|
INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum
have joined forces in cooperation with other regional
organizations and leaders to improve mobility in the Bay Area
by significantly increasing water transportation services and
facilities. Through a series of public forums, symposiums, and
stakeholders workshops, widespread support has emerged to
pursue a coordinated, collaborative effort to make dramatic
increases in existing ferry services in order to develop a
world-class water transit system in the Bay Area for
the 21st Century.
The California State Senate, in endorsing this effort,
passed Senate Resolution 19 in September 1997. Advocated by
President Pro Tempore Bill Lockyer and authored by Senator
Barbara Lee, the Resolution directs the Bay Area Council and
the Bay Area Economic Forum to create a Blue Ribbon Task Force
which will direct a study and report recommendations,
including an implementation Action Plan, to the Legislature.
Importantly, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation
Committee, Senator Quentin Kopp, has long advocated for
expanded water transportation on San Francisco Bay. And,
vital to the success of the study, the leaders of the
region's three largest cities--Mayor Willie Brown of San
Francisco, Mayor Elihu Harris of Oakland, and Mayor Susan
Hammer of San Jose--have all announced their support for this
effort.
The primary objectives of the study will be:
" To develop broad-based consensus on a bold vision,
ensure the vision makes good economic sense, and prepare an
Action Plan that will increase regional mobility through
expanded water transit on San Francisco Bay.
" To identify and resolve the institutional issues
necessary to implement the Action Plan.
" To formulate a realistic and achievable funding
strategy in order to execute the Action Plan.
It must be underscored that any effort to develop a
Bay
Area Water Transit System for the 21st Century
must also protect the ecological integrity of San
Francisco Bay and must embrace an ethic and spirit that
"celebrates the majesty of the Bay" through an integration of
economic vitality and environmental quality.
BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITY
Transportation mobility in the Bay Area is a growing
challenge. Rated the number one concern in the most recent Bay
Area Poll, transportation congestion diminishes the region's
quality of life and threatens global economic competitiveness.
To aggressively address this problem, major business
associations and economic development organizations have
joined forces in an unprecedented show of unity, issuing a
Call to Action and developing a Bay Area Transportation Action
Plan.
A new regional water transit system meets the
criteria set forth in the Call to Action and is featured
prominently in the Bay Area Transportation Action Plan.
There was a time, before the construction of the great
bridges, when ferries dotted the Bay, carrying goods and
people across an impressive network of routes that were
integrated with landside facilities. People made as many as 50
million trips annually, until exponential growth in vehicle
usage essentially grounded the operation. Today there are
fewer than 3 million trips per year.
With the Bay such a dominant feature of the regional
landscape, however, it is impossible to minimize its potential
as a travel corridor, even in the face of current statistics
on commute modes. Through the years since the construction of
the bridges, ferries have continued to feature in the region's
transportation planning, even if actual levels of investment
have not matched the vision of the planners. Periodic
earthquakes, gasoline crises, or transit strikes have
underscored the need for viable, fully-functioning water-based
alternatives. For this reason the region's planners have
provided at least a modicum of funding to this mode, and
highlighted ferries as an opportunity requiring continued
attention.
Progress in the current decade traces to 1990 when
California voters approved Proposition 116, a $1.99 billion
statewide bond issue for rail transit and related projects.
The measure earmarked $10 million for ferry service between
Vallejo and San Francisco and $20 million for other ferry
services around the state. In order to develop a spending plan
for these funds and to maximize available matching funds, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the City of
Vallejo sponsored a 1992 study, the Regional Ferry Plan
.
The Plan offered a number of short- and
long-term recommendations for improving the Bay's ferry
network. A number of those recommendations have been
implemented; others have not.
Meanwhile, new information shows major prospective
growth in demand for water transportation services. The
tourist and excursion markets are expanding, including the
construction of new sports stadiums near the waterfront. The
conversion of the region's military bases holds the promise of
new housing stock and job centers, both of which could be
served naturally and easily by water transportation. And,
airport executives are discussing the concept of improving
service and capacity through water access. At the same time,
highway gridlock is only worsening. In the intervening years
since the 1992 Regional Ferry Plan, highway congestion in the region
has swollen to an astounding 90,000 hours lost per day by the
region's commuters, a figure that translates into $841,000 in
daily productivity losses and wasted resources.
