National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services (2012)

Chapter: Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance

« Previous: Part 1 - Background Information and Case Studies
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14644.
×
Page 149

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Practitioner and Policymaker Guidance P A R T 2

The results of both the literature search and the case studies suggest that there are specific mar- kets that respond well to ferry services and, as a result, these ferry services provide economic and social benefits to society. During the course of this study, it was found that most ferry operators, or ferry sponsors, approach the decision to initiate or expand ferry service in a systematic manner, in order to develop useful and economical services. The common themes of these approaches include the following: • Identification of goals and desired outcomes. • Understanding of the market. • Development of service criteria. • Development of an operating plan (including labor and equipment availability). • Development of a financing strategy. • Incorporation of a business plan. These steps lead to an overall suggested process of analyzing, considering, and then imple- menting ferry service (if justified), by working through a strategic planning process and then a specific business plan for the proposed service. This process is illustrated in Figure 6-1. Sections 7 through 9 focus on specific areas of this development process. Section 7 focuses on the strategic plan issues of developing goals and objectives and establishing and assessing crite- ria. Section 8 provides an introduction to ferry service operation and management issues, notably logistics (personnel, deploying equipment, and other more technical and day-to-day issues) that will ultimately have to be addressed in the business plan. Section 9 presents and dis- cusses the components of a ferry service strategic plan and business plan and provides examples. 91 S E C T I O N 6 Summary of Guidance

92 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Assessment of All Transit Alternatives - Incorporation of Goals, Criteria, and Measures Analysis of Ferry Alternative Problem Identification Develop Finance and Capital Plan Select Procurement Model Assess Economic and Financial Impacts Determine Efficiency and Effectiveness Go/No-Go Decision No-Go Decision Go Decision Contractor Develops Operating Plan for Approval Publicly Sponsored Contract Select Contract Operator Develop Contract Management Plan Develop Marketing Plan Initiate Operations Direct Operation Select and Procure Vessels Develop Marketing Plan Initiate Operations Develop Operating Plan and Budget St ra te gi c Pl an P ro ce ss Bu si ne ss P la n Pr oc es s Figure 6-1. Transportation/ferry service development process.

The major subheadings of this section follow the steps outlined in the top part of the flow chart depicted in Figure 6-1: • Problem identification • Assessment of all transit alternatives—incorporation of goals, criteria, and measures • Analysis of the ferry alternative – Assess economic and financial impacts – Determine efficiency and effectiveness • The Go/No-Go decision Each step is discussed in depth below. Problem Identification Ferry service is provided as a means of public transportation to serve a number of different constituents. In service areas where ferry routes compete against other transit modes or auto- mobiles, ferry ridership is sensitive to outside influences that may increase or decrease ridership on a monthly basis. Gas prices, unemployment levels, and traffic congestion are just a few factors that influence ridership in both the short and long term. Ferry operators operating in this type of environment are aware of these factors as they impact competitiveness and marketability. Operators who provide ferry services where there is no other transportation alternative are less prone to fluctuations in ridership, although these operators face their own set of factors that influence financial viability. Tourist season, weather conditions, and service headways influence the financial break-even point and the level of profits earned during the year, but ensuring that ridership returns every year can be a source of concern during down economic cycles. Analysis of new or modified ferry routes should take into account a number of different factors. Unlike landside transit routes, ferry routes typically are point-to-point routes, with no stops along the way. If a route is modified, the new landing point should be demonstratively better than the previous one for both passengers and the operator. If a new route is introduced, it should be demonstrated that the service catchment area has the characteristics and demographics of a productive route. This section outlines these characteristics. Private Operators Private operators operate closer to the economic margin than public operators, who generally have several sources of revenue besides ticket receipts. Private operators also consider their ability to make large capital expenditures as well as any increase in operating or maintenance costs. 93 S E C T I O N 7 Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development

Because they are usually smaller entities with a few routes, private operators must be able to forecast as accurately as possible the rate of return on their investment in any new route. Private operators do have greater flexibility in modifying or cancelling routes than public operators, who are beholden to their public constituents. Conversely, private operators are often long- established companies in remote areas, and while they do strive to create a profit, they can also have a culture that values the community they operate in and their responsibility to the public (which is often their friends and neighbors). Public Operators Public operators consider starting new ferry routes for a variety of reasons and to do so often accept financial deficits. Public operators begin new service to reach new or growing communi- ties, satisfy mission statements, or because of the local political climate. Obtaining capital grant monies is a common way to offset the cost of new vessels, and new operations and maintenance costs are covered through farebox recovery and subsidization. Assessment of All Transit Alternatives—Incorporation of Goals, Criteria, and Measures Ferry planning is often undertaken in the context of land-based versus water transportation decisions. Ferry projects are not as prominent as land-based transportation decisions, whether it is bridges, tunnels, and highways for automobiles or buses and rail for public transit. Given that the ferry industry in the United States varies widely, and that public benefits are perceived differently in different locations, factors affecting public goals should be considered during ferry planning and development. These factors include the following (Norris, 1994) • Transportation demand. A main factor for any new, proposed, or expanded route is transporta- tion demand. Consideration of this factor should take into account existing traffic congestion, landside public transit demand, RO-RO demand, interstate/state transportation systems, and legislative policy. • Economic development. Ferry service demand is a function of land use and economic devel- opment. Ferries can be used to respond to economic growth within a region or can be used as a catalyst to encourage new and more intense land uses. In this context, ferry terminals take on the role of community gateways, similar to rail or other multimodal transit stations. • Safety and regulatory compliance. Public policy places a high value on safety and security— in fact, these goals are the highest priority of the ferry operator and government regulators. • Cost-effectiveness. Cost factors must be considered during ferry planning, especially for pub- lic projects involving public funding. Cost analyses must look at capital and operating costs, public versus private operation, and technological advances when assessing a preferred mode or route. • Environmental issues. The environmental impact of new or expanded ferry service must be considered under NEPA and under any relevant state environmental disclosure laws. These pieces of legislation ensure that critical environmental issues, such as coastal zone issues, energy efficiency, air quality, water quality, wildlife habitats, and community impacts/concerns, are adequately addressed and mitigated. • Geographical conditions. Separate from environmental concerns, geography plays a major role in water-related decisionmaking, and influences waterborne transportation differently than landside transportation. Decisions are affected by weather patterns, shore conditions, type of water body and conditions, tide/flood conditions, and year-round versus seasonal operation requirements. 94 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Linkages between these six factors should also be considered during ferry planning and devel- opment. Some of the linkages that should be considered are discussed below. Transportation Demand and Economic Development Transportation demand and economic development are linked. The case studies undertaken for TCRP Project H-40 indicate that urban ferry travel is directly related to land development. Future ridership on a new or modified ferry route is projected in a way similar to many other transit projects, by taking into account future land uses, future transportation demand, service frequencies, and travel time compared to competing travel modes. Projected ridership levels are taken into account in decisions about appropriate vessel size and carrying capacity. Operators need to ensure that they will carry the minimum number of passengers per trip necessary to break even on their cost per trip (for a private operator) or meet criteria for farebox recovery (for a sub- sidized public operator). Operating a vessel that is too large for a particular route can adversely affect an operation’s economic bottom line when the costs of fuel and staff are included. Operat- ing a vessel that is too small on a popular line can cause passenger frustration, leading to rider- ship loss as passengers turn to other transportation modes and lose confidence in their ability to make certain scheduled crossings. Ferry routes and terminals have recently begun to be part of larger land use and transporta- tion planning conversations that seek to link together transportation services with developing or redeveloping land uses or specific communities. Advocates of transit-oriented developments, smart growth, and other related planning ideals highlight ferry terminals as potential attractors that can assist in bringing activity to underused areas. Ferry terminals are seen as downtown anchors, helping to revitalize former main streets as well as supplementing supporting businesses who serve ferry passengers. Tradeoffs for the development include allocating the necessary land and water area for the ferry facility, as well as designing the terminal to be functional while minimizing its impact. Ferry service sponsors must consider the economic catalyst effect against existing demand. Each route and terminal must be carefully analyzed to determine whether there is enough demand for them to be financially and operationally viable. The type of ferry service offered is also a crit- ical factor in stimulating economic activity. Passenger-only ferries are more likely to draw passen- gers to supporting businesses than vehicle ferries, where passengers never exit their car at the terminal. Further discussion of analysis factors when considering economic development as part of new ferry service is provided later in this report. When deciding whether ferries should be used to provide access to a new development site, prior to entering into elaborate and expensive ridership projections, decisionmakers should determine whether ferries can provide the access to the destinations that is desired, at a level of service that can be sustained. The following factors should be taken into consideration: • The size of the site (larger sites can result in financially sustainable ferry services). • The type of land uses (more intense uses generate more traffic, but niche uses—such as a park—can be successful for ferries). • The trip market (for instance, whether the anticipated trips are concentrated in one area, such as to a central business district). • Other modes (whether other modes are inconvenient, over capacity, or non-existent). • Water conditions (whether there is adequate water depth, the ability to provide terminal facil- ities, harbor traffic, and so forth). In Ferry Intercity or Ferry Essential operations, where ferry service links metropolitan areas to other metropolitan areas (and where other modes do not exist) or where small communities are Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 95

linked to a metropolitan area, the primary policy considerations are economic development of the non-urban area and statewide policy provisions that seek to increase and support access to isolated areas. These policy considerations are subjective and based on a perception or an understanding of how a ferry operation might affect local economies. For example, if the state chose to encourage tourism and recreational activities, then ferry service may be increased or supported. On the other hand, if resource conservation was an important goal, then ferry access could be limited. In areas like the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area, ferries are part of state highway sys- tems and can move millions of passengers a year. The geographical nature of a region and its economy can require a robust ferry system that is able to move millions of people on a daily basis. In other instances, such as islands off of the mainland, ferries provide the only transportation. In both of these examples, ferries compete well or have little competition with vehicular or tran- sit travel, taking advantage of built-in ridership demand. Ferry operators in these situations must still ensure that fare levels and service frequencies are constantly adjusted to market demand as tourists often make up a large part of the yearly revenue intake and swings in fares could dissuade local and visitor ridership. Safety and Regulatory Compliance Regulatory compliance is an important aspect of ferry service. While economic regulation has diminished in the last 20 years (i.e., regulation of tariffs and schedules), environmental, work- place, safety, and security regulations have all increased. Ferry systems of all sizes must take into consideration the risk of accidents, such as collisions, groundings, allisions, fires, and explosions (Harrald et al., 1999). The Coast Guard certifies the vessel and conducts annual vessel inspec- tions. The Coast Guard also enforces laws and regulations pertaining to minimum crewing levels, licensing for vessel crews, security threats, and the origin of passenger vessels. Cost-Effectiveness and Environmental Issues Cost-effectiveness and environmental issues are also closely related. The ability to reduce marine emissions is an increasingly critical component in determining the viability of new ves- sels and routes. In the last decade, on-road vehicles have become extremely clean, with emission reduction levels (relative to direct engine exhaust) of 98 percent or more. Studies have concluded that ferries will have to reduce emissions by 85 to 98 percent to make the impacts of ferry com- mutes less than the impacts of on-land commutes (CALSTART, 2002). Since 2007, all new vessels have had to meet Tier 2 engine requirements, part of a broader effort to use technologies that reduce emissions. The case studies conducted for TCRP Project H-40 found that several ferry operators have participated in a government grant program to repower their vessels with newer engine technology. The operators were uniformly pleased with the results of the program because the public benefited through reduced emissions and the operators ben- efited through reduced fuel consumption. Additional emission reduction can result from the use of alternative fuel sources, such as biodiesel. Biodiesel may be used in almost all diesel engines (the predominant propulsion mode in vessels) at concentrations of up to 5 percent. New engines can use up to 20 percent biodiesel and remain within warranty requirements. A 2002 EPA study found that use of 20-percent biodiesel (B20) results in a minor increase in oxides of nitrogen (NOx), but provides double-digit percentage decreases in particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO) (see Table 7-1). (The EPA report doc- umented these trends continuing as the biodiesel percentage increases. At 100-percent biodiesel, NOx increases by about 10 percent, but PM and CO both decrease by about 50 percent and HC 96 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

