QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE MARCH 11, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD JOINT MEETING

Transcription

1 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE MARCH 11, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (NOS. 1-41) PGS 2-9 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD (NOS ) PGS RESPONSES PREPARED BY THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORATION DISTRICT

2 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GENERAL PROJECT QUESTIONS 1. Q: What is the purpose and scope of the project? A: The project purpose is to replace the aged ferry terminal structures with new structures designed to the current codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines for offshore ferry passenger facilities. The scope includes removal and replacement of the existing float, gangway and access pier. 2. Q: Why/how was the 10 minute turnaround target service time selected? A: The ferry turnaround time covers, in addition to disembarking and boarding of passengers, securing the vessel to the dock, verifying that the doors are securely positioned to be opened, opening the doors, verifying that all passengers are off the vessel and conducting a security sweep of the vessel, and, after the boarding, closing the doors, and tying off the vessel. The turnaround times are set by the schedule and they are tighter earlier and later during the day due to more frequent work commute sailings. The 10 minutes included in the District presentation regarding the new facility does not represent the total ferry vessel turnaround time. The 10 minutes represents only the calculated time of disembarking and boarding of passengers at the new Sausalito terminal facility. Similar calculations have been done for the existing facility using the same volume of passengers, with the result of 30 minutes. As observed and as reflected by the calculations, disembarking and boarding at the existing facility is slow. This is caused by a narrow passage way and one door access to the vessel. To stay on schedule, the boarding must ceasee at a specified time without fully utilizing the vessel capacity while often leaving passengers behind. The new facility is designed to increase speed of disembarking and boarding to achieve full utilization of the vessel capacity. 3. Q: Will this project make Sausalito into an undesirably large transportation hub? A: Sausalito has traditionally served as a ferry terminal for southern Marin County. This project is intended to replace the existing deteriorated facilities with new upgraded facilities that meet the current federal accessibility guidelines for passenger ferry access and accommodate the current trends in use, which have featured a steady growth in ridership. No other changes to the District s operations are planned or contemplated at this time. Page 2

3 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 4. Q: What is the impact of increase in cars in the parking lot? A: Currently, the existing adjacent parking lot appears to operate at capacity. All the parking lots are owned and operated by the City. This project does not include any increase to the size of the parking lot. 5. Q: What is the increase in the amount of passengers able to be accommodated by this project? A: The replacement facility has been designed to accommodate a projected 4% per year growth in number of passengers through year Q: What happens when demand increases even greater? Will the ferry landing then be enlarged to match? A: The District has no plans for such terminal expansion. The replacement facility is intended to have a useful life of years. The facility has been designed to accommodate a projected 4% per year growth in number of passengers through year It is not possible to meaningfully predict what will happen after DESIGN QUESTIONS 7. Q: Can more attention be paid to the color of the structure? A: Based on the feedback received, the District included two alternatives for the color in its March 24 submittal. 8. Q: Can other designs be explored for the structure to be lighter and have less massing? A: The District has studied alternative designs of the gangway truss, including a redesigned square steel truss, a three-truss gangway, two independent side-by-side gangways and aluminum gangways. The last three alternatives have been found to be not feasible. The profile of the redesigned square steel truss gangway has been lowered to 5-1 above the walkway as presented in the District s March 24 submittal. 9. Q: Can the design be more reflective of Sausalito s Historic Downtown District? A: We have reviewed the Sausalito General Plan, the Sausalito Historic Design Guidelines, the Bicycle Master Plan, Historic Overlay District and Local Register, and the Harbor and Page 3