In addition, the potential demand for greatly expanded
water transit service was further highlighted during the BART
strike this past September when ridership on the
Alameda-Oakland ferry zoomed from 1,500 people per day to
10,800. After the strike, ridership settled in at 1,800--a 20
% gain over pre-strike levels. Other ferry services have
posted similar increases. This experience is spurring
operators throughout the Bay Area to boost service. The
Oakland-Alameda line plans to double its passenger capacity
with a new catamaran. Vallejo Bay Link will add two ferries.
Golden Gate Transit plans to increase service to Sausalito,
and the Red White Fleet hopes to initiate commuter service to
Richmond.
Extending the BART system costs upwards of $70 million
per mile. Adding additional highway capacity runs $32 million
per mile. The construction of a single highway interchange is
at least $310 million. Although the region is leveraging
local, state, and federal money to add additional rail and
highway capacity, the expansion programs are not funded at a
level that will provide huge increments of mobility. Nor is it
clear that a majority of Bay Area residents would support this
approach as the only solution to relieving congestion and
improving mobility.
Interest in an integrated, regional water transit
system, however, is at an all-time high. The most recent
Bay
Area Poll (December 1996) reported 82 percent of respondents in
favor of expanded water ferry services.the same poll in which
transportation was rated the number one concern of the
population. It appears that Bay Area residents are reaching
some provisional conclusions: the freeway system is
essentially completed; rail systems are doing about as much as
can be expected within the current resources and
configurations; the Bay, therefore, may be the last mode and
corridor remaining, perhaps the single most promising source
of untapped mobility.
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
In accordance with the Senate Resolution, a Blue Ribbon
Task Force will be established to develop a bold vision,
ensure that it makes good economic sense, formulate an
implementation Action Plan, and report recommendations to the
Legislature. The Task Force will be comprised of high-level
civic leaders from business, government and the community. The
members of the Task Force were appointed in December. The Task
Force will convene in March of 1998 and approve the final
Scope of Work, adopt a working budget and timetable, and
determine how to provide professional support and requisite
expertise to complete the study. The Task Force will submit a
progress report to the Legislature before the end of the
session in September 1998. When the Task Force completes its
work, it will submit its vision of an expanded integrated
system, a substantiation of the economic soundness of such an
approach, and an Action Plan for achieving it. The Task Force
also will brief the Congressional delegation.
In order to carry out its work, the Task Force may
organize itself into an Executive Committee and one or more
sub-committees, and may appoint advisory groups. It is
expected that the Task Force will consider appointing the
following three advisory groups:
1. A Technical Work Group, composed of the executive
staff of cooperating organizations and agencies.
2. A Stakeholders Conference, composed of all
interested parties who are current or prospective providers or
sponsors of water-based or water-linked transportation.
3. A Policy Conference, composed of all interested
federal and state legislators or their representatives.
The Task Force and its sub-committees will meet as
often as necessary to accomplish its primary goals. It is
expected that the full Task Force will meet at least three
times before July, 1998. In addition, the Task Force will also
hold community forums and public hearings to obtain expert
testimony and community input. The advisory groups will work
at the direction of the Task Force to assist in completion of
the study. All meetings will be noticed and open to the
public.
The Bay Area Council, Bay Area Economic Forum, and the
Task Force members will seek public and private resources to
support completion of the study goals and preparation of the
Action Plan. It is expected that cooperating public regional
agencies may be able to contribute in-kind expertise and
resources towards the effort. However, it is also anticipated
that additional professional expertise will be required to
carry out the Scope of Work set forth below.
SCOPE OF WORK
Improving regional mobility by significantly expanding
water-based transportation, will require a bold new
vision--one that not only builds upon "what is" but also
explores the feasibility of "what could be" based upon new
technologies and models from around the world. Therefore, it
is prudent to update the 1992 Regional Ferry Plan
as
well as demonstrate the potential for a greatly expanded
system and ensure that such a system makes good economic
sense.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has
now entered into a process with operators to update the 1992
Regional Ferry Plan and identify short-term
opportunities to improve service and expand ridership. The
Blue Ribbon Task Force will direct and oversee the "bold
vision" study to define the parameters of a significantly
expanded water transit system and delineate a pathway for
implementation. The MTC Plan update will serve
as a vital component of the overall information available to
the Task Force. Some of the work by MTC and Task Force will be
conducted concurrently with information shared as it is
generated. These two separate, but complementary, processes
will serve as "reality checks and balances" on one another. In
addition, Golden Gate National Recreation Area will be
examining new excursion markets and San Francisco
International Airport will be studying passenger delivery by
hovercraft. The results of these two additional investigations
will be integrated into the "bold vision" study.
