Consultant recommends water transit on Lake Tahoe
By Kathryn Reed
INCLINE VILLAGE — A case was made Friday to start a pilot waterborne transit project on the North and West shores as early as next summer.
“Essentially it would be public transit on the lake,” explained Gordon Shaw of LSC Consultants. “This is not going to be a big ferry.”
He was hired by the Tahoe Transportation District to study the feasibility of such a service. On Nov. 12 he made a presentation to the board that outlined how such a system could work, the potential passenger load and projected revenues.
The board is expected to take action on a potential course of action at the December meeting.
Gordon Shaw
Shaw’s proposal anticipates the need of $1.3 million in start-up funds, which could come partially from federal grants.
The goal would be to start with one boat that could hold up to 20 people and add a second with similar capacity the following year. They would allow for wheelchairs and bicycles. Eighteen knots would be the maximum speed. Eight decibels the highest noise output so they could not be heard a quarter mile offshore.
Waterborne transit is not new to Lake Tahoe. Vessels plied the waters years ago to great fanfare in the first half of the last century. Attempts to resurrect this mode of transportation on a wide-scale basis has sputtered and petered out when anything did get launched.
Shaw said the key to being successful this time around is going slow and offering services that will be dependable. The boats would likely run Memorial Day to Labor Day, with weekend service after that.
Lew Madden, a retired Navy captain who lives in Carnelian Bay, spoke in favor of the boat shuttle, but raised a slew of questions that were not addressed in the consultant’s presentation.
(Madden has experience with getting boats on water, which he is in the process of doing in Alaska.)
He doubts Tahoe could implement this plan until summer 2013 based on getting federal funding. He cautioned going forward without contracts in hand from landing sites. He urged TTD to join the Passenger Vessel Association to receive help, guidance and insight.
“I think it will require more work than you can imagine,” Madden told the board.
Jim Markle, an Incline resident representing Sustainable Tahoe, would like the board to look at other watercraft than the five models presented. His interest lies in stability as well as the ability to land on a beach, which could open more areas to the shuttle service.
Stuart Yount, also of Incline, would like to see watercraft that could land at boat ramps and possibly a larger craft. He said with the Incline General Improvement District changing by 40 percent, to not rule out being able to dock in Incline in the future.
Ron Treabess, interim executive director with the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, said his agency may have money to help with something like this.
The reason to start with Placer County destinations is the number of communities in a small area. Plus, a private operate has a shuttle service on the South Shore during the summer that hits Camp Richardson, Lakeside and Timber Cove marinas.
Kings Beach is not on the list of potential landing spots because the water level is too low.
Board member Ron McIntyre brought up the idea of a temporary floating pier in Kings Beach.
With the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s shorezone ordinance on the losing end of a recent court battle, the idea with the water transit to have nothing to do with building new piers.
Water transit is part of TRPA’s Regional Plan and is a component of all community plans that it would engulf; so permitting should not be more difficult than usual. The U.S. Coast Guard would also have to sign off on the plans.
Tahoe Vista Recreation Area is interested, as is Gar Woods in Carnelian Bay.
Possible sites on the North Shore also include Tahoe City Marina, Grove Street Pier and Sunnyside Resort.
Places in Homewood Shaw has spoken to include West Shore Café, Homewood High and Dry Marina, and Obexer’s Marina. Chambers Landing is out for the time being because of lack of parking.
It was noted the reduction in particulate matter from people driving less would be minimal.
“It’s close to being a wash on environmental impact,” Shaw said of the water shuttle.
Is this consultant aware of the Tahoe Transportation District’s disastrous oversight of the local bus system?
And since he was hired by TTD, he is likely inclined to tell them – and attempt to justify – what they want to hear. So they can point the finger at someone else if it flops. Just like the City’s redevelopment consultant who said the city’s parking garage would make money even if Hwy 50 was shut down.
There is a water shuttle already on the South Shore during the summer. It runs from Lakeside Park Marina to Camp Richardson. An easy walk for tourists from the high concentration of hotels near the casinos.
I did miss the fact that the South Shore shuttle was in the article when I made my comment. However, this shuttle is not utilized by many people. It is privately operated and advertising is very limited. I’d like to see funding to promote the South Shore Shuttle or improve the boat being used, not just have all our (governement) money go to the North Shore where no private entity has stepped up to provide this service.
Gordon Shaw has to be the Emmett Kelly of LSC. If not he must have a direct line to Good boy John Dooslittle for Tahoe. John D. was a bad boy.He or wife-e may know how to obtain a Federal Grant in the year 2013> (for a stipend)
I am thinking there must be some wording in Der Boehner,and Eddie Cantors Lemon Pledge to America. Something like McConnell will use O’Donnel’s Witching Stick to reduce the deficit.