decreases almost 70 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions would also decrease significantly when considering the entire production process). Virgin Trains, a UK passenger railroad operator, expects that a 20-percent biodiesel blend in its fuel mix will result in a carbon dioxide emission reduction of about 14 percent. (Assessments and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2002; BBC News, 2007) The cost of biodiesel has been estimated to be comparable with petroleum when oil costs $70 per barrel (in 2011, oil traded from $80 to $130 per barrel). As the biodiesel industry expands and develops new technologies and as worldwide petroleum demand increases, it is likely that biodiesel will represent a lower cost option for ferry operators. New engines are certified by manufacturers to operate on B20. These new engines are also cleaner burning, and the case studies conducted for TCRP Project H-40 indicate that operators replacing engines experience about a 20-percent overall reduction in fuel use. Since new engines are both more efficient and allow use of alternative fuels, these engines provide ferry operators with the ability to reduce emissions and costs in multiple ways. Using biodiesel in a new engine could reduce overall costs by about 20 percent and reduce emissions of PM, CO, and HC by 20 to 35 percent. Balancing Constraints and Limited Resources with Market Opportunities The ferry industry serves a wide range of users. Ferries that serve areas with multiple trans- portation offerings are in a complicated position—trying to compete for a discrete number of riders who have many choices for transportation to their destination. In these situations, ferry passengers can often be categorized as “choice riders,” those who make a conscious decision to ride ferries when they may be more expensive or less convenient than landside transit or driving for reaching the passengers’ destination. Ferries must maintain a delicate balance between fare prices and operational and maintenance costs to meet budget requirements. The ferry operator should consider the importance of the following to marketing ferry services: • Attractive terminals. A ferry terminal is a gateway to the community and is also a storefront for prospective customers. Terminals provide a welcoming experience for disembarking pas- sengers, as well as providing connections to other travel modes. The terminal itself can be seen as a multimodal center comparable to other transit facilities. The terminal provides passen- gers with information on routes and schedules, the ability to pay for tickets, protection from Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 97 Percent change in emissions NOx 2.0% PM -10.1% HC -21.1% CO -11.0%P ol lu ta nt Emission impacts of 20 vol% biodiesel for soybean-based biodiesel added to an average Source: Assessments and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2002. Table 7-1. Emission impacts of 20-percent biodiesel.

the elements, and a secure waiting area. The design of the terminal can also reflect its imme- diate surroundings and home community and can serve as a catalyst for future development, some of which could benefit the ferry authority or the ferry operator. These locations are often infill, brownfield sites, creating good opportunities for many stakeholders to benefit. • Intermodal transit connections. Intermodal transit connections at or near ferry terminals are critical components of the overall ferry transit trip. For riders on passenger-only vessels, the connections at the other end of the ferry trip to their final destinations are important if the ferry terminals are not located near employment centers. Ferry operators can also enter into agreements with other transit operators that allow passengers to receive a discounted transfer ticket on either bus or rail to get them to their final destinations. • Quality service. Since 1994, Washington State Ferries has used “Level-of-Service” (LOS) stan- dards to ensure that they are providing an adequate level of service to the public. LOS for WSF is measured in “boat waits” (Washington State Ferries, 2007). A one-boat wait means that 85% or more of general vehicle traffic would not have to wait more than one sailing after arriving at the dock before boarding a boat. While LOS is currently limited to boat wait, the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Kettleson & Associates, Inc., et al., 2003) uses the LOS concept to apply to transit passenger waits, speed of service, and many other factors. • Universal fare media. It is not uncommon for public transit within one region or jurisdiction to issue more than one form of fare media. Regions with multiple ferry operators also have dif- ferent fare-collection methods. Unifying fare media and fare collection into one form that can be used both landside and for ferries greatly increases accessibility for commuters who transfer between modes. Both public and private operators can gain from having a common fare media, especially electronic media that allow for fare discounts and transfer credits between operators. Analysis of the Ferry Alternative Assess Economic and Financial Impacts Project selection varies for a public or a private venture depending on project financing. The “big picture” issues that need to be considered are similar, but have some distinctions. Private-Sector Economic and Financing Considerations In selecting new ferry service or modifying an existing one, private operators must account for a number of factors within their business plan. Private operators often need to publicly discuss their environmental impacts, but their financial projections are usually private. As a result, their internal business plan documents the financial feasibility of the operation. This business plan, discussed further in Section 9 includes issues such as the following: • Capital funding. What is the source of the capital funds needed for new vessels and new or upgraded dock or terminal facilities? • Operations cost. How do costs for labor, insurance, leases, professional services, regulations, permits, and insurance add up? What is the total cost to operate the service, and are there economies of scale? Do unit costs decrease as service increases? • Labor availability. Are qualified maritime personnel and masters available? • Operational funding. What is the source for operating and maintaining the service? How will incidental costs such as marketing be covered? • Vessel acquisition. What vessel or vessels are appropriate for the new or modified route? Where will vessels be stored? • Ridership forecasts. What is the ridership forecast for the route (by day, month, and year)? Does seasonality play a role in ridership levels? • Maintenance. Where will the new vessel be maintained? Will it require a specialized service not already under contract? 98 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

• Fares. What are appropriate fares for the service given its length and/or in comparison with other routes in service? • Emergency contingency. What does the operator need to consider in the event of a natural or manmade disaster or unforeseen changes in the cost of labor or fuel? Private operators who do not receive public monies may still be subject to environmental analysis for new services especially if landside improvements are required. New routes are generally not regulated, but in some cases states regulate levels of service, which can either hinder or delay business-related changes. In addition, new terminals, docks, or any waterside infrastructure may require permitting from relevant state or federal agencies. It is important for operators to be aware of state and federal regulations that may pertain to their operations. Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 99 San Francisco Bay Area Emergency Response California law requires the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) to plan and operate new water transportation services on San Francisco Bay and coordinate maritime emergency response using public transportation ferries. WETA coordinates the Bay Area maritime emergency response for the transportation of people by passenger ferry boats during an emergency; provides representation to state emergency authorities; and activates its Emergency Operations Center, which communicates with the Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region’s transportation planning and funding agency. WETA anticipates that its emergency operations capabilities will evolve and increase over time as staff, facilities, vessels, and funding become available (it should be noted that WETA is assuming management con- trol of most ferry services in San Francisco Bay). The WETA Emergency Water Transportation System Management Plan provides for several phases of activity (San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, 2009): • Pre-emergency planning. This planning includes identification of public transportation ferry assets, size, ownership, location, and capacity; cataloging of existing ferry terminals; development of a primary WETA Emergency Operations Center; and discussions and drafting of contracts and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with local, public, and private ferry service operators to enable execution of the WETA emergency response. • Response phase. In response phase activities, WETA focuses on working to effectively communicate and coordinate with other agencies. WETA’s first priority is to protect life, property, and the environment. The second priority is to provide emergency water transportation services during the response phase and the third is to restore basic water transportation services generally during the recovery phase of the emer- gency. In the response phase, WETA’s primary task is working within the regional emergency transporta- tion response and mutual aid coordination process. • Recovery phase. Recovery phase activities could occur within 3 days of the emergency. As soon as possible, WETA will begin to restore basic water transportation services. During this time, WETA will work towards restoration of the normal, pre-emergency WETA services, but may also provide additional or expanded service in the event that bridges, highways, and other facilities are inoperable. • Non-emergency operations. These operations involve continuing response training and exercises for emer- gency response personnel to become fully familiar with the procedures, facilities, and systems used during an actual emergency. The exercises, drills, and training also provide feedback to maintain a continuously improving plan.

Public-Sector Economic and Financial Considerations Ferries are just one “tool” in a region’s transportation “toolbox” that public agencies use to deliver access. As examples across the country indicate, the appropriateness of ferry service is dependent on the viability of existing transportation modes. All public actions require allocation of resources through a deliberative process. Transportation projects compete for public resources with schools and public safety, health, and other infrastruc- ture programs. Within transportation budgets, ferries compete for funding with other modes. Decisionmakers try to use the limited funding available to benefit the greatest number of people. When thoughtfully planned and implemented, ferry service can benefit a large number of peo- ple. Compared to other investments, ferry service may cost less. A ferry route may open a new development site that is geographically close to important destinations that have previously been difficult to access. Agencies will consider the total life-cycle cost of the ferry investment versus other investments and also consider the economic impact of the ferry route. A private-sector operation must make a profit and must take this into consideration when deciding whether to offer ferry service; the public-sector decision is more subjective and includes consideration of impacts other than economic ones. Determine Efficiency and Effectiveness Criteria In determining efficiency and effectiveness criteria for evaluating potential ferry services, it is important to be aware of (1) the different market segments that ferries can serve and (2) whether the ferry service under consideration will be a public or private entity. In this research, ferry services are understood to fit into two broad market segment categories: • Transit (no vehicle access), which includes both urban services (the vast majority) and also passenger-only, intercity services. Urban ferry services do not carry automobiles, and they com- plement a travel market with many choices. Urban ferry services are more like transit opera- tions than traditional maritime operations. Ferries that operate outside the metropolitan area or between metropolitan areas and do not carry vehicles are also ferries—transit/intercity. • Highway-oriented essential ferries, which allow vehicle access as well as walk-on passengers, and primarily substitute for a bridge or other fixed crossing in a rural, island, or low-density corridor where travel distances are lengthy or typically interurban or intercity. These ferry services are usually the only choice in the market. In addition to being categorized by the market segments they serve, ferry services can be cat- egorized by whether they are publicly sponsored or private-sector initiatives. Publicly sponsored ferries are designed to meet a public purpose, while private-sector services focus on financial risk and reward. Public sponsorship usually results from a desire or expectation that ferry services will result in a publicly desired end. For example, better access to a location can increase property values, result in faster travel times, and create economic activity. These are benefits that can accrue when using ferry services as a means to achieving a public objective. If the public sector is already engaged in providing metropolitan or urban access and mobility, ferry services can be consid- ered as another tool to increase the economic competitiveness of the region. Private sponsorship is always based on return on investment (or profit). Ferries are capital- intensive enterprises, and investors need to understand the potential risks and rewards with investment in ferry services and a particular ferry route. Since investment capital can be placed almost anywhere, opportunity cost is an important concept for the ferry entrepreneur. In this research, it was found that private sponsors defined “return on investment” broadly. Examples 100 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

include corporate entities where ferry services share common fixed expenses with other corpo- rate businesses (such as marine yards or other maritime operations), as well as real estate exam- ples, where ferry services provided access to give value to the land development. In all cases, the basic operating principles (and the criteria that accompany them) are the same whether the boat is carrying cars across an isolated river or carrying people into a crowded city center. Figure 7-1 illustrates the sequence in which various criteria should be considered when mak- ing a decision about the establishment of new ferry services. A common requirement for all ferry operators, whether public or private, is to consider permitting criteria. Following the consider- ation of permitting criteria, decisions must be made on the basis of criteria that vary with the type of sponsor (public or private), but include some crossover on publicly regulated services. As the decisionmaking process proceeds, the market (transit—urban/intercity or highway-oriented/ essential) determines the appropriate criteria, and, in the final step of the decisionmaking process, operational criteria are considered, and these are the same for all kinds of ferries. Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 101 Permitting Criteria Publicly Sponsored / Regulated Services Criteria Tr ansit Urban/Intercity Services Criteria Operational Criteria Privately Operated Services Criteria Hig hw ay -Oriented Essential Services Criteria If Privately Operated / Regulated Figure 7-1. Criteria flow chart.

