Table of Contents:
Motivated by the surge in traffic congestion and longer commute times resulting from economic growth and scarce housing in the Bay Area, the California State Senate appointed the Blue Ribbon Task Force for Water Transit in the Bay Area, to do a feasibility study of water transit for the region. The League of Women Voters of the Bay Area, along with representatives of local government, regional agencies, labor, business, environmental and other stakeholder groups, was a participant in this effort. The Task Force looked into all aspects of a regional water transit system: routing, possible land sites for terminals, environmental concerns, intermodal connections, prototype vessels, existing ferry systems in the Bay Area as well as world-wide, and governance of a water transit system. At public forums held throughout the region, strong support was voiced for alternative transportation choices such as ferries to ease surface congestion and combat air pollution, as well as cautions against environmental degradation.
Is a regional ferry system the answer to the area's traffic problems? How much will such a system cost and how will it be funded? Will the system be flexible enough to fit passenger needs? Are the terminal sites deep enough to avoid regular dredging? Will today's fiscal conservatism only exacerbate the problem down the road should nothing be done now? In commemoration of the silver anniversary of the Bay Area Monitor, LWVBA is proud to present this special single-focus issue addressing water transit as a possible alternative in our public transportation system.
Jean Matsuura, immediate past President of LWVBA, was a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for Water Transit
Ferries moving over the water capture the allure of the San Francisco Bay Area. In this natural space the passenger can relax, breathe deeply and take in the view. Contrasting this experience with congested commutes on Bay Area bridges and roads makes an expanded ferry transit system increasingly attractive.
However, putting a great ferry system together has gotten more complicated since the exemplary Key System launched state-of-the-art ferries connecting to new electric streetcars in 1903. The Key System was the most significant transportation system shaping the development pattern of the Bay Area just after the turn of the last century. A US Department of Transportation study observed that such systems "tend to lag behind urban development, change infrequently but then in massive ways." By the 1930s, ferries carried millions of passengers each year, as well as freight, between the north and east Bay and San Francisco, until replaced by bridges.
A shift back to a strong ferry system will require a regional vision that restores the sense of center to the Bay. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA), the first new regionwide agency in the Bay Area in over 25 years, is preparing to assume the responsibility for studying, planning and, with legislative approval of its plan, operating new ferry service around the region. The agency will need to coordinate its plans with local, regional and public transit agencies, and accommodate a wide range of interests and concerns.
The WTA was made possible by the work of the Bay Area Water Transit Task Force, a 52-member group established by the Legislature in 1997 to do a feasibility study and establish an action plan to increase high-speed ferry service on the Bay. The Task Force, managed by the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum, included high-level decision makers from around the region, representing government, business and environmental interests.
After extensive research and public outreach, the Task Force concluded that high-speed water transit had three advantages in meeting future regional transportation needs: cost-effective and environmentally compatible congestion relief; flexibility to add or change routes and destinations; and ability to meet mobility needs during emergencies or disasters. Its final report, issued in February 1999, envisioned water transit that would serve both commuters and recreational travelers, provide airport connections, utilize former military bases, carry express mail and light freight, add to disaster preparedness, and offer new jobs. Sunne Wright McPeak, Bay Area Council president and CEO, calls water transit "the missing piece in the Bay Area transportation puzzle."
The Task Force proposed creation of a new regional authority to develop and operate a 75-vessel regionwide system with 28 terminals and up to 20 million passengers a year, eventually growing to 125 ferries, 30 routes and 30 to 40 terminals.
Senator Perata's bill SB 428 created the WTA, and detailed its powers and responsibilities, including environmental impact analyses and input from other regional agencies. The WTA will include a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to ensure involvement by all stakeholders (see below). The new agency's first task is to prepare an Implementation and Operations Plan which will include:
Once completed, the plan will be reviewed in public meetings in each of the nine counties, and by MTC, which will have at least 90 days to review and submit comments. The plan, with the MTC comments, will then be submitted to the Legislature. The plan cannot be implemented until the Legislature approves it and passes a law allowing the WTA to proceed. If approved, the WTA would be authorized to operate a comprehensive water transit system, including terminals, feeder buses, and other services and facilities, with many of the powers of local jurisdictions or special districts. It could not, however, use the power of eminent domain without consent from the local jurisdiction involved.
Initial funding for the WTA will come from the state budget (a startup allocation of $12 million, included in the FY 2000-01 budget by the legislature, was vetoed by the Governor, who indicated he wanted to fund the WTA through transportation funds rather than the General Fund). Funding for future WTA capital and operating costs will be determined by the plan; it could be obtained from a combination of state and federal sources, but without drawing on funds now allocated by MTC in its role as Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation. Other possible future sources include joint development or additional bridge tolls.
