On Monday night, public speaker and commenter here, Karen Bey, reminded me that I wanted to write about the whole moving the ferry terminal issue in the Alameda Point Going Forward process. There seemed to be a bit of push back, based on the Going Forward summary, resistance to moving the ferry terminal from its current location to the Seaplane Lagoon. From page 27 of the summary report:
Many questioned the transportation benefits and overall costs associated with relocating the Main Street Ferry Terminal to the Seaplane Lagoon, and bifurcating the existing AOFS to establish separate Alameda Point/San Francisco and Oakland/San Francisco ferry services. Overall, the plan to relocate the ferry terminal and bifurcate the ferry service did not receive strong support. While the concept of a consolidated transit center was acceptable, responders were uncertain that including the ferry terminal as part of the center would result in a significant additional reduction in commute trips to/from Alameda Point. In addition, concerns about the need to offset the loss in Oakland ridership with the Alameda Point/San Francisco service, as well as to ensure a financially viable and separate Oakland/San Francisco ferry service were raised. Many felt the Oakland connection is very important to preserve. Others, however, felt that it was important to relocate the terminal, and still others suggesting providing for both terminals. The costs and benefits of moving the terminal or maintaining the existing terminal will need to be carefully considered by the community in the next phase of the planning for Alameda Point.
Now, I’ve heard these critiques before, I’m not sure where folks have gotten the idea that the Oakland leg of the Alameda/Oakland ferry is the key to the ferry operations. I mean, even in the open ended comments someone wrote (p.106):
Most of the current ridership is Oaklanders – what about them? Alamedans are not using the ferry to capacity now and do not all go to San Francisco Ferry Building area. How would this affect subsidy dollars for the ferry system?
Really? Clearly, that person didn’t read the Water Emergency Transit Authority’s Transition Plan which stated on page 6 that:
…during commute periods, 65% of ridership originates in Alameda and 35% in Oakland.
During the times that people are most concerned with cars going through the tube, it is Alamedans, not Oaklanders, that make up the lion’s share of ferry passengers, despite the strange perception Oakland is subsidizing the Alameda portion of the Oakland/Alameda ferry operations.
Clearly from staff comments on Monday night, the fate of the location of the ferry terminal is undecided. It could be moved, it could stay put, but it all depends on how much it will cost and according to the surveys moving the ferry is fairly low on the list of important public benefits. However, if moving the ferry can put more people within walking distance of the ferry, that is also an important metric to consider as well. Right now, the location of the current ferry makes it a drive-to location for most riders, putting more people within walking distance of the ferry would mean that more people would consider the ferry an option.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Planning Board President Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft’s excellent comments on the ferry as well and how the ferry is one of many important transportation tools that gets cars out of the tube even if the perception is that people don’t use the ferry or don’t use public transit.
I doubt more people would walk to the lagoon than to the Estuary and it would make no difference to bikers. IMHO the difference in “walking distance” wouldn’t change the number of drivers at all unless the Point became populated.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2011 @ 8:50 am
Lauren, I attended Monday night’s Planning Board meeting because I wanted to share my thoughts about what I believe is a very important development issue at Alameda Point – whether to relocate the ferry terminal to Alameda Point. With all the talk about “pedestrian oriented development” and the transportation issues that constrain the development at Alameda Point, I strongly believe that relocating the ferry terminal to Alameda Point will address these problems head on. A ferry building and terminal with cafes and shops, and organic produce markets, etc. will attract more people to take the ferry and will address many of the traffic concerns that have been raised about new development on the West End.
Since the increase in gas prices, I have noticed an increase in ridership on the ferry; I would estimate the increase to be somewhere around 30 – 40%. And as gas prices continue to rise, I expect ridership increases to continue as commuters discover how economical it is to commute to SF by ferry. But with increased ridership, our current ferry system will soon reach capacity.
As WETA works on their expansion plans for the SF Ferry Terminal, now is the time for Alameda to be planning for a larger ferry terminal with expanded capacity to address the
traffic problems that will come with the development of Alameda Point, Alameda Landing, and Encinal Terminals.
The cost of a new ferry terminal at Alameda Point (somewhere around $20m – $30m) has been raised as one reason for not relocating the ferry terminal to Alameda Point. We can’t ask developers to pay for the traffic impacts of their development on the West End and then remove one of the main solutions to the problem. Since we’re not getting Bart in Alameda, and looks like we’re not getting light rail anytime soon — the Alameda Ferry Building and Terminal should be a development cost of Alameda Point.
And thank you Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board President who supports relocating the ferry terminal to Alameda Point. I appreciated hearing her comments on this issue as well.
Comment by Karen Bey — April 27, 2011 @ 11:41 am
The vast majority of ferry commuters are from Alameda. And it would be a better service if a) it were based near the lagoon b) and if it didn’t go to Oakland.
If the ferry simply went Alameda-San Francisco, it could run more frequently. That would make it more useful, and draw more passengers — it’s the virtuous circle of public transit. Ditto for docking at the lagoon; as it stands now the ferry loses valuable time in slow-going through the Estuary. If it could enter the Bay quickly and get up to speed, it could probably shave the run to 15 minutes from 20 — allowing higher frequency, thereby repeating the virtuous circle.
Comment by Rich Saskal — April 27, 2011 @ 12:07 pm
No matter what anyone “believes” or “strongly feels”, the cold facts are that there are huge piles of radioactive mud in the Seaplane Lagoon & the Navy will even have to pause that remediation process to allow for the Least Tern breeding season! (Imagine how a proximal continuous ferry service would disturb the Least Tern!) Neither of these problems obtain @ the present site of the ferry. The Navy stated in its June 2010 fact sheet the Seaplane Lagoon WILL NEVER BE COMPLETELY CLEAN of the Ra226 that poured into it from Bldg 5 thru the sewer lines & will require continuous periodic monitoring.It bothers me no end that, as I sit on the RAB & we discuss the toxins @ the base, THEY ARE NEVER MENTIONED amidst the utopian fantasies fielded in meetings of the Planning Board & the ARRA. To their credit, when I brought up the limitations that toxic waste clean-up put on base development @ the 1st “Going Forward” meeting, Jennifer Ott, Andrew Thomas, & Simone Wolter incorporated this in the community discussions that followed. There are 3 independent groups discussing/ruling on AlPo development=the RAB, ARRA, & PB. That they don’t talk to each other enough so that everyone is on the same page is evident from the confusion exhibited by the writers above. Yes, on paper, relocating ferry to the Seaplane Lagoon looks very nice. It might even be possible if it were a clean site. But it’s not. Hint: those radioactivity signs only need to be posted if exposure exceeds 5 mrem.
Comment by c gottstein, md — April 27, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
#2, The ferry is already located at Alameda Point.
Comment by Dave — April 27, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
4. I would dispute the characterization of radioactive sediment in the Seaplane Lagoon as “huge piles.” The was only one elevated area in the northwest corner, and that is why there are special precautions be implemented for finishing the sewer drain project on the northwest corner of the lagoon. The piles of sediment being removed are huge, but we don’t have any scientific evidence that the dredged material has huge amounts of radium in it – the first testing of this dry sediment will take place in a few months and will answer the question of how huge the radium problem is in the lagoon. The reason the sediment needs to dry to a certain level before testing is to allow for an accurate radium test.
“No Federal requirements for radioactive waste were identified as potentially applicable. As previously discussed, Ra-226 levels measured throughout the lagoon were very low, with the exception of one location within the proposed remediation areas, where concentrations were only slightly elevated. As a result, Ra-226 was not identified as a chemical of concern for the site. However, Ra-226 analyses will be included in the characterization of waste for offsite disposal to ensure that the material meets all applicable offsite disposal requirements.” http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/base_docs/nas_alameda/documents/enviro_docs/alpp0206.pdf
The huge pile of contamination was mainly in the form of PCBs, which the Water Board identified in its 2005 report on problem PCB areas around the Bay.
I think it would be great to dredge the entire lagoon, as the Sierra Club advocated years ago when comments were solicited on plans for lagoon cleanup. I haven’t heard anymore about it from them.
I’d be more concerned about any remaining PCBs being stirred up by a ferry, not radium, as well as being concerned about ferry commotion on the lagoon keeping the terns from feeding during their breeding season. The brown pelicans (also endangered) also put on a diving show for food in the lagoon when they are here. And the approach to the proposed ferry terminal is one of the pelicans’ favorite spots, possibly because the water is shallower and they can see the fish better.
Saving time on the ferry commute and adding to the commercial vitality of the lagoon promenade may not be compelling enough reasons to bring regular ferry service into the lagoon when other environmental concerns a factored in.
Comment by Richard Bangert — April 27, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
“Saving time on the ferry commute and adding to the commercial vitality of the lagoon promenade may not be compelling enough reasons to bring regular ferry service into the lagoon when other environmental concerns a factored in”.
