Ferry Godfather
According to the Vallejo Times Herald, Vallejo’s mayor, Anthony Intintoli Jr., has taken the issue of possible ferry consolidation one step further, highlights:
…Intintoli, who has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the bill, says Perata’s letter didn’t go far enough in addressing his concerns about the long-range economic impact on Vallejo. The city’s revitalization plans for Mare Island, downtown and the waterfront coalesce around the ferry.
The mayor also said Perata does not explain how the state will compensate Vallejo for its four ferries, which cost at least $10 million each, as well as its ferry terminal and vendor contracts. All the assets would be under the control of a new board appointed by the governor.
“None of that was dealt with,” Intintoli said Tuesday. “I’m glad I had gone ahead with the veto request.”
…
Perata sent a Sept. 19 letter to all Bay Area elected officials asking their support for the bill. In his veto request dated the same day, Intintoli told the governor the move created “more bureaucracy, confusion, mistrust and animosity between the various stakeholders and the public” after it was “drastically amended … without public input.”
In a special meeting today, Intintoli will ask the Solano Transportation Authority board, which he chairs, to draft a similar veto request. He said he expects the board to agree.
Evidently the City of Vallejo was sent a letter by Senator Perata whose intent was to assuage any fears that the City might have, but managed to not do so. And our City Council spoke about it briefly under council communications at the September 18th meeting (item 7-F) and the similar themes seemed to rise as discussed in the Times Herald report: not enough information, no clarification on how cities would be compensated for the real investment put into the ferry system, assurances of maintenance of level of service and pricing, etc… etc… Our Council has agreed to discuss the issue further in a future meeting, but without more information there is no precise “action” they can take other than to talk about it.
The most uncomfortable thing about this issue is how little our local governments know, not because they are not actively seeking answers but because our state representatives did not think (or want) to share the information before it was crafted, vetted, and passed in the State legislature. The clock is ticking, Mayor Johnson mentioned that decisions should be made by the end of the year, and we are still scratching our collective heads saying, “what the hell just happened?“
While I’m a proponent of regional transit resources, let’s make them truly regional and that means all ferry operations should be in the same boat together (punny!).
Highly unlikely for Johnson to act against her “godfather” aka Perata. Shouldn’t the city’s interest trump her own?
Comment by Roberto — September 27, 2007 @ 9:16 am
At last night’s TC meeting, staff said that this issue will be agendized at next Tuesday’s council meeting for discussion.
Concerned folks should let the council know their thoughts.
An easy to use email address that I set up is alamedacitycouncil@gmail.com (sends to all councilmembers and the city manager)
Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 27, 2007 @ 11:22 am
The exclusion of Marin is really suspicious.
What, earthquakes aren’t emergencies for Marin, too?
Comment by OmbudsBen — September 27, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
I have know idea why that happened, but my guess is that because the GG Ferry is funded by GG Bridge Tolls while the other two ferries are funded from similar sources (RM-1 tolls, etc), there was some thought that it would be too difficult to combine.
That said, it seems ridiculous to leave them out.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 27, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Why combine? Is something broken?
Comment by Jack B — September 27, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
My comment wasn’t “combine” it was, “if they were going to combine” then it would make sense.
There are serious pluses and minuses to either combining or separating services.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 27, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Our family depends on the ferry almost daily. Considering how good the service is now, I would only expect dis-improvement if control moves further away from the people who actually care on a day to day business.
What are the pluses to combining the services?
Comment by Jack B — September 27, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
I’m judging there’s a vacuum in local government concerning this ferry issue. I hereby nominate JKW to take the lead and volunteer the voluntary Traffic Commission to research and answer those questions and issues raised by Jack B and others. This research should include an explanation of the serious pluses and minuses JKW mentioned but didn’t discuss in # 6 above.
There is, you know, a big pot of Fed Homeland Security money waiting for distribution to a California initiative that contains the magic bureaucratic language that meets their criteria. I’m sure our local boy, Mr. Perata, would be more than happy to fully disclose. Who knows, perhaps we (Alameda) could end up with a real ferry system.
A little vignette about the ferry from SF. My wife and I returned from Vancouver BC on a cruise ship yesterday and caught the noon ferry from Pier 39 to Alameda. There were three or four (not counting the captain) worker bees handling the tickets, ramp lifting and other tasks. There were also three Coast Guard enlisted service members in uniform and all three were “packing”. They were, no doubt, on some kind of homeland security assignment. So there is a connection between homeland security and ferries,(even though, as I couldn’t help but overhear them chit-chatting with the crew members, their conversation was totally about online gambling and the best sites for betting..some things never change).
Comment by Jack Richard — September 27, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
You know… the more I think about this, the more I think it’s imperative that the mayor/council do everything they can and then some to maintain as much control of the ferry service as possible.
Comment by Jack B — September 27, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
For starters, better access to money, like RM-2 money, which is only available through the WTA and I would imagine WETA. This could allow for more service, fewer fare hikes, more coordination with other combined lines.
One TC commissioner uses the ferry to commute to San Rafael daily, has to take two separate service with different fares and tickets for each.
Local control is very important as well….not pushing combination.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 27, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
More $$$ and service is good.
I would love to see direct ferries to Marin and SFO… but I don’t know if it would prove to make sense. Sure be nice.