The WTA has come into existence based on the work of the Task Force, which indicated that ferries can effectively relieve traffic congestion (projected to increase 250% by 2020), reduce overall emissions, and help to adequately serve the transportation needs of the growing Bay Area population. Economic and social factors must also be considered in seeking solutions to existing traffic congestion, and in designing a transportation network of the future.
The Task Force envisioned that the new ferry system will handle at least 15-20 million passengers annually and that it can be established at a capital cost of approximately $1 billion. This would place the system's capital cost in the same range as the proposed Bay Bridge eastern span replacement or BART's extension to the San Francisco Airport. One major advantage for water transit systems is that "right of way" does not have to be purchased, allowing implementation more rapidly and inexpensively than for a comparable highway or rail system. Studies done for the Task Force indicate that operating subsidies would fall into the same range as those for other operating agencies in the region, which are between $.13 and $.85 per passenger mile.
Transit advocates are concerned that building and operating the new system could divert money from other transportation modes which they feel better serve low-income riders. Recent analysis by MTC, as part of its Blueprint proposal for new transportation investments, indicated that most new ferry riders will be diverted from other forms of transit rather than from cars. MTC's analysis of the cost per net new transit rider concluded that potential new routes were not cost effective enough to be included as preferred Blueprint projects. However, the Blueprint evaluation was done on individual routes, not on the integrated transit network envisioned by the Task Force, where frequent service and multimodal connections could encourage better use of all types of transit.
If ferry service is complemented by development that encourages access by pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, net environmental costs and transportation subsidies may become more acceptable. Cities, counties and transit agencies will need to reach a new level of cooperation to take advantage of these opportunities. The Authority's success will depend upon its ability to build upon the experience of successful ferries in connecting with other transportation modes, to draw more state and federal support for ferry-oriented development on underutilized industrial and military sites, and to bring people back out on the Bay.
Development at potential landing places is critical for reestablishing extensive ferry service. Landing places are the necessary anchors to waterborne transit, and special in their own right. Most could be focal points for more intensive, mixed-use development with access to the natural beauty of the Bay, as well as excursion destinations. Each transportation district and jurisdiction served will have to see it as in their interest to create an inviting, accessible terminal, with complementary land uses nearby or within easy reach by transportation coordinated with ferry schedules.
Compared to regions with good ferry service, the Bay Area's waterfront is relatively underdeveloped. However, the transition of many waterfront locations away from industrial and military uses may present opportunities for appropriate new development which also supports ferry service. Completion of the Bay Trail and expansion of ferry service to waterfront development could offer attractive new places to reside, work and relax. Vancouver, BC, provides one model, with waterfronts south of downtown which have been transformed into a continuous promenade overlooked by condos, offices, parks, public recreation facilities, cafes and market, cross-linked by water jitneys and bridges, while business district development has been sustained by the highly efficient Seabus link to North Vancouver.
Locally, the historic ferry hub in San Francisco is the outstanding example of land use supporting ferry service. Ferries are within walking distance of the office district, and connect with trolley, bus and BART lines, airport and Amtrak shuttles, bike and rollerblade space. Service to the new Pacific Bell ballpark is making use of ferries that serve other places during peak commute hours. New service to Fisherman's Wharf Pier 43 may be followed by service to Treasure Island.
In Vallejo, economic development efforts in 1963 rebuilt the seawall, ferry slip and promenade, giving Vallejo a sweeping waterfront which now has circular terminal buildings as the focal point. Vallejo ferry service sprang to life after the Loma Prieta earthquake. Now the fast ferries are frequently at capacity, with an additional ferry on order. Vallejo Transportation Authority manager Pam Belchamber sees the ferry as opening up San Francisco to the residents of the North Bay; it may also open affordable housing options to people from San Francisco. Linkage to Marine World/Six Flags amusement park provides off-peak excursion passengers, bus links from communities as far as Sacramento bring other riders, and the city is also exploring extending the Napa Wine Train to the pier. The new ferry authority will need to work hard to match Vallejo's connectivity in its land and water transit, as well as its enviable fare box recovery.
