A Joint Workshop of the City of Berkeley Transportation and Waterfront Commissions and the San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority to Discuss Potential Water Transit in Berkeley
November 6, 2004
Meeting Notes
1. Welcome.
Rob Wrenn welcomed attendees. He is the chair of the City of Berkeley Transportation Commission. He explained that the purpose of this joint meeting between the Waterfront Commission and the Transportation Commission was to discuss issues related to potential ferry service in the Berkeley Area. He introduced Steve Castleberry, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority.
2. Overview of Meeting and Public Input Process.
Steve Castleberry reviewed the public meeting and public input process. He explained that this was a pre-CEQA meeting and a way to gather input from the community before beginning the formal environmental review process.
3. History of Ferry Service in Berkeley – Steve Castleberry.
· Post Loma Prieta service – 10/89 to Spring 90. Ridership started at 1500 trips per day, dwindled to <100 trips per day.
· MTC Regional Ferry Plan – 1992.
· Bay Area Council – 1998 Bay Area Water Transit Initiative. Recommended 14 new routes including Berkeley service as part of Phase I
· MTC Regional Ferry Plan Update – 1999. Recommended 3 new routes including Berkeley service.
· Water Transit Authority created - 1999. Mandated by State to study cost effectiveness and environmental impacts and recommend implementation plan. WTA plan recommended 7 new routes including Berkeley service.
4. Ferry Service as Part of Our Public Transportation System.
Anthony Bruzzone, Manager of Service and Operations Planning for AC Transit, spoke about the role of ferries in the regional public transportation system. He reviewed the Bay Bridge corridor transit and traffic projections, the number of trips during the PM peak hour and projected increases for the year 2025.
He reminded the group that MTC’s projections are global and not precise. MTC projects a 1 percent increase in transbay trips per year and because the base is so large, that adds up to a large number. MTC did not consider increased ferry service in their Bay Crossings Study.
The Bay Bridge can move 2,000 cars per hour per lane equaling 10,000 vehicles per hour. Assuming 1.6 people per vehicle, the Bay Bridge is moving 16-17,000 people per hour. There are approximately 350,000 jobs in downtown San Francisco.
BART runs 28 trains per hour with up to a 1,000 passenger capacity on each 10-car train. Some of that capacity will go unused because not every train has 10 cars and not every train is full.
AC Transit currently moves 12,000 people across the Bay each day and that will increase to 43,400 in 2025. Adding ferry service in Berkeley will only marginally impact AC Transit ridership.
He reviewed Alternative 1 from MTC’s San Francisco Bay Crossings Study of July 2002, which includes a range of operational improvements to existing crossings:
· HOV lanes and operational traffic improvements on bridge approaches
● Toll plaza modifications, primarily FasTrak electronic toll collection enhancements
● Incremental expansion of transbay BART service
● New and expanded express bus service in all three bridge corridors, with park-and-ride lots.
Anthony summarized with the following points:
· Comparing 2002 to 2025, total growth in all modes is projected to be 34 percent.
· Comparing 2002 to 2025, vehicular growth is projected to be 50 percent.
· The bus system is going to get a lot more passengers with or without a ferry system.
· Ferry riders are going to come from cars, not from buses.
5. Description of WTA Program and Studies - Steve Castleberry.
· The Program EIR investigated region-wide impacts of ferry expansion. Two Berkeley sites were identified, but not studied in detail. Those sites include the Gilman area and the University area. A site at Gilman may have potential wake impacts on birds and the shoreline, as well as dredging issues. A site at University may have potential parking and access impacts.
· WTA’s Implementation and Operations Plan was reviewed by MTC and BAAQMD and approved by the State. It includes information about service, schedule, funding and costs.
Steve Castleberry presented the following information on ridership forecasts:
· 1700 to 1800 trips/day for 2025 (demand)
· 56% of riders are commuters, 44% non-commute
· 10% to 20% commuting to Berkeley
· 75% riders access terminal by auto (for reference, 62% access North Berkeley BART by auto)
· Parking demand 300 to 400 spaces (assumes parking unconstrained)
· Catchment area - Emeryville, North Berkeley, Albany, Kensington
This information is based on the following assumptions:
· 30-minute service during peak hours
· 60-minute service during off peak hours
· ferry travel time of 28 minutes
· fares of $3.50 (one-way trip)
· $2.00 parking
· 2025 ABAG land use data
Steve Castleberry outlined the estimated costs for Berkeley ferry service:
· $12 million capital for 2 vessels
· $10 million to $20 million capital for terminal construction, bus purchase and mitigations
· $3.2 million per year subsidy for ferry and connecting bus operations
Steve Castleberry reviewed Regional Measure 2 funding for Berkeley ferry service: $12 million for vessel capital and $3.2 million per year for ferry and connecting bus operations. The following conditions apply:
· Parking and landside feeder connections must be sufficient to support ridership.
· Must be entitled by 2010 or funds revert to ferry service at another East Bay site.
· Draft EIR must be completed within two years of Notice of Preparation.
Steve Castleberry reviewed the potential schedule for evaluation of a Berkeley Ferry development:
· Joint Commission Mtg/pre scoping Nov 04
· Additional technical studies Nov 04 to Feb 05
· Joint Commission Mtg/pre scoping Mar 05
· Commission/Council direction Mar 05
· ED* Notice of preparation Apr 05
· ED Scoping May 04 to Aug 05
· Technical Studies Jul 05 to Dec 05
· Prepare Draft ED Jan 06 to Jun 06
· Public Review of Draft ED Jul 06 to Sept 06
· Response to Comments/Final ED Oct 06 to Dec 06
· Notice of Determination/ROD Jan 07
6. Public Comment and Discussion
Comment:
Norman LaForce - Environmental organizations generally support the Berkeley Marina site. A site at the Marina would be most appropriate because of existing infrastructure and businesses, including parking, making the site consistent with smart growth principles. The existing harbor may also result in less of a need for dredging.
The Gilman site is unacceptable to environmental organizations because of wake impacts on shorebirds and rafting birds. There would be a need for dredging at this site and a question of where the dredged material would be placed. East Shore State Park is two-thirds water and a ferry site at Gilman would run ferries through the state park water area. The environmental groups have a vision for the future of the Magna property and racetrack involving restoration of the site. Ferry service at the Gilman site collides with the environmental vision for the Magna property. Need to identify plan to purchase horse barns at foot of Gilman.
Buchanan site is also not acceptable because of impacts on rafting birds and dunes at Point Fleming and Albany Beach. Purchasing land for parking from Magna would be very expensive.
Comment:
Tim Perry, Berkeley Planning Commission – Emphasized importance to evaluate all sites equally. He is disappointed the Sierra Club representative has already conducted a “review” of all of the sites and called his threats of dissension “not useful”.
Comment:
Need to evaluate the numbers for auto access to ferry and park and carpool to ferry.
Question:
Do we need new ferry boats? Can’t we retrofit?
Answer:
Steve – May be able to retrofit boats, but the boats would have to meet both environmental, safety, and service requirements.
Question:
Has WTA contacted the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)? The speaker emphasized need for ferry service for recreational users. There is a strong interest in ferry service to and from Eastshore State Park. It is necessary for EIR to take all options seriously and to evaluate all sites equally. Previous ferry service in Berkeley failed due to a lack of adequate parking.
Answer:
Steve – Yes, WTA has contacted GGNRA.
Question:
Did model correctly predict early-1990s Berkeley ferry ridership?
Answer:
Steve – Yes, model was validated using actual service and ridership changes in Larkspur and Richmond service.
Question:
How did the WTA figure out the communities where potential riders would come? This is important for siting the terminal.
Answer:
Steve – WTA used census track data to find out how many people commuted to work in downtown San Francisco. The model compared commute time by ferry versus other modes. The model assumed that commuters would choose the faster or cheaper commute option and that there would be “penalties” for longer wait times.
Question:
How did the model determine that commuters in cars on the freeway would not exit the freeway to take a ferry to their destination?
Answer:
Steve – The cost and time of stopping and taking a ferry was not seen as an advantage to commuters on the freeway. They would have to arrive at the ferry terminal as the ferry was departing. If they did not time it perfectly, and even if they only had to wait a short time, waiting time is perceived as being longer than travel time, even if you are crawling along bumper-to-bumper at the toll plaza.
Comment:
Vancouver seabuses are designed for quick boarding and unboarding by loading and unloading on either side of the vessel. Ferries of this type should be used in Berkeley in order to decrease turn-around time and is one reason to get new vessels instead of retrofitting older ones.
Question:
Can Berkeley Commissions have access to WTA’s ridership model, particularly to see how 300 versus 400 parking spaces would affect ridership?
Answer:
Steve – WTA is happy to work with City of Berkeley staff to provide access to the model.
Question:
How does the subsidy level for ferry service in Berkeley compare to other modes?
Answer:
Steve – The subsidy level would be approximately $4 per trip, which is in the same range as new service by other modes. AC Transit’s current subsidy per trip is $2 and is expected to increase to $4 per trip.
Answer:
Tony – The more people that ride buses or ferries, the lower the subsidy level.
Question:
Need more information on ridership from disaggregating locations of departures.
Answer:
Steve – The model predicts that 90% of Berkeley ferry riders are walking to jobs in the financial district. A small number connect to MUNI to destination in SOMA or Civic Center.
Question:
Evaluate effects on BART, since it provides service to the same destination.
Answer:
Steve - The WTA ran model with and without ferry service to evaluate changes in BART ridership and found that the majority of ferry riders are coming from cars, not from bus or BART. The catchment area for the ferry is really different than that of BART. Ferry fares and travel times are greater than BART, but ferries also offer different amenities from BART/bus.
Question:
How many shuttles? To and from what areas? How frequent?
Answer:
Steve – Costs based on shuttles during peak hour service to meet each ferry. If off-peak demand is high, then shuttles may be needed as well.
Question:
Berkeley Councilwoman Linda Maio – Commute traffic uses residential streets such as Cedar, Rose and Gilman to avoid freeway. Will the EIR address projected traffic impacts that ferry service will have on these streets taking into consideration the racetrack, the new Target store and development on University Avenue?
Answer:
Steve – This is important. The WTA uses ABAG information, which doesn’t reflect site-specific development. However, the WTA will try to include this. For Gilman – what should we assume if there are no approved permits or general plan?
Question:
Will site-specific EIR get information from local government?
Answer:
Steve – Yes. For example, South San Francisco has more jobs now than ABAG projects for the future. So, WTA used local information.
Question:
Will transit service to the ferry terminal be improved in order to get people out of cars?
Answer:
Steve - The Bay Bridge corridor is the busiest in the Bay Area. The model assumed improved transit. If transit service was improved, people may just take it all the way to their destination instead of connecting to a ferry. Shuttle service will not be designed to take away AC transit riders.
Question:
What about using alternatives to ferry boats – water taxis or other smaller, faster vessels, or a combination of smaller and larger vessels to satisfy multiple riderships?
Answer:
Steve – WTA can look at smaller vessel alternatives that would still reduce the number of cars on the road. Need to ensure alternatives fulfill WTA mandate. High subsidy level for smaller boat service is not feasible, but will look at efficiency of small boats.
Question:
Need more information on shuttles.
Answer:
Tony – Currently, there is more demand than capacity for transbay trips on AC Transit. There is a need to look at many modes in order to meet that demand. Buses have a slightly cheaper operating cost, but higher capital cost - need more HOV lanes ($500 million), new transbay terminal ($500 million). There is a place for both buses and ferries. Buses take overflow from cars and BART, but there is still demand that needs to be filled, so there is a need for ferries as well.
Question:
More information on San Francisco ferry facilities – where will the Berkeley ferry connect?
Answer:
Steve – Assumed San Francisco’s Ferry Building as the destination. Ferry building needs some changes to accommodate more riders, to move them through more quickly. MUNI could improve service across the Embarcadero to the ferry terminal. There was a surprisingly high demand for service between Berkeley and Mission Bay.
Question:
75% of ferry riders will need parking spaces all day, 25% of ferry riders are off-peak and will need shorter-term parking. How will the WTA assure parking is available for midday riders?
Answer:
Steve – WTA recognizes that different types of riders need different types of parking. If parking was constrained, morning commuters would take all of the parking and there would be no spaces left for mid-day riders, so mid-day riders may drive away. If site is too large and spread out, it will be difficult to set up for transit and if site is too small, it will be difficult to provide enough parking for commuters.
Question:
How would ridership/parking demand change if fee was imposed? Other marina users are concerned about fee parking for ferry riders because commuters may choose to park in adjacent lots to avoid paying the parking fee. Can you roll parking charge into ticket price?
Answer:
Steve – Model shows that if parking fee is removed, ridership increases 20%, increasing demand for parking. If parking fee is added to ticket price, the model shows ridership decreases.
Question:
Allan Maris, Albany City Council – OK to use Regional Measure 2 funds for operations?
Answer:
Steve – Yes.
Question:
Parking may be better at Albany site. Future development for the Gilman area and racetrack are unknown.
Answer:
Steve – No siting studies have been conducted. Comments received on NOP will guide which sites are considered. Time constraints are built into process. WTA wants what will work best for everyone.
Question:
Have impacts on windsurfing, sailing and rowing on land and water been considered? Will WTA involve these groups in the process of evaluating sites?
Answer:
Steve – WTA will look at wave and wake impacts on recreational uses. Yes, they will be involved.
Question:
Peter Hillier, Office of Berkeley Transportation – According to Regional Measure 2, who will be transit provider?
Answer:
Steve – The legislation requires the landside transit provider to be a local public operator, such as AC Transit.
Question:
How is AC Transit approaching this service and partnership with WTA?
Answer:
Tony – AC Transit is involved in meetings and analysis of service and will be “co-leaders” with WTA, working well together.
Question:
Talk about UC Berkeley as a traffic generator. Will ferry service address 800-900 employees commuting to campus every day? How will ferry service solve Berkeley’s air quality and traffic problems?