Permitting Criteria The establishment of any transportation service, including ferry service, will eventually require that a governmental authority issue a permit either for operations (in a regulatory system), or for a land use action (finding that the transportation use is consistent with land use regulations and allowing construction of terminals), or for the use of public lands (such as tidelands, shore and port facilities, or sovereign lands of the state). To issue the permits required for ferry service, the responsible government agency will need to consider the impacts and the benefits of the pro- posed service. The case studies presented herein suggest that an agency should consider the following criteria when reviewing a terminal proposal: • Economic criteria – The proposed terminal and the range of ferry services proposed are consistent with the community’s vision for the area, as articulated in adopted land use plans. – The terminal and the service are consistent with a local, regional, or statewide transporta- tion plan and will assist in delivering the goals of that plan. – The terminal and the service are not consistent with the current land use plans or conflict with existing transportation policy, but will deliver a major economic benefit to the area that will create an overriding consideration of support. • Impact criteria – The terminal and service have greater net environmental benefits (i.e., fewer people driv- ing, lower emissions, fewer greenhouse gases, and/or better development patterns) than the no-build alternative. – The terminal is convenient to connecting transportation services (transit, rail, and high- way), ensuring seamless connections and reducing impacts on local roads and local transit services. – The terminal’s location actively increases the ferry service’s positive impacts (e.g., sustained ridership, easy access via transit or vehicles, non-environmentally sensitive area, and/or prime potential to include in joint development opportunities). Publicly Sponsored/Regulated Services Criteria A few jurisdictions regulate ferry services economically (the U.S. Virgin Islands and BC Fer- ries are two examples). However, in those areas that do regulate ferry services, the criteria are often the same as those governing expenditure of public funds. These criteria generally involve avoiding unnecessary and wasteful competition, maximizing use of the existing transportation infrastructure, and providing efficient and affordable services to the public. The following cri- teria should be considered in decisions concerning the establishment of publicly sponsored/ regulated ferry service: • Economic criteria – The proposed service will create additional and necessary capacity and access and will pro- mote economic development and assist in delivering adopted land use plans. – The proposed service will not result in diversion of users from parallel facilities or services that already exist and have adequate capacity. – The proposed service will provide additional emergency and disaster response capability. • Financial criteria (publicly sponsored services) – The combined capital and operating cost (life cycle) of ferry services does not exceed the cost of fixed facilities (i.e., bridges and rail links) and their public transit systems. – The proposed service can demonstrate sustained projected ridership levels that will not be impeded by other forms of transportation or transit services. • Equity criteria – Essential, lifeline ferry services are provided in remote and isolated communities to ensure access, provide economic stability, and sustain ridership. 102 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Privately Operated Services Criteria A private enterprise has one overriding consideration: to make a profit. There are several financial criteria that correspond to this requirement: • The ferry service makes a reasonable profit and return on investment that is competitive with other potential uses of investment funds. • The ferry service has a reasonable balance between the risks assumed in investing in and oper- ating the service and the net revenues received from the service. • The ferry service sets fares that guarantee a reasonable rate of return based upon seasonal rid- ership demands. Transit Urban/Intercity Services Criteria Urban/intercity ferry services, as illustrated in the case studies presented herein, are almost always subsidized, although the range of subsidies varies. In New York, for example, ferry facil- ities are paid for with public monies, but operating costs are not. In other areas, such as Seattle, operating costs are subsidized. The involvement of public funds in urban/intercity ferry services means that these services typically have to meet criteria regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and the environment such as the following: • Efficiency criteria – Ferry services reduce the need for additional fixed facilities. • Effectiveness criteria – The ferry services will be well used to the extent they represent significant additional capac- ity. A reasonable threshold would be 50 percent of the capacity of a freeway traffic lane (about 1,000 people per hour). – Ferry service is targeted to areas that have few or poor transit options. – Ferry service provides a time savings relative to other alternatives (it is faster due to con- gestion or faster due to a more direct travel route). – Ferry service will enable land uses that can create enough demand to use the vessel capacity efficiently. – Ferry vessel size and capacity is balanced with demand to achieve a high ratio of seat occu- pancy to seat capacity, avoiding fuel and labor waste. – Wherever possible, ferry terminals are simple structures that provide necessary amenities for riders. • Environmental criteria – The ferry system represents the best practices in vessel design and engine emissions and the per-passenger emissions are equal to or less than comparable transit systems. – The ferry system, on a life-cycle basis, including the capital elements, results in lower carbon emissions per passenger for a comparable trip on other modes. Highway-Oriented Essential Services Criteria Essential ferry services typically involve creating links in the highway network that permit vehicles to continue travel in the most direct manner to a community separated from others by a large body of water. Sponsors of highway-oriented ferry services should consider measuring existing and potential services against efficiency and effectiveness criteria such as the following: • Efficiency criteria – The ferry service will be sized correctly to the market; vessels will be large enough to meet the anticipated demand, but the average vehicle deck occupancy will not be less than 50 percent (aggregated). – Ferry services are less expensive to operate and capitalize on a per-vehicle basis than the construction of a bridge or other fixed link. – Services are adjusted to reflect seasonal ridership peaks and troughs in demand. Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 103

• Effectiveness criteria – The ferry services will use best practices to manage peak demand and increase off-peak use to ensure productive use of system investment. Operational Criteria The ferry case studies presented herein suggest several operational criteria for all types of ferry services: • Safety and security criteria – The ferry operator meets all regulatory requirements for safety, operations, and maintenance. – The ferry operator creates a “culture of safety” in the workplace. – The ferry operator adequately and comprehensively trains staff and licensed operators. – The ferry operator complies with all security provisions outlined by the Department of Homeland Security. – The ferry operator complies and participates in emergency disaster relief plans and drills wherever appropriate. • Reliability criteria – The ferry operator employs best practices to ensure reliable operations (e.g., preventative maintenance and adequate staffing). – The ferry operator employs practices to reduce delay caused by passengers or other exter- nal factors (e.g., adequate cut-off times, adequate scheduling of connecting transit services, timely delivery of provisions, and so forth). – The ferry operator develops contingency plans that consider the impacts of weather, impacts resulting from unavailable vessels, or impacts from high peaked passenger loads. • Efficiency criteria – The ferry operator uses best practices in crew scheduling to ensure productive and efficient work schedules. – The ferry operator uses competitive processes to procure fuel, equipment, and other provisions. – The ferry operator sets performance metrics to measure efficiency (e.g., operating cost per seat, change in operating cost, and so forth). • Effectiveness criteria – The ferry operator considers the most efficient use of vessels including operating vessels across different routes to achieve efficiencies. – Ferry terminals are selected to minimize the water passage but still ensure the most direct travel route for passengers. – The ferry operator (passenger ferry) uses terminal designs and operating practices that allow vessels to arrive, alight passengers, board new passengers, and depart within 5 minutes. – The ferry operator maximizes the number of passengers on each vessel trip by creating seamless transit and other intermodal connections. – The ferry operator (vehicle ferry) operates a reservation system to reduce peak congestion and use available capacity in the off-peak period. – The ferry operator uses pre-paid fares to reduce queuing and delays at terminals. – The ferry operator sets performance metrics to measure effectiveness (e.g., occupancy per seat, change in occupancy per seat, and so forth). – The ferry operator sets fares that are both competitive with other transit modes and ensure a reasonable farebox recovery rate (or profit) for the operator. • Environmental criteria – The ferry service operates with emissions no greater than generated on a competing mode, based on a comparable trip (i.e., a highway trip might be longer and result in additional vehicle miles traveled). – The ferry operator uses the best available engine technology to reduce emissions. 104 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

– 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 Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 105

106 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Criteria Public Systems Private Systems Quantitative Qualitative Economic & Financial Land Use Coordination Transportation Plan Consistency Overriding Considerations Delivers Desired Capacity 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 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 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 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 Measures Ferry Service Evaluation Criteria Matrix A ll Sy st em s Ur ba n Se rv ic es Es se nt ia l Se rv ic es O pe ra tio na l C rit er ia Table 7-2. Ferry service evaluation criteria matrix.

Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Developm ent 107 Example of Ferry Service Criteria Matrix Use To see how a ferry service criteria matrix might be used by decision- makers trying to assess the potential for service in their area, con- sider the following example scenario. Metro City is located in Metro Region, which is a region that has grown along a lakefront. Metro City, the region’s central business district, is on the mainland; Acme Point occupies a peninsula that extends into the lake. Acme Point is connected to Metro City via the Metro Bridge, a congested and unreliable link. Currently, buses and automobiles use the bridge. The highway/bridge route is 22 miles long, as it requires a long diversion because of the region’s geography. Acme Point Council members want to redevelop a centrally located parcel—a 40-acre former lumber mill—into a new, dense, mixed-use and residential development. The development site is located within 500 meters of the water and within 300 meters of the Acme Point town center. In discussions with the town’s development advisors, it has been strongly recommended that providing a reliable and fast transportation link to Metro City would assist in marketing the development site. As a result, Acme Point officials assessed several transportation improvement concepts, including a larger bridge, increased bus service, exclusive bus lanes, and direct ferry service. The direct ferry service to Metro City would operate as a publicly sponsored system. Council members were presented with the criteria matrix shown for the proposed improvements. 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 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 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 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 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 Marginal Unsatisfactory Not Applicable -R a t i n g s Ferry Service Evaluation Criteria Matrix - Acme Point to Metro City Measures A l l S y s t e m s U r b a n S e r v i c e s N O T A P P L I C A B L E - - P U B L I C L Y S P O N S O R E D S Y S T E M

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

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) Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 109 Table 7-3. Ferry fuel consumption (typical) vs. other modes. Vessel Type Speed Passenger Capacity Speed (mph) Hourly Fuel Consumption Miles per Gallon Passenger Miles per Gallon Monohull - Passenger and Auto < 25kn 1000 14.4 152 0.09 95 Monohull - Passenger Only < 25kn 300 18 25 216 < 25kn 400 14 30 0.72 0.47 187 Catamaran - Passenger Only > 25kn 400 28 0.14 57 > 25kn 300 39 0.28 84 > 25kn 300 34 0.27 82 > 25kn 199 30 197 140 125 100 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

