 31 172 10
_
6:00 San Fran 532 /725 360 576 101 '
6:45 San Fran 532 /725 206 334 63
' 7:35 Larkspur 532/725 16 145 1
8:25 San Fran 388 /575 113 198 27
APPENDIX E-I
ENVIRONMENTAL,ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
This Appendix presents a discussion of the environmental issues that must be addressed and
resolved in order to expand water transit on the Sara.Francisco Bay. This discussion was judged
to be complete, and adopted by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on September 28, 1998.
INTRODUCTION
Protection of the ecological integrity and natural majesty of San Francisco Bay is a key prevision
of the Bay Area hater Transit Initiative. The means to achieve this objective is through
integration of economic vitality and environmental quality. Hence,careful and in-depth
consideration of environmental issues and opportunities will be a key to the success of the Action
Plan.
This Appendix presents an overview of the potential environmental issues that need to be
considered during development and/or implementation of the Action Plan. The issues are further
evaluated in the Conceptual Design and Analysis portion of the main document.
It is convenient to separate environmental issues into two categories. (1) landside issues, and(2)
waterside issues. This breakdown approximately reflects the,jurisdiction of agencies with
responsibilities for landside developments and for permitting waterside operations. Landside
environmental issues must be considered during land-based infrastructure developments such as
terminals and intermodal connections. Waterside issues are those associated with the vessels
themselves such as wake, emissions, and potential impacts on wildlife.
The list of landside and waterside environmental issues and opportunities that need to be
considered during development of the water transit system was identified during interviews with
agencies,organizations and environmental groups, literature searches and reviews of existing
ferry systems. Personnel from organizations including the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission(BCDC), the San Francisco Estuary Project, Save San Francisco Bay
Association, and Paint Reyes Bird Observatory(PRBO)were interviewed during the process.
The potential environmental issues and opportunities are discussed in general terms in this
appendix, which was adopted by the Task Force on September 28, 1998. Appendix E-2 presents
a complete inventory of environmental issues, specific to each site considered by the Task Force.
I
POTENTIAL LANDSIDE ISSUES
A screening level list of potential landside environmental issues was developed in discussion
with regulatory agencies and by considering the public review process for landside developments
as codified in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). A large number of
environmental factors can trigger the CEQA process but not all are applicable to landside
development activities for water transit projects. Cance an activity has been determined to be a
`project' and a lead agency has been identified, it is usual that a finding of `potential significant
effect' on the environment will invoke CEQA. A positive answer to any of the key questions
(non-inclusive)grouped under the following 12 factors is likely to invoke CEQA:
+ land use and planning
-will the project cause change in land use designation or zoning as in a general plan?
- is the project incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
-will the project disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community?. .
+ population and housing
-will the project induce substantial growth in area directly or indirectly?
-will the project cause growth which exceeds regional or local population projections?
♦ geologic problems
-will the project expose people to impacts from fault rupture or seismic ground failure?
will the project expose people to floods or storm surge?
+ water
-will the project expose people or property to a water related hazard?
+ air quality
-will the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
+ transportation/circulation
-will the project result in increased trips or congestion?
-will the project result in inadequate emergency access or insufficient parking capacity?
+ biological resources
-will the project result in impacts to endangered,threatened or rare species or habitat?
-will the project result in impacts to locally designated species or natural communities?
-will the project result in impacts to wetland habitat,or wildlife migration corridors?
+ noise
-will the project result in increased noise levels?
-will the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
2
+ public services
-will the project result in need for new or altered fire, police school or road maintenance
services?
* utilities and service systems
will the project result in need for new or altered power,communication or water
services?
* aesthetics
-will the project affect a scenic vista or highway?
-will the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
+ cultural resources
-will the project result in disturbance of archaeological resources?
-will the project affect historic resources or property greater than 50 years old?
If one or more of the above questions indicates a potential significant impact, an Environmental
Impact Report(EIR)is likely to be required. Many potentially significant impacts can be
mitigated, which leads to an evaluation of Less than Significant Impact. If all potential
significant impacts can bemitigated, an EIR is not required and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Negative Declaration is prepared. In all cases, the lead agency is required to
notify the public of a review period for the environmental documentation.
Construction of new ferry terminals in locations without existing facilities is likely to require
preparation of an EIR with the EIR process being triggered by land use,biological,traffic and
other factors. Expansion or development of existing ports and marinas,where, a) a marine
facility already exists as part of the local government general plan, b)traffic factors are mitigated
by intermodal connections, and c)development is consistent with the ABAG Sustainable
Development Initiative, is expected to be more expedient than development of'greenfields' or
previously undeveloped locations.
POTENTIAL WATERSIDE ISSUES
Existing -studies(Danish Marine Authority, 1997 and Fast Ferry International, 1998), the
experience of the Larkspur ferry system, and agencies such as BCDC and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers with jurisdiction in San Francisco Bay, indicate that key environmental concerns
associated with high-speed ferries, including hovercraft, are:
• shoreline wave and scour impacts,particularly on wetlands
• noise and air emissions
• wildlife impacts
• dredging and fill
• water quality
3
Several of the proposed ferry terminal locations on the Peninsula and East Bay have been
formerly or are currently used as a military installation, commercial port facility or recreational
marina or landing. In these instances, the environmental concerns relative to the development of
the waterside aspect of the ferry terminal are lessened because of historical use.
Wake Impacts
All vessels create waves, or a wake, as they pass through water. If the energy in the wake wave
reaching the shoreline is significantly greater than the natural energy regime, adverse shoreline
impacts are possible. The issue of wake energy is particularly important in San Francisco Bay
due to the presence of sensitive wetlands. Both the Vallejo and Larkspur high-speed ferry
systems currently operating in the Bay Area are subject to wake related speed restrictions in the
channels leading up to the Vallejo and Larkspur terminals.
Waves which are higher than the naturally occurring or ambient wave climate can cause erosion
of wetland perimeters and disruption of sediment movement along the shoreline. Wetlands
usually form in more tranquil areas that experience lower wave and current energy than the rest
of San.Francisco Bay. In undisturbed environments, tidal mudflats transition smoothly to tidal
marsh and wetlands. Wave action acts at the shoreline leading to resuspension of fine materials,
such as muds and clays,which results in very steep or near-vertical mud faces at the marsh line.
Further wave action will focus energy at the base of the mud slopes and cause under-cutting and
collapse of the wetland perimeter. As well as causing under-cutting of marshes,such wave
activity impedes upon the natural deposition of sediments in wetlands that reduces the suitability
of the fringing tidal mudflats for worm and macroinvertebrate habitat(crabs,clams, shrimps and
amphipods), and hence for the bird populations which feed on them. A description of natural
bayland habitats can be found in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Goals Project
(San Francisco Bay, June, 1998).
The size of the wave generated by a vessel depends on hull volume and shape, and the vessel
speed. In conventional vessels,wake energy increases with hull size and vessel speed. Of the
ferries operating on the Bay,the conventional monohulls such as the older Spaulding-class
Larkspur ferries generate the largest wakes. However,recent advances in hull design have lead
to significant reductions in wake. Long, sleek hulls that `cut' through water rather than `plows
through it have particularly good wake characteristics. Light-weight,high-speed vessels that
`plane' on the water and effectively reduce the size of the hull in water also have improved wake
characteristics. It is indicative that the new high-speed Larkspur catamaran.Del Norte makes the
San Francisco run at 36 knots, 15 knots faster than the older 20 knot monohull ferries, and
actually generates much less wake when it is at speed.
Both advanced hull design and operational controls can be used to reduce wake generation near
sensitive wetlands areas. Operational speed restrictions have been used to reduce the wake
impacts on the Corte Madera Marsh caused by the older Spaulding-class Larkspur ferries.
Generally, advanced hull design is a more attractive option for reducing wake from new ferries
since operations controls increase commute time and reduce the competetiveness of water transit.
4
As part of the environmental analysis,wake energy criteria will be developed against which the
performance of high-speed and other ferries can be measured. Experience in Seattle and Europe
with advanced catamarans shows that it is possible reduce wake impacts to back ground wave
energy levels by specifying the required wake characteristics of vessels. A similar approach will
be used for the Bay Area
Noise and Air Emissions
Noise is a potential issue where frequent ferry traffic approaches residential zones and sensitive
wildlife habitat. Low-frequency noise generated by older diesel engines was found to be the
greatest noise concern in European studies(Fast Ferries International, 1998). Noise is a major
issue for hovercraft,both along water routes and while accelerating up ramps near boarding
facilities.
Most existing and proposed ferry terminals in the Bay Area are not located near residential areas
and residential noise is not expected to be a concern. However, ferry routes are located near
commercial and tourism areas where moderate and excessive noise levels are not desirable. The
noise impacts on wildlife,particularly hovercraft noise impacts on wintering birds and benthic
communities in the South Bay(PRBO), are an issue which will need study on specific'routes.
Design technology and operational controls can effectively reduce noise from conventional
ferries. Incorporating noise and emission suppression into vessel design does have cost
implications; "environmental efficiency in design adds up to a third of the cost of these ships"
(Fast Ferries, 1998). Other operational controls include carefully controlled start-ups,which also
control air emissions and speed reductions in environmentally sensitive areas. Some reduction in
hovercraft noise has been achieved through the use of advanced design and materials. However,
the noise footprint along potential hovercraft routes will need detailed evaluation.
Air emissions need to be considered from both the actual emission and alternative transportation
perspectives. Air emissions from diesel engines can also be controlled using both technology
and operational controls. Engine start-ups need to be carefully controlled and alternative fuels
missions considered. Gas turbines,which can be used on longer routes, are generally cleaner
than diesels but are more expensive and have higher maintenance requirements. The Spaulding-
class Larkspur ferries initially used gas-turbine engines. The engines were converted to diesels
due to poor slow-speed performance of the gas-turbine engines while moving along the Corte
Madera channel, and high maintenance costs.
Alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG)may soon become practical for use on
smaller vessels such as water taxis since smaller vessel will not need to store large volume of the
gas onboard. For CNG to be a practical consideration for large vessels, the issue of safe storage
of CNG on vessels will need to be resolved. Development of light-weigh, advanced polymer
tanks may be one solution.
5
Taking the macro viewpoint of air emissions from water transit vehicles, it is apparent that a
modern water transit vessel carrying 300 to 400 people will generate less net air emissions than
those same 300 to 400 people starting their automobiles and individually travelling in congested
peak hour traffic. A comparison to substantiate this assertion will be made.
Wildlife impacts
Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO)personnel assisted with identification of potential
environmental impacts of ferry traffic on wildlife and with identification of data sources.
Sensitive foraging and breeding habitats for residential and migratory birds, including eelgrass
beds,have been identified. Staff from Point Reyes National Seashore assisted PRBO staff
regarding mammal related issues.
The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Goals Project(San Francisco Bay, June; 1998),
the Sari Francisco Estuary Project and SF Estuary Institute's Bay Area EcoAtlas, and studies by
California Fish&Game/Fish&Wildlife are key sources of data on wildlife in San Francisco
Bay. In addition,U.S.Fish and Wildlife have completed winter waterfowl studies including
flying transects and PRBO has studied shorebirds and completed census work.