Answer:
Steve – Ferry service won’t solve Berkeley traffic or air quality issues. Ferry service is a tool to address Bay Bridge corridor congestion, not air quality.
Question:
Will there be two general meetings? How will this process move forward in an integrated and comprehensive way so problems can be worked through and recommendations can be well-considered?
Answer:
Rob – Commissions make recommendations soon after second general meeting. He suggests each commission create a sub-committee to evaluate issues.
Question:
Bay Bridge corridor is just as congested on the weekend. Ferry service on the weekends is needed to serve recreational and tourist trips to/from San Francisco.
Answer:
Steve – This has not been a focus, but could be included if the demand is sufficient.
Comment:
The speaker takes train from Emeryville station even though Berkeley is closer because of parking and proximity of terminal to freeway. Need to see ferry terminal from freeway. MTC shuttle service requirements have limitations; it may not serve all potential riders. Need to accommodate bicycles on ferries. Is it possible to get other shoreline projects to support ferry service to help offset parking and other impacts?
Response:
Steve – WTA recognizes commuters choose transit by ease of site use, including parking. Attracting commuters in cars from freeway is critical to success of ferry service in Berkeley. WTA needs to justify shuttle service to MTC.
Question:
Doesn’t think people will drive from Pinole to Berkeley and then get on a ferry. Has the WTA looked at the Larkspur service? Is it paying for itself?
Answer:
Steve – Larkspur ferry service doesn’t charge for parking. Its parking lot fills up and the ferries fill up. People still don’t take shuttles even when they are guaranteed space on the ferry, they prefer to drive and wait for the next ferry. Larkspur service is not as efficient as Vallejo/Oakland service, only has 30-40% fare box recovery and is subsidized by the Golden Gate Bridge tolls.
Comment:
Can’t add more traffic to Gilman.
Question:
Trams not Jams – Why not consider putting rail line up University to connect to ferry terminal? Berkeley’s only successful ferry service had a light rail connection.
Answer:
Steve – WTA would support rail to ferry and are happy to work with local government to evaluate. WTA will follow-up on plans for trains and routes, as well as ridership numbers.
Question:
Focus on investing in fast buses that serve University Avenue corridor.
Answer:
Steve – Commuters will take whatever is cheapest or fastest, so if buses on University are best, then the WTA supports it
Question:
Why provide free shuttle buses to ferry when there are no ferry shuttle buses to BART?
Answer:
Steve – AC Transit would study transbay service and BART, bus and ferry trips to justify shuttle service.
Question:
Explain how low-fare ferry service subsidizes high-income riders not low-income riders.
Answer:
Steve – MTC is responsible for evaluating equity over modes.
Question:
Can we see data on ferry emissions? Ferry service does not eliminate car engine “cold starts,” the greatest source of emissions.
Answer:
Steve – Program EIR looks at air pollutants. Some pollutants increase, some decrease. Technology can address some emissions. Marine transportation hasn’t historically addressed emissions, but WTA will address.
Comment:
Need to provide bicycle facilities on ferries and at ferry terminals, including bicycle racks, bicycle lockers and reduce fares for bicycle commuters.
Question:
Ferries should serve merchants in Berkeley, bring visitors to Berkeley and recreational users to support economic development.
Answer:
Steve – Ferry service can capitalize on the reverse commute. For example, Vallejo ferry service connects to Marine World. WTA can make this work through terminal location and design – put it where people want to go.
Question:
WTA worked with Blue Water Network in doing air and water quality analysis for Program EIR. Blue Water Network supported WTA analysis. WTA plans to use a new generation of technology that addresses emissions.
Answer:
Steve – WTA did work with Blue Water Network on establishing an aggressive emissions standard that is 10 times cleaner than current vessels. Other agencies are adopting WTA emissions standards.
Question:
Ferries to the financial district serve high-income commuters.
Answer:
Steve – Analysis looked at ridership geographically, did not specify income level. The more commute options, the better. It benefits people in all income levels, including lower-income workers.
Question:
Will EIR look at ferry service for use in disasters?
Answer:
Steve – We will plan it as a commuter service and then it is there if needed in emergencies. Ferries have a role in providing service in emergencies, but can’t set up just for that purpose.
Question:
Has Buchanan site been combined with Gilman site? All sites should be studied equally.
Answer:
Steve – If there is no clear mandate for one site at scoping meetings, then all sites will be studied equally.
Question:
University Avenue traffic is congested and freeway east-bound freeway off-ramps do not serve the Marina. Ferries may put a pulse of cars onto the freeway after arrival. It is better to have smaller ferries, running more often.
Answer:
Steve – Congestion, vessel size, impacts and optimal schedule will be addressed in the EIR.
Question:
Consider placing signal lights on Frontage Road at University.
Answer:
Steve – WTA will address this in the EIR.