4 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Downtown Action Committee Final Report. We consider our design to be in accordance with these City documents. 10. Q: Can a dark color (e.g. bronze, black) be considered? A: Based on the feedback received at the March 11 meeting and our evaluation, the District is proposing either grey or combination of grey and dark blue. 11. Q: Can the flat truss design be refined to have a smaller profile? A: See answer to question no. 8 above. 12. Q: Can the gate position be located in a different manner to be less visually obtrusive? A: We have investigated different locations/angles for the gate and the visual effect of it changes depending on the location of the viewer. For example, when the proposed orientation of the gate is viewed from the south end of the plaza area, one sees the edge of the gate, whereas from the area near the current landside pier more of the gate is visible. We believe locating the gate at the end of the access pier results in the least visual impact. 13. Q: Is the scale appropriate for Sausalito? A: The scale of the new facility is a result of compliance with the ADA guidelines and the necessity to improve efficiency of the operations. That said, we have revised the design of various elements, such as the width of the access pier and the access gate design, to reflect comments received during the March 11 meeting. 14. Q: Can we take design cues from other ferry landings? A: The District has visited many ferry landings, both in San Francisco Bay, and in other states (see below for locations) to determine what in those facilities could be used in Sausalito. Recognizing that each terminal is unique to its setting, we did find that ferry terminals are being upgraded and that the newer facilities follow the line of thought that has gone into the Sausalito terminal. We were asked if we had looked at the Tiburon terminal and terminals in Washington state. We found the Tiburon terminal too small and it did not seem to fit the character of Sausalito. Washington ferries carry passengers and vehicles and are end loading. As a result, from a layout point of view the Washington ferry system did not provide a great deal of information regarding the layout and design. They do have other mechanical features which are being incorporated in the float design. The District has looked at ferry landings in San Francisco (Downtown Ferry Terminal, China Page 4

5 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Basin, South San Francisco, and Vallejo), Oakland (Jack London Square, Alameda), and Marin County (Tiburon). Terminals viewed in Washington include Vashon Island, Pier 50, Kingston, Edmonds, and others. We also have experience with terminals in British Columbia, Alaska, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. If there are other terminals that the District should look at please bring them to the District s attention. 15. Q: I m concerned that there s only one design. Can there be other choices for the community to consider? A: Both the existing and the replacement facilities of the Sausalito Ferry Terminal have to have four elements: the landside pier, the access pier, the gangway and the float. The landside pier will not be replaced. The District has presented alternative designs of the gangway truss, the railing, the gate and the colors. The width of the access pier has been decreased to the degree that allows operations to accommodate the projected passenger volumes. 16. Q: Can the design be transformed to be more akin to the Sausalito aesthetic? A: We have modified the design based on the feedback received from the public at the March 11 meeting. We have considered aesthetic of Sausalito and the area surrounding the Ferry Terminal in our previous design. For example, the curved elements of the gangway and the gate and the blue and white color combination was intended to replicate the colors and curved elements used on existing Sausalito buildings. 17. Q: Can a naval architect and sustainability-trained professionals be included in the design dialogue? A: Both a naval architect and sustainability-trained professionals are on the team and have contributed to the project. 18. Q: Is the proposed design final or is there a chance still for improvement to design? A: The design has been revised to incorporate the public comments received to-date while maintaining structural and operational requirements. Except for possible further comments on colors, the submitted design is final to enable City consideration under the terms of the lease. Page 5

6 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TECHNICAL QUESTIONS 19. Q: What is the dimension of the jog to gate? A: We understand this question to be what is the distance between the end of the existing landside pier and the new gate?' The distance is approximately 75 feet. 20. Q: Is 12:1 the absolute minimum criteria for a ferry landing? A: The 1:12 slope for the ramps and gangway are the maximum allowable slopes according to current federal ADA guidelines. They may not be made steeper. 21. Q: Can the width of the structure be reduced? A: The width of the structure is being reduced nearly 16%, from 25 feet to 21 feet. This means the proposed access pier will align with the existing landside pier width. Further reducing the width would create a bottle neck for passengers loading and disembarking and negatively impact operations. 22. Q: How often do we have a -2.5 tide? A: Based on the historic tide data as well as projected changes in the sea level, -2.5 foot low tide has been calculated to be the lowest tide to occur during the design life of the new facility design and, as such, it is the controlling parameter of the design. 23. Q: Are the ADA compliance requirements carved in stone? Is there room to reduce the scale of the project? A: The 1:12 slope is the maximum slope allowed per federal ADA requirements. 24. Q: What is the potential of having two smaller, lighter gangways? A: The District has studied this option and found it to be not feasible. We have also looked at having an additional truss in the center of one gangway and have also found this to be not feasible. 25. Q: Why is the width of the access pier necessary to be 21 feet? A: See response to question 21 above. Page 6