A preliminary,non-inclusive, list of bird species which need further consideration in reference to
specific routes has been developed including; Caspian terns(Brooks Island), Least terns,
phalaropes (salt ponds), and breeding colonies such as cormorants on Alcatraz and rails(Black
and Clapper) in Sonoma and other marshes. Though wintering ducks seem fairly tolerant of boat
traffic,the effect on these water fowl has to be assessed and minimized,or avoided. Their prune
winter foraging and resting areas also need to be identified.
South Bay and North Bay locations are affected to a greater degree by the presence of sensitive
shorelines and wildlife. The South Bay is the major winter feeding ground of the Pacific flyway,
one of the most important winter feeding grounds in North America. Therefore, future
development of ferry terminals in the South Bay will be subject to extensive environmental
review. In the North Bay, several ferry terminal locations are proposed to be located on rivers or
sloughs, such as Port Sonoma on the Petaluma River and Suisan City on the Suisun Slough. In
these instances the effects on wildlife areas and the dredging of channels would require detailed
analysis.
Harbor seals are present in San Francisco Bay and haul-out areas in particular and will need
consideration(Allen, 1991). harbor seals are the specialty of staff at Point Reyes National
Seashore (PRNS). PRNS staff indicated they are a consultant to Caltrans on the Bay Bridge
Replacement Project investigating impacts of pile driving on harbor seals. Other pinnipeds (fin-
footed mammals)such as the sea lions on Pier 39 are not an issue, nor are harbor porpoises
(intermittent) or sea otters (rare).
6
Dredging
Dredging, dredge material disposal, and fill in San Francisco Bay are potentially contentious
environmental issues. A variety of agencies including the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE), BCDC and State Water Resources Control Board have jurisdiction in this
area. These agencies have joined together to establish a comprehensive Long-Term Management
Strategy(LTM., S) for Bay Area dredged materials. BCDC is in the process of amending dredging
and fill policy as outlined in the BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan.
Some ferry terminal projects may experience less severe dredging and fill constraints if the
projects achieve other policy objectives. BCDC reported that the Association of Bay Area
Governments(ABAG),the local Air Resources Board,MTC, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board have formed a Sustainable Development Initiative to address the issue of
sustainable growth in the Bay Area. This initiative has identified high-density transit node
development as one mechanism to achieve sustainable development. Thus,while in general
terms dredging for projects other than channel maintenance purposes would face opposition from
regulatory and environmental groups, if a ferry terminal project can demonstrate a net benefit to
the Bay Area and can facilitate transit node development, BCDC may pen-nit limited dredging or
fill.
REFERENCES
Allen, S.G., March 1991. Harbor Seal Habitat Restoration at Strawberry Spit, San Francisco
Bay. Marine Mammal Commission and Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Danish Maritime Authority, January 1997. Report on the Impact of High-Speed Ferries on the
External Environment.
Fast Ferry International, April 1998. Proceedings of the 14th Fast Ferry International
Conference, Copenhagen.
-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994. National Ocean Service Coast and
Geodetic Survey.
Page, G.W.,W.D. Shuford,J.E. Kjelmyr and L.E. Stenzel,November 1992. Shorebird Numbers
in the Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway: A summary of Counts from April 1988 to January 1992.
Point Reyes Bird Observatory.
San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Project, June 1998. San Francisco Estuary
Baylands Ecosystem Goals, Draft for Public Review. June 26, 1998.
7
5
� '.
S .. -
A
a
3 —
5 ..
APPENDIX E-2
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE EVALUATION
This Appendix presents a general and environmental description of potential terminal
sites on the San Francisco Bay.
A. EXISTING SITES
Existing sites are described., in the event that an expansion of service at these sites is
deemed desirable and feasible.
Terminal: Alameda
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery.
County& Location: Alameda County. The Alameda/Oakland ferry service is
located within the Oakland Inner Harbor. The Alameda
ferry terminal, at 2990 Main St., is approximately 0.5 miles
from the Oakland terminal.
Intermodal Transit: There are dedicated bus lines to the ferry terminal as well
as a free, adjacent parking lot. AC Transit or MUM bus
transfers are included with the purchase of a ferry ticket.
Additional connections are needed.
Route & Operators: The ferry provides service to both the San Francisco Ferry
Building(Pier l) and Pier 39. The Alameda/Oakland ferry
service is operated by the Blue&Geld Fleet. Typically,
one mile of the inner harbor channel is wake-restricted, and
the total trip time to San Francisco is 20 minutes.
Curtrent&Future Plans have been developed for the Alameda Naval Air
Land Use Station(NAS) which include a mix of uses, building on the
former industrial nature of the site. The redevelopment of
the NAS under the NAS Alameda Community Reuse flan,
including over 500 units of housing, may increase the
ridership at this ferry terminal. Additional potential
development may be planned in this vicinity, but further
information is required.
I
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: The inner harbor channel is dredged to a depth of 34 feet,
and any wake restrictions are due to shipping activity in
channel.
Environment&Habitats: Currently, there are no critical environmental issues at this
ferry terminal site. There are no refuges,wetlands, or
endangered species habitat immediately adjacent to this
site. Although, there are eelgrass beds at Alameda Point
which may, in the future, be candidates for restoration
activity.
Terminal: Alameda PoinVNAS
City: Alameda
Function: Recreation
County&Location: Alameda County. The ferry terminal site at Alameda Point
is located within an old seaplane lagoon at the end of
Avenue N, in Alameda. This site is on the southern side of
the island of Alameda.
Intermodal Transit: MUNI transit bus routes available close to Pier 43.5 (point
of origin). MUNI, BART, light rail, and Amtrak at San
Francisco Ferry Building(point of origin).
Route &Operators: The Red& White Fleet has recently started ferry service
between Pier 43.5 and the San Francisco Ferry Building to
the site of the USS Hornet(aircraft carrier museum) at
Alameda Point. During the winter months, the service runs
on the weekends,but is then run daily from the spring
through the fall. The ferry ticket sold covers roundtrip
transit and also includes the museum admission fee. The
ferry landing is a simple, 110-foot long barge.
Current & Future The former Alameda Naval Air Station has been closed
Land Use under BRAC. The Reuse Plan calls for retaining a major
environmental habitat on the site of former landing strips.
In addition, other portions of the site would be redeveloped
as light industrial, housing(1,513 family units on site),
commercial and recreational uses typical of a mixed use
2
. . - .. ...
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
neighborhood. Some new industrial users are already
occupying hangers and buildings on the site. The former
seaplane lagoon is envisioned to be a significant amenity
with mixed use adjacent. The Base Reuse Advisory Croup
(BRAC)was established by the Alameda City Council to
facilitate community involvement and input throughout the
interim and long-term planning process for the NAS.
Joint Development Joint development potential at this site is potentially
Potential: moderate. The final improved terminal location would
have an impact on these opportunities. If located on the
point corresponding to the USS Hornet site, adjacent
development opportunities are very limited. If located in
the center of the lagoon nearest to the center of gravity of
future development, opportunities may be greater. The
terminal itself might be incorporated into some new
landside development. In addition, the presence of the
terminal activity may have a positive effect on other
adjacent future development.
Channel Depth: The seaplane lagoon was dredged every three years to an
average depth of 18 feet. Recently, silt has accumulated in
this area.
Environment &Habitats: There is a wildlife refuge adjacent, approximately 0.5 miles
northwest of the ferry terminal site. The proximity of the
refuge may limit the amount of traffic to the terminal site,
or necessitate the creation of buffer zones to address wake-
wash issues. Eelgrass habitat has been inventoried in the
surrounding areas. In addition, the environs of this site
have been identified for improvement/protection in the San
Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project
(Coals Project). Sediments in the lagoon are contaminated.
Dredging could circulate contaminants, malting them more
bioavailable. The seaplane logoon is a foraging habitat for
the California Least Tern. Night lighting may be
unacceptable for the Tern, in which case night usage may
be constrained. A night-time alternative could be a shuttle
bus to and from the Alameda terminal.
Terminal: Angel island
City: Tiburon
3
and the West end of Alameda), and a free, adjacent parking
lot with 250 spaces. AC Transit or MUNI bus transfers are
included with the purchase of a ferry ticket.
Route& Operators: The Harbor Bay Isle ferry service is operated by Harbor
Bay Maritime. The total trip time to the San Francisco
.Ferry.Building is approximately 30 minutes. A private
development firm commenced service to Bay Farm Isle to
mitigate for traffic concerns following the establishment of
a business park in the area.
Current&Future Ridership is expected to increase, as employment
Land Use: opportunities in the area increase, and after the completion
of the cross-airport roadway(to the Oakland International
Airport).
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: The average channel depth is 14, and while some silting has
occurred, there are currently no plans for dredging at this
site.
Environment&Habitats: The Harbor Bay terminal site does encompass sensitive
eelgrass habitat. An extensive, 3-year monitoring program
was commenced to determine eelgrass and brine shrimp
density. The result of this monitoring effort determined the
ferry service has no significant impact on this habitat,but
there are ongoing speed restrictions to mitigate for wake-
wash effects. There are also noise abatement policies at
this site.
Terminal: Jack London Square
City: Oakland
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
County& Location: The Alameda/Oakland ferry terminal is located within the
Oakland Inner Harbor. The Oakland ferry terminal is
adjacent to Jack London Square, at the foot of Clay St(at
Embarcadero). The Oakland and Alameda ferry terminals
are situated approximately 0.5 miles apart, on either side of
the Inner Harbor.
6
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Intermodal Transit: There are dedicated bus lines to the ferry terminal as well
as a free, validated parking at the Washington Street
garage. AC Transit or MUNI bus transfers are included
with the purchase of a ferry ticket.
Route & Operators: The Alameda/Oakland ferry service is operated by the Blue
& Gold Fleet. The ferry provides service to both the San
Francisco Ferry Building(Pier 1) and Pier 39. Typically,
one mile of the channel is wake-restricted, and the total trip
time to San Francisco is 24 minutes. The lack of direct
service(stop in Alameda) between Oakland and San
Francisco may limit Oakland residents' use of the ferry
service.
Current & Future The potential terminal site is adjacent to the Port of
Land Use: Oakland Headquarters, at the northern end of the Jack
London Square commercial district. The area.includes
hotels, small scale office uses, shop space, restaurants, a 9
screen cinema„ a jazz club, surface parking lots, and
structured parking. The level of pedestrian activity
increased markedly within the last five years following
introduction of the cinema and jazz club. Expansion of the
cinema is proposed,which will likely require additions to
the parking supply. The area is one of the most significant
retail entertainment locations along the east bay shore.
Joint Development Joint development potential at this location is high, given
Potential: the attractiveness of the environment and this terminal's
potential role as a major origin, a light destination, and
recreational use. There is additional potential to incorporate
terminal facilities including passenger amenities and
retail/services into existing or future commercial
development within the area. However, it will be important
to develop weather protected access between the waiting
area and the water's edge. There is also potential for
development of higher density uses adjacent to the
terminal, as an expansion of the existing commercial node.
Channel Depth: The inner harbor channel is dredged to a depth of 34 feet,
and any wake restrictions are due to shipping activity in
channel.
Environment &Habitats: There are no critical environmental issues at this ferry
terminal site. There are no refuges, wetlands, or
7
endangered species habitat immediately adjacent to this
site.
Terminal: Larkspur
City: Larkspur
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
County& Location: Marin County at Larkspur Landing.
Feeder Services: Up to 13 bus routes service the ferry terminal. Sir Francis
Drake Boulevard is the primary conduit to the ferry
terminal. There is an adjacent parking lot,with 1,366 free
spaces, 21 on-street parking spaces.
