Click for next page ( 103


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 102
Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 105 The ferry operator implements environmental best practice operations (e.g., reduced idling, reduced energy use, and so forth). The ferry operator selects and operates vessels to ensure minimum impact on coastal and shore areas. Using Criteria to Assess the Potential for Ferry Service Table 7-2 presents a ferry service evaluation criteria matrix. The matrix displays criteria for assessing ferry service potential and can be used as a tool in the decisionmaking process. It is not necessary that an envisioned ferry service achieve a "satisfactory" score on every criterion listed in the evaluation criteria matrix. Most transportation options have impacts or deficiencies for at least one, and often several, criteria. Rather, the evaluation criteria matrix can be used to sum- marize the results of discussions on whether the proposed ferry service meets overall service and public policy goals (or private goals) and, if so, how it does so, and who the service may impact (positively or negatively). The actual scoring of the criteria can be either quantitative (needs a number) or qualitative (needs a "yes" or "no"). The green boxes (see Table 7-2) indicate whether the criterion is quan- titative or qualitative. The red boxes indicate what those sponsors would not consider (the pub- lic sponsor doesn't care about a reasonable return, it has other reasons for doing the service). The private sponsor doesn't really care whether the life-cycle costs are comparable to a highway, because it doesn't operate a highway. Quantitative criteria include a range or threshold. Quan- titative criteria can be compared to industry averages or to local conditions; sometimes the answer is either simply Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory (as when measuring emissions compared to competing modes--either better or worse, or the same). In other cases, listed criteria will not be applicable, and users of the matrix should substitute more meaningful criteria; for example, "Use reservation system to manage demand" is not necessary when the ferry system has excess capacity. Instead, other measures of efficiency would be identified by decisionmakers to measure actual system use. Evaluation criteria are relative because they depend on other factors or con- ditions that are often site or area specific. Nonetheless, in all cases, criteria and measures should be developed in the early stages of any assessment of ferry service. The Go/No-Go Decision After the evaluation criteria are developed, the next step is to measure the costs, impacts, and benefits of the proposed service. Several of the criteria involve economic or environmental assessments, and these assessments are typically quantitative. One of the most critical analyses for ferries is fuel consumption. Fuel consumption lies at the intersection of both economics and environmental criteria and is often the most significant ele- ment in Go/No-Go considerations. Fuel use (and cost) of ferries on a per-passenger basis can be a good metric for measuring the cost-effectiveness of the proposed service; fuel consumption can also be a proxy for environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas and other emissions. Table 7-3 illustrates fuel use for various ferries and modes, such as urban buses and automo- biles, using information from the case studies prepared in this research. In Table 7-3, it can be seen that high-speed ferries (ferries traveling at speeds greater than 25 kn) compare favorably to automobiles on fuel use per passenger carried, but less favorably to buses--all other factors being equal. However, all other factors are usually not equal. When potential ferry service is being evalu- ated, there are several variables that need to be considered to develop a robust analysis. High- ways and bridges that parallel the ferry service could be congested, available waterside land

OCR for page 102
106 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Table 7-2. Ferry service evaluation criteria matrix. Ferry Service Evaluation Criteria Matrix Measures Criteria Public Systems Private Systems Quantitative Qualitative Economic & Financial Land Use Coordination Transportation Plan Consistency Overriding Considerations Delivers Desired Capacity All Systems No Diversion from Other Carriers Provides Emergency Capacity No Diversion from Other Facilities with Capacity Life-cycle Costs Comparable to Other Modes Ridership Estimate Certainty Makes Reasonable Profit Risk/Reward in Balance Generates Reasonable Rate of Return Equity Provide an Essential Lifeline Efficiency & Effectiveness Reduce the Need for Additional Fixed Facilities Use = 50% of Freeway Lane Urban Services Targeted to Areas with Poor Transit Options Time Savings Compared to Other Transit Options Enables Transit Supportive Land Uses Terminals: Simple and Effective Environmental Per Passenger Emissions Less than Other Options Per Passenger Carbon Emissions Less than Other Options Efficiency & Effectiveness Essential Services Average Vehicle Deck Occupancy 50% + Ferry Less Expensive Per Vehicle than Highway/Bridge Services Adjusted to Meet Demand Demand Management Used to Reduce Peak Impacts Safety & Security Adhere to Safety Regulations Create Culture of Safety Adequately and Comprehensively Train Staff Adhere to DHS Security Requirements Participate in Emergency Plans/Drills Reliability Best Practices Used in Preventive Maintenance, etc. Best Practices Used in Operations: Scheduling, Boarding, etc. Efficiency & Effectiveness Operational Criteria Schedule Crew Efficiently Competitively Procure Fuel and Supplies Use Performance Metrics to Measure Efficiency Optimize Routing Optimize Terminal Siting Minimize Boarding and Terminal Dwell Time Create Seamless Intermodal Transfers Use Reservation System to Manage Demand Use Pre-Paid Fares to Minimize Terminal Delay Use Performance Metrics to Measure Effectiveness Set Competitive Fares that Provide Adequate Revenues Environmental Ferry Emissions No Greater than Competing Modes Use Best Available Engine Technology Use Environmental Best Practices Select Minimum Wake/Wash Vessels