My post was focused on trying to resolve a bigger issue: addressing the traffic concerns for future development of the Alameda Point and the West End. I see no reason that the costs of a new ferry terminal at Alameda Point can’t be shared with all new development on the West End.
Comment by Karen Bey — April 27, 2011 @ 6:04 pm
5
I thought the Point only included the former base property.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
4
You’re right about the complete eradication of ra-226 from the lagoon will probably never happen, since it is present naturally in all soil and rocks.
Another issue made into something it’s not. Aircraft instruments had ra-226 dials. Bld. 400 was the site of instrument repair. Upwards of 5 billion people are exposed to Ra-226 daily and they die daily. No doubt all because of Ra-226 exposure
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2011 @ 6:56 pm
Relocating the ferry would probably shave the commute from 20 to 15 minutes.
If any large business, employing a lot of people here it would be probably close to the lagoon so people from SF could ride here to go to work.
I would have to say that the ridership from Alameda is more the 65%…there are not a lot of people from Oakland when I get on or off…but my perception could be wrong. I don’t think a lot of people from Oakland don’t even know about it. I didn’t when I lived there.
The ferry for me is less than AC Transit, because I need to ride MUNI on the other side and if I had to pay for AC Transit and MUNI it would be more than the $4.50 I pay each way…plus I have all my ferry friends…you really don’t know people on the bus. I have experienced births, deaths, get togethers, facebook friends, ball games, jokes, job losses which take them away,pleasantries, all by meeting people on the ferry…and I continue to meet more frieds as I ride.
With all that said, I don’t care about the contamination so much, I think it would be good to relocate the ferry terminal to Alameda Point…as long as they still have parking. They let kids sleep overnight on the Hornet, they let people play at Bladium, there could be a slight danger but I personally am not worried about it.
Comment by Joe — April 27, 2011 @ 7:21 pm
Joe, believe me there’s nothing in the lagoon that will cause humans to not live normal lives. When I first was sent to the base we had to clean the bilges of P5Ms (the seaplanes stationed there). They were full of lagoon water braced with every kind of petroleum product known to man. Plus we cleaned the bilges using tuelene. Closed space in the hot sun cleaning lagoon mud and petroleum products out of seaplanes using
Adm am is norll sed ask can b.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2011 @ 7:38 pm
10. “there could be a slight danger but I personally am not worried about it.”
The danger, if there is some, is to marine organisms if the propeller(s) on the ferry churns up sediment with contaminants that exceed EPA standards. The only way humans would be impacted by small amounts of radium at 10′ to 20′ depth is if they dove down and accidentally ingested it, or if fish ate the stuff and the fish were eaten by humans.
Comment by Richard Bangert — April 27, 2011 @ 9:52 pm
At one of those many task force meetings, the discussion was about the problem for Alamedans wanting to go to and from Oakland on the ferry if it were moved to AP, not Oaklanders going on the ferry.
Isn’t there a proposal for emergency water vehicles to base at the lagoon? If so, then then the birds will be disturbed anyway. Adding the ferry wouldn’t change much.
Comment by Li_ — April 28, 2011 @ 9:41 am
The current ferry doesn’t serve oakland/alameda riders as it travels in a loop. Plus there are no discounts for Oakland to Alameda. There has been an interest in using the ferry as a shuttle, but it’s frequency, even if they made it stop twice in Alameda on every trip so that you could actually go back and forth at all times, make it pretty unusable. The bus does the same trip for half the money and 6 times as frequently.
Comment by John Knox White — April 28, 2011 @ 11:04 am
JKW, still no site?
At the time, we were exploring options for the hundreds of new people at AP. It was also mentioned that BFI and East Enders wouldn’t ride the bus because it was too slow (this was when busses were still covering that area). Is there a parking area and express buses? I haven’t heard anything about support for that idea either.
Comment by Li_ — April 28, 2011 @ 11:24 am
Vancouver BC has a cross-water transportation system that connects the downtown part of the city, which is separated by a water channel (False Creek), with another part of the city. It’s really a convenient way to get to interesting areas across the waterway…even though there are a couple of bridges that get one to the same places. Of course there has to be something on each side to make it interesting enough to want to take the aquabus, so I don’t think it would work here…yet.
http://theaquabus.com/images/Downtown_10_Web.pdf
On the north side of the downtown area is another system that gets you to North Vancouver. which is separated from downtown by Burrard Inlet, via a water travel device they call the Sea Bus. Very convenient. Mostly used by commuters.
http://www.vancouversnorthshore.com/gettinghere/seabus.htm
Comment by Jack Richard — April 28, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
RB:Please read carefully! I said the PILES of MUD were huge, not the radioactivity! (altho many small sources can add up to a big one). It is a fact you can look up, independent of Navy documents, that, by law, a radiation sign is REQUIRED if the exposure in an area is between 5 & 100 mrem in 1 hr to a major portion of the body according to the USNRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the private company NRC posting the signs, National Response Corp). [Reference:Radiation Protection:A Guide for Scientists & Physicians;3rd ed.,Jacob Shapiro, Harvard]Since I am both an S & P, I find it hard to dismiss the facts, & I have noticed since the Fukushima events that the public is generally misinformed. Those signs are there because Ra226 IS a chemical of concern w/a 1/2-life of 1620 yrs & was dumped into the seaplane lagoon from 1940 to abt 1960. This alpha-emitter decays to Rn222 (radon gas) which is even more deadly, since inhaling even 1 atom can result in lung CA. Removing all the sewer pipe in the ground will not remove the radionuclides from the lagoon itself, which is what the Navy acknowledges in its Fact Sheets. Mr. Richard, this is not background radiation from rocks. O/w no need for signs. I am disappointed that the only quantification of dose I’ve been able to glean from the Navy is “it’s (only)picoCi range”; & that statement was made B4 the signs went up @ the lagoon. The criterion for signage is not based on pCis but on mrem or the units we’re all familiar w/since Fukushima, the mSv. Someone waved a Geiger ctr around out there & recorded enough mrem above background to post signs. Why is it so hard to get an answer in meaningful units like mrem? If any of you OTHER nuclear scientists would care to help me out w/a LEARNED comment, please do so! Or you can keep yakking abt dvelopment that the base isn’t safe for yet.
Comment by c gottstein — April 28, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
A chemistry lesson: When considering relative risk, Ra226 & Rn222 have a much longer 1/2-life than PCBs, which are made safe when covalent bonds are broken by heat or bacterial action. Radium only become safe when it transmutes into a non-radioactive element @ the end of its decay chain, which cannot be accelerated by in-situ natural forces. Of course, birds don’t usually live long enuf to get leukemia. Sorry, I’m sure I’m boring all of you who’d rather not know. But knowledge may save lives.
Comment by c gottstein — April 28, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
“by law, a radiation sign is REQUIRED if the exposure in an area is between 5 & 100 mrem in 1 hr to a major portion of the body according to the USNRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission”
“Why is it so hard to get an answer in meaningful units like mrem?”
Here is the answer: The Navy’s criterion translates into ~5 mrem/y dose.
The Navy is using 1 pCi/g over background for release criteria, which is much stricter than the EPA standards, and this translates to ~5 mrem/y dose. That’s per year. If your statement above about the exposure per hour does not contain a typo, then the Navy would not be required to put up a sign. And even if it was a typo and you meant year instead of hour, the radium levels would barely register on the scale.
“Someone waved a Geiger ctr around out there & recorded enough mrem above background to post signs.”
It does not seem plausible that a Geiger counter waved over the dredged sediment or over anything else in the work area was used to determine the posting of the signs. The signs were posted when the fence went up. And this was done because of a remote chance that radium levels in a scoop of sediment would exceed the regulatory limit. The workers are all wearing dosimeters, and the readings for radiation exposure (taken daily) have been 1,000 times below the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hazard level. The dosimeters could all be defective, but that doesn’t seem likely.
At the end the day, we should be happy, not alarmed, that the contaminated sediment, radium, PCBs and all, is being REMOVED and the Navy is going one foot below the depth where contaminants were recorded to be extra certain they get everything. The mess is going away. The sewer lines that carried the radium have already (except for the few feet they are working on now at the west end of the lagoon, and a few dozen feet under Buildings 5/5A and 400 which should be considered for demolition so we don’t leave any radon/radiation surprises for future generations) been boxed up in steel shipping containers and hauled away, as have thousands of yards of soil that were dug up to get to the sewer pipes.
If anyone is concerned about contaminants outside the work area, that’s another matter. But since these contaminants were introduced through a sewer outfall, the likelihood of contamination increasing toward the mouth of the lagoon seems small.
The bigger radium concern is out at the old disposal sites. A bigger concern for contamination in the lagoon is what may potentially be found when divers begin going under the Ferry Point dock area to assess the contaminants that made their way there and may have migrated further out into the lagoon.
Comment by Richard Bangert — April 29, 2011 @ 5:49 pm