HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05251999 - C109 Contra
Costo
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS b County
FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
DATE. MAY 17", 1999
SUBJECT: BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE: BAY AREA HIGH-SPEED WATER TRANSIT
SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUPPORT IN CONCEPT the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative (Exhibit "A");
SUPPORT Senate Bill 428 (Exhibit "C") with amendment language; and
DIRECT Smith & Kempton, the County's Legislative advocate, to affect Senate Bill 428 with
language to require the Bay Area Water Transit Authority
1 a to poll Bay Area residents to identify potential ridership of origin and destination
locations; and
20 to include balanced local representation in its membership compositions
FISCAL IMPACTS
NONE.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION.OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE °OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): DonK14 Gerber,Chair Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
ACTION OF BOARD ON M4-45 , 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xxOTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
, UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ®m _ � ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: #: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Daniel J. Pulon (925/335-1241) ATTESTED may 25 , 1999
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Bay Area Water Transit Initiative (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
State Legislateve Delegation (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Smith & Kempton (via CDD)
BYItA4;},<s r —, DEPUTY
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INIATIVE: BAY AREA HIGH-SPEED WATER TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 21 aT CENTURY
MAY 17, 1999
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In September 1997, former State Senator Barbara Lee (currently a member of
Congress) authored Senate Resolution 19 that directed the Bay Area Council
and Bay Area Economic Forum to form a Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to
study the feasibility of an expanded ferry transportation system in the San
Francisco Bay.
The BRTF has completed its feasibility study (Exhibit "A") and has forwarded
its recommendations and Action Plan to the Senate in May 1999. The BRTF
recommended that the Senate create the Bay Area Water Transit Authority, via
Senate Bill 428, to seek funding to implement the Action Flan to build the
expanded ferry transportation system in two phases, With the price tag of $2
billion for 26 passenger, 2 cargo, and 2 remote airport terminals for Phase 1.
The build-out of the system, beyond year 2010, would encompass 35
passenger, 2 cargo, and 5 remote airport ferry terminals.
During the same time, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has
developed and approved its 1998-1999 San Francisco Regional Ferry Plan
Update to improve several Bay Area terminals with a comparatively modest
price tag of$85 million.
In April 29, 1999, MTC voted against the BRTF Ferry Concept, citing that it:
• lacked identified funding sources to implement
its $2 billion ferry program;
• would compete for scarce funds with expanded rail
and bus advocates; and
• lacked the transportation analysis to determine the
relationship to the overall regional transportation system.
Differences Between the Two Plans
The fundamental difference between the two Plans is that MTC's Plan mostly
focuses on short-term improvements " . . . to increase the reliability and
capacity of the region's ferry services ", whereas BRTF's Concept focused on
expanding service, encompassing the provision of ferry services in all parts of
the Bay Area, including seven (7) ports in Contra Costa County. These Contra
Costa County ports, from west to east, Include. Richmond, Point Molate,
Rodeo, Crockett, Martinez, Pittsburg, and Antioch.
Intermodal Interface.
The term " Intermodal Interface" is one of ten (10) operational criteria defined
as a system-wide average of 50%, of passenger access by walking, bicycle, or
public transit. BRTF staff met with Community Development staff to obtain land
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INIATNE. BAY AREA HIGHSPEED WATER TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 21sT CENTURY
MAY 17, 1999
Page 3
use information of potential terminal sites (North Richmond, Rodeo, Crockett,
and Bay Point) in the unincorporated areas to assess the viability of these
locations relative to intermodal interface and ether operational criteria (Exhibit
BBBBB
Lack of Quantitative Analysis.
BRTFBs Concept primarily contained qualitative analyses of ars expanded ferry
system in the Bay Area, indicating that it would improve air quality and traffic
conditions by reducing automobiles on the road and puttingmore people in
ferries and mass transit as part of the intermodal interface operational criteria.
Can this intermodal interface of 50% be achieved? The Concept did not
substantiate that this is achievable at existing terminal locations of the five ferry
services or BART.
The BRTF Concept also lacked quantitative analysis that suggested where the
ridership would come from (origin) and go to (destination), based on existing
or future traffic streams. Such information could have been obtained by polling
Bay Area residents for origin and destination information. This information
could be the basis for identifying potentially viable terminal sites and ferry
routes for the two phases and for lending credence to the high-speed ferry
concept on the San Francisco Bay.
Comparative Costs of the Plans.
MTC's Plan includes a Capital Program for fiscal years 1998-04 for the five
existing terminals amounting to $84.8 million with identified funding sources.
BRT1='s Plan indicated that it would need about $2 billion to implement its
Phase I of the Action Plan: $680 million for terminals, $41',0 million for 70
vessels, and $85 million for buses. However, the Pian lacked identified funding
sources to implement the first Phase, and it rests on the creation of the Bay
Area Water Transit Authority, via Senate Bill 428, to prepare a Capital
Improvement Plan to do this.
Bay Area Water Transit Authority.
Senate Bill 428 (Exhibit BBC") would create the Bay Area Water Transit Authority
with nine (9) board members, a Citizens Advisory Committee, and a Technical
Advisory Committee. The Authority would comprise 4 members appointed by
the Governor, 2 appointed by the Assembly Speaker, 2 appointed by the
Senate President Pro Tempore, and 1 appointed by the Citizens Advisory
Committee. The gill once becoming law would promulgate the Authority with
six (6) significant responsibilities. The following are highlights of those
responsibilities of the Authority:
1. developing and adopting a Bay Area Regional Water Transit Plan,
subject to public hearings in all nine Bay Area counties, be
reviewed for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and shall then be
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INIATIVE: BAY AREA HIGH-SPEED WATER TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 21$T CENTURY
MAY 17; 1999
Page 4
submitted to the state legislature for approval.
2. developing a Capital Improvement Plan for implementing the Water
Transit Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan shall include the cost
of land-side transit needed to provide feeder service to the water
transit system. The Authority shall also prepare a feasibility study,
including a projection of operating costs and revenues, and an
identification of proposed sources for operating subsidies.
3. operating a comprehensive, regional Bay Area public water transit
system, inclusive of water transit terminals, feeder buses, and any
other transport and facilities supportive of the system.
4. planning, coordinating, and affecting the delivery of feeder bus
services which serve the water transit terminals. Such plans shall
be coordinated with local public transit operators.
5. preparing and implementing annual budgets for the operation of the
ferry system, associated terminals, and related feeder transit and
support systems.
6. sharing regulatory control with the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) for private operators over ferry routes. Implementation of this
regulatory program shall include the requirement that the PUC and
the Authority consult annually with the Department of Fish and
Game for the purpose of identifying seasonal changes in waterfowl
resting areas. The Authority shall invite the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service to join in these consultations.
Bay Area Water Transit Authority Membership
The Bill would create an Authority with a membership appointed by the
Governor, State senate, and State Assembly without any assurances
of local representation. Since the Authority would have responsibilities
affecting the transportation system in the Bay Area, the membership
composition should have a balance of state and local representation,
with the latter having decision-making abilities to voice its local
transportation concerns.
Senate Bill 428 Concerns.
The Bill generally addresses MTC's concern regarding the
identification of funding sources as part of the Water Transit Plan's
capital program. However, it falls short from addressing MTC's
remaining concerns in that this Bill in its current form lacks language;
e assuring the proposed Authority would not compete for funds that
MAYAREA WATER TRANSIT INIATIVE: BAY AREA HIGH-SPEED WATER TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 21$"CENTURY
MAY1fg1999
Page 5
could be used for other rail and transit services in the Bay Area;
and
providing a traffic analysis requirement in the planning of the Bay
Area Water Transit Plan.
Another concern is that the MTC 1995-1999 San Francisco Regional
Fera Plan Update identifies funding sources for improving the five (5)
existing ferry terminals in the Five Year Capital Program. The Bill,
however, would repeal the MTC's authority to adopt long-range plans
and policies for allocating captial and operating funds to implement
high-speed water transit on the San Francisco Bay. The Bill would
create the Bay Area Water Transit Authority with the authority to mix
the future funding status of the five (5) existing ferry services with
those of the 23 potential terminal sites identified in Phase 1 of BRTF's
Concept.
71
BAY
'`
WATER TRAiNSIT I'll
INITIATIVE
Vision and. Concept'-Ual Design
Bay Area High-Speed Water Transit System
for the 21st Century
]February 1999
A Bold New Vision Inviting
Public Discussion and Input
BAS''ARFA� WUNCIL BAY AREA
ECONOMIC
f-- oRUM
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. Summary 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
1. Overview of Water Transit at Former Military Bases
J. Overview of Disaster Mitigation and Emergency Response
__..........._...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... ...... ......... ......... ...... ._ .... ........... ........................... ... ............. ......... ....... .........
....... ........................... ... ......... _ _ _ _ __
BAS' AREA WAFER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
VE
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 Bay 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 %hat water transit has for regional mobility and duality 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 Conservatior:
and Development Commission, and CalStart.
During this same time period, Iver. Ronald H. Cowan,Chairman and CEO of the boric 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 Bili Locker, 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 Hamner 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 Arca Water Transit Initiative.
These cooperative efforts culminated in September 1997, when the California State Senate under th�
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 federa;
level to explore opportunities to advance water transit.
Mone 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
L,ockyer, lie legislated the inclusion of water transit as an eligible spending category for toil 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 Torn
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 flask Force and provided input and
counsel to the Initiative. We are grateful for their interest and involvement.
Formation of the Task Farce. 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 flay 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 Werk.. The members of the flask Farce met for the first time on March 30, 1996 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 adopte
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 Fater Transit Initiative are.
1. Develop a bread-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 Francisca Bay.
2. Identify and resolve the institutional issues necessary to implement the Action Pian.
.3. Formulate a realistic and achievable funding strategy in order to execute the Action
Plan.
Embedded in the Scope of Werk 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"succe. factors"associated with a world-class system have became 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 Farce started work from the premise that only a bald vision
would be capable of becoming a viable reality.
Although dedicated to a bald 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 Parts 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 raster of the investigative staff is included in
Appendix A.
a
Funding. To finance this effort, significant investments in staff and other resources by the.Bay Are
Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum were matched by the.Fort of Oakland, the port of San
Francisco, and the San Francisco International Airport, each of which contributed$SO,flflfl 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 specificalI3
earmarked for water transportation, and received an additional $50,000. The remaining funding wa.,
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 (tie 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 analyst
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-beard jars 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 Bgy,4rea Pall. 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 tong 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-terra 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.
