body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
SPECIAL MEETING
October 17, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland (arrived 7:45 p.m.)
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Nielsen Tam
Members Absent:
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
2. City of Alameda Ferry Program: Discussion of Senate Bill 976. Outcomes:
Review SB 976 and receive public comment.
Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager, provided background information on SB 976
(Ferry legislation), which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Friday, October
12, and was passed in the last days of the legislative session in September. It replaced the
current San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority with a new agency known as the
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). She noted that it would be charged
with operating a comprehensive regional water transit system, and would coordinate the
emergency activities of all water transportation and related facilities within the Bay Area.
She noted that they will coordinate the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, the Harbor Bay
Ferry Service and the Vallejo ferries under one agency. The Golden Gate Ferry would not
be affected by this legislation. She noted that they would appoint a new five-member
board for the WETA; the WTA currently has an 11-member board, including Mayor
Johnson and the Mayor of Vallejo. The new board would include three appointees by the
Governor, one from the Senate Rules Committee, and one from the Speaker of the
Assembly. The new board would start meeting no later than April of next year, and
would have until January of 2009 to develop a transition plan for running the ferry
systems. They would have another six months to develop an emergency operations plan.
Page 1 of 8",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,2,"Ms. Goldman advised that the City Council discussed this issue at the October 2 meeting,
and noted that there would be some clean-up legislation because the bill as passed was
somewhat vague. Among the items to be presented by the City for the clean-up
legislation were:
1.
To ensure that current service levels for Alameda ferries would be
maintained or enhanced for at least seven years;
2.
Future fare increases would be consistent with historical trends for the
Alameda ferry services;
She noted that while some Measure B funding was included in the budget, Alameda was
fortunate that their boats, terminals and parking lots did not have a lot of City money in
them. The City believed that it should be able to be reimbursed the money it had put into
these assets, which would be approximately $1.2 million; in comparison, Vallejo has
approximately $150 million invested in its ferry system. She noted that the City would
ask for a seat on the new WETA board. The City would like the WETA to pick up the
quarterly rider satisfaction surveys to ensure they were providing adequate service. The
City would also like the WETA to prepare an analysis of the on-time performance of the
ferries, as well as provide reports to the City Council on how the ferry service is doing. If
there were any proposed fare or schedule changes, the City would like them to bring
those proposals forward in Alameda with a public hearing. The City would also like the
WETA to work with the master developer for Alameda Point to ensure that ferry services
would be able to serve that new development once it is operational.
She noted that the City would work with the staffs of Senators Perata and Torlakson in
the next several months to discuss the interests of the City and the ridership in the new
legislation.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about the lack of local representation in the
new legislation. He inquired whether the clean-up legislation would ensure local
representation on this new board.
Ms. Goldman noted that she did not know the timing of the new Board appointments
before the clean-up legislation has a chance to move forward. She noted that the State
legislature has recessed for the year, and that the new WETA Board must hold its first
meeting by April 2008.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the stated goal of this legislation was to merge all the
ferry services into a single agency to better address a disaster or terrorist attack. He noted
that it was strange that the Golden Gate ferry has been specifically excluded without
much explanation, and whether there was any plan to fold it into the WETA, and inquired
why that occurred.
Special Meeting of the
Page 2 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,3,"Ms. Goldman replied that she did not have an answer for that question, which was raised
when they read the final version of the bill.
Rachel Weinstein, District Director for Senator Perata, noted that the Golden Gate Ferry
was separate under State law because they were voter approved and created; they did not
receive any State money. She added that it would be best to have all of the ferry services
coordinated under one agency, and noted that they were still working on incorporating
that service into the plan.
Commissioner Krueger noted that in that case, the urgency of the message had not gotten
through, and he supposed that it was related to some of the negative reaction expressed
with respect to this plan.
A discussion of the legislative process with respect to this bill ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the origin of the ferry consolidation plan.