Route& Operators: The ferry service is operated by Golden Gate Transit, and
connects Larkspur to the San Francisco Ferry terminal. The
total trip length is approximately 12 miles, but two full
miles are traveled within wake-restricted Corte Madera
Channel. A new vessel has been added to the Golden Gate
Ferry's fleet, which has reduced the total travel time from
45 minutes to 30 minutes.
Current& Future The Larkspur terminal is surrounded by parking, housing,
Land Use: retail and office uses. Most of these are located across Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard. No significant additional
development in the vicinity of the site is understood to be
anticipated at this time.
Joint Development Joint development at this location is probably limited due
Potential: to the current terminal build-out and the generally anti-
development stance of the local communities. If the site
were reconfigured, land uses might be intensified and joint
development opportunities might result. However, as
noted, local policy tends to discourage this. Additional
terminal retail/services may be possible.
Channel Depth: Average channel depth is 14 feet. Dredging is performed
every 6 years, with dredging rotated between the berths and
the channels every 3 years.
Environment& Habitats: Wake-wash is a concern, due to the valuable wetland
habitat adjacent to the Corte Madera Channel. The Corte
S
_.
.................. _.. - _.._._.........
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................. .. ......_. ........ ..._ _ _._... ......................................................... .........
- Clean-up procedures. (for example,no debris should remain on site fallowing a
fire,windstorm, earthquake,demolition or other building works;where public
access is provided, equipment, tools and materials stored.
- Means of Egress
- Security and forced entry procedures
Fire protection equipment
Signage
Contingency Manual for Emergencies
A contingency manual for times of emergency is recommended for water transit
terminals. These contingency measures can be separate or be a part of general operating
procedures for the system. At a minumum, contingency measures should address the
following.
- Public evacuation procedures
- Precaution procedures for securing buildings and equipment during emergencies
Rules and regulations should be adopted by all terminal operators to further ensure
protection of health, life and safety.
Coast Guard Requirements for Terminal Security
As described above,the Coast Guard rule for the security of passenger vessels and
passenger terminals (33 CFR Parts 120 and 128)was implemented to deter,or mitigate
the results of,terrorism and other unlawful acts against passenger vessels and passenger
terminals. The rule requires that all passenger terminals covered by the rule to submit
plans to ensure that terminals are prepared to handle terrorist threats or actions.
The following sections include excerpts from the Federal Regulations which relate to the
requirements of the Terminal Security Program and Terminal Security Officer.
Terminal Security Plan(Sec. 20,303)A-
(a)You must submit a Terminal Security Plan whenever:
(1)There is an agreement with the owner or operator of a terminal that you will submit
the Plan;
(2)You have exclusive use of the pier and terminal building immediately adjacent to
the pier and have complete control of that area;
(3)There is no terminal; or
(4) Passengers embark or disembark but no baggage or stores are loaded or offloaded.
(b) In the situations described in paragraphs(a)(3)and(4)of this section,you may,with
the permission of the cognizant COTP,use an annex to the vessel's security plan instead
of a Terminal Security Plan.
(c)The owner or operator of a terminal must submit a Terminal Security Plan whenever:
1I
(1)There is an agreement with you that the owner or operator of the terminal will
submit the Plan;
(2)No security agreement exists;or
(3)(i)At least one vessel other than a passenger vessel uses the terminal;
(ii)More than one passenger vessel line uses the terminal; or
(iii)The terminal loads or offloads baggage or stores.
T=inal SpcudlyE n Secs 1 )--.
(a)If this part applies to your passenger terminal,you must implement for that terminal a
program that:
(1)Provides for the safety and security of persons and property in the terminal and
aboard each passenger vessel subject to part 120 of this chapter moored at the terminal,
against unlawful acts;
(2)Prevents or deters the carriage aboard any such vessel moored at the terminal of
any prohibited weapon, incendiary, or explosive on or about any person or within his
or her personal articles or baggage, and the carriage of any prohibited weapon,
incendiary, or explosive in stowed baggage,cargo, or stores;
(3)Prevents or deters unauthorized access to any such vessel and to restricted areas in
the terminal;
(4)Provides appropriate security measures for Security Levels I, II, and III that allow
for increases in security when the Commandant or Captain of the Port(COTP) advises
you that a threat of an unlawful act exists and may affect the terminal, a vessel,or any
person aboard the vessel or terminal;
(5)Designates, by name, a security officer for the terminal;
(6)Provides for the evaluation of all security personnel of the terminal,before hiring,
to determine suitability for employment; and
(7)Provides for coordination with vessel security while any passenger vessel subject
to part 120 of this chapter is moored at the terminal.
(b)If this part applies to your passenger terminal,you must work with the operator of
each passenger vessel subject to part 120 of this chapter,to provide security for the
passengers,the terminal, and the vessel. You need not duplicate any provisions fulfilled
by the vessel unless directed to by the COTP. When a provision is fulfilled by a vessel,
the applicable section of the Terminal Security Plan required by Sec. 128.300 must refer
to that fact.
R e=nsi ili iso-„ the Tgrminal Security Officer(See, 128, 3
(a) If this part applies to your passenger terminal,you must designate a security officer
for the terminal.
(b)This officer must ensure that.
(1)An initial comprehensive security survey is conducted and updated;
(2)The Terminal Security Plan required by Sec. 128.300 is implemented and
maintained, and that amendments to correct its deficiencies and satisfy the security
requirements of the terminal are proposed;
12
(3)Adequate training for personnel responsible for security is provided;
(4)Regular security inspections of the terminal are conducted;
(5)Vigilance is encouraged, as well as is general awareness of security, at the terminal;
(6) All occurrences or suspected occurrences of unlawful acts and related activities are
reported under Sec. 128.220 and records of the incident are maintained; and
(7) Coordination, for implementation of the Terminal Security Plan required by Sec.
128.300,takes place with the vessel security officer of each vessel that embarks or
disembarks passengers
Terminal Security Plan (S=. 128 3001
(a)If your passenger terminal is subject to this part,you must develop and maintain, in
writing, for that terminal, an appropriate Terminal Security Plan that articulates the
program required by Sec. 128.200.
(b)The Terminal Security Plan must be developed and maintained under the guidance in
IMO MSC Circular 443 and must address the security of passengers aboard passenger
vessels subject to part 120 of this chapter,of members of crews of such vessels, and of
employees of the terminal,by establishing security measures to take for Security Levels I,
II, and III,to:
(1)Deter unauthorized access to the terminal and its restricted areas and to any
passenger vessel moored at the terminal;
(2)Deter the introduction of prohibited weapons, incendiaries, and explosives into the
terminal and its restricted areas and onto any passenger vessel moored at the terminal;
(3)Encourage vigilance, as well as general awareness of security, at the terminal;
(4)Provide adequate security training to employees of the terminal;
(5) Coordinate responsibilities for security with the operator of each vessel that
embarks or disembarks passengers at the terminal; and
(6)Provide information to employees of the terminal and to law-enforcement
personnel, in case of an incident affecting security.
(b) You must amend the Terminal Security Plan to address any known deficiencies.
(d)You must restrict the distribution,disclosure, and availability of information
contained in the Terminal Security Plan to those persons with an operational need to
know.
If an =lawful act is observed(Secec 128,220):
(a)Either you or the terminal security officer must report each breach of security,
unlawful act, or threat of an unlawful act against the terminal,a passenger vessel subject
to part 120 of this chapter destined for or moored at that terminal, or any person aboard
the terminal or vessel, to the COTP,to the local office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation(FBI), and to the local police agency having jurisdiction over the terminal.
(b)Either you or the terminal security officer must file a written report of the incident
using the form "Report on an Unlawful Act,"contained in WO MSC Circular 443, as
soon as possible, to the local COTP.
13
Coast Guard Passenger Vessel Safety Regulations
The extent of Coast Guard safety regulations for passenger vessels increase generally
with vessel size and passenger capacity, and as their waters of service increase from
benign to fully exposed. There are three categories of passenger vessel safety regulations.
Subchapter T vessels are under 100 US gross tons and carry 1513 or fewer passengers.
Subchapter K vessels are under 100 US gross tons but carry more than 1.50 passengers.
Subchapter H are all vessels over 100 US gross tons which carry more than 12
passengers. It is anticipated that all of the passenger ferries serving in the Bay Area
Water Transportation System will be either Sub T or Sub K vessels and that most will
operate within the partially protected waters of San Francisco Bay and the protected
waters of its tributaries. `
Certain crew members on passenger vessels are licensed by Coast Guard to perform-V
specific duties. They also specify the job function and required capabilities of many
unlicensed crew members. Mobility, sight and hearing are essential functions for many
licensed and unlicensed crew jobs in order that they can carry out their duties, especially
when providing assistance to passengers in emergencies. It is not expected that there will
be many instances where severely disabled persons will be crew members on passenger
ships; however, the vessel design must anticipate the need to provide reasonable
accommodation for disabled crew members.
The primary Coast Guard passenger vessel safety requirement which is in conflict with
ADA accessibility requirements is the need for high door sills and high opening force
doors to prevent the ingress of water from weather decks and free movement of water
within the vessel. Ramps over high sills can give wheelchair access;however, great care
must be taken so that these ramps do not become hazards to other persons. The operation
of doors,especially those to weather decks can be power assisted.
Another Coast Guard safety requirement for Sub K and Sub H vessels is for areas of safe
refuge where all passengers and crew can be temporarily sheltered from fire and flooding
until they can disembark. There must be a safe route to the refuge from all stair towers
6om the refuge to vessel disembarkation areas. Areas of refuge can include stairwells
and other areas not normally accessible to passengers. These areas can present problems
for persons in wheelchairs and other mobility impairments as well as the sight and
hearing impaired. While disabled persons may be able to gain access to the refuge areas,
they may cause problems because of crowding, an inability to proceed to disembarkation
areas,hear crew instructions or see exit routes. These problems can be solved primarily
through crew training and assistance to passengers.
14
ACCESS
ADA Requirements and Considerations
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)regulations for land-based facilities
are well established, allowing disabled persons the same opportunities for employment
and access to services, accommodations,transportation,commercial facilities as for non-
disabled persons.
Title I of ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with regard to
employment. Title H prohibits discrimination in public services provided by state and
local governments (public sector). Title III prohibits discrimination in public
accommodations and commercial facilities(private sector). Title IV requires telephone
companies make relay services available for hearing and speech impaired persons. Title V
ties the ADA to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
When ADA was passed into law the Justice Department omitted water transportation,
vessels, and access to them at terminals from specific requirements of the law because
passenger vessels present much different design issues than buses and trains. Time was
needed to compile information on the number and types of vessels,the number and types
of docks, and financial impact of compliance on the industry as well as other accessibility
issues unique to water transportation. Land based passenger terminals,up to the point a
person begins to transfer to a vessel, are subject to existing ADA regulations.
Notwithstanding the omission of water transport, is clear that ADA was intended to apply
to all public and private sector services, facilities and transportation including water
transportation. Unfortunately, this has left passenger vessel owners,designers and
builders in the position of having to meet the intent of ADA without knowing exactly
how the law will be interpreted and put into regulation form at some future time.
