APPENDIX J

 

DISASTER MITIGATION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

 

 

This Appendix analyzes the benefits of a comprehensive water transit system to the regional transportation system in the event of a major earthquake or other disaster. It outlines the durability and flexibility of such a system in emergency circumstances when other major transport systems are damaged or disabled.

 

 

Ferries have proven their effectiveness as major alternative modes of transport in the event of both natural disasters and man-made disruptions to key land-based systems. Water-based transportation will be the least affected of any major transportation system in the event of a major earthquake in the Bay Area.

 

Ferries have temporarily replaced other modes of transbay transportation on four occasions during the past 20 years: the 1979 BART tube fire; the 1982 Marin mudslides; the 1989 Bay Bridge closure resulting from the Loma Prieta Earthquake; and the September 1997 BART strike. In each case, operators pressed ferries and excursion vessels into emergency service, providing additional service to compensate for lost travel capacity on alternative systems.

 

· When the BART tube fire closed the system’s transbay capacities in 1979, buses and some ferries were pressed into service. The Berkeley Ferry Committee established a new ferry route from the Berkeley Marina to San Francisco. When the BART tube reopened, passengers reverted for former travel patterns and the service was discontinued.

 

· When Marin County approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge were closed by mudslides in 1982, severing automobile access to San Francisco, ferries were used as emergency transportation. On one day alone, the three 700-passenger Larkspur ferries carried more than 12,200 passengers.

 

· The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake strengthened interest in the role of ferries as important emergency links. The ensuing month-long closure of the Bay Bridge powerfully reinforced that perception. On November 1, 1989, two weeks after the earthquake, ferries from Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley, and Vallejo carried about 6,800 passengers in the morning peak period, about the same as would be carried in automobiles on three lanes of the Bay Bridge in one hour.

 

Shoreside areas along the Bay are particularly vulnerable to liquefaction and displacement. Roadway surface ruptures and indirect obstructions (such as ruptured water mains and damaged buildings) could preclude vehicular access in much of the Bay Area. According to the ABAG study Riding Out Future Quakes, disruptions to I-880, I-80, and adjacent local roadways are likely in the event of an earthquake on a portion or on the length of the Hayward Fault. ABAG’s assessment concluded that nearly 900 roadway segments could be closed by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on a northern segment of the Hayward Fault, more than six times the road closure impact of the Loma Prieta earthquake.

 

The Bay Area Water Transit System will support emergency response and recovery after a natural disaster or other event that disables existing land based infrastructure. Water transit can also mitigate the effects of increased congestion on functioning roads and bridges caused by closures elsewhere in the region. The strong performance of the existing systems, even with their limited scope, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake speaks to a ferry system’s intrinsic disaster recovery capabilities. Given the Bay Area’s exposure to recurring seismic events, all terminals should be built with the latest performance-based design methodology and the same risk criteria as other vital structures that are expected to survive seismic events (e.g., key emergency and hospital facilities).

 

To assist in disaster recovery, as well as to maintain the basic flexibility of the ferry system to grow and adapt to changing demand, standardized specifications for vessel berthing will be required. This must include a common mooring system and free-board height specifications. In the event of seismic damage to the Golden Gate or Bay Bridges or to their approaches, or to other bayfront roadways, the Bay Area Water Transit System must have the ability to use vessels drawn from any part of the regional network to provide emergency relief service in the most affected areas. Particularly important corridors in these circumstances include those linking East Fort Baker with Fort Mason, and Alameda with San Francisco.

 

With these criteria, the Bay Area Water Transit System will have the flexibility to respond to a variety of emergency scenarios, ensuring continued regional mobility in and access to areas surrounding the Bay. This includes not only commute and personal access, but access to key population centers for food and medical supplies and other forms of emergency relief.

 

Vulnerable Travel Corridors

 

There are five principal travel corridors for which ferry service can provide major alternative access in the event of an emergency:

 

· Marin/Sonoma Counties to San Francisco – This corridor utilizes the Golden Gate Bridge. The most likely scenario generating emergency ferry demand would be an earthquake or other catastrophe closing the Golden Gate Bridge or portions of Route 101 such as the Waldo Grade.

 

· Solano County to East Bay/San Francisco – This corridor utilizes the Carquinez (which consists of two parallel bridges) and Benicia Bridges (one structure) to cross the Carquinez Strait. A loss of one bridge would leave two remaining. Loss of all three bridges would leave only the rail bridge (which could be disrupted as well) and potential ferry service.

 

· Marin County to East Bay – Closure of the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge would leave ferries as the only alternative to road travel across the North Bay via Highway 37.

 

· East Bay to San Francisco – Closure of the Bay Bridge or BART tube, or transit strikes at AC Transit or BART, would necessitate greater reliance on ferries.

· East Bay to San Mateo County – The San Mateo bridge is the primary access route in this corridor, with the Bay Bridge or Dumbarton Bridge as alternatives. Closure of any of these bridges would stimulate demand for an emergency increase in ferry service.

 

Options For Emergency Ferry Service Using Existing Infrastructure

 

The 1996 MTC Regional Ferry Contingency Plan identified four potential scenarios for increasing ferry service:

 

· Ferry Providers Increase Scheduled Runs – This scenario simply increases the number of runs for existing vessels. However, since virtually all existing ferry vessels are fully utilized during existing peak periods, the primary benefit would be during off-peak hours.

 

· Ferry Providers Increase Number of Vessels and Runs – Existing ferry providers could contract for additional vessels with a Bay Area or non-Bay vessel operator. Local excursion vessels are low speed and thus useful primarily for shorter runs. Higher speed vessels operate in Southern California (Catalina) and Washington State, but availability of those vessels is subject to seasonal demand and other factors.

 

· Ferry Providers Increase Passenger Capacity – Existing ferry providers could request U.S. Coast Guard permission to increase the passenger capacity of vessels. Potential carrying capacity gains would be limited, however, and higher passenger loads would reduce travel speed and increase loading and unloading time, reducing vessel productivity (increasing time to make a full travel cycle).

 

· Ferry Providers Add New Routes – Depending on which bridge or transportation route is affected, it would be possible for existing ferry providers to initiate new routes. This could be done most effectively for shorter crossings since most readily available vessels are low speed. Some existing facilities could be used without modification in an emergency, but others would need a new floating dock, dredging, etc. The entity having jurisdiction over docking sites (City, Port District, etc.) would need to participate in the planning and approval of new service.

 

Comprehensive Disaster Preparedness Through Water Transit

 

To establish an efficient, reliable and readily available system for mitigating the effects on transportation of a natural disaster or other emergency through water transit, a pre-existing and comprehensive water transit system offers the superior option.

 

While all terminals and vessels would potentially be called into play in the event of an emergency, by virtue of their location the leading sites that would be called upon in such circumstances would include: Alameda, East Fort Baker, Fort Mason, and the San Francisco Ferry Building. Harbor Bay Isle, Jack London Square, Larkspur, Oyster Point, Redwood City, Richmond, San Leandro, Sausalito, Tiburon, Vallejo, Berkeley/Albany, PacBell Park/Mission Bay, Moffett Field, and San Rafael are also likely to see significantly higher levels of utilization in the event of an emergency.