• 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 110 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Table 7-4. Costs and benefits of various surface transportation modes vs. ferry for a hypothetical trip. Mode Route Distance Frequency (min/sec) Auto (w/Bus) 22 Auto (w/Ferry) 22 Bus (No Ferry) 22 1.5 min Ferry (No Bus) 12 Average Speed 45 45 35 30 One-Way Time (min) 29.3 29.3 37.7 24.0 Projected Ridership (peak hour) 3000 2000 2000 3000 Vehicle Capacity 1.5 1.5 50 350 ~1 sec ~2 sec 7.0 min Mode Equipment Required Capital Cost Per Peak- Hour Seat Hourly Operating Cost Annualized Operating Costs Per Seat (Peak Periods Only) Auto (w/Bus) 2,000 Auto (w/Ferry) 1,333 Bus (No Ferry) 50 $31,429 $100 $2.51 Ferry (No Bus) 7 Equipment Cost (Unit, $M) $0.5 $11 Useful Life (yr) 12 30 Equipment Cost (Total $M) $62.9 $75.4 Terminal Costs ($M) $0 $10 Total Capital Costs/30 yr $62.9 $85.4 $28,476 $1,250 Peak- Period Span 6 6 Weekday Peak Period Vehicle/ Vessel Hours 302 41 Total Weekday Annualized Operating Costs (Peak Periods Only/$M) $7,844,57 $13,371,42 $2.86 Inputs Operating CostsCapital Costs

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. Strategic Planning in Ferry Service Development 111

112 The research and case studies conducted for TCRP Project H-40 identified several major man- agement and operational concerns that are common to all ferry operators. These include recruit- ing, development, and retention of personnel; vessel technology; terminal design; energy and environmental impacts; land use and traffic and transit coordination issues; regulatory and safety requirements; maintenance requirements; and marketability. Recruiting, Development, and Retention of Personnel Ferry systems require operating, maintenance, and administrative personnel. Vessel opera- tion requires crews that include licensed as well as unlicensed personnel. Operational control of all ferries resides with the Master, a licensed officer. The Master must understand all aspects of vessel operation. Aside from the technical knowledge required to be the Master (i.e., fire prevention, basic first aid, safety, and so forth), the Master is the manager on the vessel and needs to engage in management best practices, including planning work assign- ments and activities, organizing the work flow, and controlling and assessing the actual work performed. This requires good communication with the operational staff. Operational activities require ongoing training and development and are challenging even under normal conditions. When the employees are entrusted by top management to safely navigate assets worth tens of millions of dollars large distances, then personnel development is critical. The case studies conducted for TCRP Project H-40 indicate that most systems prefer to recruit and develop vessel crew members at the entry level and develop their skills onboard; in contrast, systems tend to recruit for mechanical and administrative positions at all levels on the open mar- ket. The onboard crew members are often recruited from high schools and community colleges or are hired after working in the local fishing fleet. Most crew members start as deckhands and eventually work their way into either a captain position or into management and administra- tion. Public policy has created rigorous new standards for personnel in safety-related positions. Maritime crews must submit to drug testing as well as security clearances as part of their initial and ongoing job requirements. Continual training and education is a best practice identified in the case studies conducted for TCRP Project H-40, along with career counseling and encouraging staff to pursue opportunities for promotion. In addition, some ferry operations, due to the seasonal nature of the business, have seasonal employees with the same status as full-time staff, even though they do not work in the winter months. Fast ferries require additional employee training and supervision. Some fast-ferry operators use aircraft protocol (bridge crew only speak as required, bridge is restricted, and so forth) due S E C T I O N 8 Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 113 to the intensive nature of the operation. Overtakes, small-craft identification, and marine con- ditions all require highly skilled crews. As an example, bow-diving is a recently identified con- cern that occurs when high-speed craft overtake a wave and then dive after cresting the wave. As a response to this concern, additional employee training has been suggested. Maintenance employees must be highly skilled, as vessel and engine technology continues to evolve into more challenging and complex systems. Some operators have found that mechanics with marine experience are highly valued due to their understanding of the implications of oper- ating machinery in marine environments. Vessel Technology Vessel technology is a critical factor in delivering reliable and competitive ferry service. In the selection of a vessel, issues of reliability, cost, and suitability must be balanced. A key concern is the relationship of a vessel’s speed to its power and the influence of hull form on the speed-power relationship. In general, when length and displacement and hull form are constant, the required power increases rapidly with speed at a point called the “hump speed” (Working Group 41 of the Maritime Navigation Commission, 2003). One study provides an example in which a “70 ft. planing hull, driven at 50 knots, will require nearly 44 times the horse- power that the displacement hull requires at 10 knots even though the speed was increased by a factor of 5” (Savitsky 2003, p. 8). These large increases in the power-to-speed ratio can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by selecting proper hull forms. Hull forms, in general, fall into three preferred categories—mono- hull, multi-hull, and air-cushioned vessels. The preferred hull form for a vessel operating in a particular service depends on the operating conditions. Vessel Type Multi-hulls (especially catamarans), monohulls, and air-cushioned vessels all have their appropriate niche in the universe of ferry applications (Ad Hoc Ferry Transit Environmental Impact Panel, 2000; van Renen van Niekerk, 2000). Although catamarans have been used for centuries, they have become popular in the last 30 years as catamaran designers (mostly in Australia) have perfected catamaran design. Catamarans offer a more stable platform than the monohull, good maneuverability (resulting from propul- sion from two separate hulls), a wide platform that increases passenger comfort and reduces fric- tion with the water (resulting in higher speeds), and less draft and good wake/wash characteris- tics. Catamarans are used as small, fast boats in San Francisco and New York (for example, New York Waterways) and a catamaran will be used as a new vessel in Puget Sound in metropolitan Seattle. Larger catamarans provide high-speed service in New York and the San Francisco Bay Area (Larkspur and Vallejo routes). Figure 8-1 shows an example of a catamaran. Monohulls tend to cost less to operate than other vessel types, are less costly to build, and are the most common ferry vessel built. Large passenger and vehicle ferries are often monohulls, such as the Long Island-to-Connecticut car ferries and the Staten Island ferry. See Figures 8-2 and 8-3 for examples of monohull vessels. Hovercraft are specialty vessels that use an air cushion to ride above the water. They are used by the Canadian Coast Guard for search-and-rescue operations, while they provide pas- senger operation between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight in the UK. In areas of low water depth, hovercraft allow for shore access without dredging and can reach very high speeds

(above 45 mph). Hovercraft have a lower payload-to-power ratio than either monohulls or catamarans. There are other hull forms available and some are in commercial use (such as hydrofoils, sur- face effect ships, and so forth) but these multi-hulls, monohulls and air-cushioned vessels offer the most appropriate range of hull form options for ferry operators. Off-the-Shelf Designs The most successful ferry applications over the last 20 years have used proven, “off-the-shelf” ferry designs. These applications include the New York Harbor passenger-only ferries, new fer- ries in the San Francisco Bay Area, and passenger ferries to the islands of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Even in cases where ferries are custom-built (which is common for vehicle ferries such as those used by the North Carolina and Washington State systems), components (engines, systems, and so forth) are proven, off-the-shelf, equipment. 114 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Figure 8-1. Passenger-only catamaran. Figure 8-2. Monohull vessel.

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 115 Size and Stability A critical factor in ferry service is using a vessel that meets passenger demand, but is not too large. Vessels that are too large will incur unnecessary financial costs and will waste fuel. Vessels that are too small may result in denials of service to waiting passengers. Smaller vessels may also be uncomfortable for passengers due to inadequate space and/or inadequate ride quality. There are several methods to help operators balance capacity with demand and size vessels to ensure passenger acceptance. Sizing the vessel to achieve passenger comfort is a technical consideration and requires engi- neering analysis. For example, the Alaska Marine Highway System’s design for new vessels spec- ifies “it will have 99% schedule reliability in Sea State 4” (Value Management Strategies, Inc. 2009). Managing capacity is a difficult policy issue. Jurisdictions previously considered access an “entitlement,” and additional capacity was provided as demand increased (usually correspon- ding to and encouraging economic development). As funding decreased and costs increased, several jurisdictions now are taking a more “market-based” approach to transportation capac- ity. For highway-oriented ferry services, reservations are now a standard practice. This allows the ferry operator to spread out demand throughout the day and make better use of facilities and vessels. Some systems use peak-period pricing to further discourage travel during the peak times (and also to recoup the marginal cost of providing additional—and expensive—service during that period). Best practices for managing highway-oriented ferry capacity include the following: • Establishing Level-of-Service standards (as is currently done in Washington State). • Providing reservations for most sailings. • Establishing peak-period fare/tariff surcharges. • Managing fleet assets to have a mix of vessel types and capacities, maintaining a small reserve fleet to deploy as needed. For urban ferry services, ferry demand is usually related to the overall corridor demand within the metropolitan system. Since metropolitan systems are usually subsidized, best practices for urban ferries would include the following: • Developing a service that has a competitive “per-trip per-seat” net cost to other modes. This approach allows ferries to charge a fare premium for a faster and more direct service. Figure 8-3. Passenger-only monohull vessel.

• Size boats to meet peak loads at service frequencies of 15 minutes for trips less than 15 min- utes and service frequencies of 30 minutes for trips of more than 15 minutes. Services that follow these guidelines give passengers an average waiting time of about half the in-vehicle time; the guidelines also correspond to the de facto practice of New York Waterways in New York Harbor. Table 8-1 illustrates the tradeoffs that ferry operators make among speed, stability, size, and passenger acceptance. Every market is unique, but Table 8-1 presents a generic template for consideration. Terminal Design Passengers’ travel time is the duration from leaving the origin to arrival at the destination. Stud- ies indicate passengers value terminal and waiting time more than in-vehicle time (Evans et al., 2004, p. 9-8). Because the cost of speed on the water is high and is a continuing cost and because, to the passenger, the cost of terminal time is also high, ferry planning should minimize time spent in or at the terminal (both for vessels and for passengers) rather than try to maximize speed on the water. Minimizing passenger time at the terminal should be an important part of terminal design decisions. Ferry docks and terminals range from being simple waterside facilities with limited shelter and relatively small passenger flow volumes to being major terminals with multiple ferries receiving and discharging large numbers of passengers and vehicles. Design elements include docks, shelter, queuing areas, and fare collection. All of these elements should be designed to provide safety and reliability and to reduce time as much as possible. Since waterside locations are particularly exposed to the weather, protection from the climate can be an important factor in providing a good quality of travel. The effect of tides, changing river levels, and waves must be adequately addressed and poses unique challenges for passenger access, especially where extreme height changes are experienced, potentially requiring long or steep ramps to reach the vessel. Docks and Loading Facilities Docking configurations largely depend upon the vessel and the design parameters for capac- ity and overall travel time. Since there are no standard designs for ferry terminals (as there are standard highway designs), great care must be taken to configure terminals to work for the ferry system and the ferry vessels. 116 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Table 8-1. Size and stability worksheet. Desired Characteristics Safety Stable Ride Large Small <25k >25k >35k Capital Cost O&M Cost Passenger Acceptance Vessel 1 Vessel 2 Vessel 3 Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Passenger Capacity Speed Cost

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 117 Automobile ferries are typically end loaded and hence have dock facilities that accommodate this process. Departing vehicles are stored at the landside or dockside vehicle staging areas. A critical aspect of an automobile ferry facility is its ability to accommodate vehicle loading and unloading (see a vehicle unloading operation in Figure 8-4). The process of vehicle loading and unloading is time consuming and hence requires adequate access facilities and circulation pro- visions at the terminal. One of the key facilities in this process is the vehicle staging lot. This area allows for the storage of queuing vehicles and a smooth transition between embarking and dis- embarking vehicle movements. The staging areas can be located dockside or landside. Because vehicle ferries operate on a time-based schedule with long headways, passenger vehi- cles often arrive early to enter the boarding queue. For ferry routes without reservation systems, early arrival to the ferry terminal is important for ensuring a space on the next ferry. To ensure on-time departures, the process of staging vehicles for loading can be as important as the actual loading and unloading of the vehicles. Popular ferry routes generate large numbers of passenger vehicles queuing in the holding lanes for the next ferry. Oversold routes can lead to backups in the holding lanes that extend beyond the toll plaza. Because terminals are often located next to major highways or arterials, the queues can create congestion on surface streets and increase chances for roadway delays or incidents (Value Management Strategies, Inc., 2009). Passenger loading areas for automobile ferries are generally located on a floating platform or stable approach (e.g., facilities supported by pilings). The passenger loading area also includes the gangway (between the vessel and the loading platform) and walkway facilities (between the shore and the loading platform) that accommodate loading and unloading. For many years, conventional passenger-only ferry design used side loading. Side loading can use either parallel or linear berthing facilities. The most typical dock design has parallel berths, such as those found at Sydney’s Circular Quay. Some dock facilities may have a variety of berthing arrangements to facilitate a range of vessel types. See Figure 8-5 for an example of a side- loading design. Figure 8-4. Vehicle unloading.

