Wes Starratt is a professional engineer who served as manager of business development for Kaiser Engineers (builder of the Larkspur Ferry Terminal) and Morrison-Knudsen’s northern California operations before establishing his own consulting firm.
By F. Weston Starratt, P.E.
Published: July, 2000
Wes Starratt is a professional engineer who served as manager of business development for Kaiser Engineers (builder of the Larkspur Ferry Terminal) and Morrison-Knudsen’s northern California operations before establishing his own consulting firm.
The Bay Area Water Transit Blue Ribbon Task Force calls for a "Bay Area High-Speed Water Transit System for the 21st Century." In its $2-billion first-phase, the recommended system would comprise 28 new ferry terminals and 75 high-speed ferries, but it is far from certain that any of them will serve the North Bay. The reason is environmental concerns that have been raised about the most likely North Bay site, Port Sonoma. To allay the concerns of environmental activists the Task Force decided to give Port Sonoma provisional status only as a proposed terminal location.
This uncertainty has prompted a storm of criticism from representatives of Marin and Sonoma counties, who are faced with providing alternative transportation services to alleviate the mounting commuter traffic gridlock.
From Sonoma County, Supervisor Tim Smith states emphatically that, "we are not happy". Supervisor Mike Cale, vice chairman of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, says, "We were not aware of the plan until the report came out … Sonoma County is in need of all forms of high-speed transit".
From Marin, Supervisor Cynthia Murray emphasizes that "I was really taken aback" by the decision. "The earlier we get traffic off Highway 101, the better," she said, referring to drivers from northern Marin and Sonoma counties. Supervisor Murray expressed these views in a letter to Task Force Chairman Ronald Cowan, " The transportation needs of North Bay residents are not addressed by Task Force’s plan as currently written. The current plan continues to force Sonoma County and northern Marin County residents to travel to Larkspur or further south to gain access to water transit."
The City of Novato has particularly forceful views on the importance of a full-fledged North Bay Terminal in the ferry plan. Novato Mayor Pat Eklund stresses, "We need to have a North Bay site to ensure that there are multiple transportation options to relieve the incredible traffic congestion in our area." And the Novato City Council, in a letter to the Bay Area Council, stated that, "Our Council is disturbed by the fact that the potential for future terminals in the North Bay have been eliminated from immediate consideration by the current water transit study. The Novato City Council supports in the strongest terms possible a North Bay ferry terminal that is operational as soon as possible."
Following the completion of the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative last year, State Senator Don Perata drew up Senate Bill 428 calling the for the formation of a San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority. The bill passed the Senate and the Assembly, was signed by the Governor, and now awaits funding and the appointment of the final authority members. In the bill, the authority is required to hold hearings on the plan in all nine Bay Area counties and have it reviewed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), thus providing an opportunity for the inclusion of ferry service to the North Bay.
"Why were potential terminals and ferry service to the North Bay left out of the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative?
Planners agree that ferry expansion to the North Bay is a priority. However, the motivation to downplay North Bay terminals was to avoid controversy with environmental groups, as they seek to sell the plan to the state legislature.
As stated by the Bay Area Council, "the Task Force began its work by adopting an ethic of respecting the majesty and ecological integrity of San Francisco Bay. Historically, few endeavors to tackle the transportation challenges have been so dedicated to protecting and preserving the environment."
Much of San Francisco Bay is very shallow and surrounded by sensitive habitat areas ardently defended by a politically active environmental community. For the council to gain acceptance of the plan, it was necessary for the sensitivities of that community to be taken into consideration. Thus, according to Russ Hancock, the Bay Area Council’s project manager for the Water Transit Initiative, "We’ve made a commitment not to put a terminal or boat anywhere that will have serious ecological consequences". In regard to the two potential terminal sites suggested for the North Bay, "everybody, including the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, agrees the environmental issues at both sites are huge."
Thus, any consideration of either Hamilton Field or Port Sonoma, the two sites initially proposed for North Bay terminals, was stopped before the plan was completed. There were no other potential sites for a North Bay ferry terminal; so, the North Bay was completely eliminated from the ferry plan.
But, the "environment first" approach by the Bay Area Council, particularly in regard to ferry terminals in the North Bay, is in sharp contrast to studies made by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
MTC’s "San Francisco Bay Area Regional Ferry Plan," updated in March 1999. examined existing passenger Bay Area ferry services and potential new ferry routes including Berkeley/Albany, Martinez, and Port Sonoma. No other sites in the North Bay were considered.
According to MTC’s senior planner, Rod McMillan, Port Sonoma "needs another look" since, "with its high potential patronage, it could be a successful service", and "get traffic off the freeway as far north as possible." The Plan goes on to note that "A Port Sonoma to San Francisco ferry route appears to be a feasible new route from ridership demand and access perspectives." It would require "35-knot ferry technology, comparable to that provided by new Vallejo and Golden Gate vessels".
MTC compares ferry service from Port Sonoma to the very successful two-vessel, and future three-vessel, service from Vallejo, which is currently carrying as many as 1,200 commuters per work day, for a total of some 700,000 passenger trips annually. The "analysis indicates that ferry service from Port Sonoma could generate enough ridership to be a successful operation", but MTC notes that "landside and waterside impacts (e.g. shoreline impacts, waterfowl impacts, etc.) need to be analyzed as part of environmental analysis, as does any potential for growth inducement, a major Sonoma County concern."
So, MTC believes that future ferry service from Port Sonoma could be as successful as the high-speed ferry service from Vallejo has proven to be. But, before we take a closer look at Port Sonoma, let’s examine the shoreline of the North Bay to see if there are other potential ferry terminal sites.
First, let’s define what we mean by the North Bay: All of the west side of San Francisco Bay bordering Marin and Sonoma counties, starting north of the Larkspur Ferry Terminal and including the tip of the San Quentin Peninsula, San Rafael Bay, San Pedro Peninsula, and the large, shallow San Pablo Bay extending to the extreme north end of the Bay at Port Sonoma where the Petaluma River enters the bay.
u San Quentin Peninsula: Consideration has been given to the possibility of a ferry terminal at the end of the San Quentin Peninsula, adjacent to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, possibly connected to the Northwestern Pacific by an extension of tracks from San Rafael. There is a strong feeling in some circles (perhaps it should be called wishful thinking) that the San Quentin State Correctional Institution would be closed in the next few years. Even if that proves to be the case, one might ask if it would make sense to duplicate the nearby Larkspur Landing ferry service of the Golden Gate Bridge District. Furthermore, without a rail connection, such a terminal would do nothing to relieve traffic on Highway 101. In any case, waiting for San Quentin to close, would not appear to be a sound premise upon which to plan a ferry operation.
u San Rafael Bay: Continuing northward is San Rafael Bay, a shallow body of water with a narrow channel at the center of the bay for use by pleasure boats. On the landside in downtown San Rafael there would be no place for a ferry terminal nor for parking, although a site possibly could be found along the north shore of the bay if one of the yacht harbors were closed. Nevertheless, the channel would appear to be far too long, too narrow, and too shallow to meet the requirements for a ferry operation. Furthermore, without a rail connection, such a terminal site would do nothing to relieve Highway 101 traffic.
u San Pedro Peninsula: On the north wide of San Rafael Bay is San Pedro Peninsula, an area of multimillion dollar homes and yacht clubs with inadequate road access, no rail access, and little space for parking. At the tip of the peninsula, almost on the main ship channel, there is a barge loading facility for crushed rock that has been in operation for many years. But on the landside, there are too many problems to seriously consider the site for a ferry terminal.
San Pablo Bay: The large circular body of water north of the San Pedro Peninsula is San Pablo Bay. For the most part, it is relatively shallow, with only one federally maintained shipping channel, extending from the main ship channel near the eastern shore of the bay to the mouth of the Petaluma River and extending up that river to the turning-basin at Petaluma. The western shoreline of San Pablo Bay is too far from that ship channel for serious consideration as the site for a ferry terminal.
u Hamilton Field: Also excluded from consideration is the site of the old Hamilton Air Force Base where the US Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of flooding the old runway for transformation into a wetland with the addition of dredged material from San Francisco Bay channel deepening projects. The property will be transferred to the California Coastal Conservancy along with adjacent property near Bel Marin Keys, taking the entire area out of any serious consideration for a ferry terminal.
That leaves Port Sonoma where the Petaluma River enters San Pablo Bay as the only serious contender for a ferry terminal in the North Bay bordering Marin and Sonoma counties.