The following Scope of Work is organized in three
sections related to the primary objectives for the study:
Overall System Design and Operations; Institutional Structure
and Arrangements; and Funding Strategies. The information to
be gathered and issues to be addressed through the study are
expressed in the form of questions under each section.
Overall Systems Design and Operations
1. What are the most important factors contributing to
the success of transit systems, particularly water-based
transit systems?
" How can the lessons learned from successful
operations elsewhere (such as Seattle, Boston, New York,
Baltimore, Hong Kong, Sydney, Vancouver) be applied to the Bay
Area?
" How do current water-based transportation services in
the region compare to the factors for success and what would
it take to integrate these characteristics into existing
operations?
2. How important is the level and frequency of service
in attracting ridership to water transit?
" How comprehensive does the service need to be to
succeed?
" How important are extended-hour service on weekdays
and weekend service to the overall success of the system?
3. What are the new market segments, origins,
destinations, and trip purposes that could be served by a
significantly expanded new water transit system on the Bay?
" What are the potential origins and destinations
throughout the region and what is the general potential demand
and for service?
" How much emphasis should be placed on serving
prospective destinations: employment centers; commercial and
retail operations; recreation and entertainment; sports
stadiums; airports; and other?
" What added demand and increased economic viability is
derived from providing water transit access to the converting
military bases that front on the Bay?
" What is the potential demand for water transit to and
between airports for both passengers and cargo?
" Can passenger and cargo uses be integrated in vessels
and/or at terminals?
4. What is the optimal combination of levels of service
and fares to maximize the viability of the water transit
operation?
" What are the most limiting factors in demand.fares,
travel time, level and frequency of service, quality, or
convenience?
" According to existing passenger surveys, what are the
critical factors in people deciding to use or not use water
transit?
" What are the important lessons that have been learned
from Bay Area ferry operations?
" Is there any advantage derived from joint promotions
and ticketing for multiple destinations?
" What are the inter-relationships between commuter and
excursion trips and routes that should be taken into account
in designing a new water transit system?
5. What types of vessels and new technologies could be
used to provide efficient, comprehensive, and
environmentally-safe water transit service throughout the
region?
" What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of
new vessel technologies (such as amphibious buses, catamarans,
hydrofoils, jet foils, and hovercraft)?
" Which types of vessels and new technologies can
utilize clean fuels to reduce craft emissions and improve air
quality? How do the emissions from the various vessel
technologies compare to the avoided emissions from displaced
vehicle trips?
" What technologies have been developed to reduce
potential of fuel spills and to mitigate impacts?
" What design features are critical to accommodate high
volumes of passengers (access for wheelchairs, baby carriers,
bicycles, etc.)?
" Are there any laws or trade restrictions which might
apply to leading manufacturers of desirable technologies (such
as the Jones Act)?
6. What improvements to terminal and docking facilities
are required to ensure successful operation of an expanded
water transit system that will be able to replace a
significant number of vehicle trips?
" Which locations need to be evaluated for possible new
or expanded terminal and docking facilities?
" What are the important characteristics and services
of efficient terminals and docking facilities that can move
high volumes of passengers in reasonable periods of time?
" What landside improvements and design features are
necessary to accommodate a diversity in types of vessels?
" What changes, if any, would be required in local
General Plans?
" Are there routing models (such as hubbing or
point-to-point) that will make a difference in the efficient
operation of a new water transit system?
" How should low- and zero-emission vehicle technology
(including electric and natural gas vehicles, bicycles, etc.)
be accommodated in terminal and docking facilities?
" What facilities and design features are necessary to
accommodate passengers with disabilities?
7. What are the critical components of ground access
services for a successful water transit system?
" What types of connections will be needed to link the
water transit system with ground transportation?
" What are the key issues related to parking facilities
and circulation patterns at terminals?
" How can other public transit systems be coordinated
and integrated with the operations of a new water transit
system to significantly improve mobility?
" Should the water transit system operate a ground
transportation feeder and destination system?
" How should low- and zero-emission vehicle technology
be integrated into the ground access services?
" What pedestrian and handicapped access are critical
for a successful system?
8. What additional fueling and maintenance facilities
will be necessary?
9. What are the critical environmental issues that need
to be addressed and resolved, particularly with respect to the
Bay, wetlands and the shoreline?