OCR for page 102
Example of Ferry Service Criteria Matrix Use To see how a ferry service criteria matrix might be used by decision- Acme Point Council members want to redevelop a centrally located makers trying to assess the potential for service in their area, con- parcel--a 40-acre former lumber mill--into a new, dense, mixed-use sider the following example scenario. and residential development. The development site is located within 500 meters of the water and within 300 meters of the Acme Point Metro City is located in Metro Region, which is a region that has town center. In discussions with the town's development advisors, it grown along a lakefront. Metro City, the region's central business has been strongly recommended that providing a reliable and fast district, is on the mainland; Acme Point occupies a peninsula that transportation link to Metro City would assist in marketing the extends into the lake. Acme Point is connected to Metro City via development site. As a result, Acme Point officials assessed several the Metro Bridge, a congested and unreliable link. Currently, buses transportation improvement concepts, including a larger bridge, and automobiles use the bridge. The highway/bridge route is 22 increased bus service, exclusive bus lanes, and direct ferry service. miles long, as it requires a long diversion because of the region's The direct ferry service to Metro City would operate as a publicly geography. sponsored system. Council members were presented with the criteria matrix shown for the proposed improvements. Ferry Service Evaluation Criteria Matrix - Acme Point to Metro City Measures Criteria Public Systems Private Systems Quantitative Qualitative Notes Economic & Financial Land Use Coordination Yes, fast-ferry service assists development Transportation Plan Consistency No, ferry not in current regional plans NOT APPLICABLE--PUBLICLY SPONSORED SYSTEM Overriding Considerations - N/A -- No inconsistency Delivers Desired Capacity Yes, ferry service increases capacity. No Diversion from Other Carriers Determined to service different market than existing service All Systems Provides Emergency Capacity Yes, available if bridge is not usable No Diversion from Other Facilities with Capacity Bridge already at capacity so diversion is a moot concern Life-cycle Costs Comparable to Other Modes Unknown, further study required Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development Ridership Estimate Certainty Preliminary estimates appear to justify project, further study needed Makes Reasonable Profit N/A Risk/Reward in Balance N/A Generates Reasonable Rate of Return N/A Equity Provide an Essential Lifeline Bridge already available Efficiency & Effectiveness Reduce the Need for Additional Fixed Facilities Yes, preliminary results indicate some needed diversion Use = 50% of Freeway Lane Yes, preliminary results indicate about 1,200 passengers/pk hour Urban Services Targeted to Areas with Poor Transit Options Yes, existing transit from town center is slow and unreliable Time Savings Compared to Other Transit Options Yes, appears to save about 5 - 10 minutes Enables Transit Supportive Land Uses Yes, Acme Point will develop as TOD Terminals: Simple and Effective Unknown design at this point Environmental Per Passenger Emissions Less than Other Options Yes, results in less automobile trips overall Per Passenger Carbon Emissions Less than Other Options Ferry slightly worse in carbon emissions than automobile trips Satisfactory Ratings Marginal Unsatisfactory Not Applicable - 107