The Petaluma River has a tradition of river traffic for the movement of goods and farm products since the days of the Spanish Empire in California. Shortly after California became a state, the City of Petaluma was founded at the head of navigation on the river and became a key trans-shipment point in the North Bay. River traffic included schooners, barges, and tugs for the movement of feed, grain and other products. In 1872, the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad first reached San Francisco Bay on the lower Petaluma River where a terminal was built at a spot called Donahue’s Landing on the east bank of the river a mile below Gilardi’s on the Lakeville Highway. A long wharf was built along the water’s edge so the trains could pull out alongside the steamboats. Side-wheeler steamers provided daily passenger and freight service to San Francisco for over a decade until railroad tracks reached Tiburon. So, ferry service would be nothing new to the Petaluma River, while barge and pleasure-boat traffic continue to this day up and down the Petaluma River and along the channel into San Pablo Bay.
Waterside Aspects of Port Sonoma
Because of continuing river traffic, the Petaluma River is dredged from the turning basin in Petaluma to the river mouth at Port Sonoma and into San Pablo Bay, making Port Sonoma the only point on the North Bay with a federally maintained shipping channel. That channel is 200 feet wide and 8 feet deep at low tide for a distance of about four miles into San Pablo Bay where it reaches deep water. In the Petaluma River, the channel is 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep to the turning basin in Petaluma. Dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers is required only every three to four years to maintain the channel, since siltation in the channel does not appear to be a greater problem than elsewhere in San Francisco Bay.
Ferries:
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 as are used in Vallejo and Larkspur service. MTC estimates that a minimum of approximately $11 million would be required to purchase a single high-speed, 325-350 passenger vessel or $20 million for two vessels to provide service for some 1200 commuters or 2400 commute trips per day, which is about the level of patronage on the Vallejo service with two catamaran ferries.
In discussions with ferry builders, it appears that the Petaluma River Channel, both in the river and out into the bay, is adequate for the operation of these high-speed (36 knot/hour) catamarans. One such builder, Dakota Creek Industries, states that "The draft of these vessels is approximately five feet in the full load condition" but six feet at the stern when not fully loaded. Modifications in the vessel design could be made, such as "wider hulls to reduce draft, at the expense of a couple of knots of speed and an increase in wake wash." But, wake wash may not be a serious problem, since these vessels would largely be operating in the open bay. Some have suggested air-cushion ferries that would require little, if any, dredging, but they would not be appropriate at Port Sonoma, since they "are very noisy and subject to vibration and very high maintenance cost."
Landside Aspects:
The bay and Highway 37 bound Port Sonoma at the mouth of the Petaluma River. On the landside is property controlled by the California Coastal Conservancy. Simon and Brecht, a Santa Rosa based architectural and development firm, has an option to build on the Port Sonoma site.
The site is blessed with the greatest abundance of landside transportation facilities of any potential ferry terminal site in the Bay Area. Not only is it traversed by the "Bay Trail" with its biking potential, but also by four-lane Highway 37 joining Highway 101 in Novato and connecting with network of highways leading to Petaluma, Sonoma, and Napa. In addition, the site is traversed by the Northwestern Pacific right-of-way, with tracks leading westward to Novato and then northward to Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Cloverdale, and eastward to Sonoma and Napa. Federal funds have recently become available for the upgrading of the track through Port Sonoma to Novato and northward. At the same time, major efforts are underway in Marin and Sonoma counties to restore railroad passenger service as a means of alleviating traffic congestion on Highway 101.
Certainly, the movement of commuters by bike, road, and rail to Port Sonoma and onto high-speed ferries would be the most effective way of reducing freeway gridlock in both Marin and Sonoma counties. It appears that few, if any, ferry terminal sites have the advantages offered by Port Sonoma, which would have easy land access for a ferry trip to San Francisco in less than one hour. In addition, a Port Sonoma ferry operation has the potential of removing commuters from their cars and reducing traffic congestion on Highway 101 in Marin and Sonoma counties.
So what are the problems that caused the Bay Area Council to downgrade Port Sonoma in its ferry plan?
Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC, the Bay Conservation & Development Commission, points out that the Commission "encourages the increased utilization of the Bay for ferries," but is concerned about some sites such as Port Sonoma that might have "silting problems". He also recognizes that there is a concern that new ferry terminals could be "growth inducing."
