Angel Island Military History Welcome
Published: April, 2002
Dear Editor:
I enjoyed reading the March issue, particularly the article on Angel Island and its military history, which brought to mind some family history of my own. A little over 100 years ago, my father received his discharge papers on Angel Island from the U.S. Army after a three-year hitch in the Philippines. He reached San Francisco by ferry
John Stirton, Sr.
Alameda
In Defense of the Peralta
Dear Editor:
Bay Crossings recently printed a review of the new Alameda Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) vessel Peralta by Graham Claytor. Mr. Claytor seems to have three main points which I would like to address.
1)The vessel’s seating scheme should have been arranged to better facilitate socialization.
Through my years of contact with AOFS commuters, I have learned that there is no such thing as a typical ferry rider. Although many share Mr. Claytor’s fondness for socializing, there are just as many who are content to ride home in solitude, with their newspaper, cocktail, and/or laptop. That is to say, despite the presence of “movie gallery seating”, and Mr. Claytor’s belief that the designers “...were completely clueless as to how a ferry works on the inside”, many people are delighted to enjoy a quiet ride home by themselves. Also, its worth noting that the vessel’s design has not kept Mr. Claytor from completing his daily social rounds.
2)The Peralta’s capacity is inadequate.(“...[it] uses Noah’s biblical design” and “...[is] only made practible by the dot bombs, lay offs, and the recession.”)
I’m not sure what the capacity of Noah’s Ark was, but if memory serves it met the needs of its ridership. The same holds true for the Peralta. While we would like nothing more then to be running at capacity all day every day, with a need for more runs and boats, this is simply not the case. The Peralta’s capacity of 330 is more than enough. In the few instances that we run at capacity (the day after Thanksgiving and the weekend of Fleet Week) we dispatch back up boats for the excess of passengers. Beyond that, there is more than enough room for
everyone...Tell a friend!
3)The Peralta is too fast for back up boats to emulate. (“There must be two boats that can operate at the same speed so that when one is down the other can maintain the schedule... [and] ...there is no back up boat with the same capabilities.”)
I am mystified at this assertion. The schedule was designed with slower boats in mind. These boats (Zelinsky and Encinal) have kept the schedule while the Peralta has been off-line. Mr. Claytor rides on these boats every day and he knows that they are capable of keeping the schedule. Incidentally, we at the AOFS take pride in or 97% on time rate.
In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Claytor for his assistance in reaching a compromise in the recent scheduling conflict. However, in the case of the Peralta, Mr. Claytor’s glass seems to be half empty. I see ours as half full, and know that I speak for all our crews and captains when I declare the pride we take in our service. Despite recent economic difficulties, we maintain the highest commitment to providing a reliable, affordable, and enjoyable commuting alternative. Also we view positive word-of-mouth and constructive criticism as some of our strongest allies in our quest to increase ridership and improve the service.
Patrick Robles
Senior Deckhand
Blue and Gold Fleet/AOFS
Those Pesky Environmentalists: Port Sonoma Is Too A Prime Location For The North Bay Ferry Terminal
Dear Editor:
I would like to congratulate Teri Shore, a very dedicated advocate who very effectively represents Bluewater Network, for her very well-written article, Port Sonoma Marina: Wildlife Refuge or Transit Hub? in the March issue of Bay Crossings. She and her associates in the environmental community are to be congratulated for their efforts to restore the shoreline and wetlands of the bay. But, please, leave us commuters from the North Bay just one small plot of shore land, currently the sight of a bedraggled marina, for a highly efficient ferry terminal on a federally-maintained ship channel with excellent road, rail, and bike access that would get people out of their cars and into a 50-minute ferry ride to the Ferry Building … with little harm to the environment or endangered species.
For an article that I wrote for the June 2000 issue of “Bay Crossings” entitled When Will High-Speed Ferry Service Arrive in the North Bay?, I checked ferry terminal sites from Point San Quentin almost to the Napa River. Each potential site had problems with either land or water access. Some involved filling wetlands, like Hamilton Field; some involved extensive dredging like the Marin Rod & Gun Club site, the slough at Gnoss Field, and Hamilton Field; some had highway access and parking problems like the San Rafael canal and Point San Pedro; and at least one has a major facility that shows no sign of moving in the near future, namely the prison at San Quentin. The single site that lacked major landside or water-side problems was Port Sonoma.
So, I checked out the dramatic site where the Petaluma River enters San Pablo Bay. Watching sail boats, tugs, barges, and other traffic moving up and down the river, one could easily imagine the arrival of afternoon commuter ferries from San Francisco ready to disembark passengers into waiting trains, express buses, automobiles, and bicycles.
A beautiful flat piece of land with adequate room for parking, located on a federally maintained ship channel leading to deep water in San Pablo Bay, this unique place seems almost pre-ordained to be a ferry terminal. Where else do you find the convergence of land-based transportation facilities and water-borne transportation capability? Certainly nowhere else in the North Bay, and at few other locations anywhere on San Francisco Bay. Port Sonoma is the place for a ferry terminal that would serve commuters from Sonoma and Marin counties and get automobiles off of Highway 101 before running into gridlock in central Marin County.
Yet the Port Sonoma site is maligned by the environmental community, and certainly, at first glance, the siltation problems of the bedraggled Port Sonoma Marina, do not appear to offer promise as a ferry terminal. Yet, on closer examination, it is the poor design of the marina as a basin leading off the river that permitted the tide to bring silt in from the bay and allow it to settle. Each tide brought in its load of silt, and frequent dredging became a necessity. In fact, dredging costs were a major factor in driving the marina operator into financial problems. The property eventually reverted to the construction company that built the marina and was later put up for sale.
But the boat basin would be the wrong place for a ferry terminal. A terminal built directly on the river bank would not have major siltation problems. Furthermore the river bank at Port Sonoma lies directly on a federally maintained ship channel leading from the turning basin at Petaluma to the deep water of San Pablo Bay. That channel is 200 ft wide and 8 feet deep at low tide…sufficient for a low-draft catamaran ferry. Hence, no additional dredging would be required for a Port Sonoma ferry terminal located directly on the river bank.
I discussed that matter with Michael Cheney, a registered civil engineer and marine development consultant who has been involved in dredging projects throughout the Bay Area for more than 25 years and has worked in association with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and other agencies. Cheney is convinced that a ferry terminal built directly on the Federal navigation channel on the Petaluma River would not experience serious siltation. He also points out that the Corps of Engineers is able to effectively maintain the channel up the Petaluma River and out into the bay, with maintenance dredging required only every three to four years.
Wake created by ferries has been a problem in the channel at Larkspur Landing and elsewhere around the shallow San Francisco Bay. But, it may be less of a problem at Port Sonoma, since upon leaving the proposed terminal in the federally maintained ship channel, a ferry would immediately enter the broad San Pablo Bay, probably traveling at reduced speed for the four miles of the channel to reach deep water. Furthermore, advanced high-speed ferry designs to minimize the wake effect are being studied by the San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority (WTA) and others.
Port Sonoma is bounded by the Petaluma River on the west, State Highway 37 on the north, the Northwestern Pacific right-of-way and San Pablo Bay on the south, and land controlled by the California Coastal Conservancy to the east. The site includes the marina, some of which could be filled for commuter parking. There would be no need to build beyond the boundaries of the current marina to provide facilities for a ferry terminal, a bus terminal, and a railroad terminal, as well as commuter parking. Thus, there would be no need to disturb endangered species in adjacent properties.
The site has an incredible abundance of landside transportation facilities. Not only is it traversed by the “Bay Trail” with its biking potential, but also by four-lane Highway 37, which joins Highway 101 in Novato and connects with a network of highways leading to Sonoma, and Napa.
Tracks of the Northwestern Pacific lead westward to Novato and then northward to Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cloverdale, and beyond, and southward to San Rafael. Eastward the railroad leads toward Sonoma and Napa where it connects with a nationwide railroad network. The track has been restored for freight service from Napa as far north as Petaluma, with the objective of eventually providing national railroad service to the Port of Eureka. Plans also call for upgrading the track for passenger rail service.
Currently, WTA is studying the level of anticipated patronage for potential ferry service around the bay. While awaiting the results, we can say that it would appear that, with both rail and road drawing riders from northern Marin County and from Sonoma County as far north as Cloverdale and as far east as Sonoma, ridership projections for a Port Sonoma ferry service would be high. Furthermore, there is the potential for a reverse ridership from San Francisco to the Sonoma wine country as well as the expanded Sears Point Raceway.
We may be able to anticipate WTA’s ridership figures from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s “San Francisco Bay Area Regional Ferry Plan,” which was updated in March 1999. According to MTC’s senior planner, Rod McMillan, Port Sonoma “with its high potential patronage, could be a successful service.” Furthermore, MTC’s 1999 “Regional Ferry Plan Update” notes that “A Port Sonoma to San Francisco ferry route appears to be a feasible new route from ridership demand and access perspectives.” MTC compared ferry service from Port Sonoma to the very successful three-vessel ferry service from Vallejo. It is estimated that the 22-mile trip from Port Sonoma to San Francisco would require 45 to 47 minutes in high-speed catamaran (twin hull) ferries such are used in Vallejo and Larkspur service. The MTC “analysis indicates that ferry service from Port Sonoma could generate enough ridership to be a successful operation.” We will watch to see if WTA’s upcoming figures concur.
Are there environmental problems that must be mitigated for a ferry terminal at Port Sonoma? Sure, there will be at any construction site, but it does not appear that they can’t be mitigated. Are there growing environmental problems as commuter traffic congestion continues to increase on Highway 101 in Marin and Sonoma counties? Certainly
But both of these environmental problems can be solved by sensible people through effective engineering solutions. It is up to those involved in designing a terminal and a ferry operation at Port Sonoma to ensure that environmental concerns are mitigated. There is every reason to believe that they can be … and that urgently needed high-speed ferry service can be provided to the North Bay … transferring commuters to and from fast, efficient trains and express buses, as well as automobiles and bikes. It’s all there at Port Sonoma: the means to alleviate traffic congestion in Marin and Sonoma counties with a minimum environmental impact.
F. Weston Starratt
San Rafael
San Francisco’s Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Responds
Dear Editor:
I just now read your column Ferries, Long Taken for Granted, are Now in Trouble in your January issue. News travels slowly sometimes, I guess. Regarding your comments that the SFCVB should have remained open during the week between Christmas and New Years, I wanted to make you aware of a few things:
1. Closing the business office was a financial decision. Approximately half of our funding comes from the City and is derived from the Hotel Tax. The tax took a major tumble in the last quarter of 2001, with definite impact on our funding.
2. Closing the business office was one of many actions the SFCVB was forced to take. We were also forced to eliminate six staff positions. By combining jobs and not replacing some employees who had departed for other reasons, we only had to lay off three people. This was not an easy thing to do to anyone in November.
3. The Visitor Information Center remained open for business as usual.
4. Most members of the staff were available by personal cell phone or checked their voicemail regularly to continue assisting clients during the entire week. I found myself talking to a travel writer from the Los Angeles Times that week, down to my underwear in a department store dressing room, fully engaged in some after-Christmas shopping when my cell phone rang.
As 2002 began, the SFCVB hit the ground running, working to bring more drive-in visitors to San Francisco. (Just about every tourism promotion organization in the US refocused on the drive market after September 11). Our membership includes businesses from all nine counties in the Bay Area so the entire region benefits from our activities.
Laurie Armstrong
Vice President, Public Relations
San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau
It’s a Golf Course, not a Church, Stupid
Dear Editor:
Re: your article on Vallejo’s Mare Island Flyway Festival: The Mare Island Historic Park Foundation has been offering tours of the Island since 1996. Tours are available for 1 and up. Group tours are available with or without lunch. Luncheons may be held at one of the historic mansions, or at the Vallejo Museum (Tues-Sat.). Tours are offered every day, by appointment. Please call our tour director at 707/644-4746. For general or special information call the main number, 707/557-1538. For weddings and receptions, call the coordinator at
707/649-8024.
The article had a photo of 100 year old St. Peter’s Chapel, labeled
“The golf course.”
Kenneth Zadwick
President
Mare Island Historic Park Foundation
Editor’s Note
The photos in last month’s Alcatraz After Dark were taken by Doug Wad and, due to editorial oversight, were not credited. Bay Crossings regrets the oversight.