OCR for page 102
Definition of Evaluation Criteria Policy Measures and Examples of Where They Are Used. See the table below for definitions of some criteria and examples of where they have been used. Criteria Definition Examples Economic & Financial Land Use Coordination The project is consistent California with the area's land use Requirement plan. Transportation Plan Consistency The project is consistent Federal with the region's Requirement transportation plan. Overriding Considerations If the project is not Various consistent with other plans, it provides an economic benefit to the area that suggests an exception. Delivers Desired Capacity The project adds regional BC Ferries capacity. No Diversion from Other Carriers The project does not result San Francisco in other carriers losing passengers. Provides Emergency Capacity The project provides an New York emergency response capability. No Diversion from Other Facilities with The project does not result North Carolina Capacity in other transportation facilities losing traffic, if those facilities have available capacity. Life Cycle Costs Comparable to Other Modes The project's total capital Federal and lifetime operating and Requirement maintenance costs are comparable to other modes. Ridership Estimate Certainty Ridership estimates have San Francisco been performed for the proposed services and are used to develop overall plans. Makes Reasonable Profit For the private sector, the Various service can make a reasonable profit. Risk/Reward in Balance The risk of investment is Various less than the possible reward. Generates Reasonable Rate of Return The project will provide BC Ferries the project sponsor with a reasonable rate of return. Equity Criteria Provides an Essential Lifeline The project provides a North Carolina lifeline access to rural communities. Efficiency & Effectiveness Reduces the Need for Additional Fixed The ferry can represent New York Facilities new capacity in stressed corridors. Use = 50% of Freeway Lane In the peak hour, the ferry San Francisco service(s) carry volumes at least equal to half the capacity of a highway lane. Targeted to Areas with Poor Transit Options The project serves terminals New York and other areas that have few other transportation options. Time Savings Compared to Other Transit The ferry service will be Seattle Options faster for the traveler than other options. Enables Transit Supportive Land Uses The ferry service supports New York higher density development adjacent to terminal. Simple and Effective Terminals Terminals are simple and North Carolina well designed.

OCR for page 102
Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 109 Table 7-3. Ferry fuel consumption (typical) vs. other modes. Passenger Hourly Fuel Miles per Passenger Miles Vessel Type Speed Capacity Speed (mph) Consumption Gallon per Gallon Monohull - Passenger and Auto < 25kn 1000 14.4 152 0.09 95 Monohull - Passenger Only < 25kn 300 18 25 0.72 216 < 25kn 400 14 30 0.47 187 Catamaran - Passenger Only > 25kn 400 28 197 0.14 57 > 25kn 300 39 140 0.28 84 > 25kn 300 34 125 0.27 82 > 25kn 199 30 100 0.30 60 Hovercraft - Passenger Only > 35kn 180 45 90 0.50 90 Hydrofoil - Passenger Only > 35kn 75 40 40 1.00 75 Urban Bus ~45mph 50 40 10 4.00 200 Auto - Standard ~45mph 2 40 1.5 26.67 53 parcels may have poor access (even in uncongested systems), and competing modes could have much longer travel distances. The analysis of potential ferry service needs to compare the relative trip lengths of the various modes, the congestion in the highway corridor when comparing the ferry service to bus service, and the overall cost of the operation. Table 7-4 shows the output of an electronic worksheet that uses embedded formulas to analyze the costs and benefits of using various modes to make a hypothetical trip. The preferred analysis compares the following: Passenger experience Competitive travel time Cost Capital (gross and unit) Operating (gross and unit)

OCR for page 102
110 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Table 7-4. Costs and benefits of various surface transportation modes vs. ferry for a hypothetical trip. Inputs Projected Ridership Route Average One-Way (peak Vehicle Frequency Mode Distance Speed Time (min) hour) Capacity (min/sec) Auto (w/Bus) 22 45 29.3 3000 1.5 ~1 sec Auto (w/Ferry) 22 45 29.3 2000 1.5 ~2 sec Bus (No Ferry) 22 35 37.7 2000 50 1.5 min Ferry (No Bus) 12 30 24.0 3000 350 7.0 min Mode Capital Costs Operating Costs Total Weekday Annualized Annualized Operating Total Weekday Operating Costs Per Equipment Equipment Terminal Capital Capital Cost Hourly Peak- Peak Period Costs (Peak Seat (Peak Equipment Cost (Unit, Useful Cost (Total Costs Costs/30 Per Peak- Operating Period Vehicle/ Periods Periods Required $M) Life (yr) $M) ($M) yr Hour Seat Cost Span Vessel Hours Only/$M) Only) Auto (w/Bus) 2,000 Auto (w/Ferry) 1,333 Bus (No Ferry) 50 $0.5 12 $62.9 $0 $62.9 $31,429 $100 6 302 $7,844,57 $2.51 Ferry (No Bus) 7 $11 30 $75.4 $10 $85.4 $28,476 $1,250 6 41 $13,371,42 $2.86 Outputs Capacity Cost per seat trip Cost per passenger trip This basic information allows the operator or financial sponsor to consider the margin--the difference between the cost and the revenue potential of various transportation alternatives. For the hypothetical route analyzed in Table 7-4, a ferry provides a better passenger experience than a bus, primarily because it saves about one-third of the travel time compared to a bus and is faster than the automobile journey. In this example, while the ferry costs more to operate, depending on the tariff charged, it may result in either less deficit (as a public operation) or more fare rev- enue, since a higher price can be charged for a better service. The worksheet shown in Table 7-4 does not factor in reliability (which is dependent on local conditions, but a ferry may be a more reliable service than a bus operating in mixed-flow traf- fic), amenities (which tend to be better on ferries), or (from a public policy perspective) the potentially greater development potential with a ferry operation than a bus-based system. These factors should all be considered but are usually measured qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Land use coordination is also an important qualitative analysis. Ferry terminals are similar to rail terminals, and, with high-frequency and reliable service, they can provide both an impor- tant amenity to an adjacent area and also necessary transportation capacity to provide access to a development site. Ferries versus New Fixed Crossing NCHRP Report 399: Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis Manual provides additional guidance on evaluating transit modes versus additional highway capacity. The authors of

OCR for page 102
Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 111 NCHRP 399 note that the manual "distinguishes between two fundamentally different approaches to capacity determination: (1) physical capacity and (2) economic capacity" (Cambridge System- atics, Inc., 1998, p. 10). When planners consider alternatives among transit modes (i.e., between buses and ferries, for example) in a constrained corridor, usually more emphasis is placed on physical capacity. As vol- umes increase, higher capacity modes become more competitive, especially as bus volumes begin to exceed the capacity of bus stops (i.e., terminal capacity becomes the constraint to additional buses). Capacity discussions usually lead into financial discussions (total life-cycle cost) in these studies (i.e., economic capacity). When planners compare two transportation modes (i.e., a new bridge and additional ferries), more emphasis is usually placed on economics. Not only is the ability of the users to fund a cross- ing important, but the mode's reliability and the speed of travel it provides contribute to an area's general economic conditions and can become a catalyst for economic development. Chapter 4 of NCHRP Report 399 identifies the Process Steps used to consider alternatives in a transportation corridor. Chapter 5 outlines the capacity analysis process and Chapter 9 deals with economic capacity. The appendix highlights the Strategic Implementation Plan for Sonoma and Marin Counties in California, which used an upgraded ferry system rather than highway improvements. Limited capacity of downstream roadways was identified as one of the reasons to maintain the present bridge capacity and encourage ferries as an alternative (Cambridge Sys- tematics, Inc., 1998). NCHRP Report 399 was written before the issue of climate change and the effects of green- house gas emissions on climate change fully entered public discussion (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 1998). The discussion continues to evolve, but considerations of ferry service relative to greenhouse gas emissions involve two interrelated conditions: (1) ferries use more fuel per mile per person than buses, and (2) ferries require little infrastructure. While the research herein identifies a method to assess the fuel (and by extension carbon) impacts of ferries relative to buses and other modes and also relative to route lengths (which are likely to be different, with ferry routes usually being shorter), assessing the fuel impacts of dif- ferent transportation modes can be complex. For instance, consider a case in which the fuel impacts of a potential new fixed crossing are being assessed in relation to the fuel impacts of a potential ferry service that will have the same route length as the new fixed crossing. The ferry will consume more fuel per passenger than an automobile or a bus travelling on the new fixed crossing; however, the ferry will have a much lower cost of embodied carbon in its infrastruc- ture than the new fixed crossing. Several organizations are currently developing protocols for assessing carbon life-cycle costs that include energy use embodied within the infrastructure. Embodied energy should be a con- sideration in any discussion of ferries relative to new fixed crossings.