7 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 26. Q: Could the area where the float would locate be dredged to collapse the project down in scale? A: No, the area may not be dredged to allow the float to be located closer to shore due to the environmental impacts associated with dredging. This project was designed to minimize impacts to the environment. 27. Q. Why can ferries berth on both sides of the concrete float if only one ferry can load and unload at one time? A: Depending on the weather and navigational conditions, it is necessary for the vessels to have the two options for berthing and tying off on the float. 28. Q. If the ferries have two doors on each side, why can t the ferries berth bow in or stern in and eliminate having to ramps on each side of the float? A: See answer to question no. 27 above. OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS 29. Q: Why doesn t the District use catamarans? A: We believe this question was asked in relation to moving the float closer to shore because the catamarans require less water depth. However, it is the float that needs the water depth, so changing the ferries would not affect the float location. 30. Q: Why isn t the District investing in new vessels instead of retrofitting existing vessels? A: It is more cost effective to retrofit existing vessels than to purchase new vessels. 31. Q: Can more boats be directed towards Sausalito to alleviate demand for more thoroughfare? A: The District does not at this time have the resources during the peak weekday commute times to increase the number of trips to and from Sausalito. The District currently runs additional trips on weekends when demand is high at Sausalito by diverting vessels from Larkspur. Page 7

8 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 32. Q: Can the structure be located to give more relief water space to the Sausalito Yacht Club? A: The structure is located as far from the Sausalito Yacht Club as possible within the boundaries of the District's lease area. 33. Q: The City s 1995 lease with the District said the lease was $600 per year with an increase related to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. What is the current lease price? Has the increase been maintained? A: The lease states that the City may request that the lease amount be increased by the CPI at specified intervals. The City has never requested an increase to the yearly lease amount, therefore the current lease amount is the same as the original. 34. Q: The proposed ticket location is on City-property. Will this area be included in the leased area? Who will maintain it? A: The District will request an encroachment permit from the City for locating the ticket machine outside the current lease area. The District will continue to maintain the ticket vending machines. ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS 35. Q: What are the light pollution impacts of this project? A: The proposed lighting on the pier, gangway and float is down lit. Lighting will be reduced during non-service hours to the minimum level needed for security purposes. 36. Q: What are the environmental impacts of the vessels in the water? A: The ferry impacts resulting from this project will not change from the existing conditions. 37. Q: What is more environmentally sound? Traveling by automobiles or ferry? A: The answer to this question is outside of the project scope. There have been numerous studies on necessity of public transportation, including ferry service, to mitigate road traffic congestion. Page 8

9 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS 38. Q: Why have story poles not been provided? A: Due to the need to keep the waters near the existing terminal clear to allow ferry operations, it is not possible to install and leave story poles in place in the water. On March 21 and 22, the District attempted to make a similar presentation on water by using ropes to show the width of the new access pier and lines between buoys placed in the water to show the outline of the new float. The ropes indicating the width of the new access pier will stay in place for a minimum of 10 days beginning March 20 th. The lines and buoys were placed in the water between 8:00 am and 10:00 am on March 21 st and March 22 nd. The demonstration was photographed and the photos will be made available to those who were not able to see the demonstration in person. 39. Q: Can the subsequent public hearings be held at a location to accommodate greater community turnout? A: We understand that the April 1st meeting will be held at a larger venue. 40. Q: Can a 3D model be created in addition to the supplied photographs? A: The District is investigating creating a 3D model. 41. Q: What land-side improvements are required? How will they be paid for with increased taxes or bonds? A: The landside areas are owned by the City and are outside the District s leased area. The District has secured a federal grant and has offered to pass through $2.0 million for landside improvements, which scope is to be developed during a future public participation process led by the City. Page 9