`I hese 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
overwhetming 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
{.f.rare.�fir a
s BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT TASK FORCE
i
Mr.Russell D.Albers Mr.Thomas C.Escher The Honorable Mary King
Vice Chairman of the Board President Supervisor,County of Alameda
Herman Goel`it Candy Co. Red and White Fleet Chair,Bay Bridge Design Task.Force
John Keith-Berkley President,ABAG
The Honorable Mph Appezzato Commissioner, MTC
Mayor The Honorable Gloria R Exline
City of Alameda Mayor Mr.Bruce Lange
AI DeWitt City of Vallejo Vice President,
The Honorable.ferry Brown**
Pamela Belchamber Real Estate and Treasurer
Oracle Corporation
Mayor Mr.Arthur Feinstein
City of Oakland President Mr.Stephan C. Lconoudakis
Shauna O'Hare Golden Gate Audubon Society Attorney
Ruth Gravanis Director,Golders Gate Bridge,
The Honorable Willie L. Brown** Highway and Transportation District
Mayor Mr.Charles Foster Gene Rezrode
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 1.Graff Joe Wyman
City of Richmond Senior Attorney
John Marquez Environmental Defense Fund Mr.Owen Macron
Executive Secretary
Vice President
Costa The Honorable James Harberson Alameda Central Labor Council
Vice Pident 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 A' ort
Mr. Ronald Cowan* Jan Ballesteros �
CEO The Honorable Greg Harper
The Doric Group Councilmember, Ms.lean Matsuura
City of Emeryville President
The Honorable lames 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 Giller
Mr.Rod Diridon The Honorable Diane Howard Dr.Henry McDonald
Executive Director Mayor Director
Minta 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 Elles Association Nello Bianco
Nancy Wakeman
Mr.Craig Dunham Tfic Honorable Julia Miller
Forty Niaers Stadium Associates,LLC Counciltnernbec
City of Sunnyvale
......................................................................................................
_...................................................................................................................................................................................._..._........__............._........._........_
......... ......... ......... ......... .. .......... ........... . ..... ......... ........_ _ ......... _
.......... ......... .......................... ......._...........
Page 2
Mr.Tom Moore The Honorable Annette Rose Ms.Cleopatra Vaughns
President Supervisor,County of Markt 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 Kett Mr.Michael Wilrmr
Past president peer
Recreational Boaters of California Mr.Bruce W.Spaulding Nossaman,Guthaer,Knox&
Robert Hoffman Vice Chancellor Elliott,LLP
University Advancement&.
Mr.Brian O*Neil Planning Mr.Douglas F.Wong
Superintendent University of California, Executive Director
Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Francisco Port of San Francisco
Mike Savidge Lori Yamauchi Larry Florin
TJce Honorable Charlotte Powers The Honorable James P.Spering The Honorable Mary Lou Zoglin
Councilraember,City of San.lose Mayor,City of Suisun City mayor
Immediate Past President,ABAG Chair City of Mountain View
Lion Rocha Metropolitan Transportation Ralph Faravelli
Corr r-nissioa
Mr.Paul Reinter
President Mr.Joel Suty Ex Officio:
Reimer Associates Vice President,Operations
(Retired) Ms.Sunne Wright McPeak
Mr.Ion Q.Reynolds Lockheed Martin Missiles& President&CEO
(Audfman of the Board Space Bay Area Council
Reynolds&Brown Kathert"ne.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 Oras and Electric Company and Development Commission
Director Angelo Siracusa
Bay Area.Rapid Transit District Will Travis
Mr.Steven A.Roberti Mr.Norm R.Tuttle:
Secretary's Representative Partner
U.S.Department of Labor,Region 9 Crosby,Heafcy,Roach&.May
Clinton Killian
Dep4aies in Italics
Executive Cameo ittee in bald
*C�taair
**vice chairs
Founded in 1945, the Bay Area Council is tar 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 'V4''A`r`ER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
A BOLI) 'VISION
Paul.Burnham, San Francisco, 1905
IMA GINE . .
You live in Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, or Solaano
County andy' ou work in Oakland, San Francisco, .Redwood City, or
,Sart Jose. Or you live in the South Bay and work in the Fast Bay,
North 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.
i
The return trip is equally enjoyable. Retailersin tine same safe,
clean, well lighter#'ferry terminals offer booA:s, 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,f 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,fleibility and mobility you need,J`or your work or lifestyle.
On other days or on weekends your family and friends are able
to use the same fast, convenient service to go to a ball game, visit a
regional park or enjoy one o,f the Bay area's endless places o,f'
interest and entertainment. Residents ofSan .lose 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 Wine Country. Residents of the North and
.,Fast 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 Gate National.Recreation Area in the West Bay. And, in
addition to the convenience of the trip,you are comforted by the sights
and sounds rr,f 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 to fly out o,f 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 onto 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
1s 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 other 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 networkk 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
fumes 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 `7 a6�, to 4z,6z
all-time high. in the 1998 Bay Area Poll,transportation
problems and traffic congestion were rated the"Number `
One" problem by a greater percentage of respondents than a pct 41a,. ?le
ever before in the 19 years this survey has been conducted. d c4W&Z' s i n c uez'rn, 4&AdItt
To exacerbate matters,without dramatic concerted aa teoze tica«cd t&aoeC aa,a4C as
intervention to alter current trends,conditions are projected e4cp &a-y4't acre fru
to get much worse. The Metropolitan Transportation
rown
Commission(MTC) Regional Transportation Plan forecasts ` ' . Mayor Willie
a staggering 249 percent increase in traffic congestion by the Civ vjs�r.� rancisco
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 Bay 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:
The freeway grid is essentially defined and is being completed.
• Flans 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
sussful water transportation systems in other regions--improving on the hest 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 characterizes 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 nems and lifestyle of Bay Area
residents. It will involve a comprehensive network of modern 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 Bast 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.
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 regiones 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 full 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
and conveniences, featuring architectural "74e Pant {aam ve 444e t!e
design that is interesting and compatible with Wa et 5th,,.We ane c orae 4
the local landscape, and fully accessible to the t'a 44&Xe the at r e
disabled. Walkways and boarding ramps will
be covered and protected from the elements. Saga �7wWZ$c4 &Zw4rae
Development of these terminals will stimulate + w t it t rasaw-,1g a4 e44 as -ve&
future land uses consistent with a more Doug Wong, Director
sustainable growth pattern regionally, including Port of San Francisco
various forms ofjoint 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.
5
These include the various sites of thelW
Golden grate National Recreation /�ane=461d � �e��
Area,Muir Woods, Fisherman's sedccee ao�c�a u+c �
Wharf,Marine World, Bast Bay 46rc44 a Aaawad a&A-,t�evv aeu,'ee
Regional Panic.District,Jack London aeZU. ` Va"- '4W&At4w414 4 d A&a� & ' w
Square,Coyote Point,NASA Ames i 06 "cea"ta a.4&UJ Gut&Wuecae
Research Center,San Jose Tech tete- de'l#Zed'r ra r4c f a
Museum,historical buildings and
ships on the former military bases, desca"cd t�Cc eatie�. t
wildlife refuges,and connections to 4#4&lance-jraace a use ran w. ",Oast a"aa
the wine country---to game only a few. ,r aW aua fV,&dcl 44d eW40teKf 41W PrUi
The high-speed water transportation servtee e��t�a aa�dae. "
Larry Thraikill.Acting President
service also will revolutionize the way San Francisco 49ers
passengers access Bay Area airports.
Officials at the San Francisco
International Airport have already documented the feasibility of system in which air passengers
clear security and check luggage at rewrote 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
4 4 O&W4 allPn+cat'u,�e. " Laia+a da ow&. a+ca'12�e cu e la ra"t' ' 4e1we'te 4
400ad4wIt la "W'd a4awrf e4o 4 aeatte 060� e4 UW,&
A4"Z u,M tmitZ�att�4&#''i.t ..4 a aw 4kA#1t`d.4e cCrct'r t#t�G Lc�
pv� Ae C edw A444 at 4 +regia'r� '7 e " elaal��axee
cedrz a`sate. laue pf 41 Up4o atdu"c &,,d tice fraaae fm de,&4 e4ej4i&'w aa
4qdfed 4a 41ue c"-dc eca emd ve t` ea�t%arc 4�....rft�to 460"'te aaa
Aajic a e"94 vef 4& e4e y4a " ea+ww�' ak'd td�Anu,4 ok
Jahn Martin, Director dz d#&w. Chuck Foster; Executive Director
San Francisco international Airport Pori 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 possible. `' astr&W4z&&4 4 a prvj rewcud ff'de a"'au�. . .
aecraa�04Me"sa ,ea evua�urcratc"c��u�r.lvcafeac�.
The system also will.capitalize on a major ��,,,�r &V'41e4- , gene 444 a�
opportunity to redevelop the dozen closed
military bases currently being converted to 2,&V "4a al �7dad It lent o
civilian uses,all but one of which are u & �Aea'd�4z t.'le
located on the Bay. These facilities are Grcae. � William Berry, Deputy Director
prime locations for new housing and job NASA Arises Research Center
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. Postal 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
overnight mail and light airfreight will have and k� '<e
faster uncongested access to the airports. �
The new Bay Area water transit system also .ecc ' = tauil f�xaude u�
will add substantially to regional disaster a &azar.�n aartl(c! taCC a,r Inc e e e44
preparedness because it will be able to assist in
recovery from natural catastrophes, such as
earthquakes. Water transit can keep the regiona `" � ' a�cf. Pie aaat�rxiz'iea�a s
moving even if there is major damage or deuZ--e
disruption to bridges, freeways,or fixed-rail Steven Grossman, Director ofAviation
services. Port of Oakland
And finally, the establishment of comprehensive water transit
"7�6 ea z system fully integrated with the ground transportation network
yuvk. Ze;W'Md«ua will not only add significant capacity to the regional
Me&Zrca, transportation system,but it will also generate hundreds of new
Water ?a&S'v&W,ca , Jobs in the Bay Area. These jobs will not only involve
operation of the water transit system from the vessels to the
ew-Aeia++utL awu end terminals, but also.will be related to maintenance of the fleet.
A4&Ka4e ad4ra". " Ideally,the vessels would even be designed and manufactured
rhe Honorable James 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 new 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 bald vision--the best water transit system in the world—it is necessary to
have a thorough understanding about what makes systems in ether 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
thi
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
10-minutes intervals. The annual Bay Area Commufe 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 quality
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).
On 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-lass 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 slaw down and thus delay trips. Statistically, fog which could slow vessels occurs l5 days a
year in the Bay Area,but is usually limited to morning hours. Approximately Ila of trips are
delayed by fog at present. And, while fag will continue to be a challenge at times in maintaining
operating schedules for the new system,now technology for both vesselsand 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, highspeed catamarans are far more maneuverable,and
capable of faster stops at much shorter distances. When combined with ate-of-the-art electronic
detection and location technology,high-speed vessels will operate safely in inclement weather
and achieve on-time 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 system aren't easily available, if an appropriate amount of safe
seem parking isn't available,or if pedestrian circulation isn't foremost 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
intermodal access. In order to optimize the efficiency of landside facilities there will need to be
standardized design and construction criteria for both 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 pares. To succeed,the fare for riders must be competitive with both other forms of
transit and the door-to-door costs of driving, including para king. 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 cats left the
San Francisco Perry 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,SarnTra.ns, 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 seamless multi-
modal comprehensive integrated regional transportation system.