In recent years, bow-loading designs have gained favor. New York Waterways, New York Water Taxi, and the Staten Island Ferry use bow loading. Bow loading offers the advantage of faster mooring and loading as ves- sels can maneuver into the dock and “push” against it without tying up. This reduces docking time. Another bow-loading advantage is the wide ramp that allows sev- eral streams of passengers into (or out of) the vessel at one time. This speeds boarding and decreases terminal time. See Figure 8-6 for an example of a bow-loading design. Interface between the Dock and the Vessel There are a number of safety concerns at the dock platform (Kettleson & Associates, Inc., et al., 2003): • Height difference between the stable approach and the water. The stable approach to a passenger boarding facility is typically high enough above average water level to prevent submergence in all but the most extreme conditions. The height of the stable approach can range from several feet to over 20 feet (1 meter to over 6 meters) and is based on historical data. • Water level changes. All waterfront facilities experi- ence changes in the height of the water relative to the stable approach. Coastal facilities undergo tidal cycles, with normal ranges from little more than 1 foot to over 20 feet. Non-tidal (inland) facilities expe- rience water level changes less frequently, as the result of rain, snowmelt, dam releases, and so forth, which tend to occur in predictable patterns. However, the changes can sometimes be more severe, with ranges 118 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Figure 8-5. Side-loading vessel. Passenger Loading Examples Brisbane (Australia) CityCat: Loading occurs from floating platforms (some covered, some not) approxi- mately 110 ft2 (10 m2) in area. Passengers first disem- bark from a single manual gangway that is 3 feet (1 meter) wide. When all arriving passengers have disembarked, departing passengers may then embark. Fares are collected by an onboard cashier (for those paying cash) and an onboard ticket-validating machine (for those holding multiple-ride tickets and passes). Sydney (Australia) Ferries: Passenger loading at Circu- lar Quay occurs from a large, covered floating plat- form, which blends seamlessly with the terminal. Passengers pay their fares prior to entering the plat- form area. The facility design allows passengers to disembark using the upper-deck gangway, while other passengers simultaneously embark on the lower-deck gangway. The disembarking movement is connected to a fenced walkway that leads directly into the terminal. Golden Gate Ferries (San Francisco): Passenger load- ing occurs from a covered, fare-paid area. Passenger loading occurs via one (monohull vessel) or two (catamaran) wide gangways. The latter configura- tion can serve hundreds of peak-direction passengers in minutes.

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 119 Figure 8-6. Bow loading/unloading. in excess of 20 feet (6 meters). Extreme weather conditions increase the range of changes in water level at all facilities. • Height difference between passenger loading platform and the vessel. When a loading platform (dock) is in the pathway between the stable approach and the vessel, the freeboard difference between the dock and the vessel is an access barrier. Because freeboards of docks and vessels vary greatly, there will be widely varied and unique height differences for dock- vessel combinations. This height difference may also vary for a particular dock-vessel pair, depending on loading and weather conditions. Safety features to accommodate these conditions should include the following: • Guardrails. Guardrails are critical to ensuring passenger safety because of the inherent dangers of accidentally leaving the path of travel at a marine facility. • Edge treatments and detectable warnings. Tactile edge treatments and detectable warnings for the sight-impaired are important in ensuring passenger safety. • Changes in slopes, heights, materials, and so forth. The path of travel from land to vessel is likely to have frequent changes, particularly slopes. Changes in the height of the loading platform rel- ative to the shore or the vessel due to tides or fluctuations in lake and river level will need to be accounted for. Attention must be paid to the slope of the ramp for passengers with disabilities. • Non-slip surfaces. Most areas at a marine facility will periodically get wet or damp from water spray. The wide use and application of non-slip surfaces is important for passenger safety. • Passenger rescue equipment. Passenger rescue equipment should be easily accessible in the event that a person falls into the water and requires immediate rescue. Shelters, Waiting Areas, and Seating Shelters provide protection from rain, wind, and sun. The design of shelters is influenced both by local climate and the desired level of amenity. For example, in colder, windier climates, shel- ters may include enclosing walls, whereas in milder climates shelters may have only partial walls to act as a wind break. Ferry terminal design must take into account any special concerns related to proximity to waterfronts. For example, extremely cold temperatures can contribute to icing conditions that can prove dangerous to pedestrians and vehicles. In ferry terminals, as in other transportation facilities, the provision of waiting areas, rest- rooms, vending machines, concessions, and other passenger amenities is related to the frequency

of service and the expected length of wait. There has been little research on the appropriate level of seating required, but, in general, passengers appear to desire some seating and that desire increases as wait time increases. In terminals where the average wait is less than 10 min- utes, bench-type seating close to the boarding areas may be appropriate, along with leaning bars. Larger, more formal waiting rooms may be appropriate in terminals with service frequen- cies requiring average wait times longer than 10 minutes. In all cases, seating is particularly useful for the older people. Waiting rooms for longer waits can include telephones and vend- ing machines and may provide a climate-controlled area in which passengers can use those facilities. When designing seating and determining the desired number of seats, it should be recognized that closely spaced seats may not be used, even though additional people may wish to sit, due to some people’s discomfort with sitting close to people they don’t know. Another issue is partial occupancy of a seat by a person sitting in the next seat. Fare Collection, Barriers, Gates, and Turnstiles Fare collection influences all aspects of terminal operation. How fares are collected determines the speed of terminal operations, the speed of passenger boarding, and the design of the termi- nal facilities. There are three types of fare collection/terminal design (Multisystems, Inc., et al., 2003): • Pay as you enter. This is the traditional fare collection system used in most North American transit systems. In this system, passengers give a ticket to an employee while boarding the vessel. The advantages of this system include simple operations and simple terminal design; for example, payment can be in cash, eliminating the need for a ticket office or ticket vend- ing machines. Additional advantages include the default inspection of passengers as they board (since they are surrendering their ticket). The disadvantages include delays to sailings as passenger fares are collected while the vessel is at dock (when it could have been already in motion). • Barrier system. This is a common system for subways and many ferry operations. Fares are collected at a designated point inside the terminal and away from the vessel. Fare control bar- riers, gates, and turnstiles are typically used to control access into the “paid area” and ensure revenue control. The advantages of this system include very fast passenger boarding on the vessel (since the fare control queuing occurs outside the boarding apron), good revenue con- trol through a barrier system, and control of passenger capacity (since the gates can count pas- sengers per sailing and lock when the limit is reached). Downsides include high capital cost for equipment and a reduction in passenger flow at the terminals. • Proof of payment. In this system, either the terminal or the vessel becomes a “paid area” and the passenger is required to possess a valid ticket or pass on the vessel and is subject to random inspection by roving ticket inspectors (or the vessel crew at random times). If the passenger does not have a valid fare, the inspector issues a citation (depending on the state law, it can be either a civil violation or a criminal infraction). The advantages of this approach are that it combines the vessel boarding efficiency of the barrier system with the low-cost approach of the pay-as-you-enter systems. The disadvantages are less control over the number of passengers entering the vessels, and the costs of inspection (especially within the terminal, where the maritime crew cannot do the inspections). Fines for fare evasions usually do not compensate for the cost of inspection where a dedicated inspection force is needed. Research indicates that in high-volume transportation systems that experience crowding, a barrier system is usually more efficient because the cost per “inspected” passenger 120 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 121 is less (the capital costs of fare gates are spread over a higher volume, resulting in lower over- all costs). In the barrier and proof-of-payment systems, ticket dispensing is required, and, even in pay- as-you-enter systems, it is preferred. At a terminal, waiting passengers can pay their fares at ticket machines or pay booths or to ticket collectors. At an automobile ferry, passengers can pay their tariffs at a toll booth or in the staging area. At larger terminals, several ticket machines are typi- cally provided to handle peak passenger demand for tickets. In all terminals, turnstiles are preferred (as in Vancouver) to ensure that accurate passenger counts are performed for the crew’s reporting requirements. Staffed ticket booths are used at more heavily traveled terminals or at major intermodal connections. Passengers can purchase tickets in several ways, including at ticket vending machines and staffed ticket booths, onboard the vessel, or online in the form of multiple tickets or annual passes. Transit and ferry systems are increasingly using either electronic fare media or web-based ticketing (usually combined with reservations). Fare purchase methods are set by the individual operator according to what best fits the operation. Operators that are integrated with a transit agency or part of a regional coor- dination effort may offer universal fare cards such as Seattle’s ORCA card or the San Francisco Bay Area Clipper card (Multisystems, Inc., et al., 2002). Figures 8-7 and 8-8 show two kinds of fare collection systems. Access Requirements for Persons with Disabilities U.S. Ferries have generally not been subject to overall guidance on access for persons with dis- abilities, although some jurisdictions have instituted local design practices and formal federal guidance is expected soon. As with any commercial activity, reasonable accommodations must be made for persons with disabilities. In some locations, gangways are designed for maximum slope with flat, rest areas at designated intervals. In tidal areas, there can be conflicts between designs that accommodate persons with disabilities and regulatory policies that limit overwater coverage. Coverage (and cost) can be reduced through more flexible design criteria, such as “gangway slopes will not exceed [stated objective] 97 percent of the time.” This prevents minus tides and other infrequent events from dictating overdesign. On vessels, width requirements for various areas should take into account access for persons with disabilities, and concession area design should also provide access for persons with disabilities. Figure 8-7. Ticket gate.

122 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Figure 8-8. Smart card unit. Vancouver SeaBus Vancouver’s SeaBus service is a uniquely designed maritime link between sub- urban North Vancouver and the Vancouver central business district. SeaBus pas- senger ferry service is operated by two double-ended catamaran ferries, seating up to 400 passengers at a time. The trip from downtown Vancouver to the North Shore is just 12 minutes across Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet. There are two terminals: Waterfront in downtown Vancouver and Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver. The system is unique for its seamless, intermodal terminal design that quickly moves passengers through the facility. Floats are located on both sides of the ves- sel, forming a ferry “slip.” Passengers are unloaded from one side and loaded on the opposite side. Entering passengers fares are not collected; the system uses a proof-of-payment system. The passengers do, however, enter through turnstiles whose function is to count passengers. When the maximum number is reached, the turnstiles lock and stop any additional passengers from boarding. Transit police perform random fare inspections, and violators are subject to a $173 fine. This system allows the 400-passenger vessels to be loaded and unloaded within 90 seconds. Service is provided every 15 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays and every 30 minutes at night and on Sundays. In downtown Vancouver, the SeaBus service connects with the SkyTrain rapid transit system and also the regional commuter rail service. In North Vancouver, the ferry terminal provides transfers to 10 bus routes located on 10 bus berths adjacent to ferry terminal. SeaBus employs about 75 people, including marine attendants, deck officers, engineers, coordinators, and office staff.

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 123 Energy and Environmental Impacts Boats use more energy to travel than land vehicles, especially at speeds above 25 knots. However, ferry systems can offer environmental tradeoffs that offset their operational energy consumption. Fuel Use As fuel prices have increased and carbon emissions have become an important public policy concern, the fuel use of ferries has become increasingly important. As an example, a fast ferry (which travels at speeds above 25 knots) can use about 200 gallons of fuel per hour. This level of fuel use represents almost half the hourly operational cost of the ferry service. Several ferry oper- ators have retrofitted their engines to more efficient models. This retrofitting either increases power or decreases fuel consumption. It is important for ferry operators to choose the right size ferry to make the most efficient use of fuel since fuel represents such a large part of ferry operat- ing costs. When comparing potential transportation investments, the embedded energy cost of, for example, a new bridge or a rail system, should be considered against the ferry’s operational fuel consumption. Environmental Impacts Impacts on the environment are closely related to emissions and to impacts on shorelines and marine life. As the case studies conducted for this research indicate, it is appropriate and benefi- cial for proposers of ferry service to assess these impacts comprehensively and transparently. The impacts on marine life can be identified in an environmental study and mitigations proposed, and improvements in hull design and operational protocols can mitigate wake/wash impacts. Reducing fuel use can reduce costs, and reducing fuel use through improved engines, better hull designs, and thoughtful routings also benefits the environment. In the analysis of ferry oper- ation, tradeoffs are constantly being made among speed, power, fuel consumption, and emis- sions. Tradeoffs can also be made within emissions; for example, reducing NOx can require heavy catalytic converters that add weight, which results in more fuel consumption, which results in more carbon dioxide emissions. Noise can be an important consideration in urban areas, again requiring more thoughtful design. A thorough analysis can provide decisionmakers with empir- ical information to use in making tradeoffs. When compared to other alternatives in a corridor analysis, ferries may provide a net benefit in emissions. In many metropolitan areas, bridges and tunnels are at capacity in the peak travel period, but not outside the peak period. Building a new fixed crossing involves huge impacts and cost simply to solve a 4- or 5-hour congestion problem. In such a case, a ferry could be a better option as it could result in fewer impacts (just the embedded energy cost of a new crossing can easily exceed the operation energy cost of a ferry operation for many generations). Land Use and Traffic and Transit Coordination Issues Like all other transportation services and facilities, ferries play an important role in providing access to land use and increasing the value of land. Societies balance economic development against environmental protection; transportation facilities and activities support both goals. Ferries can be a preferred transportation service that operates from an area that has travel pat- terns that are direct for ferries but indirect for landside travel. Ferries can also be located in an urban redevelopment zone where the local jurisdiction is developing dense, walkable commu-

nities, and where services from other areas can “feed” the ferry system. Research suggests that in these transit-oriented areas, vehicle miles travelled could decline by 5 to 25 percent (Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, 2009). This land use pattern fits in many urban areas—examples include decommissioned military bases, old waterfront industrial areas, and vacated waterfront freight transportation facilities (such as antiquated docks and rail yards). The New Jersey–Hudson waterfront fits this descrip- tion in many ways, and ferry operation has benefitted economic development in these areas. Fig- ure 8-9 shows the San Francisco Ferry Building, an example of transit-oriented development. Ferries located in urban locales are often part of a larger public transportation network. Ferry terminals, given their necessary location at piers or docks at the edge of urban centers, often rely on land-based transit to convey passengers to their final destination. Conversely, in con- gested urban transportation systems, such as those in New York City and San Francisco, ferries can help deliver more workers into the center city than would be possible over the existing con- gested network. Ferries can represent additional, incremental capacity at an incremental, rather than system, cost. As with other transportation terminals, adjacent property owners, neighbors, and government officials often are concerned about the impacts of automobile traffic generated by a ferry termi- nal. Research suggests a multipronged approach to mitigating these potential problems (Recon- necting America Center for Transit-Oriented Development, 2007). To begin with, the ferry 124 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Figure 8-9. San Francisco Ferry Building—example of transit-oriented development.

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 125 terminal should be in a dense, mixed-use location that allows many of the ferry passengers to simply walk to the ferry ter- minal. By design, mixed-use, dense neighborhoods create internal walking trips rather than the external automobile trips often generated in traditional suburban neighbor- hoods. Also, passengers that access the ferry from more dis- tant neighborhoods should be encouraged to use transit rather than driving. Developing timed transfers from ferries to landside tran- sit is a critical component for ferry commuters. Timed transfers reduce overall travel commute times and increase the perception of reliability, thereby building commuter confidence in the overall transit network. Ferries often oper- ate on longer headways than rail transit or bus services, so being able to time a trip is a benefit for ferry commuters or any ferry passenger. New York offers a good example of a well-designed bus and rail feeder system that provides both route and tempo- ral coordination. Ferries serve as feeders to the rail system, and the rail and bus systems feed the ferries. New York Waterway, at the Hoboken commuter rail terminal, pro- vides the “last mile” link to several locations in Manhattan. The ferry schedule is designed to provide minimal waits for arriving and departing rail passengers; ferry schedules are even listed on the rail schedules as identified connections. In addition, in Manhattan, a dedicated bus fleet provides free timed and coordinated distribution for ferry passengers. As a result, the system is coordinated geographically, temporally and by fare, creating a seamless experience for passengers. In Seattle, the ORCA Card, a regional smart card, offers the Puget Pass, which combines a bus pass with a ferry monthly pass, eliminating different fare media. Regulatory and Safety Requirements The U.S. federal government and numerous states have released new laws in recent years that directly and indirectly affect the ferry industry in the United States. Many of the regulations are still being written or refined. As a result, operators may not be clear on actual intent as they attempt to conform to those regulations. As regulations continue to shift, it is important that all operators of ferry services in the United States, public and private, large and small, keep abreast of the changes they will be required to make once laws take effect. Operators should be aware that issues pertaining to ferries can be contained within U.S. state and federal air quality regulations, U.S. Coast Guard regulations, security requirements, landing rights and insurance. State and Federal Air Quality Regulations In the United States, EPA has addressed small marine emissions through changes in the fuel mix and improvements in the engines. EPA now requires that marine diesel fuel have a 99-percent reduction in sulfur content compared to 2004. In March 2008, EPA finalized a three-part pro- gram to reduce particulate matter emissions from marine diesel engines by about 90 percent and New York Guidelines for Urban Ferry Services The New York metropolitan area is transit rich, with high ridership and many transit options. In the past 25 years, ferries have, mainly through trial and error, evolved into a unique market niche in the New York metropolitan area. Public agencies in the area are developing a documented paradigm for New York Harbor Ferries. Within this paradigm, ferries are a transit service • For areas that have few or poor transit options. • That is supplemental to overburdened parallel systems. • That may require modest public subsidies not exceeding other transit modes. • That provides a time savings relative to other alternatives. • That serves land uses that can create enough demand to use the vessels efficiently. • Available for emergency response. When agencies or private operators consider start- ing urban ferry services, it would be appropriate to consider these factors as part of due diligence.

NOx emissions by almost 80 percent when fully implemented. These new engine standards will be gradually implemented over the next decade. State and federal water quality regulations are also now applied to ferry operations in the United States. For many years, EPA did not regulate discharges from ships under the Clean Water Act. But federal courts have ordered EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act, primarily due to ballast water resulting in the introduction of invasive species such as zebra mussels and the round goby in the Great Lakes and other U.S. waterways. As a result, some ferry discharge oper- ations have come under EPA review (the most current case involves coal waste discharge from the S.S. Badger in Lake Michigan). U.S. Coast Guard Regulations U.S. Coast Guard approval is always required for the operation of for-hire passenger vessels. Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulatory requirements applicable to the design, construction, and operation of ferries operating in U.S. waters. Smaller ferries (less than 150 passengers) are regulated under Subchapter T and have less stringent security and safety requirements. Larger ferries are regulated in Subchapter K. The High-Speed Craft (HSC) Code was adopted in 1994 by the International Maritime Organization to provide regulations for high- speed (low-displacement) craft. The U.S. Coast Guard accepts compliance with the HSC Code as equivalent to compliance with the regulations in Subchapter K of Title 46 CFR. The HSC safety philosophy is based on the management and reduction of risks while recognizing that additional hazards exist for high-speed craft compared with a conventional ship. Whichever code or regulation is used, ferries are required to be periodically inspected, to oper- ate within the terms contained in a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection, and to be in the charge of a person possessing a license as Master, with gross tonnage restrictions dependent on the type of vessel. The Coast Guard inspects vessels to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Certificates of Inspection are issued to inspect vessels once they are deemed to be in compliance with appli- cable regulations. Prior to an initial inspection, the Coast Guard reviews vessel plans that include the following: • Midship section • Arrangement of decks • Outboard profile • Inboard profile • Machinery installation • Electrical installation • Fuel tanks • Piping systems • Hull penetrations operation and shell connections • Marine sanitation device installation • Steering system diagram U.S. federal law also requires that a commercial ferry must be documented, unless it is used solely within the U.S. Virgin Islands. Vessel documentation is a national form of registration. Documentation requires the demonstration of ownership of the vessel, U.S. citizenship (indi- vidual, corporate, or other entity), and evidence that the vessel was built in the United States. Security Requirements In the United States, the Coast Guard and TSA both regulate security on ferries. 126 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 127 The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that vessels in U.S. waters comply with maritime security standards and with reviewing and ensuring compliance with security plans and stan- dards. The TSA, in addition to issuing TWIC identification, coordinates with the Coast Guard on training and other operations. In addition, local and state law enforcement agencies provide landside support and enforcement as necessary. The owners and operators of ferries are responsible for ensuring their security by conducting vulnerability assessments and implementing security plans as required by the Coast Guard. Oper- ators may reduce the risk of security breaches by securing wheelhouses; having local law enforce- ment officers onboard on some trips; and sometimes screening passengers, vehicles, or packages boarding the vessel. Coast Guard guidance is to enact measures that protect passengers without unduly compromising service to the community (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010). TCRP Report 86: Public Transportation Security—Volume 11: Security Measures for Ferry Sys- tems includes a detailed list of general security measures (GSMs) and five sets of evaluation crite- ria weighted by the user that are accessible in a seven-step spreadsheet tool (Science Applications International Corporation, 2006). Security regulations instituted by the Coast Guard require ferry operators to address six spe- cific security measures to maintain an appropriate level of security (Science Applications Inter- national Corporation, 2006): • Access control. Prevent unauthorized entries and devices from being introduced that would damage or injure people or property. • Restricted areas. Prevent and deter unauthorized persons from accessing sensitive areas of the ferry system. • Cargo handling. Ensure the safety and security of cargo. • Delivery of vessel stores and bunkers. Deter people from tampering with, contaminating, and using vessel stores and bunkers to injure people or damage property. • Monitoring. Continuously monitor the fleet and facilities within the ferry system. • Security incident procedures. Develop an emergency response plan that is coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies. In addition to the 6 security measures, TCRP Report 86, Volume 11, identifies 11 security loca- tions within ferry systems that define area specific threats. Landing Rights In the United States, many states and most local jurisdictions require ferry operators to obtain permission (either through a lease or permit) to access landing locations and other property that are commonly sovereign lands of the state. Requirements vary on landing rights. Insurance Many states, even though they do not regulate ferry services economically, do require that operators carry a minimum level of insurance. This insurance coverage includes public liability, garageman, and other risk management and liability tools. In addition, federal law mandates maritime worker coverage for work-related injuries. Maintenance Requirements Daily and long-term maintenance is a major consideration for all ferry operators and factors into decisions on operating and capital budgets, vessel replacement schedules, and staff levels.

Large operators can afford to manage in-house maintenance facilities and staff while smaller operators often contract services out to dedicated docks or companies. All operators consider a number of issues related to maintenance to determine the arrangement that fits best with the size of the operation and its budget. These issues include the following: • Retaining in-house maintenance staff or contracting to an external company • Determining the types of maintenance that can be completed in-house versus contracting to an external company • Determining daily cleaning requirements • Handling environmental concerns (i.e., gray water/bilge water/wastewater disposal) • Handling engine re-hauling/dry docking • Handling emergency repairs • If managing an in-house maintenance facility, identifying the optimal location for the facility given the service’s terminals and docks Determining the optimal maintenance arrangement for an operator is often influenced by how the service is provided. Smaller operators may contract for many services, and daily main- tenance such as cleaning and other necessary repairs may be covered within the contract. Other operators may use internal maintenance staff for all maintenance needs. Larger operators typi- cally use this maintenance approach. In addition, Coast Guard regulations require that the vessel be inspected annually, and every 5 years ferry hull inspections (where the vessel is either dry docked or the hull is inspected by divers in the water) are required. Marketability FTA and TRB have conducted extensive research on passenger behavior and transit best prac- tices to encourage ridership. Most of these transit best practices are applicable to ferry passen- gers (Diaz et al., 2004). Reliability Ferry operators, like their land-based counterparts, consider reliability to be of paramount importance to the marketability of a service. Following best practices regarding choosing the appropriate vessel, using off-the-shelf designs, and then maintaining and operating service well will contribute to delivering a reliable service. Service Frequency Frequency of service and “clock” headway service (where the service leaves at the same time every hour throughout the day) are best practices for ferry operators, as for all transit providers. For an urban service, service that is frequent enough to allow random and unscheduled system entry by passengers makes the service more marketable. Likewise, scheduled service that oper- ates on easy-to-remember clock headways (such as 10 minutes and 40 minutes after the hour and so forth) becomes familiar and seems friendlier to the user. Longer spans of service (hours of operation through the day) also encourage ridership. Passenger Information Because delays are inevitable, it is important to passengers to have real-time information (it is also helpful for transit systems, especially when the information shows that schedule adher- 128 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Issues in Ferry Service Management and Operation 129 ence is the norm, and encourages patronage). Internet and mobile-phone-based applications are effective in not only providing basic information (e.g., on schedules and fares) but also in broadcasting delays, schedule changes, and other breaking news. See Figure 8-10 for an example of in-terminal real-time information. Branding Ferries, and all transit systems, benefit from distinctive branding that defines the service relative to other transportation options. The ferry-operator best practice is to use branding to reinforce a positive and attractive identity that motivates potential customers and makes it easier for them to use the service. Figure 8-10. Real-time information.

130 Ferry services are highly capital intensive and operate with small margins between revenue and cost. As a result, the relationship between ferry service strategic plans and business plans is important. Additionally, the strategic plan for a ferry operation can actually be a part of the over- all transportation strategy for a region or a state, or it can be part of an overall corporate strat- egy involving multiple businesses. Strategic Plan In general, strategic planning identifies the values and mission of an organization and broadly outlines what needs to be done to achieve the organization’s mission. A strategic plan includes the following: • A critical assessment of the organization’s performance. • The context of where the business operates. • The organization’s vision and its mission. • The organization’s values. • Obstacles to reaching the vision. • Strategic, long-term goals and directions. Within a metropolitan area, this strategic analysis may be performed at the regional or state level. On the other hand, a private operator may engage in a strategic plan for its entire line of businesses (for example, a ferry operator that also develops or manages property or a general maritime com- pany that also operates ferries). The focus of a strategic plan is usually on the entire organization, while the focus of a business plan is usually on a particular product, service, or program. In the public sector, the strategic plan of a ferry operation is tied to its place in the overall trans- portation strategy of the area. This may be an explicit or an implicit relationship. For example, in a metropolitan area where ferries are identified specifically as a means to relieve overcrowding at a fixed crossing, that reference becomes the ferry strategic plan. In an area that simply acknowl- edges vehicle ferries in the highway network, the strategy is implicit (Rice, accessed December 3, 2010). A metropolitan plan may identify access as an important outcome and inventory the exist- ing system’s ability to deliver that outcome. If the system is deficient, then a strategic plan could identify ferries as a means to deliver the additional increment of access. The strategic plan could also identify, at a policy level, the resources necessary for implementation. The business plan then becomes the tactical document that is used to deliver this element of the overall strategy. In the private sector, corporations also employ strategic plans for their entire suite of busi- nesses, with the end result of delivering a profit to their shareholders. A business plan focuses on each individual business entity. S E C T I O N 9 Strategic Plan/Business Plan

Strategic Plan/Business Plan 131 Business Plan An effective business plan identifies the product provided and the resources necessary to pro- duce and deliver the product and provides a plan to use the resources efficiently to produce and deliver the product. In the business plan of a transportation organization, the following are necessary components (U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business Training Network, accessed December 3, 2010): • Business description and vision • Definition of the market • Description of products and services • Organization and management • Marketing and sales • Financial management If the ferry operation, or even a ferry system, is considered one product of a broader busi- ness, whether that be a private corporation’s suite of businesses or a government’s overall transportation strategy, the ferry “product” needs a specific business plan. Business Description and Vision The business description and vision summarize what the ferry operation is, who will run it, and how it will be operated. This component of the business plan references the mission statement and vision identified in the strategic plan and then identifies the near-term goals for the ferry product. As an example, a ferry operation in an urban area could be described as follows: Acme Ferry Service provides direct ferry service from Acme Point to Metro City to fulfill Metro Region’s Vision to connect the central business district directly to all communities of more than 25,000 residents. We work closely with Acme Point city officials to develop and operate a service to meet resident needs and support the city’s development and transportation objectives. Our goals include operating ferry services at frequencies that compete with other modes and travel times that are better than our competition. Acme Ferries have high on-time performance and moderate operating cost, which allows us to charge a premium fare for a value-added service. We expect to generate a small profit of at least 5 percent of fares annually. Acme Ferry Service is led by CEO Ben Jefferson, who has 25 years experience in transportation and ferry services, and he is supported by CFO Penny Payup and Chief of Operations Jonas Grumby. Definition of the Market The definition of the market component describes and explains the critical need for the ferry service. The market should be identified, and the targeted demographics should also be devel- oped. In addition, the business plan should estimate the market share for the service. An exam- ple definition of the market is the following: Acme Ferries operates in the competitive Acme Point to Metro City travel market. Each day, more than 50,000 trips are taken between the two locations. Our niche is the high-value, time-sensitive trav- eler willing to pay for more time savings and reliability. Our competition includes the public bus ser- vice and the private automobile, via the Metro Bridge. Acme Ferries passengers can travel from their homes to their jobs in Metro City in 20 minutes. Our bus competitors can make the same trip in 35 minutes, and automobile passengers can make the trip in 15 minutes on most days, although relia- bility is poor. As a result of our time advantages, Acme Ferries carries about 18,000 passengers daily, or more than one-third of the market. Our goal for the next year is to increase our market share to 40 per- cent of the market, or about 20,000 commuter trips daily; we also seek to capture about 5,000 to 7,000 daily midday non-commute trips.

Description of Products and Services The description of products and services presents, from a passenger perspective, the ferry service offered and its competitive advantage. In the Acme Ferries example, this section could expand on the definition of the market and merge that with a description of the service provided, as follows: Acme Ferries operates a fleet of five 400-passenger ferries that carry more than 18,000 weekday passen- gers. Our ferries operate every 7.5 minutes in the morning and afternoon peak periods and provide a 15-minute trip between the Acme Point terminal and Union Ferry Depot in Metro City. At midday and on nights and weekends, service is provided every 15 minutes. Ferries are large, stable catamarans that are well appointed and have a full complement of beverages and snacks. At Acme Point, the ferry terminal is integrated into Acme Point’s Waterview Development. Waterview includes more than 7,500 residential units, all within a 5-minute walk of the ferry terminal. Most Waterview units are condominiums and sell for about $500,000 each, resulting in a high-income neighborhood adjacent to our services. In addition to this walk-in market, we also operate a network of shuttle feeder buses to more distant locations in Acme Point, so that everyone in town can have a connected ride to Metro City. At Union Ferry Depot in Metro City, almost 400,000 jobs are within a 10-minute walk of the terminal; also there are connections to local buses. Acme Ferry charges a round trip fare of $6, and our competition charges $5 for the bus and $2 for the Metro Bridge toll. We also partner with other businesses and with educational institutions to promote our services in lower demand periods. Organization and Management The organization and management component of the business plan covers operations and maintenance plans for the ferry service. The basic organization structure should be provided, identifying the key roles and the tasks that are performed in those roles. The relationship between different functions and departments should be presented. In a transportation operation, under the chief executive, are the following departments: the operating department, the maintenance department (sometimes reports to the operating department), the engineering department (both for ongoing facilities and for capital projects), the finance and administration department, and the planning and marketing department. An example of a simple work flow statement is the following: Acme Ferries is organized into five major groups: operations, maintenance, engineering, finance/ administration, and planning/marketing. Planning and marketing are responsible for developing ser- vices, projects, and proposals that will entice customers and encourage use of our product; this group designs the service plan and then seeks to fill our seats. Operations runs the vessels according to the ser- vice plan and schedules developed by planning/marketing; operations management seeks to deliver a quality customer experience through safe and reliable operations and great customer service provided by happy and motivated employees. Maintenance is responsible for upkeep of the vessels and other system assets; maintenance will produce the vessels for operations to sail and will ensure system vessel safety and reliability. Finance and administration provides the staff functions for all departments to ensure that budgets are met and revenue is collected and accounted for. Key elements of the organization and management section of the business plan are operations and maintenance plans. These are detailed plans that identify how the service product will be delivered, what resources are necessary to deliver the product, and what constraints are on those resources. The operations plan must identify the total employees needed to staff each vessel and the total service delivery. The operations plan must also describe the qualifications necessary for staff fill- ing those positions, and it must provide an estimate of the cost to deliver the people and services identified. Other issues, such as operations of terminals, descriptions of the actual routings, and “deadheading” routes should all be included. The maintenance plan should include the actions necessary and the people and resources required to keep the fleet and facilities in a “state-of-good-repair,” including the location and 132 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