David Lewis of Save San Francisco Bay Association points out that new ferry terminals "may create serious environmental impacts on the land and shoreline of the Bay. Buildings, roads and parking lots may destroy wetlands and other sensitive habitat." He notes "Several North Bay and South Bay locations listed by the Task Force for potential ferry service once boasted active marinas which have been closed because maintenance dredging there was not economically feasible." Furthermore, the "Operation of watercraft may have detrimental impact on sensitive habitat."
Barbara Salzman, President of the Marin Audubon Society points out that both Hamilton and Port Sonoma were rated by the Blue Ribbon Task Force as "Category 3" meaning that severe environmental impacts were anticipated. Furthermore she points to "induced growth", "increased traffic", a terminal that "would be a city," and finally the potential for an "Indian casino" on property several miles distant.
And how do North Bay ferry supporters respond to these issues?
Jim Harberson, retired Sonoma County Supervisor, responds that there is no Indian land adjacent to Port Sonoma, but, back in 1995, "there was a casino proposal on a piece of land several miles distant" but that the project was effectively put to rest by the actions of the board. He also points out that development could not take place near Port Sonoma without the acquiescence of the Sonoma Land Trust and the California Coastal Conservancy which control much of the land adjacent to and near the site of the proposed ferry terminal. Furthermore, the Sonoma County Board Supervisors would be directly involved in the land-use planning and active in reviewing the necessary Environmental Impact Report. It would be up to any prospective developer to design the ferry terminal that would have the least impact on the environment.
Regarding traffic, MTC estimates that there is sufficient capacity on Highway37 and other access routes to accommodate potential ferry-induced traffic and sufficient space for at least 700 cars adjacent to the proposed docking site.
The Sonoma Baylands Wetlands restoration project, immediately adjacent to Port Sonoma, utilized dredged materials that were barged in from the Port of Oakland to restore the submerged wetlands. In the future, dredged materials for several wetland restoration projects, including Hamilton Field, could be provided from maintenance dredging for Port Sonoma; thus, dredging would, in fact, be helpful to the restoration of wetlands in the North Bay.
Regarding siltation, MTC’s recommended site for the ferry terminal would be immediately adjacent to the main access channel on the river, which is "routinely dredged," and would have minimal siltation. For an expert assessment, we turned to 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 worked in association with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and other agencies. While it is true that the Port Sonoma Marina has had serious siltation problems because of its poor location away from the channel, 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 into the river and out into the bay with maintenance dredging required only every three or four years.
To Cheney, siltation at Port Sonoma would not be a problem if the ferry terminal is located right on the channel.
Wake created by ferries has been a problem in the channel at Larkspur and elsewhere. But, it may be less of a problem at Port Sonoma, since upon leaving the proposed terminal, the ferry would immediately enter the broad San Pablo Bay, presumably traveling at reduced speed for the four miles in the channel to reach deep water. In addition, advanced high-speed ferry designs have been developed to minimize the wake effect, including SLICE technology, which splits the twin-hull concept into four hulls. The first such vessel is being designed by Guido Perla & Associates in Seattle under an agreement with Lockheed Martin for high-speed passenger ferry operation in Puget Sound to meet the low wake-wash criterion.
Although Port Sonoma with its land access by bike, auto, rail, and ferry access at the mouth of the Petaluma River appears to be the ideal site for a ferry terminal, alternative sites have been suggested. Marin Supervisor Cynthia Murray has recommended a site located several miles up the river and off on a slough near Marin County’s Gnoss Field, the railroad, and Highway 101. This site would require additional dredging and the filling of wetlands, and according to the Audubon Society’s Barbara Salzman, would be "much worse." A mile or more up the Petaluma River is the site of the former Donahue’s Landing, which provided a highly successful ferry operation to San Francisco for over a decade starting in 1872, but it no longer has the railroad terminal upon which that service was based. Sites previously offered near Bel Marin Keys are being acquired for wetland restoration projects by the Coastal Conservancy and thus have been eliminated from consideration. Thus, the logical location of the North Bay ferry terminal appears to be Port Sonoma at the mouth of the Petaluma River.
Are there environmental problems that must be mitigated for the operation of a ferry terminal at Port Sonoma? Yes.
Are environmental problems growing as commuter traffic congestion continues to increase on Highway 101 in Marin and Sonoma counties? Yes
BUT, sensible people through effective engineering solutions can solve both of these environmental problems.
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 … then urgently needed high-speed ferry service can be provided to the North Bay … transferring commuters to 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. Ferry dreams can come true! v