Alicia Trost, Press Secretary to Senator Perata, summarized the sequence of events
initiated by Senator Perata's request for a report, and noted that the full report was on the
Bay Area Council's website. She noted that an extensive hearing had been held at the San
Francisco Ferry Building, and that every elected official in the Bay Area had been invited
to that hearing. She added that while the bill was amended greatly in the final days of the
legislative session, it had not been pushed through at the last minute. She noted that
copies of the proceedings at the Ferry Building can be made available to the
Commissioners, and added that experts had flown in to testify about evacuation after
Hurricane Katrina.
Commissioner McFarland inquired whether it would be possible to use the existing
system, and to develop a response plan for the time when the emergency may occur.
Ms. Trost noted that the goal was to put the services under one umbrella, and noted that
there was no legal precedent in terms of the controlling authority of the water space in the
event of an emergency. She added that identifying the legal authority was the impetus for
creating WETA.
Commissioner McFarland noted that by that logic, all the Bay Area transit agencies
should be consolidated as well.
Ms. Trost noted that the WTA, not being the direct service provider, would not be eligible
for transit monies out of Proposition 1-B, which the WETA would be.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland regarding the role of the PUC and
how they regulate the ferries after this transition, Ms. Trost replied that she did not have
that information, and would provide an answer at a later time.
Special Meeting of the
Page 3 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,4,"Mr. Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager, replied that the CPUC did not have any authority
concerning the Golden Gate ferry service because they were a transit operator. The City's
two ferry services contracted with two private operators (Blue & Gold and Harbor Bay
Maritime) were regulated by the CPUC; that was the area of oversight by the CPUC.
Chair Knox White noted that there were significant concerns regarding language changes
associated with money, as well as consolidation of services into a regional body. He
noted that the changes in the Board's makeup and distribution of monies was of more
concern than disaster readiness.
Ms. Trost noted that without the Prop 1-B money, she was concerned that the bridge tolls
would have to be raised considerably. She would ask Senator Torlakson for further
information. She noted that the Senate Rules Committee would confirm all of the
Governor's appointees, which was another opportunity for the Transportation
Commission and Senator Perata to ensure that Alameda's interests were represented.
Open public hearing.
Patrick Robles noted that he worked as a ferry deckhand, and added that both the ferry
riders and the operators had little information about the changes that were occurring. He
looked forward to receiving more direct information than what he had seen in the media.
He wished to remind everyone that the ferry service was about people who depend on the
ferries for safe passage to work or other activities. He was also concerned about the
existing crew and other employees maintaining their positions.
Janet Jones noted that she was a daily commuter on the ferry, and had been taken aback
by this proposal. She was very pleased with the ferry and used it frequently. She noted
that if there are any problems, the Coast Guard was available for disaster relief, and often
rode alongside the passengers. She understood that the staff members were trained for
disaster preparedness. She considered the ferry to be an economical, safe and
environmentally friendly mode of transportation. She was concerned about the quality of
service if the State were to take over its operation. She found BART and Muni to be
unsatisfactory modes of transportation by comparison and did not see any reason to
change the ferry operation.
Mary Ellen Smith noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry frequently, and was a very
happy ferry rider. She inquired about the effects on the riders themselves, and whether
there would be any fare increases. She would like to know where the money would go.
Maxine Young noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry, and in reading the legislation,
did not see a commitment to run the transit system as an integral part of the Bay Area's
transit system. She noted that the legislation generally addressed emergency situations.
She was concerned that after the new agency took over, it may decide that Alameda did
not need the ferry.
Special Meeting of the
Page 4 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,5,"Carrie Boger noted that she rode both ferries four times a week, and noted that it was a
crucial transportation mode for her. She inquired whether she would be able to get back
home in the event of an emergency, or whether her ferry would be diverted elsewhere.
She was also concerned about changes in schedules, as well as whether routes would be
cut to accommodate the subsidized funding. She noted that if there were major changes
with the ferry, she and her family would move back to San Francisco.
