Those Pesky Environmentalists

Dear Editor:

I think folks in the bay are a long way from a solar powered ferry. Why not just pour the biodiesel in the old smoker and have the problem done with tomorrow? Run it with 40% biodiesel/60%petrodiesel and she will run clean and smooth.

John B. Wathen

Regional Director

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Portland, Maine

Teri Shore’s article in September’s issue regarding Bluewater Network’s concern with air and water quality as a result of marine engine emissions was certainly timely and made some very valid points. However, the article failed to balance wishes and dreams with realism and the very real need to reduce not only auto emissions but congestion, lost productivity and to help market the Bay Area as an economic center.

Why is it that despite the fact that all public transit buses, trains, and ferries combined contribute but a tiny fraction to air emissions compared to over the road trucks, cars, and fixed sources such as refineries and chemical plants, yet the California Air Resources Board, and the more extreme environmental groups constantly seek to make an example of transit vehicles and force them to be pioneers and spend precious limited funding resources on untried and experimental technologies? Could it be that transit is simply a sitting duck and easy target compared to the formidable lobbying arm of the trucking and petroleum industries?

The fact of the matter is that for ferries to compete for passengers with the single-occupant automobile, BART and buses, they must equal or better the travel time of their competitors, and must provide as many different departure times as possible. This can be readily shown by looking at the current popularity of the Vallejo BayLink ferry service versus the previously mediocre ridership when provided by a single slower boat, and as compared to the Richmond ferry demonstration.

In order for a regional ferry system to be successful, each terminal must provide as many departures as possible with as fast a boat as practicable (a minimum of 30-35 knots) within the VERY limited financial resources available to public transit. Drawing out the process with needless delays, forcing study after study, or pushing the WTA into a position of trying non off-the-shelf vessel technologies which will inevitably drive capital costs up and result in fewer vessels and less service to be run with the remaining resources, will doom this effort to failure and spend MY taxpayer dollars on efforts that result in negligible reduction in air emissions within the Bay Area.

Should ferries, buses and trains ignore emerging off-the-shelf technologies to do their part to reduce emissions on existing and newly purchased diesel engines? Absolutely! Should transit agencies be forced to be the guinea pigs for expensive new technologies, driving up capital costs and sacrificing their ability to provide as much bang for their buck and inhibit their ability to do their part to reduce congestion and move people? Absolutely not!

Let’s let the WTA get to their task of looking at what off-the-shelf vessel technologies already work in the Bay Area and around the world and let others bear the expense and struggle of implementing new experimental marine engines and vessel designs such as CNG, electric, solar, fuel cell, and wind powered. We already know what works on the Bay! Let’s build on that success, not try to re-invent the wheel.

Doug Vanderkar

Benicia

Kudos

I really enjoyed reading the articles My Richmond by Jim Mallory and Checkin’ out Richmond by Nancy Salcedo in your September issue. I’m particularly interested in the historic tours conducted by the Richmond Musuem.

We are not on the "net". Indeed, difficult though it may be to believe, we live in a home with rotary dial phones and no computer. I guess that’s the reason we enjoy going back in history.

That you for providing such interesting reading. Whenever we climb aboard the Larkspur ferry, I look forward to Bay Crossings.

Ruth Pfall

Glen Ellen