On the other hand, some current ferry service may benefit from the Authority's new focus on water transit. For example, Sausalito is leery of the space requirements of large ferries but supportive of more frequent small ferries. The Oakland-Alameda ferry service, which is managed jointly by the Port of Oakland and the cities of Alameda and Oakland, does not seem to be viewed as a key transportation mode nor economic catalystdespite the attraction of Jack London Square, the Oakland terminal lacks the eye-catching terminal structure and accessible location of Larkspur and Vallejo terminals, BART access requires a transfer to AC Transit, and the ferry dock is not close to the new Amtrak station and the proposed hotel site. According to the head of the Reuse Authority for the Alameda naval base, ferry-oriented development planning is still premature. At the other end of Alameda, ferry service was a key component in development of the Bay Farm Island residences and business park, but remains heavily subsidized. More connections, both landside and across the Bay, might benefit these routes.
The Task Force recommended that the new system be designed to ensure that at least half of the passengers will access terminals without driving. While free and/or nearby parking is not an expectation in downtown San Francisco—the new trolley service has resulted in the removal of parking places—free parking may be a significant unresolved issue for the Authority. For example, Marin's Larkspur Landing, the most heavily patronized terminal outside of San Francisco, is easily accessible from the freeway and offers faster travel to downtown San Francisco than driving. Larkspur overflows its nearly 1400 parking spaces, but a parking garage was predicted to further congest the access road for both cars and feeder buses. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) has responded by reserving ferry seats for bus passengers, a prerogative of an integrated transit system; it is also attempting to increase use of the free feeder buses.
The Authority's plan will need to address other unresolved concerns, such as integration of new service with existing service. At present, ferry services include both private and public ferry operators with different vessel requirements and operator prerogatives. Berthing improvements in San Francisco for recently added service were ad hoc. By contrast, operating the country's largest ferry system—in Seattle—seems comparatively simple, since it is all operated by the State of Washington.
In 1992 MTC evaluated 17 possible new ferry routes and concluded that four had the potential ridership to support service from San Francisco: Berkeley, Martinez-Benicia, Bay Farm Island (now established) and Port Sonoma. Establishing new routes will now be the responsibility of the WTA. The Task Force report identified many potential terminal locations around the Bay, some of which would serve each other rather than San Francisco. They include Mare Island, Martinez, Benicia, Crockett, Rodeo, Point Molate, Berkeley, Treasure Island, Oakland Army Base, Oakland Coliseum/Oakland Airport, San Leandro Marina, Fremont, Alviso, Moffett Field, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Foster City, Coyote Point, San Francisco Airport, Oyster Point, Candlestick Park, Hunters Point, Hamilton Field, Port Sonoma, and Half Moon Bay, as well as additional points along the San Francisco waterfront.
Some of these terminal locations are already moving ahead. Richmond's Redevelopment Agency provided landside improvements for private ferry service established in September 1999, although ridership has been very low. The Port of Redwood City is also seeking to anticipate the Authority by having a ferry service already in place when planning decisions are being made for the region.
Other sites also have good potential. The Berkeley terminal location at the foot of Gilman Street could serve new development—a 250 room hotel and retail—included in the city's Waterfront Plan, and could help with parking for special events on Treasure Island. The historic water-oriented land use pattern in Martinez is now supplemented by a waterfront intermodal station with service by Amtrak, the Capital Corridor and bus.
In contrast, the proposed Port Sonoma location at Sonoma Creek/Marina has no transit or complementary adjacent land use. Some proposals, such as Moffett Field, seen by the Task Force as the most feasible southern landing, or hovercraft connecting the San Francisco and Oakland airports, seem to lack strong sponsorship.
Environmental groups have also raised concerns about both Port Sonoma and Alviso, in particular, due to impacts on wetlands. The Task Force included representatives of environmental organizations and employed a screening process to select sites which were environmentally acceptable. The Authority is instructed to use the results of the Task Force's studies, but it is not bound by the earlier group's conclusions. Thus, sites which the Task Force dropped from serious consideration for political or environmental reasons may still be considered by the Authority.
The Water Transit Task Force conducted preliminary analyses of the environmental consequences of expanded water transit; however, the Authority will need to prepare a full and detailed environmental assessment in order to ensure that expansion of water transit yields net environmental gains. Environmental review is likely to center on effects on marine/wetland ecosystems, dredging, air and water quality, and noise. SB 428 specifies some of the necessary components of the environmental review. For example, WTA must conduct a full Environmental Impact Report consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, and including an independent air analysis conducted by BAAQMD. In addition, SB 428 directs the WTA to analyze the feasibility of new technologies and alternative fuels to minimize air and water pollution, and to incorporate these into its plan to the extent they are demonstrated to be feasible.
