Attack on Proposed Water Transit System Deemed 'Puzzling, Unfair, and Inaccurate' by High-Speed Water Transit System Proponents.

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 9, 1999--

Leaders of the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum, the two organizations spearheading the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative, firmly rejected the conclusions of a study released by an environmental group that purports to show that the proposed high-speed water transit system for the Bay Area would cause significant additional air pollution.

Sunne Wright McPeak, President of the Bay Area Council, said, "Protecting and enhancing the environmental quality of the Bay Area is a cornerstone principle of the proposed new high-speed water transit system.

"This system will be designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the region. Consider the tremendous improvement in air quality and traffic mobility that will result from taking 15 to 20 million drivers off the roads (the number of passengers projected to use the water transit system by 2010). High-speed water transit will be the modern, environmentally-friendly alternative to sitting in traffic spewing vehicular exhaust."

The Bay Area Water Transit Initiative, which was launched by the Bay Area Council and the Bay Area Economic Forum at the direction of the State Senate, is intended to relieve the Bay Area of its increasing transportation gridlock and resulting air pollution.

Fully developed by 2020, the system would consist of some 120 state-of-the-art vessels shuttling between 35 to 40 bayside terminals while transporting 25 to 30 million passengers per year, approximately seven times the region's current ferry passenger total. The initiative is being led by a 50-member Task Force consisting of Bay Area private and public sector leaders, including the mayors of Oakland and San Francisco, and chaired by businessman Ron Cowan.

State Senator Don Perata, a staunch environmental supporter, is the author of the legislation to create the Bay Area Water Transit Authority. The Perata bill, SB428, has been approved by the State Senate and is now pending in the State Assembly.

If the bill becomes law, a Bay Area Water Transit Authority will be created and one of its first endeavors will be to conduct mandatory environmental impact analyses and evaluations to meet both state and federal standards. These analyses, including of emissions of pollutants, would be completed before any capital expenditure on vessels or terminals for the water transit system are authorized.

The Bay Area Water Transit Task Force has set forth performance standards for the new system that will result in an overall saving in air pollution. The precise quantification of emissions will be completed in the next phase of work and will help determine the design of the new vessels, which will use state-of-the-art technology.

Sean Randolph, President of the Bay Area Economic Forum, stated that, "From the beginning, we anticipated the need for thorough environmental review of the water transit system. We welcome that review process, which will be full and open and will adhere to the strictest environmental standards. The considerations being raised are not new."

"We welcome and need input from the environmental community," remarked Russell Hancock, Vice President, Bay Area Council. "There are important environmental considerations. That's why we have so actively sought their involvement. It's puzzling that they are now criticizing us for work that has not been done. This environmental group that has released the study is doing the public a disservice by providing conclusions that are misleading and unfair."

The study released by the Bluewater Network claims to show that automobile and bus emissions are dramatically lower than ferry emissions. In comparing boat and bus emissions, they used a theoretical, fully utilized fleet of natural gas-powered buses, currently not existent region-wide, while at the same time using current emissions of an existing diesel-powered ferry. This ignores the Task Force recommendations for modern, low-emission boat technology.

For automobile emissions, they did not take into account the increased vehicular pollution from mounting congestion projected for 2010, nor did they account for the reduction in air pollution that will be achieved by taking millions of drivers off the road. They also assumed that the average ferryboat would be less than half full, thus skewing the per-passenger emission numbers.