10 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD 42. Q: What is the purpose of the truss system? Can the height be brought down to the height of the railing? A: The truss is to hold up the gangway. The height of the flat gangway truss adopted in the final design has been lowered to 5 feet and 1 inch above the walkway. This height is required to make the structure sound. 43. Q: Do you have views of the gate from the Plaza? We are interested in seeing impact from center of the plaza. A: Not at this time. A follow up: Views from the Plaza are included in our March 24 submittal to the City. 44. Q: Is BCDC anticipating any increase in number of boat trips? A: No. This is outside of the purview of BCDC. 45. Q: Why was the truss system selected? A: Truss system is the lightest and most open design. 46. Q: The belvederes increase the mass. Have you consulted BCDC about this? A: BCDC has two missions one being maximizing access to the bay. The District will consult with BCDC. 47. Q: What is the estimated lifespan of this? A: years. Concrete float design is much more durable. 48. Q: Were Sausalito s General Plan and Bicycle Task Force findings incorporated into the design? A: No. A follow up: The Sausalito General Plan was reviewed during the development of the project. The District considers the project to be in compliance with the General Plan. 49. Q: What are the other feasible alternatives to the truss system? A: The District is looking at the loads that need to be carried over the length of the structure. The long structure requires a system that can support this load. A steel box may be possible but would be all enclosed, therefore offering less visibility and being much heavier. Page 10

11 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD The steel girder system would be too susceptible to corrosion and have too short lifespan. A precast concrete structure will be too heavy. 50. Q: Can a support be placed in the middle of the truss system? A: No. A follow-up: The District has studied a three-truss gangway and found it to not be feasible structurally. 51. Q: The District stated that the current turnaround time is 30 minutes. Looking at the schedules, it appears the turnaround time is less than that, unless the ferries are always behind schedule. Can the District comment? A: Further research is required to answer this question and data will be brought back to the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board. A follow-up: The ferry turnaround time covers, in addition to disembarking and boarding of passengers, securing the vessel to the dock, verifying that the doors are securely positioned to be opened, opening the doors, verifying that all passengers are off the vessel and conducting a security sweep of the vessel, and, after the boarding, closing the doors, and tying off the vessel. The turnaround times are set by the schedule. They are tighter earlier and later during the day due to more frequent work commute sailings. The 30 minutes included in the District presentation does not represent the ferry vessel turnaround time. The 30 minutes represents calculated time of disembarking and boarding of passengers. Similar calculations have been done for the existing Sausalito facility using the same volume of passengers, with the result of 10 minutes. The study of disembarking/boarding times was done to assess improvement in the times between the existing and replacement facility. These times do not represent the actual turnaround times. As observed and reflected by the calculations, disembarking and boarding at the existing facility is slow. This is caused by a narrow passage way and one door access to the vessel. To stay on schedule, the boarding must close at a specified time without fully utilizing the vessel capacity while often leaving passengers behind. The new facility is designed to increase speed of disembarking and boarding to achieve full utilization of the vessel capacity. Page 11

12 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD 52. Q: Does the District intend to increase the number of trips, regardless of authority? A: Not at this time. 53. Q: Are high speed vessels proposed to be used in Sausalito? A: Currently, the Spaulding vessel is typically used. However, in the case of emergencies, additional vessel types could be used. Therefore, all vessel designs must be planned for. 54. Q: If you had more trips, how would that affect the design? Would that thereby reduce the need for an enlarged ferry landing? A: The District does not have the resources to increase the number of trips to and from Sausalito during the peak weekday commute times. When the demand is high in Sausalito on weekends, the District runs additional trips. As described in the answer to question no. 51 above, narrowness of the existing facility impedes the use of the ferry vessels to their capacity. The replacement facility will enable this currently unused capacity to be utilized without adding trips. 55. Q: Please discuss the bayfill associated with project. A: Bayfill is considered by BCDC to be a shadow over the water. This is different than what is actually placed into the water. Approx 131 square feet of newly placed pilings is proposed. The shadowing (what is considered to be bayfill) is increased from 8,000 square feet to 14,943 square feet with the 25-foot wide pier and 14,381 with the 21-foot wide pier. 56. Q: How many passengers/bikes can each vessel hold? A: Further research is required to answer this question and data will be brought back to the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board. A follow-up: See answer to question no. 66 below. 57. Q: What is the lifespan of the each vessels (catamarans/spauldings)? A: With renovations, it is projected that they last approximately 40 years. 58. Q: Will the hydraulics have a redundancy and be manually operable as well? A: Yes. There will be a redundant control system on the float and if they are both out of service there will be a manual way to raise and lower the facility. Page 12

