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. The Conceptual Design by its very definition is "conceptual" and will be further refined and quantified as more environmental assessment, detailed financial analysis, and engineering studies are completed. An extensive public review and stakeholder discussion process will provide vital input to help define the system. Thus, it must be underscored that the Conceptual Design is a starting point for building the best water transit system in the world and the actual design will be determined through an open iterative public process.

The focus of the Conceptual Design is two-fold: (1) to describe the full potential in scope, function and capacity of the "best in the world" comprehensive system at "build-out" in the Bay Area; and (2) to identify the initial "critical mass" components of the system which are essential to achieve success and lay a viable threshold for "build-out."

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 High-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.

The mobility performance objective for Phase I "critical mass" is to attract up to 15-20 million passengers annually--4 to 5 times the volume of annual passengers today. This is approximately equivalent during the peak period of the "people capacity" of 4 lanes on a bridge. The intent is to complete development of Phase I within a 5-10 year timeframe. The mobility performance objective for Phase II "build-out" is to attract up to 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 timeframe. It should be noted that realization of ridership will follow completion of the system phases and is not likely to be achieved immediately. Further, the annual ridership objectives do not include truck trips avoided due to the express mail and light airfreight water transit component of the system.

The environmental performance objective for both Phase I and Phase II is to protect and preserve the ecological integrity of the San Francisco Bay ecosystem. Specifically, this means that terminals will be sited and the system will be operated to: (a) avoid as a first priority any significant negative impacts on existing wetlands, habitat and wildlife; (b) assure no net loss of wetlands, habitat, and wildlife; (c) support and promote the intent of the Bay Area Wetlands Goals Project; and (d) expand the total acreage of wetlands and habitat in the ecosystem should mitigation become an appropriate remedy as a result of an environmental assessment process.

The smart growth performance objective for both Phase I and II 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.

The Conceptual Design for the full system "build-out" recognizes and responds to the need for a comprehensive network of terminals and routes that connect all reaches of the region--North Bay, East Bay, West Bay, and South Bay--with one another. It is especially important to establish routes that connect people from where they live to where they work, particularly North Bay and East Bay to South Bay. Today, existing ferry services link only some parts of the North Bay and East Bay to San Francisco. However, given the significant job growth and severe lack of housing in Silicon Valley, there needs to be connections to the South Bay. Further, population growth projections coupled with freeway constrictions in the North Bay warrant a thorough investigation of the possibilities to establish terminals and routes that reach farther into the North Bay than existing services. There will need to be focused investigation to find environmentally acceptable terminals in the South Bay and North Bay.

In order to establish a system comprehensive enough to achieve the mobility objective of 25-30 million passengers annually for the system at full build-out, it is envisioned that more than 35 to 40 potential terminals location will be connected by 30 or more routes. This network of terminals and routes will serve passengers for trips related to work, personal needs, and recreation and entertainment. A fleet of more than 120 high-speed vessels, with a range of capacities to fit route functions, will be needed to provide the service. The Conceptual Design for the full system also envisions a network of 5 remote secure airline passenger terminals connected to the airports. The secure remote airline terminals may be co-located adjacent to other passenger terminals but with separate security areas. The Conceptual Design also envisions a set of 2 remote cargo terminals and 5 routes for transporting express mail and light airfreight to, from, and between the airports. This cargo network will be established during the "critical mass" Phase I.

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 60,000 riders each weekday, and between 12 to 18 million passengers annually, thus approximating the mobility performance objective stated above.

The Phase I system will consist of more than 300 route miles for general passenger and recreational services plus 140 route miles for airport passengers for a total of 440 route miles. This would make the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative upon the completion of Phase I the largest ferry route system in the world and would carry more passengers than Sydney or Vancouver.

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 opportunities, or even shifts in regional travel patterns. The consultant team projected ridership using the MTC ferry service model, which places values on travel time, waiting time and cost, coupled with professional estimates of "induced" travel which would be created through changes in land use or regional trip patterns as a result of a comprehensive water transit system.

The experience gained through implementation of Phase I will provide essential information for the actual design of Phase II build-out. This approach to development and design of the full system build-out embraces the opportunity to learn in Phase I in order to optimize the ability to attract ridership in Phase II.