G what a novel idea
Tahoeadvocate makes a good case for upgarding the boat currently used in the South Shore shuttle service and helping promote it. This doesn’t mean that the North Shore options shouldn’t be developed—but let’s look at why the currently operating South Shore shuttle service should be included in this project as well. The South Shore is the most densly developed and highest traffic area in the basin and the currently operating shuttle has the potential for achieving the greatest reduction in auto use. The shuttle already services 3 busy marinas within walking distance of the greatest number of lodging units. Camp Richardson and Stateline are the most auto congested areas in the summer. A new, green technology vessel–properly marketed would almost certainly draw enough users so the current operator would no longer have to subsidize it’s operation out of his own pocket (thank you Bob–it’s high time you were recognized for your efforts!) This would be the easiest, fastest way to demonstrate the efficacy of waterborne transit on Lake Tahoe in the 21st century.
I also hope the the board seriously considers the information presented by Mr. Madden and the Sustainable Tahoe group. Collectively, they have previous experience with waterborne transit and have uncovered options that present opportunities to operate more versitle, cleaner technology, and regionally manufactured (Reno) vessels. The current plan allowes for Tier 3 compliant propulsion systems. We need to set the bar higher than that if we want to be the leader in environmental stewardship and green technology envisioned by the Lake Tahoe Basin Prosperity Plan. Let’s do it right and put vessels on the water that equal the magnificence of our lake and that meet the pressing need to be setting the standard for green technology.
GET REAL WE NEED A HYDROFOIL THAT GETS YOU THERE Back in under a half hour,cost less THAN THESE MOTOR BOATS KITTY RIDES.
THEY WORK GREAT IN BAD WEATHER.DENMARK TO SWEDEN 25 MINS. TOPS.
How about a bike path that goes all the way around the lake? Its been talked about for years and I could bring my dog Ralph, too.
Waterborne transportation is great in theory! Just like sidewalks and free (or at least cheap), reliable bus service! But making it happen?????
When Hornblower Cruises owned the Tahoe Queen, they tried putting something together with the TRPA’s encouragement. The TRPA told them they could get some subsidies for the service and would facilitate the whole process. When Hornblower purchased a boat for the transportation, the TRPA couldn’t have made it more difficult to get it going! They came through with no funding and did nothing to facilitate their slow, costly permit process.
And has the TRPA done anything to facilitate, or encourage usage on, the current water shuttle? Not to mention the fact of TRPA’s track record handling the community’s current land-based transportation system!
If you want to see a regular, heavily-used waterborne transportation system to function at the Lake, you’ll first need to see the money in the bank, not some vague “We think we can get the funding?” words. And secondly, you’ll need the TRPA to guarantee, not to help, but stay OUT OF THE WAY!
With regards to using a green technology for the South Tahoe Water Shuttle, there is a local company (GSE Inc) which manufactures a bio diesel engine which could be used. WIN WIN a local company providing green technology for a lake transport vehicle.
I had no idea we had a shuttle in South Lake, so I agree more advertising would be in order.
And 18 knots max speed for the proposed North lake shuttle? That seems slow to me.
As Tom, and no doubt Gordon Shaw, already know, Gordon with many consultations and presentations over the years under his belt, and Tom, with the award given him many years ago for introducing the Solar Sailor to the Basin, that all too often, there is still no there, “there”.
Even Sustainable Tahoe is organizing around numbers, as in numbers of supporters, (i.e. the League has over 5,000) except that ST’s numbers include folks who have “dogs in the hunt”, products and systems to sell, but no one seems to ever be able to muster the political will necessary to execute any of these proposals.
Gordon must know by now, as it is much easier to get money for design and planning than to actually have an effect – the 3 mile traffic jam is still at Fanny Bridge every summer, we still don’t have anything close to adequate or appropriate bicycle trails, etc., etc.
The most interesting recent quote, from the forum that ‘regional leaders’ had with Senator Ensign last week, was that “real bicycle riders” would not ride on trails, suggesting instead that proper highway lanes and shoulders would somehow ‘do the trick’ – which of course ignores the rivalry between mountain and road bikes, while completely obscuring the families of several generations that might want to enjoy Tahoe’s magnificence at their own pace, off the road and not on mountain bike trails.
Absent political will, still the prime missing link, we will stay where we are: on the decline. . .
A shuttle requires parking. A shuttle requires channels deep enough even in low water years; which means dredging funds must be available and the TRPA must approve removal of sand. A shuttle would have to be underwritten; which means more funds. A shuttle needs a home in the winter; a place to dock it. It needs docks that are accessible; not filled with buoys. Sounds simple; its not.