13 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD 59. Q: Low tide data. How often does it occur? If not often, may not need a design like this. A: Further research is required to answer this question and data will be brought back to the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board. A follow-up: The slope of the existing gangway exceeds 1:12 when the tide is -1.1MLLW or lower, which, depending on the year, occurs between 30 to 50 times a year. 60. Q: Has a three-part truss system explored? A: No A follow-up: The District has studied a three-truss gangway and found it to not be feasible structurally. 61. Q: Have there been other design materials explored? A: Yes. Timber was investigated at the top of the railings but this material is not very durable and prone to damage. Similarly glass was investigated for the railings but this is also prone to damage and is a maintenance issue. 62. Q: Will there be land improvements in addition to the waterside improvements? A: The scope of the project is the waterside improvements. The City will be responsible for designing the landside improvements. $2.0M will be passed through to the City from the District to make landside improvements. 63. Q: Will the access piers will be open to the public? Who s responsible for policing? Will fishing allowed? A: Yes public access will be allowed. Agreements will be needed with the City for the other two issues. 64. Q: Is it possible for a size reduction and still have the level of service envisioned? A: The access pier has been reduced from 25 to 21 feet in width. The widths of other areas cannot be reduced. 65. Q: What is the difference between the previous 1996 design? Did ADA rules change? Page 13

14 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD A: The 1996 design contemplated ADA issues (guidelines at that time) but was not able to achieve them. The existing facility is not in compliance with the present ADA guidelines. 66. Q: Please provide data on how many passengers/bikes each vessel can hold. A: The District has 3 Spaulding class vessels and 4 high speed catamaran vessels. The District typically runs the Spaulding class vessels between San Francisco and Sausalito. For the Spaulding class, the M.S. Marin holds 750 passengers and the M.S. Sonoma and M.S. San Francisco hold 630 passengers. The Spaulding class can carry bikes and occasionally up to 250 bicycles depending on the total number of passengers onboard. The total number of bicycles allowed to board is at the discretion of the vessel Captain and the Terminal Supervisor and depends on the scheduled turnaround time and the number of passengers with and without bikes. Bicycle capacity is subject to several factors; scheduled time at the dock; total number of passengers on a particular trip and the designated bicycle stowage area. The Captain of the vessel has great discretion in determining the bicycle count on any given trip. For the catamarans, three of the vessels hold 450 passengers and one holds 400 passengers. The AMD 385 class vessels (Napa and Golden Gate) can carry bikes and occasionally up to 45 bicycles depending on the total number of passengers onboard. M.V. Mendocino can carry bikes and occasionally up to 60 bicycles depending on the total number of passengers onboard. M.V. Del Norte can carry bikes and occasionally up to 150 bicycles depending on the total number of passengers onboard. The total number of bicycles allowed to board is at the discretion of the vessel Captain and the Terminal Supervisor and depends on the scheduled turnaround time and the number of passengers with and without bikes. 67. Q: Please provide data on what Blue & Gold pays the District for a sublease. A: The Public Utilities Commission ordered the District to allow Harbor Carriers (then Red & White and now Blue & Gold) to use the District s passenger ferry terminal and determined the rent that Harbor Carriers pays to the District. The rent was established at $2,639/month. 68. Q: Please provide a copy of the District s maintenance plan. A: The District is developing its maintenance plan for the new facilities. 69. Q: Please provide data on how many times the 1:12 slope is exceeded due to a low tide. Page 14