" 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.

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 a 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 connections by bus or rail that reach into the North Bay and South Bay will also be explored.

The actual selection of terminal sites will require a cooperative process between local jurisdictions, environmental stewards and those responsible for building the system. However, the terminal selection process must be rooted in further analysis of corridor trips, market demand and forecasting, environmental constraints, economic considerations, and the selection of the most appropriate transit mode for each corridor.

To achieve minimum travel time, there must be maximum efficiency in the loading and unloading of passengers at the terminals. This will require standardized design criteria for both terminals and vessels. It is also recognized that terminal design should be a function of the volume and peak through-put of passengers and the level of intermodal access. In order to provide a framework for developing standardized design criteria the consultant team proposed an approach for classifying terminal types by predominant use. Six different terminal types were identified. These six types are listed below and are displayed in Figures 8 through 13. A general description of each terminal type is included in Attachment 1.

A summary matrix for the key design components for each of the six terminal types is shown in Table 4 attached. This matrix breaks out the waterside, landside, and systems operations components. It should be noted that this classification approach uses somewhat arbitrary terms to begin the task of developing standardized design criteria. It is recognized that most terminals will serve a variety of passengers and purposes. Further, it is expected that several terminals will transform their predominate use over time.

The Conceptual Design of potential routes for the Phase I "critical mass" system and Phase II "build-out" are illustrated in Figures 2-7. The potential routes for Phase I are described in Attachment 2. The potential routes for Phase I is an example developed by the consultant team to illustrate a scenario that will achieve the mobility performance objective. The potential routes for "build-out" are simply an illustration of the numerous options and combinations once the network of terminals has been established. The actual route configuration will be developed based on additional analysis and modified over time by forecast and realized demand.

Vessel speed and technology are critical considerations in the establishment of routes and the viability of the system. Further, there is a complex equation between vessel speed, capacity, operating costs and passenger demand on any given route. Thus, the exact vessel technology and composition of the fleet will be determined in the future with considerable additional analysis. The fleet vessel composition also is expected to change over time as a function of evolving technology and the success of the system. However, given the importance of travel time to achieving ridership and the mobility performance objective, it is anticipated that the system will need to deploy primarily high-speed vessels of at least 40 knots (48 miles per hour) on most routes. It may be feasible to initiate service on shorter routes with vessels operating at speeds down to 25 knots (30 miles per hour) if terminals are built which maximize efficiency in loading and unloading to make the total travel time competitive with driving. The system also will deploy smaller "water 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 70 passenger-only vessels.

Appendix G provides a summary of vessel types and technology. Based on current technology, it appears that high-speed catamarans, with their reliability, proven ability to attract ridership, and their superior environmental characteristics, are the best known vessel for most routes in the 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.

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.

The .Universal Pass. concept, requiring only one ticket or pass for all public transit systems, should be implemented for the Bay Area Water Transit system. Such an integrated fare and ticketing system allows passengers to move .seamlessly. between water, rail and bus systems. Integrated ticketing encourages use of all transit systems as the perceived barrier between various modes is broken down. Commuters are attracted by both the convenience and time saving benefits of single fare transactions.

The introduction of a seamless fare systems in Sydney, Seattle and Vancouver has encouraged ferry patronage. Single fare transactions were designed as part of the SeaBus system in Vancouver and have recently been added in Sydney and Seattle. Seattle.s Smart 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 of New South Wales is taking the Universal Pass concept one step further, advancing the .Sydney Pass. which will include both public and private transit carriers. Transit passengers in Sydney already have access with a single ticket to the public State Transit buses and ferries, and the Light Rail city train system. The multimodal integrated ticketing system will allow travel with one ticket on private buses and ferries, including two rail systems, CityRail and Light Rail, and the State Transit bus and ferry systems.

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 Plan.