Increased vessel traffic on the Bay has the potential to harm aquatic ecosystems and wetlands. Wetlands usually form in areas that experience lower wave and current energy than the rest of the Bay. The wake, or wave, created by a vessel has the potential to harm shallow plant and animal life and nesting birds along shorelines. Waves which are higher than those occurring naturally can erode marsh edges and disrupt sediment movement along the shoreline, resulting in eventual collapse of the wetland perimeter. In addition, wave action impedes the natural deposition of sediments in wetlands, reducing the fringing tidal mudflats, a habitat for invertebrates and the birds which feed on them.
The size and energy of a vessel wake depends upon the hull size and design, vessel speed, vessel type, harbor features and water depth. Studies indicate there will be opposition to any ferry with even a potentially destructive wake operating in closed shallow waters, especially adjacent to populated or environmentally sensitive areas. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) offers a definition of an environmentally acceptable vessel wake: "Shoreline waves generated by passing vessels should not significantly exceed the size and energy of naturally occurring waves in the area under consideration. Allowing for seasonal weather variations and the impacts of tidal action and currents, this is a proper, conservative yardstick."
The basic variation of speed is vital, particularly on short or environmentally sensitive shoal water routes. For example, high-speed catamarans create more wake at slow speeds than when moving fast, when they are higher in the water. The vessels which create the least wake are hovercraft and a new surface-planing type of vessel, which travel mostly raised out of the water. New slender and multi-hull designs have the potential to reduce wakes even more, and there are also ways to minimize wakes or redirect the wave energy away from sensitive shoreline areas.
A preliminary, non-inclusive, list of bird species which may be affected by ferry activity includes Caspian terns, least terns, phalaropes, and breeding colonies such as cormorants on Alcatraz and rails (black and clapper) on Sonoma and other marshes. Detailed analysis will be needed of proposed terminal locations on rivers or sloughs, such as Port Sonoma. The impact on wintering ducks, whose prime winter foraging and resting areas need to be identified, should be assessed and minimized or avoided. The South Bay is one of the most important winter feeding grounds in North America.
Further study will also be needed on the impact of noise, particularly from hovercraft, on marine life and wintering birds. Low frequency noise generated by older diesel engines has been found to be the greatest noise concern in European studies. Design technology and operational controls can reduce noise from conventional ferries, although incorporating noise and emission suppression into vessel design can add up to a third of the cost of these ships. Operational controls may include controlled start-ups, which also reduce air emissions, and speed reductions in environmentally sensitive areas.
Dredging is done on a regular basis for existing shipping channels and harbors. New ferry terminals in shallow areas of the Bay would require additional dredging. For example, establishing and maintaining ferry service to Moffett Field or Alviso would take continuous dredging to clear the channels of the silt that naturally builds up at the south end of the Bay.
The Authority's environmental review must address the effects of increased dredging in the Bay. Of the 49 dredging projects conducted by the Army Corps last year, over 90 percent of the dredged material was clean enough for aquatic disposal at sites such as west of Alcatraz Island or near the Golden Gate Bridge, two of the deepest spots in the otherwise shallow Bay. However, the Bay's sediments often contain mercury, lead and other heavy metals, the residue of many decades of development, industry and mining; while dredging itself doesn't introduce any pollutants, there is a risk that it could stir up contaminated sediments. Some scientists say that expanded dredging will cause a sediment debt and begin to cause erosion at the shoreline, especially in big storms.
Costs of dredging may also rise. Dredging and disposal of dredged materials in the Bay is now capped and required to decline over time, under a new regulatory regime, the Long Term Management Strategy (a joint effort of the EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, the state and regional Water Quality Control Boards, and BCDC).
Expansion or development of existing ports and marinas with intermodal connections, consistent with local general plans, may be seen in some cases as preferable to development of `greenfields' or previously undeveloped locations. Several of the proposed ferry terminal locations on the Peninsula and East Bay are former or current military installations, commercial port facilities or recreational marinas or landings. These may require less dredging, although other environmental impacts would still need evaluation.
Debate continues over whether additional ferries would generate less air pollution than other means of travel from one shore of the Bay to the other. Lacking the specifics of vessel design, fuels, and other components of an operating plan, proponents of both viewpoints have used estimates and assumptions, often based on technology which will soon be forced to change. In evaluating the contribution of ferries to lower regional air emissions, the WTA must consider new technologies and regulatory standards, such as recent state standards which will require cleaner engines for buses, and new federal standards for marine engines.
Although diesel emission pollution from buses and trucks is widespread in the region, much of the impact of emissions from marine engines is on ports and surrounding areas. Most ferries are powered by two-stroke diesel engines, although cleaner four-stroke engines are available. The new cleaner diesel fuel specifications that the EPA has proposed for heavy-duty trucks and buses probably will not apply to marine diesel fuel. However, measures to reduce air pollutants in marine diesel emissions and to increase use of low-emission marine engines are being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local jurisdictions, and private entities.