The Department of Transportation(DOT)is responsible for issuing ADA regulations for
waterborne passenger transportation. This process of writing and issuing the regulations
was stalled while data on passenger vessels and docks was compiled. However,in March
of 1998 the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board determined that
"Sufficient information is now available to develop accessibility guidelines and standards
for passenger vessels" and announced its intent to establish a Passenger Vessel Access
Advisory Committee(Committee). The Committee is made up of organizations which
represent interests affected by accessibility of passenger vessels including vessel owners
and operators, designers and manufacturers of vessels, individuals with disabilities and
others. DOT and the Coast Guard are to work with the Committee which will make
recommendations in a report to be issued 18 months after its first meeting. The first
Committee meeting was held on September 24-25, 1998, so the report should be issued
by February 2000. The second Committee meeting is scheduled for February 4-5, 1999.
After the Committee report is issued additional time will be required to write the
regulations, give notice of proposed rule making,receive and evaluate public comments,
and then publish the final regulations. This means that it will be at least several more
15
d
k;
4 ��v
t y
a,
�.3...
I not!r
1
7
I
APPENDIX I
WATER.TRANSIT AT FORMER MILITARY BASES
This Appendix identifies the Bay Area former military bases, in the Process of being
converted to civilian use, as offering unique opportunities for water transit. It
describes the advantages of developing water access to the bases, linking them by
water to other major economic centers in the region.
The San Francisco Bay Area's former military bases, all of which are in the process of being
converted to civilian use, offer unique opportunities as water transit sites. These bases also have
transportation and access challenges that, if they are to reach their fullest potential for economic
conversion,will most effectively be addressed by water as well as land-based infrastructure
improvements. Of thirteen such facilities in the region(excluding Onizuka Air Station,which
remains operational),twelve occupy bayfront property encompassing nearly 11,000 dry acres of
land. The fact that these bases have ample land available for terminal facilities and their
supporting infrastructure holds an important key to their future development. Identified by their
current designations,the former base properties with water frontage are:
Alameda Point(encompassing three former Naval facilities in Alameda)
Hamilton(Novato)
Hunter's Point(San Francisco)
Mare Island(Vallejo)
Moffett Federal Airfield(Mountain View/Sunnyvale)
Oakland Army Base (Oakland)
Oakland Harbor Transportation Center(Oakland)
Point Molate(Richmond)
Presidio (San Francisco)
Treasure Island (San Francisco)
Water Transit terminals Will Catalyze Successful Base Conversion.
The availability of property on these former bases for redevelopment offers major opportunities
for the establishment of ferry terminals. Communities where the former bases are located place
high priority on the conversion of those facilities to productive commercial and other use. In
line with this priority,the location of major transit nodes on the former bases is expected to
serve as a catalyst for economic activity that will accelerate the development of business and
housing on base properties well beyond the terminals themselves. Terminal facilities can be
expected to stimulate the development of new road infrastructure and public access linking the
bases with other communities and with the region's larger transportation network. Terminals
will provide a catalyst for commercial development on-site or in immediately adjacent areas, and
will increase the attractiveness of the former bases for both commercial and residential
development.
C) aO a� v o v 00
CD 3
a �c o �r o v� cs rte , "a o i
`a a 00 ar oo v i et
Q A r r N (D 14D v C6
1= 4D__ __ C) C) aoo 0 0 � o
as a [ M M eS M [
ami � � •
in C7 N Y'� �" L'h
(�� 10 h o M 0T CT-OC M M
a oo S N u^� Ch 7` CV tT tJ9 N o ih c^ d�
tN C
� a
140, 01 00
C �
N 00 N
� N M .�, i"• ..�. !L M �N �O O o O9
4 ^� ....
......
Ch N
M M N Com' vN'f CA C'."ofn, :0��
m-- --o o
N N Ch oc.M z•�: w
Q u
� m
td
tr
ID i
-
� ,� ~f' O��. �``� +� C3 d' � �' CJ's � `� CK7 •Ct � s. ^� � �
O. C �:"�. O. � a, N y O K
�S
u u U cL �' u:. r, rJ F- { U U = a C> it — U e
m ca
V 5 <? CL v1 L F cd °g a
to ce C% id d w O c
0- v
a L m cn s� c 4) > >' a
O as
cd cC c
Gam. -cs y Ca '� > t>? V C.
as ect Z cts �., y,. ❑ coctl CA
o
O tL as Z v ss p itzC3
o ,46
C) as w vs Es
v v c E c 0 ca ce m
ddQs% :� Q SCC
.........................
_....................................................
_............................................................_.....__
... ......... ......... ............ _ _
...... ......... ............ ......... _ _ _
....................................................... ____
............................................._.... _ _
_.................................................................. _
................................................................................................... ...
...................................................................
_........ ............ _ _
3.
f
n
i
z '.
N A
`4 y�M
VII
3
l
f
APPENDIX J
DISASTER MITIGATION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
This Appendix analyzes the benefits of a comprehensive water transit system to
the regional transportation system in the event of a major earthquake or other
disaster. It outlines the durability and flexibility of such a system in emergency
circumstances when other major transport systems are damaged or disabled.
Ferries have proven their effectiveness as major alternative modes of transport in the event of
both natural disasters and man-made disruptions to key land-based systems. Water-based
transportation will be the least affected of any major transportation system in the event of a major
earthquake in the Bay Area.
Ferries have temporarily replaced other modes of transbay transportation on four occasions
during the past 20 years: the 1979 BART tube fire;the 1982 Marin mudslides; the 1989 Bay
Bridge closure resulting from the Loma Prieta Earthquake; and the September 1997 BART strike.
In each case,operators pressed ferries and excursion vessels into emergency service,providing
additional service to compensate for lost travel capacity on alternative systems.
• When the BART tube fire closed the system's transbay capacities in 1979,buses and some
ferries were pressed into service. The Berkeley.Ferry Committee established a new ferry
route from the Berkeley Marina to San Francisco. When the BART tube reopened,
passengers reverted for former travel patterns and the service was discontinued.
• When Marin County approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge were closed by mudslides in
1982,severing automobile access to San Francisco,ferries were used as emergency
transportation. On one day alone,the three 700-passenger Larkspur ferries carried more than
12,200 passengers.
• The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake strengthened interest in the role of ferries as important
emergency links. The ensuing month-long closure of the Bay Bridge powerfully reinforced
that perception. On November 1, 1989,two weeks after the earthquake, ferries from
Alameda, Oakland,Berkeley, and Vallejo carried about 6,800 passengers in the morning peak
period,about the same as would be carried in automobiles on three lanes of the Bay Bridge in
one hour.
Shoreside areas along the Bay are particularly vulnerable to liquefaction and displacement.
Roadway surface ruptures and indirect obstructions(such as ruptured water mains and damaged
buildings)could preclude vehicular access in much of the Bay Area. According to the ABAG
study Riding Out-Future-Quakes,disruptions to 1-880,1-80i and adjacent local•roadways are
likely in the event of an earthquake on a portion or on the length of the Hayward Fault. ABAGs
assessment concluded that nearly 900 roadway segments could be closed by a magnitude 7.1
earthquake on a northern segment of the Hayward Fault,.more than six times the road closure
impact of the Loma Prieta earthquake.
The Bay Area Water Transit System will support emergency response and recovery after a
natural disaster or other event that disables existing land based infrastructure. Water transit can
also mitigate the effects of increased congestion on functioning roads and bridges caused by
closures elsewhere in the region. The strong performance of the existing systems, even with
their limited scope, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake speaks to a ferry system's
intrinsic disaster recovery capabilities. Given the Bay Area's exposure to recurring seismic
events,all terminals should be built with the latest performance-based design methodology and
the same risk criteria as other vital structures that are expected to survive seismic events(e.g.,
key emergency and hospital facilities).
To assist in disaster recovery, as well as to maintain the basic flexibility of the ferry system to
grow app adapt to changing demand, standardized specifications for vessel berthing will.be
required. This must include a common mooring system and free-board height specifications. In
the event of seismic damage to the Golden Gate or Bay Bridges or to their approaches,or to other
bayfront roadways,the Bay Area Water Transit System must have the ability to use vessels
drawn from any part of the regional network to provide emergency relief service in the most
affected areas. Particularly important corridors in these circumstances include those linking East
Fort Baker with Fort Mason, and Alameda with San Francisco.
With these criteria,the Bay Area Water Transit System will have the flexibility to respond to a
variety of emergency scenarios,ensuring continued regional mobility in and access to areas
surrounding the Bay. This includes not only commute and personal access,but access to key
population centers for food and medical supplies and other forms of emergency relief.
Vulnerable Travel Corridors
There are five principal'travel corridors for which ferry service can provide major alternative
access in the event of an emergency:
• Marin/Sonoma Counties to San Francisco—This corridor utilizes the Golden Gate Bridge.
The most likely scenario generating emergency ferry demand would be an earthquake or
other catastrophe closing the Golden Gate Bridge or portions of Route 101 such as the Waldo
Grade.
• Solano County to East Bay/San Francisco—This corridor utilizes the Carquinez(which
consists of two parallel bridges) and Benicia Bridges(one structure)to cross the Carquinez
Strait. A loss of one bridge would leave two remaining. Loss of all three bridges would
leave only the rail bridge(which could be disrupted as well)and potential ferry service.
• Marin County to East Bay—Closure of the Richmond—San Rafael Bridge would leave
ferries as the only-alternative to road travel across the North Bay.via Highway 37.
• East Bay to San Francisco—Closure of the Bay Bridge or BART tube,or transit strikes at
AC Transit or BART,would necessitate greater reliance on ferries.
2
East Bay to San Mateo County—The San Mateo bridge is the primary access route in this
corridor,with the Bay Bridge or Dumbarton Bridge as alternatives. Closure of any of these
bridges would stimulate demand for an emergency increase in ferry service.
Options For Emergency Ferry Service Using Existing Infrastructure
The 1996 MTC Regional Ferry Contingency Plan identified four potential scenarios for
increasing ferry service:
• Ferry Providers Increase Scheduled Runs—This scenario simply increases the number of
runs for existing vessels. However, since virtually all existing ferry vessels are fully utilized
during existing peak periods,the primary benefit would be during off-peak hours.
• Ferry Providers Increase Number of Vessels and Runs—Existing ferry providers could
contract for additional vessels with a Bay Area or non-Bay vessel operator. Low excursion
vessels are low speed and thus useful primarily for shorter runs. Higher speed vessels operate
in Southern California(Catalina) and Washington State,but availability of those vessels is
subject to seasonal demand and other factors.
• Ferry Providers Increase Passenger Capacity—Existing ferry providers could request U.S.
Coast Guard permission to increase the passenger capacity of vessels. Potential carrying
capacity gains would be limited, however, and higher passenger loads would reduce travel
speed and increase loading and unloading time,reducing vessel productivity (increasing time
to make a full travel cycle).
• Ferry Providers Add New Routes—Depending on which bridge or transportation route is
affected,it would be possible for existing ferry providers to initiate new routes. This could
be done most effectively for shorter crossings since most readily available vessels are low
speed. Some existing facilities could be used without modification in an emergency,but
others would need a new floating dock, dredging, etc. The entity having jurisdiction over
docking sites (City, Port District, etc.)would need to participate in the planning and approval
of new service.
Comprehensive Disaster Preparedness Through Water Transit
To establish an efficient,reliable and readily available system for mitigating the effects on
transportation of a natural disaster or other emergency through water transit, a pre-existing and
comprehensive water transit system offers the superior option.