" What are the potential impacts of wake erosion on
wetlands, and how can they be avoided or minimized?
" Can new water transit routes be designed to avoid
impacts on rating waterfowl and on eelgrass beds?
" What are the potential impacts of noise from the
vessels?
" Are there any other negative wildlife impacts that
could result from increased service, new routes, or new
docking facilities?
10. What is the economic feasibility and additional
increment of mobility and capacity that would accrue to the
transportation network if the new water transit system (as
designed and operated above) were operational?
" What is the range of projected new passengers if the
new water transit system were operational?
" What is the range of projected costs per passenger
for capital investments and operations if the new water
transit system were operational?
" How cost-effective is water transit in achieving that
increment of mobility in comparison to other modes of
transportation?
" What is the value of the alternative mobility
capacity gained during emergencies from a significantly
expanded water transit system?
Institutional Structure and Arrangements
1. What is the most effective and efficient
institutional structure and arrangement for operating a new
comprehensive water transit system?
" Should the entire system be operated by the public
sector, the private sector, or some combination?
" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
2. If the new water transit system was achieved through
a combination of public and private operations, what are the
most appropriate responsibilities for each sector and what are
the most effective institutional arrangements to optimize the
roles and strengths of each sector?
3. What rules and regulations should govern the
operation of a new water transit system?
" Do different rules and regulations apply to the
public and private sectors operations?
" What operational and scheduling considerations are
necessary to ensure safety on the Bay and to minimize conflict
with other commercial ships and vessels?
" Which federal and state laws and regulations (such as
the Passenger Services Act) need to be taken into account when
considering organizational structure and institutional
arrangements?
" How do the roles of various regulatory agencies (Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, State Public
Utilities Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Coast Guard,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, etc.) affect the organizational
structure and institutional arrangements of the new water
transit system?
" What kind of performance standards should be
established and how should they be measured?
4. Should a new agency or authority be established to
oversee, manage and/or operate the new expanded, comprehensive
water transit system?
" What are the advantages and disadvantages of
establishing a new agency or authority with respect to overall
coordination, management and operations?
" Are there any existing agencies that could operate
such a system?
" If appropriate, how should such a new agency or
authority be constituted and what powers and responsibilities
should it have?
" How should the transition from the existing
operations and institutional arrangements to a new agency or
authority be accomplished?
" How should a new system be coordinated and integrated
with current and future private operations that may not be
incorporated into a new agency?
" How should implementation of a new water transit
system be phased over time?
5. What other institutional issues need to be resolved
in order to implement a new comprehensive water transit
system?
Funding Strategies
1. What is the general magnitude of investment and
funding required to implement the new comprehensive water
transit system envisioned above?
" What is the range of capital costs and level of
investment needed for landside facilities and capitalization
of vessels and equipment?
" What is the range of operational costs for the
system?
" According to baseline figures derived from all
foregoing analysis, what is the potential for revenue to be
generated by ridership?
2. What are the most promising sources of public and
private investment and funding?
" What are the prospective sources of public and
private investments for initial capital costs?
" Based on the system design and operations envisioned
above, what is the realistic range of revenues from fares and
other fees? What impact will marketing have on ridership and
fare revenues?
" What is necessary to attract significant private
investment and what is a realistic prospective range for
private investment?
3. Based on the potential range of revenue from
significantly increased ridership with a new system as
envisioned above, is it likely that on-going public funding
will be required to support operations and maintenance?
" If so, what is the magnitude of the prospective
ongoing public investment?
" What are the most appropriate sources of ongoing
public investment for operations from a public policy
perspective?
4. Are there creative new funding options which could
be developed to finance the system?
5. How can the most promising investment options be
integrated into a comprehensive funding and financing strategy
which is both practical and achievable?
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCOPE OF WORK
A draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released
and published in December to invite prospective technical
experts and experienced consultants to submit background
information and statements of qualifications. Responses have
been reviewed and evaluated; finalists have been interviewed.
The results of this process and a recommendation will be
submitted to the Task Force who will decide whether or not to
engage the services of one or more technical experts and
consultants.
The Bay Area Council in coordination with the Bay Area
Economic Forum will serve as the Secretariat to the Task
Force. The Bay Area Council also will serve as the fiscal
intermediary for public and private resources invested in the
study and will manage the contracts with any consultants.
Adopted by the Blue Ribbon Water Transit Task Force
on March 30, 1998.
| 