Passenger Safety

Requirements include the existence of safe refuge areas where all passengers and crew can be temporarily sheltered from fire and flooding until they can disembark, safe routes to the refuge from all stair towers and from the refuge to vessel disembarkation areas. These areas can present problems for persons in wheelchairs and other mobility impairments as well as the sight and hearing impaired. While disabled persons may be able to gain access to the refuge areas, they may cause problems because of crowding, an inability to proceed to disembarkation areas, hear crew instructions or see exit routes. These problems can be solved primarily through crew training and assistance to passengers.

Although ADA omits water transportation, vessels and access to them at terminals, from specific requirements of the law because passenger vessels present much different design issues than buses and trains, is clear that ADA was intended to apply to all public and private sector services, facilities and transportation. Unfortunately, this has left passenger vessel owners, designers and builders in the position of having to meet the intent of ADA without knowing exactly how the law will be interpreted and put into regulation form at a future time. Efforts are underway, however, to develop standardized ADA guidelines and regulations for vessels.

Terminal and Facilities Safety

Operating procedures to ensure the protection of life, health and safety are recommended for all terminals and facilities of the water transit system. Operating procedures for the following areas are recommended for further development and implementation: clean-up procedures, a Contingency Manual for Emergencies, rules regarding damage to terminals and related facilities, a Security Program, and provisions for the suspension of operations during unsafe conditions.

Vessel Maintenance Facilities

A Bay Area Water Transit System will also require new facilities for storage, maintenance, and fueling of vessels. Present vessels operated by Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District receive routine .in the water. maintenance at a facility at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. 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 300,000-gallon storage capacity each would provide a 10 to 13 day fuel supply, which would be a valuable resource if an emergency prevented normal truck deliveries.

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 building with overhead crane for assembly, enclosed space for parts and material storage, and office space for engineering and management. Finishing and outfitting can be done inside or outside, and obviously space must be available to launch the vessel. Sites should be available at Hunters Point or Mare Island.

At this stage of Conceptual Design, the estimates for costs and capital investments for the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative are very preliminary and based only on 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 nature of augmentation for ground transportation services necessary to achieve optimal intermodal access have a significant effect on the initial capital costs. The amount of required public financial support for operations is likewise a function of several variables that require further analysis. Thus, the figures presented for the Conceptual Design are intended to provide policy makers and the public with a range and order of magnitude for the purposes of furthering public discussion about the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative. However, it must be underscored that even the range of estimates are subject to substantial further review, evaluation and refinement.

The consultant team developed a "least cost" scenario for the Phase I "critical mass" system using: (a) a mix of vessels in the fleet ranging in size (150, 350 and 400 passengers) and speed (20, 25, and 35 knots); (b) a professional judgment about the various terminal types; and (c) a modest base feeder bus system to augment existing services. The consultant team estimated that such a "least cost" scenario would be in the range of $600 to $680 million. If any of the variables in the scenario were changed, (such as: (a) the fleet composition involves a greater proportion of the faster vessels; (b) more terminals are in the upper range of cost to develop; (c) land acquisition or environmental remediation costs are added; and/or (d) a more extensive feeder bus system is needed to achieve the requisite intermodal access), then the initial capital costs could be as much as $1.5 to $2 billion. The Action Plan being developed for submission to the Legislature and the public by May 1999 will contain a refined analysis and assessment of both initial capital costs and operating support.

The consultant team estimates that the initial capital investment of $600 to $680 million would establish a system capable of attracting ridership in the 40,000 to 60,000 range each weekday. They further project that at the peak hour the system would carry about 9,000 passengers. This is the equivalent of about 4 freeway lanes of bridge traffic assuming the standard 1.1 people per car which represents the Bay Area average. However, one of the advantages of the water transit system is that it does not provide additional capacity in one corridor, as does a freeway, bridge, or rail system. With the Phase 1 "critical mass" Conceptual Design, there would be benefits to the Route 101 corridor through Marin County and across the Golden Gate Bridge, the I-80 corridor between Vallejo and the Bay Bridge, the I-880 corridor and the Bay Bridge from Oakland and Alameda, the I-880 and Route 237 corridors from San Leandro to Sunnyvale, the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges, and Route 101 from Sunnyvale to San Francisco. It is difficult to identify 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.

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 21st Century argue for making the investment today in this obvious void in the regional transportation system.