While all terminals and vessels would potentially be called into play in the event of an
emergency, by virtue of their location the leading sites that would be called upon in such
circumstances would include: Alameda, East Fort Baker, Fort Mason, and the San Francisco
Ferry Building. Harbor Bay Isle,Jack London Square, Larkspur,Oyster Point,Redwood City,
Richmond, San Leandro, Sausalito, Tiburon,Vallejo,Berkeley/Albany, PacBell Park/Mission
Bay,Moffett Field, and San Rafael are also likely to see significantly higher levels of utilization
in the event of an emergency.
3
Madera Marsh State Ecological Reserve (including Muzzi
marsh)borders the channel on the south,and has been
identified by the Goals Project for enhancement/protection.
These marshes are heavily used by migrating shorebirds,
and clapper and black rails(endangered species) are present
in the area. The ecological reserve is also used as a haulout
area by harbor seals. 5,000 scaup, a species of concern,
have been counted in the area. Both dredging and the
disposal of dredged material have environmental impacts.
Use Conflicts: Recreation use in this area is high(birdwatchers,
windsurfers. etc.).
Terminal: Piers 39/41
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter,Recreation
County&Location: San Francisco County.Piers 39/41 are located at
Fisherman's Wharf,on the Embarcadero, north of the
downtown area of San Francisco.
Intermodal Transit: Bus line#32(MUNI)serves Fisherman's Wharf and
connects to downtown San Francisco. AC Transit also has
feeder service to Fisherman's Wharf Additional
connections to Golden Gate Park and other San Francisco
attractions are necessary.
Route &Operators: The Blue&Gold fleet operates routes to Alameda/Oakland
from Pier 39. Blue&Gold also operates routes to Angel ,
Island, Tiburon, Sausalito,Alcatraz, and Vallejo from Pier
41.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: 17 feet, average.
Environment& Habitats: No critical habitat or wildlife issues.
1
Terminal: Piers 43/43!2
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter,Recreation
County& Location: San Francisco County. Piers 43/431/2 are located just west
of Fisherman's Wharf, on the Embarcadero, north of the
downtown area of San Francisco.
Intermodal Transit: Bus line#32 (MUNI) serves Fisherman's Wharf and
connects to downtown San Francisco. AC Transit also has
feeder service to Fisherman's Wharf.
Route & Operators: The Red&White Fleet is operating service to the USS
Hornet(NAS)from Pier 43.5. Red&White will also start
a 2-year trial service from Pier 43.5 to SFFB and then to Pt.
Richmond.
Future Upgrades: The City of Vallejo will be constructing a float(double-
loading dock) at Pier 43 to run service to Vallejo.
Current& Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: 10— 12 feet
Environment &Habitats: No critical habitat or wildlife issues. Sea lion haulout.
Terminal: San Francisco Ferry Building
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
County & Location: San Francisco County. Piers 1 and 1/2 at the eastern end of
Market street.
Intermodal Transit: Ferry building currently served by 2 MUNI and 3
GGBHTD bus routes(with more available at Market St.).
io
................
.........._......................................
....... ......... ......... .... ... .........
...............................
.........
............._................................_...
..............................................
....................................................
........................... .
....... .........
Bus shuttle service also available to the Amtrak train
station in Oakland/Emeryville. Within a 2-block radius of
the SFFB: 20 MUNI bus lines, BART, and Muni Metro
light rail.
Route& Operators: Golden Gate Transit operates service to Larkspur and
Tiburon. Blue&Gold operates service to Vallejo,Tiburon,
and Alameda/Oakland. Harbor Bay Maritime operates
service to Harbor Bay Isle.
Future Upgrades: An additional 2 berths at the southern end are part of a
future renovation project. Also included in this upgrade are
canopies along pedestrian ways, a pedestrian arcade,
improved access for the disabled; and, upgraded lighting,
railing, and seating. Improvements in bus loading areas
and auto drop-off areas around the Ferry building.
Renovated new North Terminal will provide service to
Tiburon and Vallejo; could also provide service to
Martinez,Benicia, and Port Sonoma. New South Terminal
will provide service to Alameda, Oakland, and Harbor Bay
Isle; could also provide service to Berkeley/Albany. 2
future berthing terminals could provide service to airport,
Treasure Island,or other recreation/non-commuter
travelers.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: Average depth is 12 feet MLLW. Phase I of the ferry
terminal/expansion project would involve 20,000 cubic
yards of dredging.Dredging for Phase II of project not yet
determined.
Environment&Habitats: No rare or endangered species within the vicinity of the
Ferry Building.To mitigate any possible effects on herring
spawning grounds,no dredging,demolition,or construction
will take place during Dec. I to March 1.
Terminal: Sausalito
City: Sausalito
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
County &Location: In Sausalito, Marin County. Terminal located at dock at El
Portel, in downtown Sausalito, east of Bridgeway Blvd.
Intermodal Transit: Golden Gate Transit bus to downtown Sausalito. Current
proposal for shuttle from outlying areas to the ferry.
Parking lots downtown are not free.
Route&Operators: The Blue&Gold Fleet runs service to Pier 41. Golden Gate
Transit runs service to the SF Ferry Building. Approximate
travel time is 30 minutes. MUNI bus transfers are included
with the purchase of a ferry ticket.
Current&Future The Sausalito terminal facility is is located behind a site
Land Use: which includes surface parking and a bank building which
fronts on Bridgeway. Adjoining these uses are the
commercial retail uses of Sausalito which include galleries,
restaurants,bars,clothing stores and others. Housing
occurs across Bridgeway and up the surounding hills. No
changes to land uses are understood to be contemplated.
An expanded"shoreline plaza"has recently been
E completed with seating, lighting and news racks. Other
renovations and rehabilitations of existing buildings and
retail and hotel uses are underway. One new hotel and the
"Village Fair Development," about 40,000 ft.2 of new
commercial space will be built.
v Joint De0opment An expanded terminal facility may be possible in this
Potentiax location and would benefit from the high level of tourist
f' and visitor activity. In addition, it would be possible for
the parking lots and uses directly adjacent to the terminal to
be intensified. However,recent history suggest that it is
unlikely that significant intensification of use would be
approved locally. Access to and views of the waterfront are
considered key in this area; any future development might
be viewed as compromising these assets.
Channel Depth: Average depth of 12 feet. Dredging is not an issue at this
site.
Environment&Habitats: No critical habitat or wildlife issues.
12
_... _.......
........................................................................................................................... . .
...................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Terminal: Tiburon
City: Tiburon
Function: Commuter,Disaster Recovery
County&Location: Tiburon in Marin County. Terminal located at 5 Main St.,
next to Guayma's restaurant.
Intermodal Transit: Pay parking lots downtown. Very little parking adjacent to
the ferry dock. Two Golden Gate transit bus routes provide
feeder service. MUNI bus transfers are included with the
purchase of a ferry ticket.
Route&Operators: Blue & Gold operates service to Pier 41 and to the SF Ferry
Building(weekdays only). Approximate travel time is 30
minutes.
Current&Future The existing terminal site is located behind a main
Land Use: commercial frontage in downtown Tiburon. It shares
access with an adjoining restaurant entryway. Also
adjoining the terminal is a public park which extends along
the waterfront. Nearby are retail and office developments,
housing and additional open space. No changes to these
land uses are understood to be envisioned. Intensification
of uses is considered highly unlikely given the politics and
policies of the local community.
A new ferry terminal is being built($700,000 grant from
the State).
Joint Development Joint development potential at this location is limited or
Potential: non-existent. Retail opportunities exist closeby in the
community. As noted above,no intensification of the site
is likely to be possible.
Channel Depth: Average depth of 10-12 feet. Dredging is not an issue at
this site.
Environment&Habitats: Restoration of Kiel Pond;red-legged frog habitat. Kiel
Cove contains 10 acres of eelgrass habitat(approximately
3/4-mile from ferry dock). Kiel Cove has also been
identified by the Goals project for improvement/protection.
13
Terminal: Vallejo
City: Vallejo
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
County&Location: Vallejo City in Solano County. Terminal located near
downtown Vallejo at 495 Mare Island Way.
Intermodal Transit: Free parking adjacent to the ferry terminal. Baylink buses
connect Sacramento, Davis with the Vallejo ferry. Buslines
within Vallejo connect to the ferry as well. $10 day pass is
good for local bus ride and bus connection to BARTLink
from El Cerrito del Norte Bart station. All ferry clay passes
include bus service to ferry on Vallejo transit. Similar
arrangement with Napa Valley Transit.
Route& Operators: Blue& Gold operates service between Vallejo and Pier 41
(until new dock is built at Pier 43), and the SF Ferry
Building. Approximate travel time is 55 minutes.
Current&Future The City of Vallejo has been exploring development
Land Use: opportunities in the vicinity of the terminal for mixed use
development, including retail,cinema, housing, office and
other uses. Apparently,to date these plans have not been
successful. Further discussion of this should be explored
with the City,particularly to consider potential for further
intensification of densities.
New dock facilities were completed in 9/98. Includes a 10-
foot covered walkway with boarding and unboarding from
both doors. 300 people can unload in under 3 minutes.
Joint Development As a major origin terminal,the terminal should have
Potential: commercial development opportunities including passenger
services and retail. The apparent willingness of the City to
explore redevelopment opportunities in this area of the
downtown, suggests that there may be significant
opportunities for shared facilities in future commercial
development,or intensification of existing and
development of new, supportive uses in the surrounding
area.
Channel Depth: Depth is determined by the Corps of Engineers. .Mare
Island Strait is dredged to an average depth of 36 feet,
14
MLLW. The dredging for the ferry slip is done every 2•-4
years(average 6- 10 feet).
Environment& Habitats: ,Speed restrictions on 2.2 mile Mare Island Channel due to
safety issues(housing along south east side of channel).
Rail (black and clapper)habitat and sensitive tidal marsh
nearby.
15
B. POTENTIAL SITES
Potential sites are described, in as much detail as possible. Usually, if marina or port
facilities already exist,more data has been procured for that site.
Site: Alviso
Function: Commuter
County& Location: City of Alviso in Santa Clara County. City located at the
terminus of Alviso Slough(which connects to South San
Francisco Bay). The city of Alviso is northwest of Santa
Clara and northeast of Sunnyvale.
Existing Facilities: South Bay Yacht Club, in Alviso (overgrown by marsh).
Intermodal Transit: One bus line connects downtown Alviso to other points
(including San.Jose) in Santa Clara County.
Current&Future Alviso is a low density community located on the Bay with
Land Use: significant environmental and open space uses along the
Bay(e.g., San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge). However,
within several miles of this terminal site lie major
industrial, research and development and office facilities of
north San Jose, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara.
Joint:Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: Coyote Creek,which connects Alviso Slough with SF Bay,
ranges in depth from 6 to 13 feet. Alviso Slough is an
average of 2 feet deep. Dredging would be required.
Environment&Habitats: The north end of Alviso Slough is bordered on both sides
by the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge, and the
environs at the confluence of Alviso and Coyote Creek
have been identified for improvement/protection by the
Goals Project. The entire slough is bordered by fringing
tidal marshes. In addition, the Knapp salt evaporator parcel
between Guadalupe Slough and Alviso Slough is being
restored to tidal marsh habitat. The Alviso environs
provides habitat for the following species of local
importance: clapper rail-,black rail,salt marsh harvest
mouse, and black-crowned night-heron.
