Colorful and historic cities along the eastern portion of San Pablo Bay and extending into the Delta have been identified as possible sites to access a water-oriented transportation system that will serve the entire Bay Area if completed. With the work of the Water Transit Initiative Task Force (Task Force) at an end and the establishment of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (Authority) to evaluate planning and engineering feasibility and funding, Contra Costa and Solano counties are poised to participate in the expansion of high-speed ferry service offering a viable alternative to congestion-choked residents of the area.
Published: April, 2000
Colorful and historic cities along the eastern portion of San Pablo Bay and extending into the Delta have been identified as possible sites to access a water-oriented transportation system that will serve the entire Bay Area if completed. With the work of the Water Transit Initiative Task Force (Task Force) at an end and the establishment of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (Authority) to evaluate planning and engineering feasibility and funding, Contra Costa and Solano counties are poised to participate in the expansion of high-speed ferry service offering a viable alternative to congestion-choked residents of the area.
Yet significant questions remain for the counties and the region generally. The study, Vision and Conceptual Design for a Bay Area High-Speed Water Transit System, completed by the Task Force in February 1999, envisioned an initial, critical mass phasing that would include both the cities with already established ferry service (Richmond and Vallejo), as well as cities planned for
With the number of existing and potential water transit routes and terminal locations in Contra Costa and Solano counties along the eastern and northern portions of San Pablo Bay and into the Delta, moving forward with water-oriented transportation solutions is of critical importance to residents of both counties. At the same time, these counties face unique challenges and potentials given the demographics, topographies and economies that define their unique character and charm. As an accompaniment to this article, profiles of a number of these communities are incorporated in an attempt to define what this energetic and distinctive region has to offer its residents or visitors to the area.
With the exception of Vallejo and Richmond, large cities with established ferry routes to San Francisco, the remaining cities vary in size, infrastructure and proximity to other transportation alternatives (mass transit, highway and rail). Common to all, however, is their identification in the Vision and Conceptual Design report by the Task Force as potential sites for water transit terminal locations.
Why were these locations selected? A part of the answer lies in their historical context prior to the construction of the major bridges and highways, in many cases dating back to the days of the Gold Rush and, later on, for the transport of people, goods and services, and agricultural products. Benicia, Crockett, Rodeo and Martinez served as ferry terminals before the construction of the Benicia-Martinez and Carquinez bridges, I-80 and I-680. With the construction of the bridges and highways, the ferry terminals and routes were abandoned, but ultimately, as the population of the Bay Area expanded, the need to reevaluate these former transportation routes as the once high-speed super-highways slowed to gridlock during commuting periods. This condition is only expected to worsen as the population continues to grow and expand outward beyond the Bay Area.
Developing a critical mass sufficient to support ferry service is an ongoing issue of concern. One of the proposals presented to the Task Force during its public hearing process and unique to this region is a proposal from the Coastal Corporation, owner of the former Pacific Refining Company wharf located off the Rodeo shoreline.
In conjunction with decommissioning its refinery that closed in 1995, Coastal looked at opportunities to utilize its wharf, formerly used to load and unload petroleum products, for an alternative public purpose instead of demolishing the structure. Ralph Edwards, Coastal’s director of environmental services and regulatory affairs, sees the wharf as a possible solution to address the issues of ridership, cost, and timing along the eastern portion of San Pablo Bay and into the Delta, as well as expediting the feasibility of providing ferry service to that area.
The wharf, a 7,200-square-foot (60’ x 120’), free-standing structure along the shipping channel in San Pablo Bay, approximately one mile from the shore, was constructed in the 1960’s on property leased from the State Lands Commission. When faced with demolition or preservation, Edwards opted for alternatives that would use the wharf for some form of public benefit, recognizing that once demolished, a structure of that magnitude would never again be constructed on San Pablo Bay given current environmental regulations.
Coastal’s concept for the wharf is as a potential transfer point between smaller vessels providing service to communities located along San Pablo Bay and up into the Delta, to high speed vessels serving major destinations within the Bay Area. The wharf would function as a point of arrival and departure, with passengers collected from vessels serving smaller communities that might not be economically feasible for construction of a terminal and a larger vessel. Once off-loaded at the wharf, the passengers would board high-speed ferries to major ports that would increase as new routes are established and existing routes expanded. Considering the size and capacity of the wharf, beyond constructing a shelter for riders awaiting ferries, it could also accommodate a restaurant or other public amenities.
It’s a question of the cost to demolish the structure versus preserving it for public use, Edwards said. After talking with a number of public agencies and looking around for about a year, we heard about the work of the Task Force and felt there was a connection.
Edwards outlined the various benefits the wharf could potentially provide, these include:
|
Provide a transfer point from smaller vessel water shuttles to larger ferries serving one or more locations |
|
|
Expedite the approval and expansion of ferry service by using the wharf, which is located along the major shipping channel |
|
|
Increase the number of potential passengers on existing routes by off-loading to larger high-speed ferries |
|
|
Minimize the environmental impacts associated with ferry terminal construction for larger vessels by using smaller collector vessels service initially or long-term |
|
|
Reduce or postpone the construction costs associated with terminal construction for larger vessels at an estimated cost of $5 to $10 million per terminal |
|
|
Reduce or postpone construction costs associated with larger vessel construction at an estimated cost of $10 million per vessel |
|
|
Expedite service to jurisdictions that would not be incorporated in the initial phase (e.g., Antioch, Crockett, Pittsburg, Rodeo) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the Authority has been formed, we are hopeful that they will seriously consider what may well be the best solution to the challenges of providing ferry service to this region, he said.
To understand how this region fits into the proposed water transportation system and some of the unique features of this area, an interview was conducted with an expert on the subject who has been involved with the proposal for expanded ferry service since its inception and has a history in the area of water transportation.
Michael Fajans is a project manager with Pacific Transit Management Corporation (PTM), his water transit-related experience includes serving as a consultant on a number of projects, among them development and subsequent update of the Regional Ferry Plan for the Metropolitan Transit Commission (1991-92 and 1999), the City of Vallejo Specific Plan (1991-92), the cities of Benicia and Martinez, and as a subcontractor to Dames & Moore on the Vision and Conceptual Design for the Task Force (1999). In speaking with Mr. Fajans, he was asked the following questions:
How do the studies that will be done by the Authority differ from what was done by the Task Force?
The initial study performed for the Task Force was preliminary in nature and did not go into the level of detail that will be done by the Authority. The charge of the Authority, beyond its establishment, appointing a Board of Directors and hiring staff, is to begin the planning and engineering studies mandated by the legislature that are required to establish a water transit system to serve the Bay Area. The Authority needs to look at anything remotely feasible; and any alternatives that have not already been considered should be submitted to the Authority for evaluation.
Based on your experience, do you see ferry service expanding in the Bay Area as envisioned by the Task Force?
Yes. Over the next 10 to 20 years, vessel technology will continue to improve, ferries will get faster and roads will get slower. It’s just a matter of time before the decision is obvious. My hope is that it will be sooner rather than waiting for conditions to deteriorate.
Is ferry service cost competitive as compared to other alternatives?
Absolutely. The quality of life in the Bay Area will be threatened if we do not find transportation alternatives that allow reasonable transit times as compared to sitting in traffic. The assumption that people will abandon other forms of mass transit does not make sense if we look at the ridership on existing ferry service routes. Most of those people got out of cars to ride the ferries. At the same time, we need to make sure that we do not supplant an existing mass transit alternative, but rather strive to interconnect all the existing systems so that they are as seamless as possible. An interesting sidelight is the anticipated patronage for the Vallejo ferry. Initially, it was thought that visitors to Marine World would make up the bulk of the ridership. Once people discovered there was an alternative to driving to San Francisco, they opted to ride the ferry instead, despite the fact that this was during the era of run times averaging 75 minutes.
In providing ferry service, what are some of the unique challenges facing this region?
One of the issues is providing service to smaller communities that may not have the population base (or demand) to support the cost associated with constructing a terminal and purchasing a high-speed vessel. For that reason, any alternative that would provide a passenger base, such as a transfer point for passengers or smaller collecting vessels, provided it does not substantially increase transit time, should be considered.
What do you think of the former Pacific Refining Company wharf as a collecting and transfer point for vessels serving terminals along the western portion of Contra Costa County and into the Delta?
It’s worth a look at the concept. The issue to consider is whether the wharf proposal could help to address the issue of passenger count that is needed to support the cost of providing high-speed ferry service. As I discussed earlier, one of the fundamental considerations is having a sufficient number of riders to justify service. Again, any alternative that could assist in achieving the critical mass needed to establish and maintain service should be investigated.
The major decisions regarding water transit in the Bay Area have yet to be made. While the Authority has been formed, a full compliment of Board members have not been appointed and staff hired, and the issue of funding, a major hurdle, has yet to be faced. At the same time, the Authority is charged by the legislature with the responsibility for engineering and planning and the future has never looked brighter for the return of ferries to the Bay in numbers and frequencies matching or exceeding historical levels.
In its deliberations, the Authority will need to look, as Michael Fajans suggested, at any alternative that could assist in achieving the critical mass needed to establish and maintain service… Water transportation and unique proposals, such as the wharf put forth by Coastal Corporation, deserve to be evaluated as potential solutions to transportation issues facing the Bay Area.
