Status Report on the Berkeley Ferry Terminal Status Report on the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Status Report on the Berkeley Ferry Terminal Status Report on the Berkeley Ferry Terminal Berkeley Planning, Transportation and Berkeley Planning, Transportation and Waterfront Commissions Waterfront Commissions October 2009 October 2009 1 1

Project History Project History • April 2006: Technical feasibility and environmental analysis begun • March 2007: EIS scoping process with 300+ comments concerning 4 candidate sites comments concerning 4 candidate sites • Sept. 2008: Draft EIR/EIS issued • April 2009: WETA Board selects Berkeley Fishing Pier site as the “locally preferred alternative” 2

Site Alternatives Site Alternatives • Site A: Between the Berkeley pier and Hs Lordships restaurant • Site B: Inside the Berkeley Marina • Site C: At the Berkeley/Albany border near Gilman St. • Site D: In Albany at the foot of Buchanan St. 3

Site Site Alternatives Alternatives SEAWALL DRIVE 4

Why the Fishing Pier Why the Fishing Pier Site Was Selected Site Was Selected • Environmentally superior site • Shortest travel time over the water • This site has the best local bus service 5

Site Location Overview Site Location Overview 6

Benefits of the Berkeley Ferry Benefits of the Berkeley Ferry • Provide mass transit alternative that will help manage increasing regional congestion • Commuter and recreational convenience – serve the growing west side of Berkeley and its employment and growing west side of Berkeley and its employment and population centers • Important emergency/disaster recovery route (Terminal to be built to “essentials structures” standards) • Increased patronage for Berkeley businesses and visitors to the waterfront • Berkeley and Marina icon – architectural gateway to the City of Berkeley • Enhancements to the Bay Trail 7

Berkeley Ferry Design Berkeley Ferry Design Considerations Considerations • Berkeley service has one of the highest ridership potentials of all WETA expansion services • Year 2025 ridership of 1716 • Year 2025 ridership of 1716 • Need parking for 387 patron autos • Transit connectivity is important 8

Comments on the Impacts Comments on the Impacts of the Berkeley Service of the Berkeley Service • Parking impacts including impacts to the existing leasehold parking lot for HS Lordships • Interrelationship with the Bay Trail • Concerns about impacts to windsurfers • Ferry and feeder bus service coordination • Costs, relative to BART and potential financial impacts on the City

Parking Concept Site Plan Parking Concept Site Plan 10

Results of Parking Study Results of Parking Study 11

Attended Parking Concept Attended Parking Concept • 1 attendants per 30 +/- cars • Professional Contractor: Central Parking Co. for Ashby and Pleasant Hill to run the program • Attendants stage cars based on stated pick-up • Attendants stage cars based on stated pick-up times • Operators call/text message when attended parking patrons board the ferry • Performance standards: no more than an 8 minute wait for your car 12

Ferry Terminal Conceptual Design Ferry Terminal Conceptual Design

Parking Lot Concept Cross Section Parking Lot Concept Cross Section

Artist’s Rendering of Terminal Concept Artist’s Rendering of Terminal Concept

Addressing Environmental Impacts Addressing Environmental Impacts • All ferry patron parking accommodated at the reconfigured lot • HS Lordships parking is preserved • Bay Trail included • All public access parking retained • Terminal includes bus loading zone • Initial discussion with AC about feeder service • No City contributions to the project are expected or planned for. 16

Ongoing Actions and Next Steps Ongoing Actions and Next Steps • WETA staff has met with concerned citizens, Waterfront Commissioners, city leaders and staff • Joint discussions with HS Lordship management • Presentations to Planning, Transportation and Waterfront Commissions in October 2009 Waterfront Commissions in October 2009 • City Council meeting of November 17 • Preliminary and final design once EIS/EIR is certified • Secure the remaining funding needed to build the project and ferry vessels 17

Completing the EIR/EIS Completing the EIR/EIS • City of Berkeley approval for the project • Draft Final being written • FTA review and approval before public outreach • FTA review and approval before public outreach • 30 day public review period • WETA Board adoption, FTA “record of decision” • All this is expected by early 2010 18

watertransit.org 19

Fare Revenue, Operating Expense, and Operating Subsidy per Unlinked Passenger Trip 1 Fare Operating Operating Recovery Revenue Expense Subsidy Ratio Berkeley to SF 2 4.00 12.62 8.62 31.7% Bus/Rail AC Transit 0.80 4.40 3.60 18.2% BART 2.70 4.20 1.50 64.3% Caltrain Caltrain 3.50 3.50 7.70 7.70 4.20 4.20 45.5% 45.5% Ferry GG Ferry 5.00 11.00 6.00 45.5% BayLink 10.40 15.5 5.10 67.1% Alameda/Oakland 4.50 9.2 4.70 48.9% 1 All data, except Berkeley to SF, compiled from National Transportation Database RY 2008 Data Tables, "T27_Service_Ratios" and "T26_Pass_Fare_Recovery_Ratio". 2 Berkeley to SF data compiled based on 2014 ridership and operating cost projections.