Safety. L.andside and waterside safety must be assured. The new system will greatly increase
the number of vessels operating on the Say along with existing commercial shipping, recreational
boating,and fishing. Rigorous new control procedures will have to be implemented. Just as the
rr
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 traps,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. Part 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 tate,creating more mites 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 costa are enormous,may cause unacceptable relocation of people and
jobs,and often contribute to environmental degradation. However, while spiraling levels of
congestion on the highways and bridges have
increased highway travel time, advances in fast
ferry technology and vessel speed have decreased u�ecd
water transit trip time. The point has been
reached where water transit is actually faster than d #44&e. 9.v &wa 4e,&e"• *;?(4X6a54
vehicle travel between several locations during 237. 1101, a,rd Y O vw t 'ZsAox1u sue. ' Ve
peak:demand period,and thus a far more viable ��� �a od'M4 44&t&4'aa
option than in past years. 4W. ace A"elrt
-Level-of-Service(LOS)on most Bay Area f'rd"d es" ""' awze 4 "e dA4 a
freeways is degrading quickly(LOS is ranked A As&o�rzud&4&4w a e4oaa� 'W4 I'd
through F). LOS rank B, which represents stop- " �ft 446IL*d e rt'en2�xG+r�
and-go conditions,and LOS rank F,which urs. " Joel Suty Vice President Operations
represents gridlock,,are the common conditions Katherine Srrehl, Public Affairs
during peak,periods on Bay Area freeways. A trip Lockheed Martin Missiles And Space
from Mountain View to Hayward in the afternoon
peak period, a distance of about 25 miles,
commonly takes about 25 minutes (20 mph)_ The Regional Transportation Ilan estimates that
the automobile trip from Union City to Moffett Field will take about 50 minutes by 2020,and
t2
- a.c 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
from an average of 41 minutes to 62 minutes by
d d in talc auc&OIAMd 44, d 2020 and that the Oakland to San Francisco trip
�,..We w&4 dz p time will slow from 34 minutes to 51 minutes.
"alz0za to rye to &414 aW-t'lsrae ctscd 4&4
In a historical nutshell,as the Bay Area grew,
d �" tart 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 hours. BART extensions,however,cost millions of dollars per mile,and the BART
tcansbay 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,
Alameda/Oakland, Harbor Bay Isle).
In the last 10 years, however,the number of
vehicles crossing the Bay Bridge has increased by ZC4ze'a &atceal a
de.4Aezd more than 30,000,or about 12 percent. The RTP °� "` 4,,1
estimates that daily person-trips will increase by e4WACzrifi14 `, '� a dlaa cce
about 30 percent by 2020—well above the ability 644,ee aKd a.4,1'u'l' '" at l
of planned BART or bus improvements. Even a Pvuea ffllGe Ilsem j1,e av,&acce
10 percent increase in vehicle counts in the next tle &* arise uae
10 years(less than one percent annually) would
generate about 28,000 new trips, severely limiting as u -
travel in the corridor,even with improvements Honorable r City ity C Townsend
Foster CC
planned by BART and AC Transit. Other bridge ity Council
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 pians
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
.............................................................................................
_...................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... .......... ............ .. .. ................................................................ ........ .........
_ ............................................................................... . ...
_......................
oat e4u at
The potential does exist to divert
c rc•�r ea: • azw wrw aa�w to some of these truck trips related
a.GcG tee yc. '7 4 A"4eW90" to express mail and light
'30,f, snit aoz6 acre"I 3 tel. . *Z4 airfreight to water transit,
omw d Wor4w. &a xa��c cam tt xa� however. By 2020,according to
ffmr" . " MTC:estimates, the total weekday
Honorable Mike Nevin travel in these corridors could
San Mrrreo County'6oard afSupervisars range 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. to 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 made, 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 Sart Francisca 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 Fern flan. The Ptah offered a number of short-
and long-term recommendations for improving the fermi 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 stack and jab 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 sante 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(N-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
Southem.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 paints.
Although these investments are adding capacity to the system,the region's population 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 coming to the Bay Area. Within 20 years,the Association of Bay Area.Governments
estimates 1.4 million new jobs will cluster pdmarily in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and
various East Bay locations. Without a stunning reversal of trends, however, the housing stock
will stay relatively fixed in those areas, tagging 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 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,bath as a mode and a corridor. An
advanced high.-speed ferry costs$10 million and a modem 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 to 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 Pay Area Poll reported 82 percent of respondents favored expanded water transportation
services; the 1998 Bay Area Pall 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 corning so soon
after the 1998 $1 tall 'increase. It appears that Bay Area residents are ready for a world-class
water transit system in their region.
is
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 tate
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 toil,however,and by the early 19308 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 1335. The Key System and Northwestern Pacific Railroad
(NW),a subsidiary of Southern Pacific,held second and third place. Between there,the three
operators carried 49 million passengers annually.
The vessels were large and stately. The NMP 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 2,200.
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-beard 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 peals 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
Frswisas Perry Building each day, loading onto streetcars that left every20 seconds. All total,
the ferries made 340 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 altematives 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(BAR'f);
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 Cate
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 1.2,200
passengers-
Concurrent to these developments came a decision to convert gasoline-powered engines to diesel
fuel. Until then, the Golden Cate ferries had been powered by three gasoline turbine engines
which proved enormously expensive throughout the gasoline crises of the 1970s and 1980x.
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 Mate 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 load that three lanes on the Bay Bridge could sustain, per hour). All-day totals
of 20,000 passengers were normal dining the rebuilding period. `I his experience of this event
also gave rise to two now 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 bath
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 tall 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 came 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 raid-1980s, the fastest passenger boas operated at abut 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 fa.rebox 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 hoard 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 casts(per seat mile)can
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.
t8
Conclusion: Time for Bold Action
With rapidly increasing traffic congestion and decreasing mobility, there is an urgent need for
bold 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 best high-speed water transit system in the world.
19
....................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................-
.............................................................--I'll,.........
BA's' 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 Water Transit System which is set forth in the previous section. '`plie Conceptual
Design by its very definition is"conceptual"and will be father refined and quantified as more
environmental assessment,detailed financial analysis,and engineering studies etre 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 tate 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 to 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:
1. 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 Hight-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 21st 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.
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 1. Phase Il 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: Xmprove 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 11"build--out" is to attract up to 25-30 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
ti ref ame. 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 11 is to protect and preserve
the ecological integrity of the San Francisco Pray 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 li 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 Ten SuccessFactors include:
Scope and Geographic Coverage: Phase is 15-20 million passengers annually.
Phase 11: 25-30 million passengers annually.
Frequency of Service: At least 1.5-minute departures during peak Periods
on routes with heaviest Projected demand in the
corridors. Some routes may initiate service with 30-
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 clown to 25
knots for shorter routes. Maximum efficiency for
loadinglunloading and intermodal access.
Reliability: 990/0
Quality of Service: Rated by Passengers superior to driving and
equal or better than other public transit.
Efficiency of Landside Facilities: LoadAJnload: 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-Out"
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 jab 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 snail 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 Vass"
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 I. 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 64,000 riders each weekday,and between 12 to 18
million passengers annually, thus approximating the mobility performance objective stated
above.
The Phase 1 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 make the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative upon the completion of Please 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 based 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
opportautAties,or even shuts 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 team in Phase I in order to optimize the ability to
attract ridership in Phase H.
Attached arc;Figures t 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 following.
Figure 1: Existing,Terminals and Routes and Potential Terminals.
+ Figure 2: Phase 1 "Critical Mass"System Potential Routes. This system is based on
existing and Phase I demand for water transit passengers. Terminals that received overall
rankings of t and 2 are included in this system option.
Figure 3: Phase II"'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 L This system option addresses passengers
originating and/or terminating at the three Bay Area international airports: San Francisco
International Airport, Oakland International.Airport,and San Jose International Airport.
Figure S; Airport Passenger Routes for Phase Ll: 'This option shows the concept for a
complete network of rewrote secure airline passenger termuutls and access to the airports.
+ Figure 6; 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 fort 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"3" 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 connectiorts•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 throughput 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 sununary 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 beginthe 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
"buitd-ouC 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 deteztnined in the future with considerable additional analysis.
The fleet vessel composition also is expected to change over time as a€€unction 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 ger 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"wager taxis"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 74 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 new
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 load 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 faire 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 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 Card 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 ofNew'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 Light Rail,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 future,
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. White 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,Rear
crew 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,
faoilities and transportation. Unfortunately,this has left passenger vessel owners,designers and
builders in the position of having to meet the intent of AICA 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 Fallowing areas
are recommended For freer development and implementation:clean-up procedures,a
Contingency Manual.for Emergencies,rules regarding damage to terminals and related facilities,
a Security ProgTarn,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( ate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District receive routine"in the water" maintenance at a facility at the Larkspur Ferry 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, 6 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 300,040-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 1,000 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 bu'ild'ing 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.
to
_ _ _
Costs and Capital Investments
At this stage of Conceptual Design,the estimates for costs and capital investments for the Bay
Area Nater Transit Initiative are very preliminary and based only on limited information,
Additional financial investigation is in progress. Decisions about the fleet composition,types of
terminals to be developed in specific locations,and amount and mature of augmentation for
ground transportation services necessary to achieve optimal intermodal access have a significant
effect on the initial capital casts. The amount of rewired 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 ofestimates 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$5 to$IO million,depending oa 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's systema
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 e=xisting services. The consultant team estimated that
such a"least cost"scenario would be in the range of$600 to$680 million. If any.ofthe variables
in thescioriario were changed,(such as: (a)the fleet composition involves a greater proportion of
the faster vessels,(b)Imre 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
systema is needed to achieve the requisite intermc .l access),then the initial capital costs could
be as�much as$1.5 to$22 billion. The Action Plan being developed for submission to the
L&gistaturre and the public by May 1999 will contain a refined analysis and assessment of both
initial capital+costs and operating support.
no consultant team eStimateS that the initial capital investment of$600 to$680 million would
est=ablish a system capable of attracting ridership in the 40,000 to 60,000 range each weekday.
They f mthe r project that at the peak hour the system would curry about 9,000 passengers. q"ris is
the equivaleat of about 4 freeway[anes of bridge traffic assurning the standard t.1 people per car
which represents the Say 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 i *'critical mass"Conceptual Design,there would be benefits to the
Route 101. corridor through.Marin County and across the Golden Cate Bridge, the I-80 corridor
between Vallejo and the Bay Bridge,the I-880 corridor and the Bay Bridge from Oakland and
Alameda,the t-880 and Route 237 corridors from San L.,eandro to Sunnyvale, the San Mateo and
Dumbarton Bridges,and Route tOl from Sunnyvale to San Francisco. It is difficult to identify
ll
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)
Caact
Interstate 80 HOV Lane $355 yes
Interstate 680/Highway 24 Interchange $315 yes
Bay Bridge Last Span Replacement $1,300 no
Carquinez Bridge East Span Replacement $300 no
San.Mateo Bridge-2 Lanes $180 y
es
Cypress Freeway Replacement $900 no
Highway 101/SFO Interchange $100 yes
Interstate 580/680 Interchange $120 yes
Golden.Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit $200 no
BART to SFO $250 yes
Source: Transactions,Metropolitan Transportation Commission,May/June 1996 and GGBRTD
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 21'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 that for bold action is now to chart the course for the 2 tst Century.
12
BAYAREASS'COUNCIL
Bay Area Water Transit for the 21st Century
- Prospectus and Scofie of Work-
Agri 1998
YN'''MOnTJ y"I`IOlel'
The Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Fconomic Forum have joined forces in
coope;radon 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 wodd-class water transit system in the Bay
Area for the 21st Centuty.
The California State Senate, in endorsing this effort,passed Senate Resolution 19 in
September 1997. Advocated by Prestderrt:pro Tempore Bill Lc c ye r and authored by
Smator Barbara Lee,the Resolution directs the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area
Fxonomic Forum to create a Blue RIbbon Task Ford which will direct a study and report
recornmendations, including an implementation Action Plan,to the Legislature.
Importantly,the;Chai
BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNTrY
Transportation mobility in the Bay Area is a'growing challenge. Rated the number one
concern in the most recent Bay Area Post,transportation congestion diminishes the
region's quality of fife and threatens global economic competitiveness. To aggressively
address this problem, major businness 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 nein regional;nater transit system mcds the criteria set forth is the Caff to Action
and is featured prominetWy in the Bay Area Tramportatt"on Acdoa Plan.
There was a time, before the construction of the great bridges, when ferries dotted the
Bay,.canying goods and people across an impressive network of routes that were
integrated with landside facilities. People made as many as So 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 minumze 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 fer7ries as an opportunity requiring continued
attention.
Progress in the current decade traces to 1490 when California voters approved
Proposition 116, a$1.44 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
pian for these funds and to maximize available mattdting funds,the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission(MTQ and the City of Vallejo sponsored a 1992 study, the
Regi'on'al Ferry Plitt. The Pkm offered a number of short-and long-term
recommendations for improving the Bays ferry network A number ofthose
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 renters, bath 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 Plam highway congestion in the region has swollen to an astounding
90,000 hours lost per day by the resior's commuters, a figure that translates into $841,+E()0
in daily productivity losses and wasted resources.
In addition,the potential demand for greatly eogmde d 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 v'i'a gain over pre-strike levels. tither ferry services have posted
similar increases. This experience is spurring operators throughout the Bay Area to boost
Service. The Oakland-Alarneia litre plains to double its passenger capacity with anew
catamaran Vallejo Bay Link will add two ferries. Golden Gate Trait pig to increase
savice 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 rnillion 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 mail[provide huge increments of mobility. Nor is it dear that a
majority o(Bay Area residents would support this approach as the only solution to
relieving congestion and improving mobility.
Interest in an integmted, 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 populations_ 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 corridorremaining, perhaps
the single most promising source of untapped mobility.
OR. A U,A TIONA.L FILAAM i'4'ORK
In accordance with the Senate Resolution,a Blue,Ribbon Task Force will be established to
develop a bold vision, ensure that it stakes good economic sense, formulate an
implementation Action flan, 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 win 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 Legistature before the end of the sewssion.in September 1998. When the Task Force
completes its work, it wilt submit its vision of an expanded integrated'system,, a
3
BAY AREA WATER TRANSIT INITIATIVE
CONCEP'T'UAL DESIGN
Proposed"Types of"Terminals and Ivey Components
Attachment I
Sit different and distinct ten-ninal types have been identified for the Bay Area High-Sped.'hater
Transit System. 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)
« Dight 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 San Francisco Ferry Building, Moffett Field, Oyster Paint, and Redwood City.
Key components of Major Destination.Terminals are shown in Figure 8 and listed below.
* Transit Connections and Intermodal Access Circulation
• Kiss-n-Fide
* 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 300,004
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,Jack 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
• Kissan-Ride
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
• Significant Amenities and Public Information
• Covered Terminal
• Parking Lot/Structure 1,444— 1,544 spaces
• Weather Protection for Passenger Queuing
+
Staffing/Terminal Attendants
Light Destination Terrainal
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 ofdestination-oriented traffic are generated at this type of
terminal than at Major Destination Terminals. Light.Destination Terminals are typically
concentrated in airports,recreation, and small scale commercial/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 14 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 trafficor
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 I 1 and listed below.
A Transit Connections
• Kiss-n Ride
4 Pedestrian and.Bicycle Access
Covered Terminal
4 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 Flirt 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(lack London Square)Terminals.
Key,components of Recreation and Entertainment Terminals are shown in Figure 12 and listed
below:
i Covered Terminal
• Weather Protection for Passenger(queuing
• Pedestrian Ingress/Egress, Bicycle Ams
• 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 Water 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. Inane 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 SFC?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.Tose 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 SIC 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 SIC. Wednesday and Thursday are the busiest days for OAK. Tuesday is the least
busiest day for all.
• Airport truck traffic is heaviest between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. for SFO. Since SFC}
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 t2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
• Federal Express is responsible for 13 percent of the regional truck trips while the u.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 trwisport 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 of carrying 192
twenty-foot containers at a.servile;speed of approximately 35 knots(Fast Ferry International,
1997). The vessel design is derived from existing passenger Terries, removing the passenger
spaces and&nverting 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 dmf, 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 rewires large volume.
Key components of Cargo Terminals are shown in Figure 13 and listed below:
• Loading Docks
+ Gate Complex
46 Security Fencing
• Public Access
• Ingress/Egress
• Cargo Holding Areas
5
BAY AREA WATER 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.
• 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
Missipn 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 5,000 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 further studied and evaluated.
........................................
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... .................... ..................................... ........................................................................................................... ........ .........
_.. ................................................................................. _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __
East Bay Routes
Servir;,on all East Bay to San Francisco routes could use 1.513-passenger, 25-knot vessels. Or,
faster vessels could also be deployed.
a Alameda to Sart'.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.
4 Berkeley to-San Francisco to Mission Bay to Alameda Poiret(Seaplane Harbor at RIAS
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 Francisca 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
Jack London Square without a stop in Alameda_ Service could operate every 15 minutes,
travel time would be about 20 minutes, and patronage would be about 1,204 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 Mated 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 l5 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 Bay to PeninsulalSouth Bay&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 maple would
be induced to make this tip. 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 parks. About 1,000 people wouldbeinduced 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 l So-
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 commuters.
Nloffett Field to Mission Bay to San Francisco could operate every 30 minutes using ISO-
=:senger, 35-knot vessels. About 700 passengers are projected to use this service, and the
,ssion 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.
Parks 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 paster 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',ch k-in and check their
luggage.
San Francisco International Airport would be connected to downtown Sian Francisco, Moffett
Field,and Oakland International Airport. At Moffett Field,a 2,000-car parking tot would be
available for remote airport parking. In Oakland,the Port 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 am 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 offers an opportunity to
bypass the congested freeways and instead use the relatively uncongested waterways. Service is
envisioned from.Moff"ett 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 UPS and FedEx
operating aircraft to the facility. .Satellite package;express facilities in Moffett Field and
dovnrrtown.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/NAS 1 Old lam C,R, 2
Alviso 3 New C 4
Angel Island 2 Existing R t_g
Antioch 1/2 Marina C 5-
Bay Model 1 Pier R 3-R
Benicia 1/2 New C 213
Berkeley/Alban I New C,R, D 2
Candlestick Park i New R,D 2-R
China Basin 1 New C,R,D 2
Crockett I Piers C
East Palo Alto/Coote Landing 2 New C 3
Foster City 2 New C 314
Fort 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 Ba Isle I Exist' C, -D I
Hunters Pt I New M,C 2/3
Jack London Square 1 Existing C,D.R I
Larkspur 2 Existing C,D ---i
—
M=Island 1/2 Wharf M,C, R 3
Martinez 2 Marina C 2
Mission Bay I New C,R, D 2
Moffett Field 1/2 New C,A,Cr, D, R 2
Oakland Army Base 2 New C $
Oyster Point/SSF I Marina. C, D 2
PacBell Park I New C, R 2
Pier 39/41 1 Existing C, R,D I
Pier 43 1 New C 2
Pier 43 'J I Existing C,R,D I
Pittsburg 2 Piers C 5
Point Molate 2 New R $
Port Sonoma 3 Marina C 4
Presidio! ' Field 2 Wharf R,C 3
Redwood City 2 Port C,D 2
Richmond I Port C,D,M 2/1
Rodeo 2 wate&ont C 3
SF Intl Airport 1 /2
New A,Cr 2/ 3
SF Ferry Building 1 Existing C, D I
San Leandro/Oakland Airport I Marina C,D, A,Cr 2
San Mateo,Coyote Point t New C 3
Sausalito I Existing C, D
Tiburon ( Existing C, D t
Treasure (stand 2 New C, R 2
Vallejo 1 /2 Existing C. D 1
..........................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................_...
......... ......... ............................ ................................................................................. .............. ................. .
................................................................................... . _ _ _
.........
Table 3 Notes
Primary Function Cedes for Planning and Architectural Design:
A: Airport Passenger C: Commuter J Passenger
Cr: Air Cargo D: Disaster Recovery
M: Maintenance R: Recreational 1 Entertainment
Environmental Rank(PRBO assessment based on issues&mitigation potential):
I Light or marginal impacts anticipated.
2 Moderate impacts anticipated
3 Severe impacts anticipated—currently unacceptable environmentally
Overall Rank(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
Say Arra,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 COMPONENT MD MO GD IA 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
Coveted Passenger Waiting Area x x x x x
Commercial Land Use x x x x x
Weathrr-Protected Queuing x x x x x
MechanicaWlectrical Room x x x
Restrooms x x x x x x
Telephones x x x x x x
Cargo Holding Areas x
Loading Docks x
Gate Complex x
Baggage Facilities x x
Pedestrian x x x x x
Rail x
Bus x x x x
Kiss-n-Ride x x x
Parking 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 xx x
Public Information x x x x
Systems Operations Components
Ckeck-Inr[`ickct Counters x x x
Security x x x x x x
Communication x x x x x
Maintenance Faciliiies x x
Table 5
Design criteria Considerations-Major Destination
Co ci�eu#. 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
may.
Ptatfocros Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m.and p.m.peaks and
vessel characteristics.
Fueling NIA
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
ltequircta nts and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shor the Stabilization used on vessel wave and wake anal is.
tAndside
Ten itW 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. Now. total site property may include the vessel docking
and benth'tn areas in addition to the tandsidc terminal foo Tint.
Coverod Pa=ger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per person
Waiting Area should be a minimum of square feet.