Howard Smith noted that he lived in Harbor Bay, and added that he was concerned about
the clean-up legislation. He was also concerned about enhancements, and noted that the
parking lot filled up quickly. He believed that more riders would be captured if all-day
and weekend service were to be offered.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, echoed the comments made by the previous
speakers. She noted that ATA recognized that ferries were an important everyday part of
the transportation system, not just for emergencies. She inquired who would be
responsible for disbursing information about the ferries.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about this legislation and the way it was
passed. He noted that it appeared to him like it was hurried through without public input,
and that the motives differed from those that were touted in the media publicity. He
would have preferred to see a more fully realized bill that had been developed by
consensus, rather than a bill that needed to be cleaned up. He was very concerned about
the consolidation proposal. He noted that since the mayor represents Alameda on the
WTA board, Alameda residents may indicate their ferry-related concerns to the mayor
and have them brought to the appropriate authorities. He was very concerned about who
would be appointed to the new board, and hoped that it would be local representation. He
noted that he had not voted for any members of the Bay Area Council. He recalled the
role the ferries played following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, and noted that
because people pulled together, and bureaucracies did not take over, that was an effective
disaster response. He would like to see coordinated and better emergency access, which
could have been accomplished with the existing structure if properly organized.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the meeting at the Ferry Building was a public
meeting where public comment had been taken. Ms. Weinstein replied that it was a
public meeting, and noted that copies of the meeting notes were available. Commissioner
Ratto noted that he was disappointed that clean-up legislation had to be enacted. He
acknowledged Councilmember DeHaan and the Deputy City Manager in the audience,
and urged City Council and City staff to work as diligently as possible with the
legislators for as many years of commitments as they could get. He noted that the ferries
were an integral part of this community, and hoped that Senator Perata and the committee
members would take the ferry service seriously.
Special Meeting of the
Page 5 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,6,"Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Commission would receive feedback on the
legislation. Ms. Trost replied that there was legal language written into the bill that
identified a year-long open process that stated that the Authority needed to work with the
local agencies, ""specifically those that run already existing water transit systems. There
was also a 45-day public process of receiving local input. She added that it would have
several hearings through several Commissions, the State Senate and Assembly, and that
the hearings would be bi-partisan. She encouraged the Commissioners to come to the
hearings, and added that Senator Perata was very specific in stating that the local input
from Alameda and Vallejo would be vital in ensuring this program worked. She ensured
that it was not a hostile takeover, but that the goal was to make a more efficient system
for the ferry riders.
Ms. Trost noted that they had heard many concerns from the Commissioners and the
public about any cuts to service, increased fares, and staffing issues. She noted that SB
976 contained language stating, ""priorities should be given to ensuring continuity in the
program services and activities of existing public transportation ferry services."" She
believed there was also language about protecting staff, and added that the Senator's
intent was to enhance service, not cut it.
Commissioner Krueger noted that with respect to Regional Measure 2, he understood the
intent to increase service and to increase funding through Proposition 1-B, as well as to
consolidate and respond in a disaster. He noted that some of the language choices were
puzzling to him, with respect to the Alameda-Oakland and Harbor Bay Ferry was
changed to Transbay Ferries. He was disappointed that there was not an answer for that,
and inquired why the language had been changed. He did not want the Regional Measure
2 funds to be diverted away from what Alamedans voted for, which he viewed as a
betrayal. Ms. Trost noted that she did not have an answer for that question because she
had never been asked it before. She emphasized that she would be able to find that
information for Commissioner Krueger.
Ms. Weinstein noted that in response to Chair Knox White's question, the term length of
each Board member was six years.
Commissioner McFarland believed that the end users of this ferry system had not been
well-informed by the State throughout this year-long process.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City-owned boats would be
able to be sold for their full value, and whether the partial payment of the boats by grants
would affect that sale, Staff Sanchez replied that the City owned four boats, all of which
were acquired using public (State or federal) funds. If the boats were to be sold, the City
would be required to repay a portion of the money back to the granting agency; a portion
would return to the City as well. He added that the Encinal and the Peralta were
purchased with grants with a local match, half paid by the City of Alameda and half paid
by the Port of Oakland.
