AgdaPkt 2007-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The study concludes that an interim terininal facility would require four acres, iiicludin� 2.8 acres of parking for up to 254 vehicles, and could be located entirely on Port-owned property now leased to Cemex for an aggregate terminal. At expected fiill ridership, a total of 5.7 acres would be required to accommodate facilities and 500 pa�lced cars, and could be located on land owned both by the Port aiid Pacitic Shores Center, an office complex adjacent to the Poi�t. The report stated, "It has been suggested that the port investigate the potential for a joii7t use facility at the feriy terminal (utilizing both port land and Pacific Shores land). Compatible uses would ii7clude a new and expai7ded Port Office, enviroiimental information center, or potentially a restaura�rt. These uses would require little increase in parlcing supply; the latter uses would have pealc parlcing demands at times when the ferry terminal parking has lower demand. A joint use facility would consolidate permit and construction costs and would provide site security tl�rough greater activity levels." Ferry ridership projections prepared by Water Transit Authority (WTA) coiisultants last Ja�luary indicate a potential Redwood City ridership of 1,950 trips a day between Redwood City and San Francisco by 2025, based oii a projected 51 miiiute travel time, and aii additioiial 460 a day for a possible route between Oalclaiid and Redwood City. Many of the passengers are expected to be employees at Pacific Shores Center and the nearby Seaport Centre. The study also examined other potential locations for a feriy terminal. The F Dock a�Id Wharf 5 alternatives have been cha�acterized previously as less desirable primarily because of the overriding concern that the duration of the ferry trip be minimized. Both F Docic a�ld Wharf 5 would require an additional five+ minutes of total 2