Cotnmacial Land Use TSD
Weather r Proteetod Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maxitnum flow rate of 12
mag altd Widths ns/min&
Me ci anicalffilearical Eased on local architectural standards.
Room
Resuwais Based on local zoni code for passenger tluou t.
Tctcpho€ Minimum 5 public telephones
Cargo Hotding Arras N/A
Loading Docks Service entrance to be included for commercial land use deliveries, fading docks
should accommodate anticipated delivery vehicles.
Gate comptex N/A
Baggage Facilitits NIA
Pedestrian. Define estrari network to determine links„nodes,and sources.
Bicycle Amoss and story e. Note. re sato its mar uire trails for public use.
Rail Shuttle seMce to be provided Knot within'!,mile of terminal.
Bus Minimum bus bVs at 9 feat width and SO feet len
Kiss•-a-hide Located at front of terminal sec f:%.8).
Pauling Limitedparkintit to use of traEnsit
Taxi Stands Taxi Pickup curbside;su l sty ed within a holdin area.
Scwut'u►g 1 Electronic arrival schedules.
$ erns O rations Com rents
Cf k-Wricket Automated ticket vending machines.
Cotttttcrs
Scmrity Security office and video monitoring.
Communication Communication system to include public address.
tvtaintex�aact Facititits Routine onl . All.heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry deck o rations off site.
f ,
Table G
Design Criteria Consideration--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.
Ptatfoans Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at a.m.and p.m,peaks and
characteristics.
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers at all docks.Spill conn en pj4n must be adopted_
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 anal is.
Undside
Terminal Footprint Passenger wakiM ticketing.Commercial land use,and maintenance areas should be
separate operating areas. Total site should include building,parking,driveways,
bicycle access and landscaped areas.Mote: total site property may include the vessel
do&m Z and betthin areas in addition to the landside terminal foo riot.
Covered Passenger Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
Waiting Area person should be a minimum of 7 s uam 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 nslminA
McchanicallElectrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
Restroom Based on local zonin code for passenger!Louui
Telephones Minimum 5 ublic telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas NIA
Loading docks Service entrance to be included for commercial land use deliveries. Loading docks
should accommodate anticip!tSd delivery vehicles.
Gate Complex N/A
Baggage Facilities Remote airline b! ! e check-in.
Pedestrian define Pedestrian network to determine finks,nodes,and sources.
Bicycle Access and story e. Note: r Intoits ma r wire
Rail NIA trails for public use.
Bus Minimums bus b
Ay
s at 9 feet width and SO feet leis
Kiss-n-Ride To be located at the front of the terminal.
Parking €,000 -2,040 spaces. Recommend policy to limit parking spaces to promote trlrssit
use.
Taxi Stands N/A
Schaiuling Electronic departure schedules.
Systems Operations Cato cents
Chock-lar Ticket Staffed ticket office and automated ticket vending machines. Remote airline ticket
Counters counter for MOs with directairport rt service.
Security Security 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
Coat hent Design Ctriter is
Waterside
Dock Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
ingress sad egress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should accommodate
vessel range.
Platforms Platform criteria will depend on passenger throughput rate at am.and p.m.peaks and
vessel characteristics.
Fuermg NIA
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Requirements and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shoreline Stabilization $gid on vessel wave and wake analysis.
i.,andside
T,a minal 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 decking and berthing areas in
addition to the landside terminal footprint.
t ovcred Passenger [;;pc dent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
Waiting Arca person should be a minimum of 7 square feet
Cocz morcial.Land Use NIA
Wcatftcr Protected Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maatimutn flow rate of 12
Queuing and Widths personshnin(ft.
Mechanical/Electrical Based on local architectural standards.
Room
kms Based on local ming code for passenger throughput
Telephones Minimum 2 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas NIA
Marling Docks NIA
Gate Complex NIA
Baggage Facilities NIA
Pedestrian Define pedestrian network to detennine Punks,nodes,and sources.
Biter le Aces and stem
get Mote. let 'tts!Sa_require trails for public use.
Rall Shuttle service to be provided if not within 1.mile of terminal.
Flus Minimum bets bays at 9 feet width and 50 feet length.
tCis"-€tide located at front of terminal.
Parking limited parking to promote use of transit.
Tail Stands Taxi pickup curbside;supply staged within a holding area..
Scheduling Electronic arrival schedules.
Systems Operations Components
Chock4rit icket 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
Coat oaent Des' a Criteria
Waterside
Dock rPlatform
d be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multiple
gress that meet operational criteria. Freeboard should acec►n�modate
Ff° eria will depend on passemger throughput rate at a,m.and m
vessel characteristics. p- Maks and
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers at all docks.:Spill contin en
contingency plan must be adapted.
Navigational
Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
Rcquitements and regulations must be followed.
Aids
Shoreline Stabilization $ased on vessel wave and wake analysis.
Landside
Terminal Footprint passenger waiting,ticketing,and maintenance areas should be separate operating
Total site should include building,parking,driveways, bicycle access and landscaped
areas. Note. total site property tray include the vessel docking and berthing areas in
addition to the landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger
Waiting Area Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
person should be a minimum of square feet.
Commercial Land Use NIA
Weather Protected passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a max
Queuing and Widths persons/min/fi. imum flow rate of 12
lvtechanicallElc�brieal
Room Based on local architectural standards.
Restrooms Based on local zoning code for passenger throughput
Telephones Minimum 2 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Areas NIA
Loading Clocks' NIA
Gate Complex NIA
Baggage Facilities NIA
i'edesttian refine
pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources,
Bicycle Accessandstorage. Note: re Into its thea r wire trail
F`tt NIA s for public use.
Bus Minimum bus bays at 9 feet width and SO feet length.
K' -Ride To be located at the front of the terminal.
Parking
Taxi Stands 400—500 spaces. Recommend policy to limit parking spaces to promote transit use.
NIA
Scheduling Electronic departure schedules_
Systems Operations Components
Chock-lull icket Automated ticket vending machines.
Counters
Security Video monitoring.
Communication Communication system to include public address.
Maintenance l=acitities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in d dock
site. dry Operations ori
Table 9
Design Criteria Considerations - Recreation
Coen hent Desian Criteria
Waterside
l Docks should be appropriate standardized width and length to accommodate multipi'—
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.
Fuding N/A
Navigationa# Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard
wwernents and regulations must be followed.
Aids I
Shoterme Stabilization Based on vessel wave and wake analysis.
Landside
Teradnal 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.
C.ovemd Passortgcr Dependent on volume to capacity ratios and levels of service. Available space per
Waiting Arca pion,should be a minimum of 7 square feet.
Coauu=ml Land Use N/A
Weadia Protccteod Passenger queuing from terminal to vessel will be based on a maximum flow rate of 12
Queuing aril Widths persons/min/ft.
Meeh nica€Mectricai Based on local architectural standards.
Roorrr
ttesimoms Based on local zoning code for passenger throughput.
Telephones Minimum 3 public telephones.
Cargo Holding Arm N/A
Loading lilts N/A
Gate Complex N/A
Baggage Facilities N/A
Pedestrian Define pedestrian network to determine links,nodes,and sources.
Rail N/A
Bus Min'unum bus bays at 9 feet width and 50 feet length.
iss4n-Bids N/A
Parking Shared parking facilities.
Tarsi Stands N/A
Seheduting Electronic arrival and departure schedules.
System Operations Components
Chi InPI"Uc Automata ticket vending machines.
Countom
=qty Video monitoring.
CuMtnurtication Communication system to include public address.
Maintenance Facilities Routine only. All heavy maintenance would be conducted in dry dock operations off
site.
Table 10
Design Criteria Considerations-Cargo
Component Ucs' n Criteria
Waterside
Dock Docks 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
handle assen er and freight vessels separately. Freeboard should accommodate vessel tan e.
Platforms Platforms should allow for movement of cargo handling separate from passengers. Flexibility
to accommodate various cargoes,e.g.,RoIRo,pallets,bundles,air cargo containers,will be
included in design.
Fueling Fuel and water dispensers to be located at all docks. A spill Contin en plan must be adopted.
Navigational Water draft should account for lowest estimated tide. All applicable Coast Guard regulations
Requirements and Aids must be followed.
Shoreline Stabilization used on vessel crave 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.
?dote: total site property may include the vessel docking and berthing areas in addition to the
landside terminal footprint.
Covered Passenger NIA
Waiting Area
Commercial Land Usc NIA
Weather Protected Truck queuing widths should be sufficient to handle I tmilert2 axles and delivery vans.
_Queuing and Widths
Modtaticamoctrical used on local architectural standards.
Room
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.
L.vading Docks The number and length of loading docks are dependent on whether the facility is an airport
distribution hub vs.a local distribution hub,where public access is more frequent
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 ruirements will be considered.
Baggage Facilities NIA
Pedestrian Pedestrian access limited to local distribution hubwith customer service operations.
Bicycle NIA
Rail {fin-dock or distribution warehouse rail service not required.
Bus NIA
Kiss-a-Ride NIA
Parking high automobile and truck parking demand. For every square foot of building distribution
space,equal outside parkiM.should be available.
;Taxi Stands NIA
Scheduling For dual purpose terminals,i.e.,those shared with passengers,the transport of air freight
should not conflict with arriyaUdeparture of risen er ferries.
Systems Operations Components
Check-In/Ticket 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.
Maintcnance Facilities To be located only at MD or MO terminals that would only allow for routine. All heavv
maintenance would be conducted in d dock o rations off site.
............................
_...................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................... _ _ _ _ _
......... ......... ........._.. ....
5,
I Adak eftows Co. - &Nor%Podft ft.R.
t *kmsw,,deka a$arta FeEY So^fivedsca &tJd4*(d tL&
X CQlNrfk i4ocOW44NM RY. tmrd &Fon
Ca"POCKC ted S.Wh.. PWM ca.
i CwEtra Coda iS6 l4av CaIsot"
5audhem -GoWw Gate ferric.Ut
Gats�
• "Wo GaCa. flodt+c coast tiy.
e VAT system ew'&V" Pwmk ftftad CtEi�a
• mwv idard ferry Ca Port
a �-� C^err�r Co.
" VAL 0
a c P*.V Coag ft.
a
t4«ttE sha<. tEtiDaa
I
t `\
+� NolvowW-say Rafaet farm Co. a 'r
a*dea-V44* < s
K
smaomeawwry fty. SAN ,L�'..AABLO
$00 Baa ft
DAY
00006"UrOAV
CHMON OAKLAND
X
e
r
5" PA!`AEL A t a
e+x
e
sS ate o , i es 'e
a E ix EI a e • � t
SAN
` Sco
Source: G.Hadan,San Francisco Say Ferry goats, 1967
HISTORICAL SAN FRANCISCO
I3AY FERRY ROUTES
February 1999 Bay Area Vater Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Cuuridl
DAMES&MOOR FIGURE C-1
Y2tJ8 sv ._t4tlt7tE-QYttisELtrr.txft
a•: �.:-a-.. [--� •:..+'a- "- �<' ,_ ;,t�y*-s.^ rei�w� Vii._ '� n:..,y�'��` '� t�-w, .•,��+ q�-`
r,s.:;h�'7 � �tcrX;11101! • a + i� + :''''• ,;
(a8 *
tat
.wy
123 r
ri
qza
"�t�t(�t. '•`yC$wo-' �,� r" I If `+ ��#L'6tG��/.��1tt� t'C.S #�g)��• .
4'' •` �.• • f 't%,z. +�3`'iF.`. i '�..Qi9CSXQ"X21��,Y ..
rra?
P!"�` " +�` ."' �~ '' 'i'`• ��_�'- �d'!t�t4idttttc'd�t!
11 hi
py }� t' ''""j ' .• ry a '�' `' Qi1'dtrrd tntlJCXflis�tdrtt Y�'-- •�
ht sr"o!!B q •zea Xtdro Mir lza :- .i ce*
Leandro "
1trX iw rim c Xl r"# Haywn ird
""esu s.C,Cf}�s�`xOYf�f.` �k4� � ,j •
San
41
ax +
Itlffuatr r3ay C1Ct+ atl'C�Yt�r+ _ s
-7f '`�`• yrs•�,�.-
..- 1. Y .��e�y•i•� °'w.. •y��, ..."..w til V. ,p '�. ti#.
Source:DeLomie,Street Alias USA,1996 LEGEND 4
EAsting Bay Area Ferry Service Routes and
Terminal Locations
E) Potential Water Transit Terminal Locations
N NOTE_:Seasonal and tourist service to Alcatraz and Angel lslaM
are not show on this map.
5 fl 5 10 mites
5 fl 5 10 kilometers
EXISTING WATER TRANSIT ROUTES AND
Scale 1:500,000 POTENTIAL TERMINAL LOCATIONS
February 1999 Bay Area Wates Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
2/2199 jig ...40011-011ewirptl.cdr
CIAME S&MOORE FlGt3E2E #
2110100 sv
a'�+'""t'.,���7�"'„�i ?`�x�" -
�, ,+>, y r r.-«'�,.,. .x*^ -
_,,,�� '>x+
`+b,+• >w +d -a: ^.. rrt :a tea. •,, � >9.�99 ArkR"'x x7 +c t/ ,+. r � '
Y �, �""c t '�2` a .�� as++' b'�^2�a,? � k ''i � +�r rn rw�1"9FF"•,...i -
' •+� n,",9 ..t �.�w.T :` '+ta � � �` .w+ !�r�#� t [gR yf�'*.#< w } :t a. T`a+..� �3t ?.4,x
_.;3' -y}''+�.,. t� A:,4 �C._`` - v -k't '� ,� ,. r" - '?r �'�^ «11 4 f�.+a•.. L ,.��.^t, +-� ,J�eA. 'T..
�[ rr�6��E: b'-�R�wj"r^�'„r' {�-� s""yh\rX "'�'m X $ f -.-.. 4♦ rt /tgYh't 9{�'!�t �✓`��}'" ib �! �P '� M'.� �♦ S-
,A 'p "d
, i f`
# �...—wb":�t'�y"' �r� r�..'�. -�u. +R e,•� r �"`b r .3 Cp �" x #s�-. 4 � ���-�..� ti,.;".
'R'' hz,,,� .v.,:7`�"�",� �m>+'� ro t "' • ..�r44,
�, ?
at e '*+ei ? "t .=t•F{
t5e
p R
' .`(•9 s'i"tz,''�',"t Vii,;i�;�.� -.�'�a +''. '�,Mb.t ,gg�'k
°"�' ,Rr.tl �,� �y a �'if+g�fiY' x ;''�qy2 •1 $ L. +e 4. 'f"+„>..��'k+'r"'f-�. �c, ,d_-
rn"
YET"
'x;
,(��qqy+.,
4
" -t "T" ��M-e-S.. 'C 1 S ... �r./.y-p*�^.�_/•� �.'�R<e. '�,t� StR �., !�F !t !Y s"'h �a<+
r i, «.. ^"""....;: ftV�'r/��t✓�...as �C �+,�4Ra„�.+��+�.��� '�'��'-'+��{.�q,t'y " '4
f
w
FIN-
y
L ;L4
.�Y�.r'..�..5 s f_t..;.._,,,#.»^` ,. #�""`,t„*",r`',�� .,r� s+° ,.':?� '#��' -,. ' •' �5;�'��'1S��r�.��A �� a tst��'��^"'�"""�9 -t + '�►�' '"4
„T--
' i'-
$ :7r iN
9
°r Ycr"; �"`�.:'� wi .t�i "a'•. 'S�' " �":xa""'r��� f`%�.1 �'t'�y.r _�
s.w++a�r�+w• ,.
rkmr
'��",sR�, +
9 >
-. .; ..� ° .' ,. ^f,�,��� 3,.€.� �. �+„�.� k,. '�" � ti",aX x,9 'xF h"`+t. '�'• �"'w. 'cs�.
'$� �?`�'x DKK,. �"'�r f 1+ Mi t ���;� • �A�yy.� ,�' lf'anC
°"�' .""�' �:�✓..,.,t � � $*�*i �n .ars; �""3 � �r"�'r��,.,ta� -�
P�f•u4�a •4 r 4, •`a
Q 4 4 4
t
f
i7�i •, r 6
ff ft! r • r r r
,f ♦4• �
!4 4
{ J
. ! -t .- §... �•,• .,,;, �,,, � *sir` =:_--'` !�+.7�'^', -
ti. X43,.`�.`Ir`+ a � �,E .`3` t rsS ,� •• y�,'7 r, •
i.�1 � � t'r�•b S y� 4 ` k k .3
rr. yy i �yfi > 11uo
l
• ���k�4�K�� i •t{T1Iti f�� 4 #f S.. T.5
CS gild f3• '�• ix�..
e
' -
f3Mmus h• i �T$t'lr
�' lulls I✓ �' � t+. P
rt '125011 *
P' rd• � �`` � d'crrritrtfitlrreda
���� ��i � � i �� � � •�' c � S� 'lid tatfJCofiSerCrrl -`•- •�.�
.��' L7�i « 'wry+� }< ,,,• •+ '+�+�' ��.r},�,.•'
f��lr:ter' ��!rlrt lJ" r ,rr'ilt y"'•-- �' �•�. �, ,�acs`i..eat�drea „�,,".,,�
� Zj � rte- • .•. .. - •-
n iOR co. i v" M �"'• Y#{aylnracd
lrf,f��avrl Ba��. R � .;,,•� r .
n
Swroe-DeLomie,Street Atlas USA,1996 LEGEND
" Potential Passenger Water Transit Routes
U Potential Water Transit Terminal Locations
N
I
s 0 5 10 maes
5 0 5 10 kdomews
scale 1:5oa,aaa POTENTIAL BUM-D-O �
PASSENGER WATER TRANSIT ROUTE,`
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Stud'
40011-001-141 Say Area Couno
2/7199 jdg .-.4(011-014A>opwtr.cdrFIGURE=
2/10199 sv F-4 DAMES&MC7pt2[. ES&��....,
r-
,.:� f f �`3i,�a 6. A � R � M �y3J�'�`.'* •�yv� R .-4 �'� '��;-:a. yr yy.�- f,
n T
w
f
i
45,
pa ;E.,,, �•f ,......;a+Er^^""`. .N„3 .R _ yrr, w 4,.�f,��w C�t r �s 'i
Wil
rf.11
2M ®r
TT
YP
g'' • Ufa� .,.^^' 'z v �F*.�w �', f + „s� � � .- � i�� ..ff''.
�'� �. � "� r s��� � � y -4: �r ff tr 't f•{ h`�s„'� �' f ��
- V' t w..• } fir.. � � "�' ?
Mall
"--..-�-+t•�, �'`�
..� -• -..fie. f Fw ``+ ■
• � �a s ss
i • i
�t r#f • i •, • • i
fr•
_ } ✓` �..` - w •P"-� w ttl ,y t"f`.+ „' ;:ri�i'4 �#' '•'}�s;.ti s-
' a J} y"�5• ,t+�S'6 �• 'f .4: a'rj�+�e.�,�y�d"TM` jxl�'.a"c r ��t "'� _ h• ,.et
�' Jd p a•.
■�' ,"�4w ems... C=tk tyy� {' � ` '1,;�
11110 1
`� ivrr:t 7 e
•° + " � `:tom -
•: , T. 'r�easure 1s4w?:
cr and �
awdHilmak d ray,
In t &e :�' •.' t < =s.Sr �-'•ate
fttttrr P ilrt �' r. o r1 Sart Leandro
eij .
P. rHayward
San
F
s
'••� fr 1
id
f2
, loon flaadd sr ,
to. IL
40
' •� 'fix*`�+` `�` r��vrs " '""'�•
"t t � S f E Sri •-.� •• f �"•- �.
Source:Det-omle,Street Alas USA,1996 LEGEND
Potential Airptxt Water Transit ROU-tes..
Remote Airport Terminals,and
Airport Destinations
N
1
5 0 5 10 miles
5 0 5 10 kilometers
Scale 1 00,000 PHASE 1,CRITICAL MAS`
PASSENGER AIRPORT WATER TRANSIT ROUTE
Fetxuary 1999 Say Area Water Transit Stud)
40011-001-141 Say Area Cound
1129t99 1d9 ...40011-01\P 1 c mpawtr-cdr UZI DAMES&MOORE FIGURE
2110199 sv
......................
.........................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................__
... ......... ..._.... .............. ............................................................... ............ .........
..._.... ..........................................................................................
.................................. .................
}
rF
"i ; �� �• r �� sir! �^,y w,,�� •"»� M
ra �
-r a....."t"^a l` '" dC•S.l,.' � M f „V W,�k u� �'r�.+ya° v �
rs
E `
w. ��yyig7F53r1'•. �d r �� r� i r
S53
e CA � _„ fi O t t r t
LF
.a+
� t.t f ' 4r 7 ; '*\.. �"ti,^-.�. lA6 S n.rte^" '^^r'"``.: �+.SR e •�`\. �)
} Y��T� { � leo +}, � a - a¢�..'✓� � � .r'° -
a`r k •'- q A "'d r * ae,�r� a r t t V�'x & r;,*t..�. j �`,�',-'Y"1"t.
763
� • • • a
f
i �
�,ah'i"'�"T�'` -, .€Svc '� s.��y'r)-r' N v > ..f3„'r„"�� rt "'` i ..+'+��"�•.,rd_.. ,+ `F�h >�.vA�r�� '>,ya„ .
''�.{r,� .;.:fie"fij�`4, x�[' 4 --. Y*[a 3 T` -',.y+'q?^'x�,*'..-r,r�„"N'�s',• �. ,fir a t «,a^`�`„'r�„7•,!�"G'°�, k..i�'+.t
L .., � a�^`�,7�`�'a1 a '/a xt zr`� b .1.A.,t et^;,�y'P j'�q„-a�r�r�+a• ,,,^,,, 7" p 1 +t r �. ��
a^` "t' m �„ .6'� r';'y`""">.> 8'\j4,�fsr^,..r'F^ """''•y",,.�C � �.;. c` '„ ,.,t *�� .S 5"r�^"'r
.�lr .,*y" �' �^•, _ s ♦*...:'f L•
"F � �,fit,+�� � '� `'zx r:.r r'c 4''�, a,.'��# �y <:�,,,�"•f r �'4,. -�{l.
F4> „'• to f t SFS, - ,j `�.'
� a
r... Q ,•
j,C„ -:rte>•S ��.^-r. T�`�`d Z,
a ' f "•"""� ���`��i-.:F X'f ����. �,. 164- +- ��A-+� 4 �S'x"y,.
'" <' �.-.�---^".'...+. -- � s Y"'" ''s ..�EE�� �� ,6�� F t io l•�i�,.�,�.�.ti.;a�:
`'+';:.. :tib ^ ♦ #i' >+ 'tom
.� R
[ '
RSI
Off
ON•-`+ ��ar '4f`°v`+. A. •� y: � ..� � is • -
- A ��� �� ;� ",''�,� .;'`_'' c�,r....;,'��' n;7�. ,.:.,,yam f �,�; �,�•
? Oil
a '+
IWO
f
t
e •
c•�c�=�f�ss
G.
S$
4 £ —
Cx j° 4 i
R S ,
t S h
s
2
s �
1 'y
,z{
F
'fi i . . . w w. ��'c,,�►
L�1 E •f
.raa
PARKING PEDESTMiAN
a
t
ER
PASSENGER WAITING S
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
I
CHANNEL
APPROACH
a
i
t
l
a
i
C
I
I
TERMINAL. TYPE -MAJOR DESTINATION
February 1gg9 Bay Area Water Transit Study
400 i i-OO l-141 £3ay Area Council
1122199 jdg ...46011-01vnajordcst.cdr DAMES&MOOW- FIGURE F
__ _ __
COMMERCM LAND USE
al 111mill
PEDESTMAN
ENGER
PARKTN+C PASSENGER WA#UNG
} 1
DOCIONG
A*)rCM
APPROACH
TERMINAL TYPE -LIGHT OR.tGtt
February 1999 f3ay Area Wafer Transit Stud
40011-001-141 Bay Area Counc
1129f99 OAMES&MOCSftE
FIGURE 1
PEDESTRIAN
SENDER
! ENTIES
PASSEN} ER WAITING
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
i
CHANNEL
-' APPROACH
f
t
r
t
't
7
i
TERMINAL TYPE _LIGHT DESTINATION
February 1999 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area 0:vuncii
1126199 sv ...140011-01Vightdeacdr OAMGS&MOORS FIGURE IC
-- ......................................................................................_...
........... . . ................................................................. .
k
�4
3
SFEk?.�. CU COMER SERVICE
e _.p
'iStl
t+l WENANCE FACt ES
FUELING(RE (?TE)
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
CHANNEL
APPROACH
_ TERMINAL TYPE-CARGO
February 1599 Bay Area Water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area Council
FIGURE 13
t129<'<39 5v...40Ct##-C7 itC:3rga.r.dr ��C)r?hAt,S&M(?O#2[
NTERWNMENT
it
-PEDESTRIAN
ER
ES
PASSENGER. AITINC
EFFICIENT
DOCKING
CHANNEL
APPROACH
TERMINAL TYPE - RECREATION
February 1999 Bay Area water Transit Study
40011-001-141 Bay Area C<Kmci(
1129M Sv _A40011-olve-creation.cdc m C�\Mcs&MOORC FIGURE 12
.......... .......
...................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .....
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................
.............................................................................
w ♦�i1"�;1��~ ,��'��� n�•�f'��.r � ���:7 a t,�f° '^�' '�qr"++"+ate.} � a,..v `�.,»..
`s+C„ ,�'�+.,&!} y„ «,fl'"' `"'" �^'n�'lean.e,.,,yj Y+`.A,,M*.,,til�e,,,••••,n ..�. •i,� #;`•`:
V,,;Zz '`c.'.r•''a*� ""+ `�`*s, *"' '}iox s►c, #`y�w w,.,*'
4 w• tom! ty"` i,v�,":� My '.°`s.� � 4TM 4: _4A
-
],.x��� � � �=r� •f,�` "F .ty 'a..s .d�rt.�Yxrd s n �a +..
�q��Ma�a"4 .stt�'+iia • R $�..P�kcs �y°" < <* � �
IR
Wiz✓2 s��a3 t R 'Efu
R tt
r�4* �=`'�*���r,r.,,< a '_t'* .rte,, �.'r.-a.,: � '•R t1"�'i i§° ;S'`. '"+
# s s
a ry+ ..+c.,..?x t�.t.w�t �.�»/�* 4 'v�� �'Y.2's�,�.s^�"'c�.;.^t,, y4*�rJ'`•:f"��,,:...�++Ca
, = R♦� ,/+• •`9°• a !'t dea"�' �J� •' .. *r '•
� +/R� f:iiia-���.�^<.'_+;.� T�. °•� ?.«._,rg�.^' �*�" �'-• w':.
.#' �-m.�•,,,a...• � "r..- ,� ,saw
.wn�„s°"a. a � ✓j,�a,�y S� ne+1,,,�f.�rr s„S„c.•F*r i i +-f �'Fs. .,�_.- +,-s '♦'a'" {�.'-
�. a ..�•,�. iAn,„am. ►�„ y 3� � ��F J� -.�� �,+.� ,jt -
ft ."*. m..`..s.
41,
MKS
41
. Y
+ .R
�i.'a.rarw.�.•m-�°�. �Ae« y;R •u.. ,,,,•;ice S��-�:1..,_�
-' 'l t, a ,` „�R� P+►f�'i ��y '...
•
ra
w ! • 4
i.
j� •
•i
EXI11BrI' C
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 27, 1999
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 14, 1999
SENATE BILL No. 428
Introduced.by Senator Terata
February 16, 1999
An act to add Tide 7.14 (commencing with Section 66540)
to, and to repeal Section --L- V" �� �• , ..t Gode,
, 66519 of, the Government Code,
relating to transportation.
LWISLAME c OUNSU s DIOM
SB 428, as amended, Perata. Transportation. San.
Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority.
Existing
(1) existing law authorizes the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to develop and adopt a
long-range plan for implementing high.-speed water transit on
the San. Francisco Bay. eetn
speeifted entities f the
systems:
This bill would repeal the authority of the commission to
adapt a long-range plan for implementing high-sped water
transit on the San Francisco Bay
of these
br'IZ would create the San
Francisco Bay Area. Water Transit Authority, wbie e•
97
EXHIBIT B
Operational Criteria: Incorporate Ten Success Factors
Scope and Geographic Coverage: Phase I: 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 30-
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: Rated by passengers superior to driving and
equal or better than other public transit.
Efficiency of Landside 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: Gast-effective capital investment for mobility.
Comparable cost for riders to other anode choices.
Intermodal Interface: Coordinated schedules with ground transportation.
Systemwide Average of 50,%of passengers . . .
accessing ter finals by walking,bicycle or public
transit.
Safety: 1000/0
Public Information axed Education: Ongoing public information and marketing
program.
Readily accessible route and schedule information.
80% awareness by the public.
3
.........................
................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................... ................... .............. _ _ _
................................................................ .. . ............
.... ....._.... ...._.
-3— SB 428
1 SIC. 2. Title 7.10 (commencing with Section +6650
2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
3
4 TITLE 7.10. SAKI FRANCISCO BAY ARTA.NATER
5 TRANSIT ALrMORITY
6
7 66540. Unless the context otherwise .requires, the
8 definitions set forth in this section ,govern the
9 construction of this title.
10 (a) "Authority" means the San Francisco Bay Area
I I Water Transit Authority created by Section 66540.1.
12 (b) ".Board" means ,the board of directors of the
13 authority.
14 66540.1. There is hereby created the San Francisco
15 Balt Area Fater Thnsit Authority.
16 . .
17
beetrd-
1
19
20
21 (e) Tho Governer—AtaHdesir-'He --o—mW appoin
22
23
24m-Teffmnu" -ere
25
26 66540.2. (a) The authority shall be governed by a
27 board comprised of nine members as follows.
28 (1) .bight of the members shall be appointed as follows.
29 (A) pour members shall be appointed by the
30 Governor.
31 (b') Two members shall be appointed by the Senate
32 Committee on Rules.
33 (C) Two members shall be appointed by the Assembly
34 Committee on Mules.
35 (D) The appointments made pursuant to this
36 paraggraph shall be subject to Senate confirmation.
37 (2) One member shall be a member of the citizens`
38 advisory committee established under Section 665401.14,
39 and shall be selected by, and serve at the pleasure of, that
40 committee.
97
SB 428 —2—
and
-2—
and would require the board of
PP ViiL aw+KbF✓. i llV VL73
directors of the authority to consist of 9 members-,-S-e€-whom
Wet—d-d -be appeftited by the Go mt-Avetdd
to be
appointed and selected as speciJ ed. The bill would prescribe
the term of the directors on the board. The bill would require
the board to employ a chief executive officer and a general
counsel and to convene a citizens' advisory committee and a
technical advisory committee. The bill would require the
board to prepare and adopt a bay area regional water transit
plan and a capital improvement plan for implementing the
bay area regional water transit plan, and to operate a
comprehensive bay area regional public water transit system,
as prescribed. The provision of the San Francisco Bay area
regional water transit plan would not become operative until
the Legislature, by statute, approves the plan. The bill would
prescribe related matters with regard to the powers and
duties of the authority.
The bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
imposing these duties on the authority.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates deterwtznes that the bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: ne yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as Jollows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 66519 of the Government Code
2 is repealed.
97
........................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................_.......
......... ......... ........ ................................................................................................ ................................... ....................................................
............. ..................................................................... ....._.......
�—5--- SB 428
1 66540.12. The board shall employ a general counsel,
2 responsible for managing the legal affairs of the authority,
3 and the board may employ additional legal staff, contract
4 for private legal counsel, and contract with state agencies
5 for legal services.
6 66540.14. Not later than six months from the date of
7 the first meeting of the board, the chief executive officer,
8 with the advice and consent of the board, shall convene
9 a citizens' advisory committee to assist and advise the
ICI board in carrying out its functions. The citizens' advisory
11 committee shall meet on a regular basis. The citizens'
12 advisory committee shall include one member
13 representing each local jurisdiction in which a water
14 transit terminal exists or is proposed. The members shah.
