POINT-COUNTERPOINT

Should Port Sonoma ferry be part of county’s transportation plan?

From left: J.T. Wick,Willard Richards and Bill Kortum Zoom Photo

Note from the editor Periodically, the Argus-Courier asks two community members to write opposing views on an important local issue. This week, J.T. Wick writes why a ferry at Port Sonoma makes sense, while Willard Richards and Bill Kortum say why it’s not a good idea.

Yes: It’s an important option

By J.T. Wick

Ferry service on the Petaluma River once provided the only transportation link between the North Bay and the region. Port Sonoma will restart ferry service as an important transit option in our efforts to correct climate change and to prepare for emergencies.

Located at the mouth of the Petaluma River where Highway 37, railroad tracks and the bay bike trail cross, Port Sonoma offers a direct multi-modal transit link to the rest of the Bay Area. In 2003, the Water Transit Authority chose Port Sonoma over other North Bay locations in its plan to expand ferry service around the Bay. Port Sonoma would carry 2,200-plus riders daily, a rate increasing 12 percent annually, according to the plan. The study included no transit links to trains or buses. This ridership rate is significantly higher than other routes planned for Berkeley, Richmond and Hercules. The 2003 plan recommended further study of the Port Sonoma route to determine terminal location and to address environmental issues.

Now over five years old, the study should be updated and completed. We think added traffic congestion and links to passenger rail and bus service will result in a much higher ridership rate. That’s why we secured federal funds — to conduct these additional studies and to partially fund terminal and vessel construction.

If it seems counterintuitive when Will Richards (chair of the Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Coalition) claims that a ferry full of riders pollutes more than if those people drove alone in their cars, trust your intuition. He uses outdated data with the wrong vessel type, size and emission rate, and omits any link to bus or rail. His comparison of commute times is also inaccurate. For example, he lengthens the commute time from Sonoma Plaza to Port Sonoma by having the commuter drive first to Novato, then double back. Most Sonomans know where we are and would drive directly to the port. Buses will also be available.

Route planning is an iterative process, balancing ridership, cost and cost-effectiveness. For example, the original route study focused heavily on commute service only to San Francisco. The new study should include commute service to other Bay Area locations, travel service to Oakland Airport, and excursion service to AT&T Park, the Wine Country and Infineon events.

Port Sonoma ferry service will be essential to emergency preparedness in the North Bay. Recent studies predict a 65 percent chance of a significant earthquake in the next 25 years. That temblor could take out the Highway 101 and 37 river crossings. Port Sonoma via Lakeville Highway will connect us to the region so we can move first responders, medical personnel and patients, and supplies in and out of our community. Port Sonoma is ideally located near hospitals in Novato, Petaluma and Sonoma.

Will thinks the new Water Emergency Transportation Authority will run ferries during an emergency to Port Sonoma without regular ferry service. Think again. At its inaugural March 31 meeting, WETA staff reported that current plans would use all its vessels to transit people from San Francisco to Oakland. No emergency service would be available to the North Bay. We need to establish Port Sonoma service so we have a presence in the regional system. Boats can be maintained, fueled, and built at the Port Sonoma, where Mooseboats currently builds vessels for the Navy, Homeland Security and local law enforcement.

This is a time of great challenge and opportunity. Sonoma County has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2015, with half of GHG coming from transportation. We need to create as many alternatives to single occupant vehicles as possible — HOV lanes, bike paths, passenger and freight rail, and ferries all connected in a complementary system. After more than 50 public hearings on Port Sonoma, it’s time to let Port Sonoma move forward and prove itself. Our safety, environmental quality and economy depend on it.

For more information or comment on Port Sonoma, please visit our Web site at www.portsonomaferry.com or contact me at jt@portsonoma ferry.com or 707-799-7726.

(J.T. Wick is a former Peta-luma City Planning Commiss-ioner and works as a planner and principal for a Berg Holdings, a Sausalito real estate company. He lives in Petaluma with his wife, Holly, and four daughters.)

No: Plan has become undesirable

By Willard Richards and Bill Kortum

Advertisements for Port Sonoma sound romantic: “There’s a ferry in your future.” The idea of boarding a ferry at Port Sonoma, where Highway 37 crosses the Petaluma River, and taking a relaxing and scenic ride to the San Francisco Ferry Building has appeal.

However, there are good reasons to question this ferry service. These reasons should be carefully considered now because Sonoma County is revising its transportation plan and the directors of the Sonoma County Transporta-tion Authority will weigh the inclusion of Port Sonoma ferry service during their April 14 meeting.

Scheduled ferry service to Port Sonoma was first proposed in a very different time. Since then, many changes have occurred that make that proposal much less attractive.

The Water Emergency Transit Authority performed an environmental analysis of expanding ferry service on the Bay. The final environmental impact report published in June 2003 recommended against including service to Port Sonoma in the planned ferry startups.

The Sonoma Marin Rail Transit District will have a ballot measure this fall to fund a passenger rail and trail system starting at Cloverdale, ending at a high-speed ferry terminal at Larkspur, and providing transit connections between major population centers in Sonoma and Marin and San Francisco. The fraction of commuters who travel to San Francisco is decreasing and there is no need for a second ferry port to serve them.

Public awareness of climate change issues has increased. Data from the WETA analyses indicate that starting ferry service to Port Sonoma would increase carbon dioxide emissions by about 170,000 pounds per day. Those emissions are five times the emissions that would result if all ferry passengers drove alone to the Ferry Building. It is inherent in ferries that they use more energy than other forms of transit. A central theme of the new Sonoma County transportation plan is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Starting ferry service to Port Sonoma would be a major step in the wrong direction.

Opinions on urban design have changed. Bay Area planning agencies are now advocating more dense development around transit hubs, where many passengers can walk or bicycle to transit. The new developments in Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park/ Cotati and Petaluma are following this model, but there is currently no dense development near Port Sonoma.

Sonoma County’s frontage on San Pablo Bay represents one of the only landscapes free of development still existing on the 600-mile bay frontage. For 30 years citizens have fought casinos, industrial parks, new towns, boat harbors, power plants, aqueducts and storage yards while patiently finding the public and private funds to buy this unspoiled landscape. The 4,000-acre open space asset will be threatened by an inevitable housing development if this dubious ferry proposal comes into being.

These important changes have occurred since ferry service to Port Sonoma was first proposed and make that project even less desirable. Ferry service to Port Sonoma is now in the Sonoma County transportation plan because owners and representatives of Port Sonoma have advocated for it and have persuaded a Congressman from Alaska to add a $20 million earmark in the most recent federal highway bill. This same congressman added the infamous $223 million “bridge to nowhere” earmark to the same highway bill. The owners are continuing to seek public funds and public sponsorship for ferry service because they want to develop their 70 acres of land at Port Sonoma, which are surrounded by protected lands and far from government services.

Both Supervisor Mike Kerns and Councilmember Mike Harris represent the Petaluma area. Other people can go to www.sctainfo.org/ board.htm to learn who represents them on the SCTA. Advise your director how to vote on this vital issue.

(Willard Richards is chair of the Sonoma County Transport-ation and Land Use Coalition. He has a Ph.D in physical chemistry and is retired from work as a consultant and project manager for air quality studies. Bill Kortum is a retired large animal veterinarian and is president of Sonoma County Conservation Action.)