You’ve been President of the WTA for approaching a year now. Has it turned out to be more than you bargained for when you accepted the Governor’s nomination?
Published: September, 2001
Well, actually I have been the President for over a year, but I have been the President with money for only about 7 or 8 months. That’s because our budget was vetoed in June of last year and we only reacquired our right to the $12 million appropriation at the end of last year. In answer to your question, it has been a substantial amount of work to get the Authority going and, yes, it was more than I bargained for.
You must remember that we didn’t have anything at the beginning, neither an office, pencils nor computers. We had to create the Authority from thin air; we had no history and no old employees to rely on. But we have come a long way from the first couple of Board meetings for which I actually typed and mailed the agendas to the people who were supposed to receive them. Now, of course, we have a wonderful staff and thanks to them I don’t have to do that type of work anymore.
You’re a partner in a high-powered San Francisco law firm, your time demanding role with the WTA is a volunteer position, why do you do it?
Well, that’s a good question. I guess part of it is that I have an interest in the Bay and I have an interest in public policy and especially in transportation issues. I am a commuter and I am interested in finding some solutions to our Bay Area traffic problems. Traffic is a mess and traffic problems are affecting our quality of life and productivity of our businesses. I am a commuter and, like everyone else, I want to make my commute to work a little easier and make other people’s a little easier as well.
By taking people out of their cars and providing reliable ferry service, ferries offer one way to help solve the traffic problem. The Golden Gate Bridge District ferries prove this. If all Marin ferry commuters started driving to work, they would fill up an entire lane on the Golden Gate Bridge. Right now, the Bay is an under-utilized transportation resource. Look at how effectively other cities like Sydney, Seattle and New York use their waterways.
Part of my attraction to the Bay and to water transit has something to do with me being a Navy brat. My father was stationed in San Francisco for the last part of his military career and was involved in patrolling the Bay during the Second World War.
Environmentalists have made a lot of noise about ferries, though they seem to have quieted down lately. Is WTA on the right side of the environmental issue?
I think the Authority is definitely on the right side. We are committed to doing what the State of California has asked us to do: deliver an environmentally sound ferry system.
This is a very exciting time in the ferry industry. The industry is at the brink of developing the next generation of ferries. The WTA will study cleaner fuels like biodiesel. This fuel is made out of soybean oil and is already being used for road vehicles. Who would have imagined that the U. S. Postal service in San Francisco would start using this fuel for its fleet? We will look at any technology that can reduce air and water emissions because good air and water quality is important for our passengers, crew and all of us who life here.
We will get good information on the level of ferry emissions in the Bay. There’s been a lot of rhetoric and misinformation about pollution from ferries. The rhetoric is good because it called attention to this problem and generated State dollars for our studies. On the other hand, I really have a distaste for bad information and believe that it must be corrected.
The reality is that there has not been any testing of emissions from a ferry actually operating on San Francisco Bay. We don’t have good answers to this air and water emissions question. This is where the WTA’s studies will fill a huge information void. This fall, the WTA’s consultants will start testing emissions from ferries operating daily commute runs in the Bay.
These tests are highly sophisticated and technical and way over my head.
They will produce critical information to plan the next fleet of ferries for the Bay and in other parts of the country. The Federal government is watching this closely because our studies will be used to set emissions standards for ferries in the future. I am happy the Legislature gave us the money to conduct these studies because most of the Bay Area agencies operating ferry service don’t have extra money to fund them.
So I think we are on the right side of the environmental issue and we are certainly working with the environmental community to keep ourselves on the right side of the issue.
The folks that campaigned to create the WTA envisioned a comprehensive regional ferry system with as many as 28 terminals and 100 or more ferry boats criss-crossing the Bay. Does the economic slowdown and California’s power crises mean that this vision has to be scaled back?
Not necessarily. I am optimistic that if our plan is put together correctly and with broad local support, the WTA will be able to tap into new transportation dollars to pay for the creation of the ferry system. It is important to note, however, that we are planning a public transit system. We will be in competition with other transportation providers for dollars. We have to show that new water transit routes will be cost effective and not duplicative of other public transit routes. We will have to justify each new route and terminal.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force provided us with a good starting point. Their work is what caused the legislation, which created the Water Transit Authority and the Governor’s support of it. But now we are moving into a new chapter. We have to be realistic about the fact that we will be in line with other transit systems that need lots of dollars too.