15 be appointed by the elected governing body of each
16 respective local jurisdiction. Additional members shall
17 include at least one member who represents each of the
18 following interests: fish and wildlife, recreational boating,
19 private enviromnental protection entities, business, real
20 estate development, architecture, urban planning,
21 private sector vessel operators, and labor relations, as well
22 as the public at large. `The citizens' advisory committee
23 shall appoint one of its members to the board.
24 66540.16. Not later than six months from the date of
25 the first meeting of the board, the chief executive officer,
26 with the advice and consent of the board, shall convene
27 a technical advisory committee. to assist and advise the
28 board in carrying out its functions. The technical advisory
29 committee shall meet on a regular basis. The technical
30 advisory committee shall consist of members
31 representing local, regional, state, and federal agencies,
32 and operating ground transportation agencies.
33 66540.18. The board shall properly notice and conduct
34 its meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act
35 (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of
36 Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).
37 665403.20. The authority shall prepare and adopt a San
38 Francisco Bay Area regional water transit plan. The plan
39 shall include all appropriate land-side, vessel, and support
403 elements, operational and performance standards, and
97
-SB 428 —4—
I
-4-1 (b) (I) From his or her appointees, the Governor
2 shall designate one member as the president of the board
3 and one member as the vice president of the board,
4 (2) The six remaining members of the board
5 appointed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a)
6 shall consist of a representative Born the maritime
7 industry, a representative from the transit industry, a
8 biological resource specialist, two locally elected officials,
9 and a representative from the public at large who is a
10 regular user of the water transit services of the authority.
11 (e) Ofte—dkeet„_ all be e'er of—t
12
4
13 and shaH be seleeted byashall y
14 ee:
15 (f)-
16 (c) Each member of the board shall be a resident of a
17 county in the region described in Section 66502.
18 (d) In making the appointments, the Govemar
19 appointing authorities shall make every effort to ensure
20 that the board is geographically balanced, but only to the
21 extent consistent with the requirements of this title.
22 66544.4. The initial terms of the appointed directors
23 shall be eight years.
24 66544.6. Upon the expiration of the eight-year terms
25 described in Section 66540.4, two directors shall be
26 appointed to serve until February 1, 2010, two directors
27 shalt be appointed to serve until February 1, 2011, and
28 four directors shall be appointed to serve until February
29 1,2012.
30 66544.8. The directors of the board shalt serve without
31 pay, but they may receive their necessary, actual
32 expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties.
33 66540.10. The board shall employ a chief executive
34 officer who shall have charge of administering the affairs
35 and responsibilities of the authority, subject to the policy
36 direction of the board. The chief executive officer, subject
37 to the approval of the board, shall oversee the hiring of
38 employees necessary to carry out the functions of the
39 authority.
97
.................................................
_. ......... ......... ......._ ................ ....................... ....................................................................... _..... ........................................................... _......... .........
-7— 5B 428
1 66540.26. (a) The authority shad. plan for, coordinate,
2 and effect the delivery of feeder bus services that serge
3 the water transit terminals. "fie plans shall be
4 coordinated with local public transit operators.
5 (b) For the purposes of carrying out subdivision (a),
6 the authority may do all of the following:
7 (1) Enter into agreements with public transit
8 operators for the provision of feeder transit services that
9 offer direct linkages to the water transit system.
10 (2) Own rolling stock, and operate feeder bus lines and
11 other forms of feeder transportation, as needed, that offer
12 direct linkages to the water transit system.
13 (3) Contract with franchisees for the purpose of
14 providing feeder transportation services that offer direct
15 linkages to the water transit system.
16 (4) Take any other actions necessary and proper to
17 ensure that feeder transportation services are provided.
18 66540.28. "The authority may accept, through
19 purchase of fee, conveyance; of title, long-term lease, or
20 other means deemed appropriate, the vessels, ten-ninals,
21 maintenance and support facilities, and other assets of
22 public water transit providers.
23 66540.30. The authority shall, in coordination with
24 local public agencies, construct, acquire, develop, jointly
25 develop, own, maintain, operate, and lease property and
26 facilities which are elements of the operations of the San
2.7 Francisco Bay area water transit service, including
28 terminals, parking, maintenance and administration
29 facilities.
30 66540.32. The authority may canter into agreements
31 for the joint use or joint development of any property
32 rights, including air rights,owned by the authority.
33 66540.34. The authority shall set fares for travel on the
34 water transit system that it operates, and define and set
35 other fares and fees for services related to the water
36 transit system without the approval of the Public Utilities
37 Commission.
38 66540.36. The authority may acquire real or personal.
39 property, through negotiation,purchase, lease,or gift.
W
SB 428 —6—
I
6—
I policies. The pian shall be based upon, and be consistent
2 with, the document entitled "San Francisco Bay Area
3 Water Transit Initiative,' dated February 1999, and
4 prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Council and the
5 San Francisco Bay Area Economic Forum, and shall
6 include all environmental standards and conditions set
7 forth in that initiative. The adoption of the plan shall be
8 subject to public hearings in all nine San Francisco Bay
9 area counties, and shall be reviewed for consistency with
10 the regional transportation plan prepared by the
11 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. A copy of the
12 plan shall be submitted to the Legislature. The authority
13 shall accomplish programmatic environmental impact
14 reports in connection with the adoption of the plan, as
15 required under Division 13 (commencing with Section
16 210100) of the Public Resources Code. The plan shall not
17 be implemented until the Legislature by statute approves
18 the plan.
19 66540.22. The authority shall prepare and adapt a
20 capital improvement plan for implementing the San
21 Francisco Bay area regional water transit plan. The
22 capital improvement plan shall include the costs of land
23 transit needed to provide feeder service to the water
24 transit system. The authority shall also prepare a
25 feasibility study, including a projection of operating costs
26 and revenues, and an identification of proposed sources
27 for operating subsidies. The. .capital improvement plan
28 shall be consistent with the water transit plan and shall be
29 subject to the public hearing and review process
30 described in Section 66540.20.
31 66540.24. The authority shall operate a
32 comprehensive San Francisco Bay area regional public
33 water transit system, that includes water transit
34 terminals, feeder buses, and any other transport and
35 facilities supportive of the system. The primary focus of
36 the authority shall be the provision of services through
37 the development and operation of a comprehensive
38 water transit system The authority shall affect the
39 operation of an existing public water transit service only
40 with the consent of the operator of that service.
97
I
............._
. ... -
___ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _____
9— SB 428
1 66540.54. The authority may sue and be sued.
2 66540.56. The authority may issue revenue bands.
3 66540.58. The authority may incur bonded
4 indebtedness and receive and manage a dedicated
5 revenue source.
6 6654-3.60. The authority may deposit or invest any
7 moneys of the authority in banks or financial institutions
8 in the state in accordance with state law.
9 66540.62. The authority shall prescribe a method of
10 securing employees, and shall adopt rules and regulations
Il governing the employment of employees including the
12 establishment of a retirement system. If the authority
13 determines that it is in the best interests of the employees
14 of the authority, the authority may enter into a contract
15 with the Public Employees Retirement System.
16 66540.64. The authority may create, oversee, and
17 terminate special advisory cortin-dffees.
18 665401.68. The authority is subject to the California
19 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
20 with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and
21 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
22 See.4321 et seq.).
23 66540.70. The authority shall not exercise the power
24 to levy any tax or to seek that authority for any purposes.
25 L��
26 SEC 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
27 Government Code, if the Commission on State .Mandates
28 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
29 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
30 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to ,Fart 7
31 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of 7ztle
32 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
33 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
34 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from
35 the State Mandates Claims Fund.
36 .
37 30913. (a) hn additieft
38 ,
39 of ell bridges
40
97
SB 428 —8
1 66540.38, The authority may exercise the power of
2 eminent domain within the region described in
3 subdivision (b) of Section 66540.2, except in areas of
4 national park lands, to take any property necessary,
5 incidental, or convenient to carry out the purposes of the
6 authority. In the event that the power of condemnation
7 is exercised, the authority shall duly notify the local
8 jurisdiction in which the property is sited, and shall
9 exercise the power of eminent domain only with the
10 formal consent of that jurisdiction. Eminent domain can
11 be exercised only if the authority and the affected local
12 jurisdiction each approve its use by a two-thirds-vote.
13 66540.44. The authority may acquire, own, lease,
14 construct, and operate water transit vessels and
15 equipment, including, but not limited to, real and
16 personal property, and equipment, and any facilities of
17 the authority, except those facilities providing access to
18 national parks.
19 66540.42. The authority may select franchisees, which
24 may be private or public, for those operating elements of
21 the water transit system and related facilities of the
22 authority:
23 66540.44. The authority may enter into contracts with
24 public, private, and nonprofit entities for the provision of
25 services and materials necessary to cagey out its purposes.
26 66540.46. The authority shall prepare and implement
27 annual operating budgets for, the operation of the San
28 Francisco Bay area water transit system, associated
29 terminals,and related feeder transit and support services.
30 66640.48. The authority shall contract with an
31 independent certified public account for an annual audit
32 of the financial records and books of the authority. The
33 accountant shall submit a report of the audit to the board
34 and the board shall make copies of the report available to
35 the public.
36 66544.54. The authority may apply for and receive
37 grants from any and all state and federal agencies.
38 66540.52. The authority may solicit and accept gifts,
39 fees, grants, or allocations from other public and private
40 entities.
97
F
....................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................
.. ......... ......... ......... . .................................................................................................................. ..............................
....................................................................................................... .. .............._
........................................................... .... ....
F,
--- 11 -- SB 428
ill the itet1
2
4
5
6
7 �
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 .
18 Gode is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2.6rel
27 5
28
29
30 ee
31 Xl
32
3
34
35 planning.-
36
F stir-r
q KLJy aJi 4+a
38
39
97
SB 428 _ 10—
(1)
10—
Bridge: Nkri -
2 age:
3 -—ill Bridge.
6f izul� 9f �vi-- zzuz
.
67 (4) Riehmand-San Rafael Bridge., Major fe-li-abil-it-saieft
9
10
piftele-
11 • ,
12 of t—he revenues
13 loy-83eetions-109 -1 _I �Anl,7
14
15
18 f rbut not
19 ,
24
21
22
23
VV 14 VL 411V revenues
25
26 aReeated by the Metropelitm Tfamportafie
+27
28Aad±ority fer they 9 ead
29
30
31
32
34
35
on the effeetiye date of dte mLL&`eL-LldJXi-"5-
36 a
37 , ift the plan- I-p
38 ,
97
............................................................................................._
..........................................................................................................................................................................
.. ......... ......... ....................... .............................................................. . .....................................
........................................................................................ .._
_.. ....... ..._.... ......... 11
SB 428 .�
2
3 +
,{ i
5 ,
6
7
p
98 i
♦0 10
7
11 MeHities
' e
i
12 i
i
13Alty fu
y14
y15
16 dw
fiefft the toll
17
18
19
+'20
21 i
r�
22 i
a
r23
24
r25
26
�
2p7
r28
29
30
+31 the -San ififty
32
design phase fer widjt6nt4mHmidge-.-
0
97