Features

Governor Gray Davis now controls the fate of Berkeley residents who one day hope to zip to work along the waves of San Francisco Bay. 

The Assembly and Senate passed legislation to fund Berkeley Ferry Service to the San Francisco Ferry Building last week, along with a laundry list of 36 Bay Area transit projects aimed at reducing bridge congestion with money reaped from a $1 fare hike on seven Bay Area bridges. 

Davis has skirted questions about his support for the project, and Monday his aide Russ Lopez said the governor had “not taken a position.” 

The legislation, sponsored by State Sen. Don Perata D-Oakland, would raise an estimated $140 million annually to fund—among other projects—ferry service, BART extensions deeper into Contra Costa County, a retrofit of BART’s transbay tube, a regional bus rapid transit system and a fourth bore to the Caldecott Tunnel linking Alameda and Contra Costa Counties underneath the Berkeley Hills. 

The plan for Berkeley devised by the state-mandated Water Transit Authority includes a two-ferry system to be completed by 2010 that would carry as many as 350 people across the bay every thirty minutes during rush hour. 

Fares would be competitive with BART, which costs about $3 to cross the Bay, and the boats would leave from either the Berkeley or Albany coast, preferably the Berkeley Marina, said Heidi Machen, spokesperson for the Water Transit Authority, which developed the plan under a state mandate.  

The bill would allocate $107 million to buy the boats and get the entire system running and $3.2 million to operate the Berkeley service. The plan would also subsidize ferry service connecting South San Francisco with the Ferry Building and pay for boats for five other non-subsidized routes throughout the Bay Area. 

The WTA envisions the Berkeley ferries attracting up to 2300 commuters by 2025, passengers who currently prefer to drive across the Bay Bridge rather than take AC Transit or BART. 

“Our studies show that 50 percent of our riders would be coming directly from cars,” Machen said. “If ferries are not available, they’ll keep driving.”  

Critics argue that money would be better spent improving established services rather than reintroducing ferries. 

“I’m opposed to throwing tons of money away when it’s not being done in an environmentally and economically responsible way,” said Councilmember Kriss Worthington. 

Worthington fears that ferries potentially jetting as fast as 30 mph across the Bay would do more environmental harm releasing diesel emissions into the water than motorists on the bridge, adding that proposed parking lots for an estimated 590 and 890 cars would congest shoreline neighborhoods without reducing air pollution. 

“If people drive their car to the ferry that defeats the purpose [of limiting pollution] because most of the air pollution comes from starting the car.” 

The WTA insisted that they have mandated stringent environmental regulations for boats, which Machen said must be built to be 85 percent cleaner than the Environmental Protection Agency 2007 emission standards. The agency is also committed to building some non-diesel boats. 

Paul Kamen, a Berkeley Waterfront Commissioner and naval architect, supports ferry service and says that a slow ferry, traveling about 17 knots per hour, would use about the same power per passenger as a moped during its 20-minute ride across the bay. He said the Marina already had enough parking to accommodate a scaled back ferry service, but the service projected by the WTA and might have to go to Albany in order to find enough parking. 

Worthington insisted the $140 million earmarked would be better spent on AC Transit, which he said served more people. 

The AC Transit Board of Directors endorsed the legislation, which provides the cash-strapped agency with funds for rapid service programs. Also AC Transit Deputy General Manager Jim Gleich said the agency is excited to get first crack at operating the ferry service.  

“There’s an interest here for sure,” he said. “It would improve the ability to make a good land-water system.” 

Berkeley last had ferry service after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, but that service was halted in 1990 after commuters abandoned the service when the Bay Bridge was repaired. 

Mass transit advocates initially hailed the bill as giant leap forward for providing viable alternatives to car traffic, but support has cooled recently due to projects added to help get the bill through the Assembly.  

Chief among the complaints was the last-second addition of $50 million to help fund the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, which Perata spokesperson Tom Martinez said was essential to win support from Contra Costa County representatives.  

Amber Crabbe of the Oakland-based Transportation and Land Commission, said the TLC was “not terribly happy” about funding the Caldecott expansion, but that the bill still offered “a pretty exceptional program on how to fund transit in the future.” 

Despite the multiple programs included in the bill, local politicians are curious to see if Gov. Davis signs on with a recall vote looming. “If he thinks he can appeal to environmentalists and anti-tax people maybe he’ll think [vetoing the bill] will be popular,” Worthington said. 

The legislation must leap several more hurdles before it goes into effect. If Gov. Davis signs on, the bill will go to the ballot in the seven counties affected by the plan—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano. A majority vote in four out of the seven counties is needed for passage. 

Sen. Diane Feinstein has authored federal legislation that would amend rules for allocating toll hikes so that the funding could proceed as planned. WTA officials said they expected Feinstein’s bill to pass without difficulty.