16
Based on preliminary screening by Point Reyes Bird
Observatory,Alviso is determined to have unacceptable
environmental impacts and is no longer under consideration
by the Task Farce.
Site: Antioch
Function: Commuter
County&Location: City of Antioch, Contra Costa County,east of Pittsburg.
The Antioch municipal marina is located on the south bank
g of the San Joaquin River, one mile north of the intersection
of Highway 4 and Somersville Road (in downtown
Antioch).
Intermodal Transit: Tri Delta Transit runs bus service between Antioch
(approximately 2 blocks from the marina) to the
neighboring towns of Pittsburg,Brentwood, and Bay Point.
There is also an Amtrak station about 2 blocks from the
marina.
Current &Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depth: The entrance to the marina is 60 feet wide and 10 feet deep
at zero tide. There are no channels to this entrance, as it is
directly off the San Joaquin River,which has a deep(68
feet)shipping channel.
Environment&Habitats: There is a wetlands preserve which borders the marina
along the western side.
Site: US Army Corps of Engineers,Bay Madel
City: Sausalito
Function: Recreation
17
County &Location: Marin County. The San Francisco Bay Model Visitor
Center is located at 2100 Bridgeway, in Sausalito.
Existing Facilities: There is a pier at this location.
h Internnodal Transit: Golden Gate Transit connects downtown Sausalito and the
} Sausalito ferry terminal with the Bay Model's visitor
center. During the tourist season, a small shuttle bus runs
between the viewpoint parking lot at the north-end of the
Golden Crate Bridge,the Bay Area Discovery Museum,the
Sausalito Ferry Terminal,and the Bay Model.
Channel Depth: Nautical charts indicate that the water depth at the two piers
adjacent to the Bay Model is 20 feet.
Environment&Habitats: No significant environmental effects.
Site: Benicia
City: Benicia
Function: Commuter
County& Location: Benicia, in Solano County, is located on the north shore of
the Carquinez Strait, southeast of Vallejo. The Benicia
marina is located at the terminus of East B Street. The
Benicia Point Pier is located at the end of First St,west of
the Benicia marina. There is also a second pier at the end
of Fifth St.,east of the marina.
Existing Facilities: There are two piers. The First St. pier is currently used as a
fishing pier; the Fifth St.pier is currently used as a tugboat
landing. There is also a marina which could probably
handle ferry vessels.
Intermodal Transit: Benicia transit provides local bus service in the City of
Benicia with connecting service to Vallejo and Pleasant
Hill BART. At least one bus line runs within a one block
radius of the Fifth St. pier. A second bus line drives past
the marina area,but there are no planned stops at this time.
Current & Future To be determined.
Land Use:
18
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Water depths at the First St.pier are 15 —20 feet. Water
depths at the Fifth St. pier are 10-- 15 feet. Dredging is not
an issue at these sites. The marina is currently dredged to
10 feet,with an entrance width of approximately 60 feet.
Environment&Habitats: Southampton is a tidal marsh of high habitat value
(shorebird tidal flat habitat). It is located approximately
two miles southwest of Benicia Point(site of the city pier).
The large shoals off of this marsh could be impacted by
wake effects, although this channels is already heavily
traveled. There is also a small tidal marsh adjacent Oust to
the east)of Benicia Point.
Site: Berkeley/Albany
Function: Commuter, Recreation, Disaster Recovery
County&Location: On border of Albany and Berkeley in Alameda County.
Proposed terminal would be built at the foot of Gilman St.,
within the Berkeley City limits, but very close to the
Albany border. There is an interchange with 1-80 at the end
of Gilman St., and Golden Gate Fields is just to the north.
Existing Facilities: None
Intermodal Transit: Access to Interstate Highway 80.
Current&Future Across the freeway(1-80)to the east from the proposed
Land Use: site,are light industrial,retail, and discount retail uses.
Local development plans call fora new Eastshore State
Park to the south,and a hotel site in this vicinity.
Joint Development Joint development potential at this site is not high, although
Potential: the terminal's potential as a major origin, light destination
and recreation site may support limited terminal facilities.
The potential for combining the planned hotel development
and associated facilities with the ferry terminal should be
investigated. Other site development opportunities are
likely to be limited, given the previous planning that has
already occurred in this area.
19
f
Channel Depths: The environs of the proposed site are tidal mudflats,with
shallow water depths(averaging 4—5 feet)which would
require approximately 2 miles of dredging.
Environment&Habitats: While the tidal flats surrounding this proposed site provide
shorebird habitat, there are no adjacent wildlife refuges or
preserves.
Terminal: PacBell Park/Mission Bay
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter, Recreation,Disaster Recovery
County&Location: San Francisco County. Terminal at the mouth of China
Basin(north side), terminus of 3rd Street,just southeast of
the new PacBell-Giants' Park.
Existing Facilities: None. Port of SF has $2 M grant to build a ferry landing,
which would be a public terminal. In the fixture, Pier 54 or
other finger terminals south of China Basin(administered
by the Port)could be used by commuters in Mission
Bay/South Beach area.
Intermodal Transit: Close to CalTrain depot. MUNI: lightrail (on embarcadero),
and MUM bus lines serve this area. Shuttle service to the
new UCSF campus will be necessary.
Current&Future PacBell Park; Redevelopment of Mission Bay area(new
Land Use: UCSF campus).
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: 11 — 14 feet on the north side of port. More shallow on the
south side of port. There are no plans to dredge this area.
Environment&Habitats: No significant environmental conflicts.
20
..... . ..........................
_......
.......................................................
. ..............................................
...................................
Site: Presidio
City: San Francisco
Function: ' Recreation.
County &Location: Sap.Francisco County. The pier at Crissy Field is located
less than 0.5 miles east of Fort Point, and about 2 miles
west of Fort Mason.
Existing Facilities: Torpedo Wharf is a historic pier.
Intermodal Transit: Two MUNI bus lines service this area(GGN- RA).
Additional service connecting to the downtown area is
desirable.
Current&Future Located within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Land Use: (GGNRA),this site is adjacent to ongoing restoration and
reconfiguration of waterfront*sites which formerly held
Army-related uses. Current and future uses will include
active and passive recreation including walking and
running,dog walking, and bicycling, and the area will
accommodate restored natural waterfront features. In
addition, the area has been occasionally used as a site for
major recreational events such as fairs and concerts.
Joint Development Although there are no commercial uses/amenities located
Potential: near this terminal location,the recreational nature of the
uses and users suggests that terminal commercial
development opportunities will be limited or non-existent.
No out-of-terminal opportunities are anticipated, as these
would be inconsistent with the recreation and open space
mission of the Recreation Area and ongoing restoration of
the natural environment.
Channel Depths: Water depths average 13 feet around this pier. Dredging
should not be an issue(very close to Golden Gate,with
strong ebb tides).
Environment&Habitats: Potential for conflicts with the Presidio's plans for
restoration of tidal flat and marsh-dune restoration projects.
21
Site: Crockett
Function: Commuter
County& Location: Contra Costa County.The city of Crockett is located just
east of the Carquinez bridge, and on the south shore of.the
Carquinez Strait.
Existing Facilities: Some existing piers just off the Carquinez Strait. These
piers are located on the west side of the Carquinez bridge.
Intermodal Transit: None. There is one WestCAT busline servicing Crockett
(connection to nearby town),but does not travel near the
proposed site.
Current & Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: To be determined.
Environment &Habitats: To be determined.
Site: Cooley Landing
City: East Palo Alto
Function: Commuter
County& Location: San Mateo County. East Palo Alto is located slightly
northeast of the city of Palo Alto. Cooley Landing is
located on South San Francisco Bay, almost 1.5 miles south
of the Dumbarton Bridge(Highway 84).
Existing Facilities: Landing
Intermodal Transit: There is a shuttle service run by SamTrans that crosses the
Bay via the Dumbarton bridge. This is the closest bus line
to Cooley landing. There is no direct service to the
landing.
22
Current&Future There is currently vacant and underutilized land in the area
Land Use: of East Palo Alto closest to the terminal site. Further away,
residential neighborhoods and aging industrial areas exist.
However, major employment areas exist at Menlo Park. In
addition, the City of East Palo Alto has for a number of
years studied the potential for new light industrial/research
and development uses on a large vacant parcel near the
terminal and on the Bay edge. However, significant
contamination from past industrial uses has impeded
successful redevelopment in this area.
Joint Development Without redevelopment of adjacent industrial sites, little if
Potential: any joint development is likely. Minor ferry-rider
amenities might be supportable at this light origin site,
since few facilities exist anywhere near the terminal site.
With redevelopment of the industrial sites, additional joint
development might be feasible.
Channel Depths: Mayfield Slough,which is the channel connecting Cooley
landing with South San Francisco Bay, is dredged to7 8— 10
feet. It appears as if the water depths around the landing
have not been maintained. This site would require
dredging.
Environment &Habitats: The Goals Project calls for a widening of the marsh
corridor along these bayfront environs—between Cooley
Landing to Charleston Slough. There is also significant
clapper and black rail habitat in the tidal marsh
immediately adjacent and to the south of Cooley Landing,
and tidal restoration is taking place immediately north.
Site: Foster City
Function: Commuter
County&Location: Foster City in San Mateo County. The site for the proposed
ferry terminal would be at the confluence of Third Ave. and
Foster City Blvd,just 0.5 miles northwest of the San Mateo
Bridge.
Existing Facilities: None
23
Intermodal Transit: The closest bus line(SamTrans)comes within 0.5 miles of
the proposed site,but no direct service is available at this
time.
Current& Future To be determined.
Land Use:
.Taint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: The site borders a shallow, mudflat area in South San
Francisco Bay. Typical water depths in this area are 0—2
feet. Dredging of at least 0.5 miles would be required to
create a navigable slough to connect with the ship channel
in the Bay.
Environment &Habitats: Proximity to tidal marsh restoration sites ("Mosely Tract").
Site: Fort Baker
City: GGNRA
Function: Recreation,Disaster Recovery
County&Location: In Marin County,near north end of Golden Gate Bridge.
Fort Baker is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area. The pier which could be used for ferry service is
located at the entrance of Horseshoe Bay, slightly northeast
of the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Existing Facilities: Large, institutional dock on western entrance of Horseshoe
Bay. GGNRA is currently having the conditions of this
dock assessed. Initial analysis(underwater divers)have
concluded that the pier is in very good condition. Would
need some"fendering,"but the piles are fine. Most
difficult challenge will be making the dock ADA
compliant.
Intermodal Transit: Golden Gate Transit discontinued the one bus route to Fort
Baker, but this route could be reinstated, if transit demand
warranted. MUNI Route 76 also provides limited service
(Sundays and holidays only)between Fort Cronkhite
Parking Lot, and 4th St/Townsend in San Francisca. There
24
are 127 on-street and 506 off-street parking spaces
throughout Fort Baker.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Dredging would not be necessary at this site. Water depths
are adequate even for large vessels, and there is enough tide
and wave action to prevent silt build-up.
Environment&Habitats: "Water shuttle service to and from Fort Baker could
adversely impact marine mammals. Disturbance from
direct noise and wave action could also impact resting and
feeding bird species. Water shuttle use would need to be
regulated to mitigate impacts from noise,pollution, and
general disturbance to a level of insignificance."—Fort
Baker EIS. There is eelgrass habitat within Horseshoe Bay,
and some animals/habitats found in environs include the
following: western grebes; cormorants; gulls; Calif. brown
pelicans; least terns; sea lions and harbor seals. Fisheries:
herring, winter-run chinook salmon. There is a historic
tidal marsh within Horseshoe Bay,but at this time, there
are no plans for restoration.