There will be an initiative on the March 2002 ballot, which will re-dedicate sales tax on fuel to be used exclusively for transportation. This, along with the possibility of increasing bridge tolls around the Bay, represent potential sources of funding for the ferry plan. We will have a stake in both of these new sources of funds from which we can fund new ferry routes and boats.
Obviously, we don’t know what is going to happen in the economy in the years ahead, but I feel and I think a lot of other people feel that it will rebound and I think the energy crisis is in the process of being solved right now. So again, I think that if our plan is good, with broad based public support it will be accepted and funded by the Legislature.
WTA looks at transportation issues from a regional, as opposed to a local, or single jurisdictional point of view. Is that a blessing or a curse in your opinion?
I don’t know how you could design a ferry system in the Bay unless it is regional. By definition, any type of public water transit is regional because it is connecting different destinations. Also, ferry riders travel across different counties to get to the ferry terminals. In Vallejo, people are driving in from as far away as Fairfield and Sacramento to ride the Vallejo ferry boats to San Francisco. Businesses with employees commuting to Redwood City and Oyster Point are begging for water transit from the East Bay.
We have to have the participation of the people in the region. We need to have the will of the people in the region to get it done. I certainly don’t think it is a curse. We are regional in nature and thankfully do have regional input on what can be done from the elected officials in our region who serve on our Community Advisory Committee.
WTA’s funding is from a onetime grant that runs out sometime within the next two years. After that, you must return to the legislature for money to keep WTA going. Yet some Southern Calif. lawmakers are openly dubious about plans for water transit on San Francisco Bay. How do you handicap WTA’s chances for winning ongoing funding?
The bottom line is that if we deliver to the Legislature a good product I think people are going to pay for it. If it looks like it will relieve some of the congestion cost effectively, the people will support paying for it.
I think water transit has an appeal even for Southern California lawmakers. Look, you don’t need to demolish businesses and build highways or bridges to expand water transit. Let’s be realistic, there are some people who will refuse to get in a bus no matter what you do. So we have to be resourceful and look at our Bay to move more people. We believe the investment in water transit will compare very well to the other options we have for breaking traffic gridlock.
What’s your background and where do you live now?
I live in Colma, which is in San Mateo County, and we don’t have any possibility of a ferry bringing me to and from work, but I think a ferry system could take people off of my road when I go to work using other public transportation or in my automobile. I am a local person, born and raised in San Francisco. I went to San Francisco public and private schools including law school at Hastings. I am a mother of one grown son. I have been a lawyer for 27 years. For my entire career, I have practiced in downtown San Francisco in the area of real estate and probate law. I have brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews who live in the Bay Area and they want me to do a good job on this ferry plan because they want their commute improved.
If things go as you hope they will and in a few years you are overseeing the successful expansion of San Francisco Bay’s ferry system, do you want a ferryboat named after you?
Well, of course I would love to have a ferry named after me - however, there are many people who are more deserving than me that we would have to name one after first. One such is Ron Cowan, who did so much to get the Blue Ribbon Task Force up and running and to get the legislation enacted which created the Water Transit Authority. And, of course, we have the Governor, who would love to have a boat named after him. I mean there are all kinds of people who would like to have a boat named after them, so I will just be at the end of the list!! But if we are going to have 25, 50, 100 boats I mean there will be plenty of names to go around.
One last question. Your law partner, Jerry Hallisey, is a close associate and heavy fundraiser for the governor as well as being chief of the powerful California Transportation Commission. Is he our ace in the hole?
Well, first of all he doesn’t head the California Transportation Commission. He is a Commissioner only. There is some talk that maybe he will be Chief at some point, but at the moment he is not. But actually I think our ace in the hole is going to be creating a good Implementation and Operations plan for the Legislature. We also must do all of our environmental and technical studies correctly. We will do a great job because we have a great staff working on it and lots of good input from people all over the Bay Area. Although the staff has a tough job to do in a short time, I am sure the thing is going to be completed and done right. I am confident that if we have a good work plan, everyone will support it and that is going to be our ace in the hole.
Charlene Johnson with Nieret Mizushima, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of San Francisco, and frequent Alameda/Oakland ferry commuter.