John, maybe you know how to find answer to this question. In case of giant shaker disaster, what would become the protocol for the ferries? Would we get back home to Alameda, or would the ferries get co-opted for other priorities?
The other main thing that comes to mind is… what’s best for the City of Alameda? With the re-dev of Alameda Point, I’d think the city gov’t would be hellbent on maintaining as much local control as possible, thus giving them more options of how to utilize The Point.
Comment by Jack B — September 27, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
This is ironic, in that the Oakland-Alameda ferry was born as a result of the 1989 earthquake. (I took the very first one, to Jack London Square. -Long story; buy me a drink.)
I rode the ferry for many subsequent years, until the demise of the still lamented 325 AC transit shuttle bus. -The 325 ferried ferry commutters from the terminal to the East End, allowing commuters the freedom to take the O or the 51 to Bart in the mornings, and then the ferry in the evenings. (Mr. JKW: any chance the 325 or its ilk will ever come back? It did encourage ferry ridership.)
Anyway…Our ferry has done an outstanding job during crisis situations, even though it is in the hands of local rubes. I rode it home when my building was evacuated the morning of 9/11, and they did an outstanding job of laying in hourly ferries, without much/any notice. (The bar plied everyone with drinks too.)
A ditto champion response during the Bart strike. -It really isn’t broken.
Comment by Susan — September 27, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Jack - Your comment about earthquakes is one of the concerns I mentioned at the TC on Weds. Night. I don’t quite understand the connection between taking over existing services and “emergency response” unless the plan is to move the ferries somewhere else in an emergency. Otherwise, the existence of the service already means our community is prepared.
The make up of the proposed governing board is also incredibly concerning. chosen by the Governor, and leaders of the State Assembly and Senate (all of whom could be from other parts of the state, guaranteeing a lack of local, or even regional, understanding).
In the past, the council has discussed this issue, with regards to the existing Water Transit Authority (WTA) taking over the service. The council asked for clarity on the maintaining of exsiting service levels in such an event and the issue went away.
Having many multiple transit operators adds confusion to transit use without a lot of gains due to competition (typically, each independent agency operates a monopoly). Some of these issues, like multiple fare cards, etc. will be solved by the Translink program as it rolls out.
This proposal is outrageously insulting in the way that it was slipped through at the last minute with zero input of affected parties, and I hope the Governor acts on his oft pronounced ideals of ending these types of actions (there’s no guarantee, it seems to be more a side-bite used when he wants to oppose certain issues without having to take a real stand).
Susan - the Line 325 disappeared during the 2001/02 bus cuts because despite running a number of buses each day, there were only 35 (or was it 45) riders and continuing the line would have resulted in cuts on lines used by many more people. The line 63 offers a semi-substitute if you live in the South Shore or Gold Coast or West End. The trip from the East End is a bit twisty and turn-y (I take it occasionally to get to Oakland, it’s not terrible, but it’s not direct.) The trip home has operational issues, some of which will be discussed at the next TC meeting at the end of October, I’d encourage you to come, or email, and give your thoughts.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 28, 2007 @ 6:52 am
Even though ferry riders aren’t a huge constituency they are probably more affluent as a group than the average bus rider? Just a thought. At any rate, it seems the seizing of assets issue should get lots of Alamedans hot under the collar, even if ferries themselves are not a priority.
Anyhow, perhaps this issue will give another focus for the worth of our TC and the volunteers who serve on it. I want to see how Don Roberts can twist John’s work on this issue.
Roberto, why not wait to see what the mayor does before getting too heavy casting dispersions? Suppose the mayor is a very ambitious career politician with heavy ties to the Don ( and I don’t mean Roberts). If I were such a person, a real opportunist of the first order, and in a similar position I think I would bite the hand feeding me before slapping down my constituents on an issue like this. Just as a common sense choice for self-preservation.
Comment by Mark I — September 28, 2007 @ 8:23 am
MArk - I don’t see the logic of your last post, esp. if Bev wants to move into politics outside the city - she’ll not go against Don as she’s not gone against Ron (Cowan).
As for JKW & TC they too only seem to support development and have not taken a side to support the owners of our ferry system.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 28, 2007 @ 9:09 am
“But on Monday, it was Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson who welcomed the governor to her city’s waterfront for a news conference next to the Alameda ferry dock.
“I’d just like to say in Alameda we’re very appreciative of it, and we’ll be large beneficiaries of that legislation,” Johnson said when she introduced Schwarzenegger.
In an interview afterward, Johnson said that Alameda has been eager to transfer its ferry service to another transit agency because the city has been subsidizing the operation. But, she said, Alameda wants assurances that “the level of service now provided won’t be wiped out.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/10/16/BAG2SQB2S.DTL&type=politics
See, Alameda has been EAGER to transfer its ferry service. EAGER! BJ is just following orders. She is doing what she is told. Who can fault her on that? If voters wanted someone who would be thinking independently, they would have voted for someone else. Don’t blame poor little BJ, blame the system.
Personally, I think that the only person who believes that kissing ass is going to get BJ ahead is BJ herself. Are there any other City assets we can sell of to benefit the political ambitions of local pols?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 16, 2007 @ 8:53 pm