Site: Fort Mason
City: GGNRA
Function: Recreation,Disaster Recovery
County&Location: San Francisco County. Fort Mason is part of the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area. The piers which could.be
used for ferry service are located just west of Gashouse
Cove,and about 1/5 of a mile east of the Marina Green.
Existing Facilities: There are 4 piers at Fort Mason. Moffatt&Nichol
Engineers evaluated Piers#1, 2, and 3. There is a current
assessment ongoing at Pier 4. Piers 1, 2, and 3 appear to be
in operable condition.
25
Intermodal Transit: Several MUNI bus lines skirt the perimeter of the Fort
Mason park. Parking is limited.
Current&Future A terminal at Fort Mason would be located adjacent to the
Land Use: current not-for-profit and.community uses which are
housed in the warehouse buildings of Fort Mason. A
restaurant, museums and galleries, offices, conference
facilities, and parking are located in the Fort Mason area.
Special events (parties,organization dinners, Christmas tree
sale lots) are also often held in the large pier buildings.
Future land uses are not expected to change in this GGNRA
area;no significant development is anticipated.
Joint Development There may be some joint development potential at this site
Potential: due to the high visitor use of the area. Terminal facilities in
this area would benefit from the high non-ferry pedestrian
use and special events, and might therefore support some
terminal commercial uses to serve both ferry riders and
other site visitors. There is also potential to develop small-
scale services/retail into the surrounding existing facilities,
and to provide additional patronage for existing uses. It is
not expected that there is the potential for any higher
density uses adjacent to the terminal, given the park
designation of the area.
Channel Depths: Dredging would not be an issue at this site. Water depths
range from 10—39 feet.
Environment&Habitats: Proximity to GGNRA(at Crissy Field)marsh restoration
projects may be an issue.
Site: Fremont
Function: Commuter
County &Location: Alameda County. Proposed ferry landing site is
Dumbarton Pt., about'/,mile southeast of the Dumbarton
bridge(Highway 84), and about the same distance
northwest of Newark Slough.
Existing Facilities: None.
Intermodal Transit: None.
26
...................
................................................................
...............................................................................................
....... ......... .....................
......... ......... ............
........ ......... . _. ......
..................................................
...............................................
.........................................................................____..
...............................................................................................
............................................................................ . .
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Site is very close to the main shipping channel in South San
Francisco Bay(with average water depths of 40 feet),but
access from the ferry landing to this main channel would
necessitate dredging of the surrounding mudflats.
Environment&Habitats: This site is in close proximity to rail and harbor seal
habitat, and an ongoing marsh restoration project. Mowry
Slough is the most significant pupping location for harbor
seals in S.F. Bay. The Fremont terminal site is located
approximately 1 3/t-mile from the mouth of Mowry Slough.
Based on preliminary screening by Point Reyes Bird
Observatory',Fremnot is determined to have unacceptable
.
environmental impacts and is no longer under consideration
by the Task Force.
Site: Half Moon Bay
County& Location: Proposed ferry landing site is less than 1/2mile from
downtown Princeton,directly south of the Half Moon Bay
Airport.
Existing Facilities: Pier in Pillar Point Harbor.
Intermodal Transit: One SamTrans bus line connects downtown Prin6eton with
Half Moon Bay and cities to the north of Princeton.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Unavailable.
Environment &Habitats: Proximity to State Park beaches and rocky shoreline
habitat.
27
Site: Hamilton Field
City: Novato
Function: Commuter
County& Location: Marin County. Site of proposed terminal to be determined.
Existing Facilities: None
Intermodal Transit: None
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: No channels. Building a ferry landing would necessitate
the dredging of adjacent mudflats. The adjacent water
depths in San Pablo Bay are 1 —2 feet. Over 3 miles of
dredging would be required to connect this site to the main
water traffic channel in San Pablo Bay.
Environment& Habitats: The City of Novato and the Coastal Conservancy currently
have plans to restore wetlands on the airfield portion of
Hamilton Field. This site is identified for improvement/
protection under the Goals Project, and provides habitat for
rail, shorebirds, and salt marsh harvest mice.
Based on preliminary screening by Point Reyes Bird
Observatory,Hamilton is determined to have unacceptable
environmental impacts and is no longer under consideration
by the Task Force.
Site: Hunters Point
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter,Maintenance
County&Location: San Francisco. Proposed site to be determined.
28
..................................
......................................................__..
.....................................................
_...........................................
......... ......... .......
.... ......... ..........
.........................................................................
........................__............
......... .........
..............._....................... _
.................................................I......
....._____.
..................................................................._____.
Existing Facilities: There are three large dry docks on site. One of the smaller
docks could be used for ferry services.
Intermodal Transit. One MUNI bus line services waterfront at Hunters Point.
A second line runs to Hunters Point,but closer inland.
Current &Future Redevelopment plan was adopted by City of San Francisco
Land Use: and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1997.
Plans are for an increase in mixed-use commercial space.
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Water depths at the docks average 30 feet. Dredging would
not be an issue.
Environment&Habitats. There are 12 acres of eelgrass bed habitat,between Hunters
Point and Candlestick Point(located in a sheltered cove
south of Hunters Point about one mile southwest of the
dock area). Under the redevelopment plan, approximately
25 acres of wetlands will be restored, adjacent to the
(likely) ferry site,just north of the dock area. However,
significant environmental issues are not likely.
Site» Mare Island
City: Vallejo
Function: Maintenance
County&Location: Solano County. At the Mare Island Naval Reservation, on
the western side of Mare Island Strait/Napa River. Site of
proposed terminal to be determined.
Existing Facilities: There are several large docks on site.
Intermodal Transit: Done.
Current&Future Mare Island was the subject of closure under BRAC as a
Land Use: shipyard facility and the Mare Island Final Reuse Plan,
completed in.Tune 1994,proposes a mix of uses on the
island,, utilizing the existing inventory of housing, schools,
office and warehouse facilities, and including new
development of light industrial/R&D, and educational
29
facilities. Approved land use from south to north is
marina/residential area north to existing piers; a heavy
industrial area that extends past two of the three dry docks;
a small historical district; and, an office/light industry
mixed use that extends as far as the causeway. The former
shipyard has been planned to be pedestrian and transit-
friendly. In addition, the historic buildings on the
waterfront facing downtown Vallejo have been identified as
a potential site for tourist-oriented activities.
Joint Development Joint development potential at this light origin site is likely
Potential: to be limited. However,consideration to incorporating
ferry terminal facilities with other development or
redevelopment should be considered. Further
intensification of development opportunities on the site are
likely to be limited,due to the projected extended
timeframe for build-out and full utilization of the existing
and planned facilities.
Channel Depths: Dredged to 36 feet,MLLW.
Environment &Habitats: Mare Island Strait is listed as a site to enhance Mason's
lilaeopsis(endangered plant), in the Goals Project report.
There are tidal flats in the area, and clapper rail habitat to
the west of Mare Island Naval Reserve.
Site: Martinez
Function: Commuter
County&Location: Contra Costa County. The Martinez marina is located on
the Carquinez Straits,at the terminus of N. Court
St./Tarantino Dr.,one mile west of the Martinez-Benicia
Bridge.
Existing Facilities: Marina,historic ferry slip.
Intermodal Transit: WestCAT runs bus lines in Martinez,but none directly to
marina. Amtrak station just short of 0.5 miles from
waterfront.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
30
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Currently,the marina is maintained at a dredged depth of 8
feet MLLW. In the area of the historic ferry slip, the water
depths are 9-- 11 feet(with no dredging).
Environment&Habitats: Winter herring fishery may be affected by construction of
ferry landing. The following species may be found in
surrounding habitat: Brown Pelican,Winter Run Chinook
Salmon, California Sea Lion. Sensitive wetland areas are
adjacent to this site.
Site: Moffett Field
City: Mountain View/Sunnyvale
Function: Commuter, Cargo,Disaster Recovery,Airport Transport
County&Location: Santa Clara County. The Moffett Field Naval Air Station is
located on the shores of South SF Bay,north of the cities of
Sunnyvale and Mountain View. This Naval Air Station
was decommissioned, and NASA is currently the host
agency. Proposed site would be at the Moffett Field Golf
Course, adjacent(northeast) of the airstrips.
Existing Facilities: None.
Intermodal Transit: None. Space for parking lot available.
Current&Future NASA has proposed the following development initiatives:
Land Use: expansion of commercial space product development and
transportation;expansion of the Ames Technology
Commercialization Center: development of Information
Technology Institute;development of an astrobiology
institute; development of the California Air and Space
Center using Hangar One; and provision for the Bay Trail
on the northern boundary of Moffett Field.
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Extensive mudflats extend from the shoreline at this site.
Dredging of either Jagel Stough or Devils Slough would
31
connect this site to the main channel (Coyote Creek/So.
SF Bay). Distance to main channel is approximately 2.5
miles.
Environment&Habitats: Approximate proposed dredged area is the boundary of the
SF National Wildlife Refuge. This area is also just under
0.5 miles from Guadalupe Slough(at its minimum
distance). Guadalupe Slough provides harbor seal haulout
areas. The environs also encompass burrowing owl habitat
and tidal marsh restoration projects.
Site: Oakland Army Base
City: Oakland
Function: Commuter
County &Location: Alameda County. The Oakland Army Base is on the eastern
shore of SF Bay,north of Alameda, and the Oakland-Inner
Harbor; it is south of the Bay Bridge and borders the
Oakland Outer Harbor. Site for ferry terminal to be
determined.
Existing Facilities: Mone.
Intermodal Transit: Transit connection via AC Transit#13.
Current &Future Currently the property on the water side of the Army Base
Land Use: is developed for military and civilian shipping-oriented
uses. The Army's administrative headquarters are located
at the northern end of Maritime Street. The Army base is
scheduled for closure, and under the BRAC legislation the
city has prepared a reuse plan for the Base. A conceptual
plan has been adopted by the City of Oakland. The reuse
plan for the Army Base anticipates that the Port of Oakland
will own and maintain maritime-oriented uses west of
Maritime Street. The planned re-uses include light
industrial and job training programs, with resulting
relatively low density. For the property east of Maritime,
the reuse plan provides for a variety of industrial,
commercial, and business park uses, and anticipates higher
job densities and activity levels. There will be a link with
•the Bay Area Trail to connect the City of Oakland with the
32
Army Base. A transportation study is underway for access
improvements.
Joint Development A specific site for a terminal at this location has not yet
Potential: been defined. An assessment of the joint development
potential should be made after identification of a terminal
site.
Channel Depths: Access to the Oakland Army Base would be through the
Oakland Outer Harbor;the entrance channel width is 600—
650 feet, and the depth is maintained at 35 feet.
Environment&Habitats: The Goals Project calls for protection of the rocky shore on
the south side of the Bay Bridge toll plaza. Otherwise, no
significant environmental issues.
Site: Oyster Point
City: South San Francisco
Function: Commuter, Cargo, Disaster Recovery
County &Location: San Mateo County. Oyster Point Marina is northeast of the
city of South San Francisco, located on Oyster Point.
Existing Facilities: Marina. Plans for two-year trial service from this site to
San Francisco and San Leandro. Ferry terminal would be
located in the marina area.