Chair Knox White noted that there was considerable disappointment with this process,
Special Meeting of the
Page 6 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,7,"and that it was unfortunate that the first public hearing in Alameda about taking over
these ferries occurred after the law was signed into being. He wanted to ensure that while
the clean-up legislation process was proceeding, that it is remembered that more money
had been spent than specific grants that could have been used elsewhere than the ferry,
and that the City does not lock itself into that number early on. He added that depending
on the term limits bill, Senator Perata would not be in the Senate indefinitely, and the
City did not know who would be in charge. He believed that in the event of a Tom
McClintock governorship, the ferry services may be in jeopardy; the head of the Senate
Rules Committee, the head of the Assembly, and the Governor all may come from
Orange and Riverside Counties. He did not believe that, in that case, they may not be
concerned with ferry service in Alameda. He believed that during the clean-up language
process, the two services being rolled into the new body should have seats on the Board.
He agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's question why it needed to change, and it may
be that 11 people were too many.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to the sustaining services, Regional Measure 2
had language for money for Alameda services, in order to increase and enhance the
services. He recalled Mr. Smith's comment that the voters of the Bay Area passed that
measure, and he believed the clean-up language and plans going forward should
acknowledge that. He noted that this was not the continuation of service until three years
afterwards, and added that this measure, passed three years ago, was being changed even
before money had been distributed. He believed there should be some agreement
regarding long-term maintenance service, and did not believe anyone expected the
service to run empty all day and all night. He believed there should be some good-faith
assurances with respect to maintaining service, which may be difficult if Alameda were
to be written out of the funding.
Chair Knox White stated that he had not heard anyone disagree with the need for a
regional emergency plan, and added that Alameda was an island city that had no lifeline-
rated links to Oakland. According to Caltrans, all the bridges and tubes connecting
Alameda to Oakland will go down in a major earthquake. He added that there was no
money to fix that, and noted that the ferry was the only lifeline to Oakland. He noted that
Alameda was the only large island community in the Bay Area, and must have a priority
for emergency service.
Chair Knox White understood that there was a public hearing at the ferry building, and
that the issues most critical to Alameda were not the focus of that meeting. He was
surprised to see the comment made by Senator Perata in the newspaper, stating that ""no
one should have been blindsided, and that they all knew it was coming. He noted that he
made a number of calls, and discovered that they didn't know these discussions were
occurring until four days before the vote. He believed the residents of Alameda deserved
a better outcome. He hoped that Senator Perata would hold a hearing in Alameda once
the clean-up language was written, so that the people affected by the change could give
input in Alameda, rather than having to travel to Sacramento.
Commissioner Ratto concurred with Chair Knox White's comments, and he understood
Special Meeting of the
Page 7 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,8,"that the hearings would be in Sacramento; he would like to have a local public forum so
residents could address these issues. He noted that it was a great imposition for the
average working person to have to go to Sacramento to participate in the process. He
suggested that the terms be staggered so there would not be a total turnover, and would
like there to be some institutional memory in that process. Ms. Weinstein noted that she
would investigate that possibility.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the items that required follow-
up, Ms. Weinstein replied that she would forward the answers to the Commission's
questions as an off-agenda item.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with the previous comments, and believed that staff's
recommendations for the clean-up language were very good. When the clean-up language
is created, he would like to see a road map for the consolidation to include the Golden
Gate Ferry. He believed it would be disingenuous to have the push for a single,
consolidated agency, and to cut Golden Gate Ferry out of it. If an exception for Alameda
could not be made, he would like an explanation for why the Golden Gate Ferry could be
excluded. He thanked the Senator's staff for attending.
Staff Khan noted that he had a communication related to a special program launched by
AC Transit and Chevron. The first meeting would be held Tuesday, October 23, at 10:00
A.M. He noted that he would be attending the meeting and recommended that one person
from the Transportation Commission attend as well.
3.
Adjournment:
8:55 P.M.
Special Meeting of the
Page 8 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf