pages: TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-09-26 | 4 | were used, including comparisons to different non-ferry modes of transportation. He recommended that the street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used, as well as the recovery ratio for the highway system by CalTrans. Chair Knox White inquired whether Objective 3 on page 16 (Integrated Ticketing) included any discussion between the City and Translink. Mr. Sanchez noted that it had been discussed with MTC, but there was no current implementation schedule or funding available at this time. Chair Knox White suggested adding that as a goal, stating that the region should start moving to a single fare card. Chair Knox White noted that Objective 3 on page 16 (Measure 2) read, "Transit schedules should be coordinated to allow easy, convenient transfers between ferries and land-side transit." He noted that it mentioned that the ferries ran at a 65-minute headway, and inquired whether that was because it was the shortest possible headway. Chair Knox White noted that Objective 5 on page 16 read, "The ferry system should provide ample reserve capacity in case of disruptions to land-based transportation systems." He believed that seemed to run counter to the cost-efficiency argument. He believed it would be interesting if the plan discussed that issue. Mr. Sanchez replied that the City has participated in the Spare the Air program, and cited the recent closure of the Bay Bridge and other heavy service days. They used additional carrying capacity from the contractor, Blue and Gold Fleet, which would meet that goal without having the additional carrying capacity on their books. Chair Knox White noted that on page 18, Service and System Evaluations, the total City expenses between FY2002-03 and FY2006-07 nearly tripled for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry Service; at the same time, the Alameda-Harbor Bay service decreased significantly. He inquired whether that was the City's portion of the fuel increases, and inquired whether the City would take on more expense for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry. Mr. Sanchez confirmed that the two contractors operated on different contract structures. The Alameda-Oakland Ferry was contracted with Blue and Gold Fleet, which was a cost-plus- fixed-fee arrangement. He added that the City paid Blue and Gold Fleet approximately $280,000 in annual fixed fees for overhead, profit, etc. He noted that the other ferry expenses (fuel, labor, insurance) were passed through to the City for payment by the City. The Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry service was operated under a fixed subsidy agreement, whereby they agree to the operating subsidy at the beginning of the year, and the ferry operator, Harbor Bay Maritime, would be required to operate and provide the required service at that level of funding. He noted that it used a modified fixed subsidy agreement because the fuel was paid for on a direct pass-through basis. Chair Knox White noted that it was a significant surprise when the dollar bridge toll was passed under Regional Measure 2, including language to pass that money onto the Alameda ferry system, and other area regional systems, going to the WTA. He inquired whether there was any way to tap into those funds under Regional Measure 2. Mr. Sanchez replied that there was no way to access Regional Measure 2 funds. Chair Knox White requested that staff look into that possibility under the WETA arrangement. He Transportation Commission Page 4 of 9 September 26, 2007 | TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf |