Kudos, and What’s With the ArtShip?

Dear Editor:
I just finished reading my copy of the September Bay Crossings and I am impressed.  You have brought this publication a long way and I know that sometimes it has been a struggle. Congratulations on all of your hard work and dedication.

I found a couple of articles of interest and appreciated your editorial, “A Time to Celebrate.”  We have come a long way haven’t we, from those early meetings of the Blue Ribbon Committee to the EIR that is now on the street.  One of the articles deals with the “Art Ship,” which I look up to from the fan tail of my sailboat Jubilation.  I never see anyone onoard from my viewpoint and the whole thing seems to be just rusting away. What a shame to lose all that wharf space which prior to the ArtShip’s arrival was quite busy.  The 9th St. wharf does not handle container ships but does service ships off loading such things as well casings, steel pipe of all sizes, and coiled steel.

I would like to update you on what is happening down here in the South Bay and specifically the Alviso Area.  On July 9th, the SCVWD Board held a public hearing and approved a $60 million project to upgrade the lower Guadalupe River in the Alviso area to provide flood protection up to the 100-year flood threat level.  Both Bob Gross and I brought up the subject during the public hearings of the need for a study to determine the feasibility of a ferry terminal.  That effort has resulted in a letter being prepared now by the SCVWD to the WTA Board to reconsider the Alviso site. The timing is right now due to a number of other issues.  First, of course, is the SCVWD flood project, but two other items dovetail in here also.  They are the pending sale of the Cargill Salt Ponds and as a result of this sale, a relook at the outboard levees surrounding those ponds.  The U.S. Army Corp. is now looking for funding to do a study which I am sure will result in the entire levee system being strengthened and possibly a new channel being cut through as we have suggested.

I guess one can never give up on these kinds of issues, but I only hope that I am still around to see it all come together. Anyway, keep up the good work,

Russ Robinson
San Jose

Stop With the BART-Bashing

Dear Editor:
Self-proclaimed curmudgeon Guy Span, S.D. (“Can We Afford More BART?,” August 2002) needs to hire a good fact-checker. He complains that a Richmond - Fremont trip takes an hour. Since Richmond is 40 miles from Fremont, and since 40 mph could be the world record for public transit, one wonders what he’s fussing about.

Span may also need a good accountant. His satire on “capital consumption” was a hoot. Or maybe he was serious; curmudgeons love to leave readers guessing. Better to play it safe: the “arguments” he advances would quickly sink any hopes for the Water Transit Authority.

I get around by transit and BayLink. I believe that expanded ferry service would provide a popular and cost-effective alternative to jam-packed freeways. In other words, I’m a natural WTA supporter. I also believe that BART bashing will not strengthen the case for WTA, indeed, it will have the opposite effect.

The basic unit of “work” performed by a transportation system is the passenger-mile — one passenger, transported one mile. BART does a large amount of “work” — more than one billion pass-mi per year, and roughly 20 billion since opening day.

Take this “workload,” throw in a small unit cost difference between BART and “something else” and you’ll be talking about real money in no time. BART’s current operating cost is about $0.25 per pass-mi. There is no credible evidence, anywhere, that the same traffic volume could be handled by a land-based “something else” for less than about $0.50 per pass-mi.

You don’t have to be a math teacher to figure out that BART saves taxpayers and transit passengers a lot of money — roughly $500 million per year. Span’s presentation makes proper capital-cost analysis (which would include life-cycle cost analysis) difficult. It appears likely that capital investment - that’s “investment,” not “consumption” — gets paid off by operating cost savings. Cost savings compared to “something else” (e.g. more freeways, express buses) are hypothetical only to the extent that a “do-nothing” policy, from 40 years back, could accommodate today’s Bay Area traffic. And, as they say, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

If we talk about the time value of money and calculate a “net present value,” then we need to finish the job. The assets represented by that “net present value” just don’t sit there. So, we need to calculate an “internal rate of return.” This, based on current operating-cost savings, is about 3.5 percent per year. This would be somewhat higher if the cost of the unopened SFO extension were deducted. Most economists agree that the “real” long-term cost of capital is about three percent (even if they agree on little else), so BART passes muster in this respect.

Span describes the implications of BART debt as “shocking.” Get off the boat, bub. $59.2 million for debt service is 13 percent of the BART’s FY2002 budget, and not even one-half of one percent of its valuation (as calculated by Span). Even if BART liabilities are double what Span guesstimates (he should check the current annual report), they would account for seven percent of BART’s valuation.
In sum:
»  We WTA supporters will need to demonstrate a market. It’s definitely there, although it’s not likely to be as big as BART’s.
»  Farebox recovery aside, we’ll also need to demonstrate an operating-cost advantage for ferries over alternative modes — and $0.27 per BayLink pass- mi (2000) makes a promising start.
»  BART saves taxpayers and transit passengers money. So does BayLink. So would expanded ferry service. We need to emphasize this point.
»  We need to work at calculating an internal rate of return for WTA, and use this a selling point.
»  Finally, we need to dispense with the BART bashing, because this will inevitably weaken the case for WTA. To give just one example: If BART debt and BART debt ratios are unacceptable, then there is no hope whatsoever for expanded ferry service.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr.
Vallejo