In December 1999, the EPA set emission standards for commercial marine diesel engines that become fully effective by 2006. Air pollutants from using diesel fuel, in buses and trucks as well as ferries, include hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), the two precursors of ground-level ozone, as well as particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and air toxics. The new rule will limit all of these except air toxics and PM larger than 10 microns, and will result in a 24 percent reduction in NOx and a 12 percent reduction in PM.
The emission standards are scheduled to be phased in, with full air quality benefits realized by 2030. Because of the durability of marine engines, most of them will not have been rebuilt or replaced before this time. EPA offers incentives to encourage manufacturers to develop lower-emitting engines voluntarily. State and local governments and individual ports may also establish incentive programs for low-emitting technologies in vessels operating in their harbors. EPA is also considering emission controls as an aftertreatment for engines, as well as emission standards for remanufactured engines.
Several innovative projects have been initiated in California in order to reduce emissions from marine engines sooner. The Bay Area Council, CalStart, PG&E and Carnegie Mellon University have joined forces in the Clean Marine Partnership to develop a compressed natural gas-fueled ferry and operate it on the Bay. The project is in the research-and-development stage. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has awarded funds from the Carl Moyer program to the Blue and Gold fleet for the incremental cost of replacing 3 ferries with two-stroke engines by new vessels with four-stroke engines, which are 55 percent cleaner.
The Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, EPA Region 9, and the Port of Los Angeles have a demonstration project under way in which seventy-five high-speed, low-emission small diesel marine engines have been installed and are operating in harbor boats. The purchase of more of these engines is planned. These efforts suggest some possible directions the Authority may explore in order to minimize air pollution from water transit.
Because much of the toxic pollution entering the Bay is from stormwater carrying runoff from roads and agriculture, the direct impact from ferries on water quality is expected to be relatively small. Offsetting this is the potential to reduce runoff by decreasing automobile use of roads and bridges near the Bay, particularly if good intermodal connections are in place at terminals.
Ultimately, the disagreements about the costs of water transit, the environmental impacts, and other complex issues will be resolved as WTA, in cooperation with MTC and other local and regional partners, conducts its detailed planning studies. The Implementation and Operations Plan developed by the Authority will play the crucial role in determining whether the vision of the Task Force is realized—providing the Bay Area with a world-class water transit system.
The WTA will consist of an 11-member Board, a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The first Board members, with 8-year terms, are designated as follows:
Board members must live in the 9-county Bay Area, be geographically balanced if possible, and a single agency or jurisdiction cannot have more than one representative on the Board. At press time, the list of appointees or nominees for the Board was still incomplete. Those already named are:
The biological resource specialist will be named as the other Assembly nominee. It is unclear which locally elected official, Fang or Newsom, is intended to satisfy the requirement for a locally elected official representing a water transit district, or whether Fang was named as a transit representative, forcing a reconsideration of the second Assembly appointment. Meanwhile, the Golden Gate Bridge Board has designated Albert Boro to be their representative, via the CAC appointment process, on the WTA board.
The CAC will include one representative from each local jurisdiction with an existing or proposed terminal, and one from each special district providing water transit service. It must be in place not later than 6 months after the Board begins to meet. Representatives will be appointed by the appropriate city, county or district.
The TAC will also be established within 6 months after the Board begins to meet. It will include representatives from government agencies from local to federal, ground transportation and water transit agencies, and at least one representative from each of the following categories: fish and wildlife, recreational boating, private environmental protection entities, business, real estate development, architecture, urban planning, private sector vessel operators, organized labor and the public at large.
For more information about the Water Transit Task Force:
Bay Area Council, 415-981-6600, http://www.bayareacouncil.org/watertransit/
For more information (air quality):
EPA information on marine engine emissions regulations and related documents is online: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm
Clean Marine Partnership: John Boesel, Calstart, 510-864-3000
For more information on some of the environmental issues:
Save San Francisco Bay Association, 510-452-9261; http://www.savesfbay.org
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 201-798-4800; http://www.sname.org
Bluewater Network, http://www.earthisland.org/bw/
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 415-868-1221; http://www.prbo.org
For more information (dredging):
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 415-352-3600; http://ceres.ca.gov/bcdc/
US Army Corp of Engineers (LTMS), 415-977-8500; http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/ltms/
Writers for this issue were Eva Bansner, Adelia Sabiston, Gail Schickele and Leslie Stewart. Ferry graphic courtesy of Washington State Dept of Transportation.