15 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD A: See response to question no.59 above. 70. Q: Please provide data on the capacity of the Spaulding vs the catamarans. A: See response to question no. 66 above. 71. Q: Please provide information on actual turnaround times. A: See response to question no.51 above. The turnaround times vary during a day. 72. Q: Are there circulation diagrams concerning pedestrians and cyclists? A: Circulation of passengers with and without bicycles at the ferry terminal has been studied and used to develop the configuration and size of the replacement facility. The circulation at the landside Plaza is outside the project scope. 73. Q: Can the belvederes be removed? A: They are not structural necessity, but they accommodate the increased public access on the new access pier. 74. Q: Is a duel gangway structure that has smaller diameter trusses feasible? A: The District has studied this option and found it to require a larger footprint and significant enlargement of the gangway support at the access pier and the float, and to impede operations. 75. Q: What is the BCDC Access Easement on Exhibit 2? A: This is the area within 100 feet of the shoreline that BCDC has jurisdiction over. In addition, BCDC has jurisdiction over a public access easement along the shore and plaza area which also extends into the bay within the District s lease area. 76. Q: Can we see a design with more historical elements? A: The District would like feedback from the Commission and Board regarding what historical elements should be included. 77. Q: Was there a request in the original bid documents for the design to pay attention to historical elements? Page 15

16 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD A: No historical elements applicable to the terminal were identified. 78. Q: The 1995 plan for the ferry landing contemplated a covered waiting area. Did the District contemplate such an area in this design? A: No. 79. Q: Can the gate be rotated perpendicular to the shore? A: We have investigated different angles for the gate orientation and the visual effect of it changes depending on the location of the viewer. For example, when the proposed orientation of the gate is viewed from the south end of the plaza area one sees the edge of the gate whereas from the area near the current landside pier more of the gate is visible. 80. Q: Can the District explore the concept of two gangways to reduce the height of one individual gangway? A: See response to question no. 74 above. 81. Q: Did the District consider Sausalito s General Plan, bicycle plan or the Historic Overlay District? A: We have reviewed the Sausalito General Plan, the Sausalito Historic Design Guidelines, the Bicycle Master Plan, Historic Overlay District and Local Register, and the Harbor and Downtown Action Committee Final Report. We consider our design to be in conformance with these City documents. 82. Q: What other companies share the use of the landing A: Blue and Gold, no others. 83. Q: Could the gangway be lowered closer to the water? A: No. The truss gangway is located so that the steel truss elements will not be in the water to minimize corrosion. 84. Q: If the gangway was narrower could the truss be smaller? Page 16

17 QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS BOARD A: The gangway width is necessary for operations. Please see answer to question no. 74 above regarding two side-by-side gangways. 85. Q: Why was Sausalito selected first out of San Francisco and Larkspur for an upgrade? A: The Sausalito facility requires a smaller scope of work than the other two, and it is in need of safety upgrades. 86. Q: The District states that the standardization will eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts is the District implying that those in wheelchairs will not be able to have equal access on all levels of the boat? A: The District will provide equal access on all boat levels. The standardization will allow passengers in wheelchairs to board and disembark from the same level without being forced to change levels. 87. Q: Can the District provide guidance on the landside improvements? A: The landside improvements are a standalone City project and separate from the District waterside improvements. The public process for the landside improvements has not begun yet. 88. Q: What does Blue and Gold pay the District for a sublease? A: See answer to question no. 67 above. 89. Q: Is precast concrete a feasible option for the gangway? A: No, it would be too heavy. 90. Q: The design is based on a 10 minute disembarkation/embarkation time. Could the District consider a longer disembarkation/embarkation time such as 15 minutes? A: This would require an increase in turnaround times, which would decrease the number of crossings, as such, lowering capacity of the service. Also, please see answer to question no. 51 above. \\ASTROBOY\data\CDD\PROJECTS - ADDRESS\E\El Portal - Foot\Ferry Landing\ \Joint Hearing \Staff Report and Materials\Questions and Responses from 3-11 Meeting.docx Page 17