Response to the Sierra Club resolution

"The current ferry expansion project is being promoted not primarily as an amenity, but as a serious component of the Bay Area transportation system. It is on this basis that the Sierra Club has serious misgivings about the project."

(From a recent memo by the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club.)

A good project, promoted for the wrong reasons, is still a good project. Note that the Water Transit Authority really has no choice here - their mandate is to design a system that will address transportation issues, even if this is among the least significant of the many reasons for having ferry service.

Although I am inclined to agree with the Sierra Club's basic assessment that the ferries will not significantly alleviate traffic congestion or improve air quality, there is still room for debate on these points. It is valid to look beyond the simple additive effects of a new transportation service, and instead compare to other future scenarios that meet the same mobility requirements. On this basis, it is hard to argue with the fact that a car parked at a ferry terminal pollutes far less than a car in stop-and-go traffic on the Bay Bridge, and that a relatively low-speed ferry can achieve extremely fuel-efficient operation using mature technologies. (Power loading per seat is in the range of four horsepower, about the same as a moped. See the preliminary concept design on the Berkeley Waterfront website).

Perhaps of more immediate importance to the Sierra Club, ferry service is extremely popular with both the Sierra Club constituency and with the public at large. Opposition to SB 915 and 916 on the basis of the ferry component of these bills could do a lot of damage to the standing of the Club in the communities which the ferry would serve.

To address several points in more detail:

1) The ferry is not sprawl-inducing

The two routes that would be funded by SB 915 and 916 are entirely within the urban core. They improve mobility to downtown San Francisco, and help maintain the viability of this single business and commerce focal point for the entire Bay Area. This is not sprawl-inducing; this is a big step against sprawl.

2) The ferry does not promote the use of cars

Most studies predict that about 80% of East Bay to SF ferry passengers will arrive at the terminal by car. While it is true that a viable ferry service requires parking, a parked car is not being "used" and does not cause air pollution or traffic congestion. The reality is that the majority of ferry passengers would drive all the way to their destination if the ferry were not available as an alternative.

Furthermore, a trip by ferry requires that one leg of the trip is by some non-automotive mode. That is, anyone driving to the ferry terminal must necessarily use public transportation to get to their final destination at the other end. So the net effect of ferry service is to increase the use of public transportation over private vehicles.

Ferries also promote compatible mixed modes: bicycles, electric scooters, and new technologies like the Segway. In a future that blends personal transportation devices with mass- transit efficiencies, ferries will play a vital role.

3) Ferries on the routes funded by SB 915 and 916 will not be environmentally damaging

These are relatively short routes that can be served by relatively low-speed ferries. Power is proportional to speed cubed, and a ferry only has to go 17 knots to cover the 6.5 miles from Berkeley to SF in 20 minutes. This requires one eighth the installed horsepower of a 34 knot ferry, typical of those now popular on longer routes. Provided the speed is low, fuel consumption and emissions are far less than cars and competitive with busses. Exotic design innovations are not required. This is easily achieved with mature technologies: low speed, long slender multiple hulls, and emission controls similar to those on land-based applications.

4) There will be no significant impact on the Eastshore State Park

This is especially true if the preferred terminal site at or near the entrance to the Berkeley Fishing Pier (or Hs. Lordships Restaurant) is selected. The route from this location to the San Francisco Ferry Building does not go anywhere near the waters of the Eastshore State Park, and requires little or no dredging. (Plus, there is sufficient existing parking in this area to support a moderate level of ferry service, and there is existing and frequent bus service.)

Even the required channel for a Gilman or Buchanan Street location would have minimal impact on wildlife habitat, as has been seen in other areas where habitat and ferry routes mix. Parking might detract from other possible land uses at the Gilman or Buchanan locations, but there is also a potential efficiency if the spaces serve park users on weekends and ferry passengers during the week.

5) The proposed ferry routes will be cost effective (in context)

It is recognized that ferries are not a cost-effective mode of transit when there is already and existing bridge and tunnel. But in the context of an actual cost for a one-way BART ride that exceeds $7, the projected $6.50 cost of a ferry ride is not out of line with existing public policy. Add to this the fact that the market supports significantly higher fares for ferry travel than for BART, so the required subsidy per trip is considerably less for the ferry.

It is also somewhat ironic to find advocacy of the Solar Ferry concept in the same document that criticizes conventional ferries for not being cost-effective. As noted above, the goals of high fuel economy and low emissions can be adequately addressed with existing and mature technologies. Also, the Berkeley-SF run is a predominantly upwind/downwind route, and as such is entirely inappropriate for a solar and wind-assisted vessel under anything resembling realistic economic constraints.

6) The proposed ferry routes will be fuel-efficient

The WTA tossed something of a softball to its detractors by using fast ferries for the energy analysis. Table 3.13.1 shows over 6,000 BTU per passenger mile for ferries, compared to 5,000 for cars and 660 for busses.

The high speeds and power levels assumed are unnecessary and inappropriate for the short routes proposed. The analysis assumes 8,000 HP for the 350 passenger ferries and 2,900 HP for the 149 passenger ferries. These estimates are based on existing designs optimized for speed, not fuel economy, with hull forms optimized for low construction cost.

I refer again to the preliminary concept design on the Berkeley Waterfront website. By Optimizing for low speed with long slender hulls, it is easy to show that an 18-knot 149-passenger ferry does not need to have more than 700 installed horsepower. This works out to 665 BTU/passenger mile, about the same as a bus. Assuming only 50% average passenger load, we are still at 1330 BTU/passenger mile, about four times as fuel-efficient as cars. This is the more valid comparison, because the ferry service competes with cars, not busses, for the majority of its riders.