Intermodal Transit: Existing bus and shuttle systems will connect the Oyster
Point ferry terminal with surrounding North San Mateo
County employment centers and transit hubs such as
SamTrans, Caltrain BART, and SFO. Parking is adjacent
to the ferry terminal location.
Current &Future The potential terminal site is in the vicinity of the office,
Land Use: light industrial and research and development uses in San
Mateo County and South San Francisco. This specific area
and its immediate region have benefited from the strength
of the biotech and Silicon Valley uses on the Peninsula.
The area includes typical light industrial and warehouse
facilities,mid-rise office buildings, and R&D facilities-
Planned uses include three new hotels, and an office,public
market, entertainment complex. The area also includes a
33
marina and some open space,with additional amenities
such as bicycle trails proposed. The area is generally
served by surface parking.
Joint Development The joint development potential for this location may be
Potential: moderate or better. Plans for a greater mix of uses to serve
the preponderance of office and R&D in this area may
result in an increase in use of the area throughout the day.
If the terminal area becomes an attraction and focus of
activity,development within the terminal might serve a
larger audience than simply ferry passengers. In addition,
the terminal and ferry patronage may add support to new
;f mixed-uses planned for this area. Intensification of uses
near the terminal is possible.
Channel Depths: The San Mateo Harbor District has already obtained
permits for maintenance dredging of the marina and
channel to 8 feet. If additional dredging(to 10 feet) is
required,the volume dredged would be roughly 15,000 cu.
yds. The approach channel is approximately 150 feet wide;
the channel within the marina is approximately 110 feet
wide.
Environment&Habitats: No significant environmental issues, although herring are
y` harvested near this site.
Site: Pittsburg
Function: Commuter
County & Location: Contra Costa County. The City of Pittsburg is north of
Highway 4, on the San Joaquin River. The marina is
located near the junction of Railroad Ave., and E. 3rd St.
The marina's waterfront access is on New York Slough, off
the San Joaquin River.
Existing Facilities: Marina facilities.
Intermodal Transit: Tri Delta Transit runs a busline in Pittsburg that provides
direct service to the marina. Other bus lines connect
Pittsburg to Antioch,Brentwood, and Bay Point. BART
services Pittsburg.
34
-..................
......................................
..................................................
.. ......... .........._.....
.............._
.... ......... ........
......................................................................
...................................................__..
_ _
Current &Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: To be determined.
Environment&Habitats: To be determined.
Site: Point Molate
City: Richmond
Function: Recreation
County&Location: Contra Costa County;. Point Molate is a little less than one
mile north of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge and about 2
miles south of Point San Pablo, on the eastern shore of San
Pablo Strait.
Existing Facilities: 1,450-foot pier
Intermodal Transit: None. Poor vehicle access to site.
Current&Future A reuse plan for Point Molate has been adopted. Targeted
Land Use: uses include: winery, conferences/events,movie and
television production, lodging, light industrial, R&D,
recreation, housing
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Average water depth at the pier is 30 feet.
Environment &Habitats: 26 acres ofeelgrass adjacent to proposed site. Proximity to
Castro rocks harbor seal pupping site(—1 mile). Also,
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination on site.
Site: Port Sonoma
City: :Novato
35
Function: Commuter
County&Location: Sonoma County. Port Sonoma is just south of Highway 37,
east of the Petaluma River.
Existing Facilities: Marina
Intermodal Transit: Golden Gate Transit bus line 90 connects the towns of
Sonoma, El Merano, and Agua Caliente. It travels along
Highway 37, very close to the proposed site. Auto access
would be via Highway 37.
Current& Future No other development is in this area; ranches and large
Land Use: agricultural lands predominate. As of this writing, it is
understood that no new development is planned or,
anticipated in existing policy.
Joint Development Joint development is unlikely due to very limited at this
Potential: projected light origin terminal. Environmental and local
policy will preclude surrounding development
opportunities, and the terminal itself is unlikely to support
more than the most basic passenger amenities.
Channel Depths: Nater depths are shallow. There is a narrow channel (150
feet)which is dredged to 8.5 feet,which connects Port
Sonoma to San Pablo Bay. The distance traveled through
this channel would be approximately 3 miles. Significant
yearly dredging would certainly be required.
Environment & Habitats: Extensive tidal flats,which provide foraging habitat for
shorebirds. Sonoma Baylands Restoration Project is just to
the east of this site. Prime clapper and black rail habitat.
There may also be eelgrass bed habitat in this area.
Based on preliminary screening by Point Reyes Bird
Observatory,Port Sonoma is determined to have
unacceptable environmental impacts and is no longer under
consideration by the Task Force.
Site: Redwood City
Function: Commuter, Disaster Recovery
36
County&Location: San Mateo County. Port of Redwood City is located on
Redwood Creek,northeast of the City of Redwood City,
and north of Highway 101.
Existing Facilities: -Port. The Port is currently an active deepwater maritime
facility, and water transit would not conflict with adjacent
property use.
Intermodal Transit: Currently,bus lines do not run directly to the port facility;
the closest drop-off is at Seaport Blvd/Seaport Center office
park. There is a free,adjacent parking lot at the port,but it
is likely that these services will need to be expanded.
Discussion on this topic is ongoing.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: The main channel is dredged to 30 feet, and is
approximately 300 feet wide. Maintenance dredging is
performed every three years to maintain the shipping
channel depth.
Environment&Habitats: Redwood Creek borders Greco Island,which is an
important harbor seal haulout and rail habitat. Bair Island,
to the north of Redwood Creek is also an environmentally
sensitive area. Wake restrictions through Redwood Creek
are likely,although they will not hamper potential ferry
service. Currently,ocean-going cargo vessels routinely
travel this route.
Site: Richmond
Function: Commuter
County&Location: Contra Costa County. Proposed site is at the terminus of
Harbor Way South,just east of the Richmond Harbor
Channel/Santa Fe Channel. The Richmond Reserve
Shipyard is on the western side of this channel.
Existing Facilities: None. Plans to build a floating dock. Red&White will
conduct a 2-year trial service to this site.
37
Intermodal Transit: There will be bus lines serving the ferry landing. There are
temporary provisions for parking(103 spaces).
Current&Future Right now,there is an RFP out to redevelop the"Ford
Land Use: Building" into live/work/office space. Currently there are
not many facilities or commercial space along this parcel of
waterfront.
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Mean water depth: 12.5 feet. Probably no dredging issues
at this site.
Environment&Habitats: Possible effects on neighboring eelgrass bed habitat. In the
vicinity,there are cormorant nesting sites. Clapper rail
habitat is found in the inner harbor(less than 0.25 miles),
and there is a harbor seal haulout site at Castro Rocks
(about 3.5 miles away from ferry site).
Site: Rodeo
Function: Commuter
County& Location: Contra Costa County. Proposed site is on the waterfront, at
Lone Tree Point,directly north of downtown Rodeo.
Existing Facilities: Marina.The 1992 Regional Ferry Plan noted that the
marina would need to be widened and dredged, a dock
would have to be built,and parking would need to be
provided.(Estimated total cost at that time: $4 M).
Intermodal Transit: WestCAT bus lines connect Rodeo to neighboring
communities. It is unclear whether the bus lines currently
service the marina area.
Current& Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
38
Channel Depths: About one mile from a navigable(8 feet or deeper)
waterway, and marina area probably requires maintenance
dredging.
Environment&Habitats: Isolated pocket marshes along the bayshore; black rail
habitat in the vicinity.
Site: SFO Airport
City: South San Francisco
Function: Airport Transport, Cargo
County&Location: San Mateo County. Proposal to use amphibious vessels,
which could pick up passengers directly at the terminal.
Possible entry at Seaplane Harbor(northwest side of the
airport).
Existing Facilities: None
Intermodal Transit: Ferry service would be provided to the SF Ferry Building
in downtown San Francisco,which has ample connecting
services.
Current&Future To be determined.
Land Use:
Joint Development, To be determined.
Potential:
Channel Depths: Entrance into Seaplane Harbor dredged to 7.5 feet which
quickly drops to 2—5 feet at the shoreline. Narrow channel
(100— 150 feet).
Environment&Habitats: Valuable marsh habitat about I mile away from the airport.
Habitat provided for SF Garter Snake and Red-legged frog
nearby. The marsh area south of the airport has been
identified by the Goals Project for improvement/protection.
Site: San Leandro Marina/Oakland International Airport
City: San Leandro
39
Function: Commuter,Disaster Recovery
County&Location: Alameda County. Future site for ferry terminal could be
located at the San Leandro Marina/Mulford Landing. This
marina facility is southwest of the downtown San Leandro.
Existing Facilities: Marina. Proposed service here to connect with trial service
from Oyster Point.
Intermodal Transit: AC transit bus lines connect the marina with the San
Leandro BART and downtown San Leandro. There is
parking available for approximately 200 cars.
Current&Future The marina area is developed for low density recreational
Land Use: and commercial uses(two yacht clubs,three restaurants, a
waterfront hotel,two golf courses, golf driving range,
picnic areas for groups and families,wetlands, parks, and
shoreline trail). There are plans for a conference center,
including a 200-room hotel and 40,000 ft.2 of conference
space.
Joint Development There is limited potential for development of commercial
Potential: uses within the terminal at this location. While the
additional activity and focus provided by ferry passengers
may provide a stimulus to additional development adjacent
to the marina,the area will remain low density.
Channel Depths: Entrance into marina is through a federal channel,which is
dredged to 6 feet,with 1 foot of overdraft. Maintenance
dredging occurs every 4 years.
Environment&Habitats: No significant environmental effects. There is a wetlands
restoration site south of the marina;but it is protected•,:
behind dikes.
Site: San Mateo, Coyote Point
City: San Mateo
Function: Commuter
County &Location: San Mateo County. Future site for ferry terminal could be
located at Coyote Point Harbor,which is a little over a mile
40
northwest of the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. This site is
directly north of downtown San Mateo.
Existing Facilities: Marina.
Intermodal Transit: There are sever-al SamTrans bus lines that skirt the
perimeter of the Coyote Point harbor/golf course/park area.
Current&Future This site is located adjacent to a regional park. It is not
Land Use: anticipated that this land use will change,nor that the park
itself will see any intensification of development.
Joint Development Limited retail uses in the terminal might serve visitors to
Potential: the park and ferry riders.However, existing contracts with
park vendors/concessionaires need to be investigated.
Channel Depths: Narrow channel into marina dredged to 5 feet; entrance at
harbor mouth dredged to 9 feet.
Environment&Habitats: Coyote Point County Park is just about Y2-mile away from
the yacht harbor. One acre of eelgrass bed habitat in
vicinity. The Goals Project has called for a restoration of
the dredged material disposal lagoons(at Coyote Point
marina)to tidal marsh.
Site: Treasure Island
City: San Francisco
Function: Commuter,Recreation
County& Location: San Francsico County.Future site for ferry terminal to be
determined.
Existing Facilities: Multiple piers/docks.
Intermodal Transit: One MUNI transit bus line services Treasure Island. More
will be necessary as development proceeds.
Current&Future Ongoing redevelopment at Treasure Island. This spring,
Land Use: 1,000 residential rental units bill become available.
Joint Development To be determined.
Potential:
41
Channel Depths: Depths near existing facilities range from 4 feet to 36 feet.
Envirvnrnent&Habitats: There are harbor seal haulouts and cormorant nesting sites
at Yerba Buena Island.
42