suitability of maintenance facilities, the option of internal versus external work force for certain tasks (such as engine rebuilding), and the overall cost to deliver maintenance for the anticipated service. Key performance metrics should be identified (i.e., goals for on-time performance, total passengers annually, seats occupied, and so forth) so that monthly and annual reports can assess performance against plan. Planning, Marketing, and Sales The planning, marketing, and sales component of the business plan details the ferry system’s understanding of its existing passengers and the availability and potential of its market. Ferries usually operate in a transportation market best characterized as fragmented, competitive, and dynamic. The transportation market typically has low barriers to entry (which can mean any- thing from a potential customer buying an automobile, to taking a fixed-link route, to taking a bus competitor instead). However, ferry operation has high fixed costs (vessels, terminals, and so forth), normally requires some governmental permitting (or regulation), and has assets that are often not easily transferable. The marketing challenge is not moving assets and products to new markets, but maximizing sales at the times when the service has excess capacity and maxi- mizing yield at times of highest demand. As the case studies conducted in this research indicate, moving demand from the peak periods (which can be either times of day or even entire days) to lower demand times reduces both oper- ating and fixed expenses and spreads more revenue across a lower fixed-cost basis, resulting in better economic performance. This can be done through pricing, and it can also be done through better services in the off-peak periods, including shuttle systems that expand the reach of the sys- tem during those times and promotional incentives with specialized traffic generators (often recreational activities). An example of a simple marketing and sales statement is the following: Acme Ferries has high demand during the traditional 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. weekday peak periods. Our base level of commuter ridership results in a midday hourly use level of about 25 per- cent of the peak-hour level (as measured by total passengers served during those hours). We seek to use our assets at a higher level outside of the peak periods. Our current passenger distribution is the following: AM Peak Period 6,000 passengers Midday Period 5,200 passengers PM Peak Period 6,000 passengers Nights 800 passengers Our target passenger distribution is the following: AM Peak Period 6,000 passengers Midday Period 12,200 passengers PM Peak Period 6,000 passengers Nights 800 passengers The fares charged for the projected 7,000 additional midday trips would be priced to pay for the marginal operating costs of the service plus contribute to a share of the system’s fixed costs and profit. To achieve this objective, our staff actively works with non-traditional markets to encourage off-peak ridership. As part of this plan, we have done the following: • Enacted a peak-period ticket surcharge on all commute passengers to encourage com- muters to move trip times by a few minutes and reduce our peak ridership and our peak expenses. Strategic Plan/Business Plan 133

• Created a deeply discounted, “reverse-peak” fare for peak-period trips that are essentially free to operate (since our peak direction fare is priced to pay for the operational round trip). • Entered into an agreement with the local “Big Box” store (which has poor access via traditional transit and little automobile parking) to provide a midday and evening shuttle service between the Union Ferry Depot and Big Box. • Created 3-day per week “lunch cruises” from Union Ferry Depot that operate from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and are aimed at the business lunch market. • Marketed our “school field trip” service from Acme Point to cultural and educational institu- tions with water access, such as Metro Zoo and the Metro Science Academy. Acme Ferries actively markets these promotions through the local business community, by attending community events, and providing liaisons to community groups and educational institutions. We sponsor school fairs and Metro Zoo events to maintain a presence in the community and a high profile. Financial Management The financial management component of the business plan details the ferry system’s finances to ensure a good understanding of costs and identify adequate revenue to support a safe and quality service. Four crucial elements of the financial management section are the following: Capital Expenditures. These expenditures include vessels, real property, leases, facilities, and equipment. Profit and Loss Projections. These include operating expenses such as labor, materials and supplies (and loan payments if capital was borrowed), and operating revenues such as ticket sales and concession revenues. These expenses and revenues are typically calculated on a monthly basis. Cash Flow Projections. These projections reveal the liquidity, or cash position, of the ferry operation. While profit and loss statements include invoiced expenses and revenues, cash flow shows the funds actually received versus expended. Cash flow is important, especially in seasonal operations, because positive revenue may be generated in only a few months, and this revenue needs to be either banked or loaned against to cover periods of negative cash activity. It should be noted that sometimes public agencies subsidize private ferry operators. There are a variety of ways to provide public funds to the private sector; these include a direct contract, in which the agency keeps all the revenue and simply purchases services; a “bounty” system, in which the public agency pays a reward for each passenger carried; or even a simple system, in which the public agency builds and operates capital facilities for use by private operators. How the payment is structured is included in the cash flow projections of the operator. Balance Sheet. This document lists the net worth of the enterprise. In a ferry operation, cap- ital expenditures can be expensive. Often, new operators tend to overestimate revenues, which leads to liquidity problems. Start-up costs typically include a long lead time in which to estab- lish a presence in the market during which an enterprise may incur a negative cash flow. 134 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Ad Hoc Ferry Transit Environmental Impact Panel. January 2000. Ferry Transit for the Twenty-First Century. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Assessments and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. October 2002. A Comprehen- sive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions—Draft Technical Report (EPA420-P-02-001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Associated Press. October 29, 2005. “Superferry Secures $210 Million Investment.” Honolulu Star Bulletin. Auditor, State of Hawaii. April 2008. Report No. 08-08, Performance Audit on the State Administration’s Actions Exempting Certain Harbor Improvements to Facilitate Large Capacity Ferry Vessels from the Requirements of the Hawaii Environmental Impact Statements Law: Phase I. Auditor, State of Hawaii. December 2008. Report No. 08-011, Performance Audit on the State Administration’s Actions Exempting Certain Harbor Improvements to Facilitate Large Capacity Ferry Vessels from the Require- ments of the Hawaii Environmental Impact Statements Law: Phase II. Austal. September 30, 2008. “Austal USA Launch 113 Metre Advanced High Speed Catamaran” press release. http://www.austal.com/en/media/media-releases/08-09-30/Austal-USA-Launch-113-Metre-Advanced-High- Speed-Catamaran.aspx. BBC News. June 7, 2007. “First UK Biodiesel Train Launched.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6729115.stm. BC Ferries. November 1, 2010. “Management’s Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, period ending September 30.” http://www.bcferries.com/files/AboutBCF/investor/quarters_ new/1011_Q2_MDA.pdf. Accessed Feb 2011. BC Ferries Fare Index. http://www.bcferries.com/files/fares/pdf_format/BCF_Fares.pdf. Accessed June 2010. BC Ferries website, http://www.bcferrycommission.com/about_bc_ferries.html. Accessed July 1, 2010. “Before BC Ferries.” http://www.bcferries.com/about/history/history.html. Accessed July 1, 2010. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc./BC Ferries Authority. May 2008. B.C. Ferry Authority 2007/08 Annual Report. Victoria, BC, Canada. CALSTART. July 2002. Passenger Ferries, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases: Can System Expansion Result in Fewer Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area? Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1998. NCHRP Report 399: Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis Manual. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC. Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Eng-Wong, Taub and Associates, Inc.; Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.; Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners and Interior Designers; HydroQual, Inc.; M. G. McLaren, PC; and Management and Transportation Associates, Inc./Seaworthy Systems STV Inc. 2005. Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan. Prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, and South Western Regional Planning Agency. Cataluna, L. December 23, 2005. “Nothing Smooth on SeaFlite.” Honolulu Advertiser. CIA Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vq.html. Accessed March 20, 2010. Cross Sound Ferry Service, Inc. 2008. “Cross Sound Ferry” press packet. Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii. July 1973. “Impact Summary, Proposed Inter-Island Ferry System.” Prepared by the Pacific Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of Hawaii. Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii. December 2008. “Statewide Large-Capacity Inter-Island Ferry. Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Prepared for Harbors Division by Belt Collins Hawaii. DePledge, D. December 9, 2008. “Hawaii Superferry’s Service Depends on Court Ruling.” Honolulu Advertiser. Diaz, R. B. (ed.), M. Chang, G. Darido, E. Kim, D. Schneck, M. Hardy, J. Bunch, M. Baltes, D. Hinebaugh, L. Wnuk, F. Silver, and S. Zimmerman. 2004. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1). Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT, Washington DC. 135 References

Evans, J.; R. H. Pratt; Texas Transportation Institute; Jay Evans Consulting LLC; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; J. Richard Kuzmyak, L.L.C.; SG Associates, Inc. (BMI-SG); Gallop Corporation; McCollom Management Consulting, Inc.; H. S. Levinson, and K.T. Analytics, Inc. 2004. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes—Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Habib, P., A. Bloch, and R. Roess. July 1980. Functional Designs of Ferry Systems. Final Report—Phase I. Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT, pp. 1–145. Harrald, J. R., M. Grabowski, R. Van Dorp, and J. Merrick. 1999. “Assessing Risk in the Washington State Ferry System.” In Contingency, Emergency, Crisis, and Disaster Management: Defining the Agenda for the Third Mil- lennium Proceedings: Sixth Annual Conference of the Emergency Management Society, TIEMS’ 99. Delft, Netherlands, pp. 1–10. Institute of Marine Sciences at UNC–Chapel Hill, Duke University Marine Laboratory, NC Department of Envi- ronment and Natural Resources—Division of Water Quality, NC Department of Transportation—Ferry Division, Institute for the Environment at UNC–Chapel Hill. n.d. “FerryMon: Ferry-based monitoring of water quality in North Carolina” (pamphlet). Keith, K. March 2, 2005. “Find the Middle Ground for the Superferry.” Honolulu Advertiser. Kettleson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., and K. Hunter- Zaworski. 2003. “Part 6—Ferry Capacity.” In TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Leidemann, M. March 6, 2004. “Interisland Ferry Service Previewed.” Honolulu Advertiser. Lynch, R. September 21, 2003. “Next Exit, Kahului.” Honolulu Star Bulletin. Merriam-Webster Inc. 2003. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed. Springfield, MA. Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. 2002. TCRP Report 80: A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier—Free Fare Collection. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. 2003. TCRP Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Natarajan, P. June 13, 2003. “Entrepreneurs Float ‘Superferry’ Concept.” Pacific Business News. National Transit Database. 2010a. BillyBey Ferry Company, LLC (ID Number 2189). Annual Transit Profile— 2009. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/ 2009/agency_profiles/2189.pdf. Accessed April 2010. National Transit Database. 2010b. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) (ID Number 2098). Annual Transit Profile—2009. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ pubs/profiles/2009/agency_profiles/2098.pdf. Accessed April 2010. National Transit Database. 2010c. Port Imperial Ferry Corporation dba NY Waterway (ID Number 2190). Annual Transit Profile—2009. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2009/agency_profiles/2190.pdf. Accessed April 2010. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. 2008. Hub Bound Travel Report. Revised February 2010. Norris, C. May 1994. “Assessment of Ferries as Alternative to Land-Based Transportation: Executive Sum- mary Volume I.” The Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT, pp. 1–30. North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2009. 2009 Annual Performance Report. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Transportation. May 2008. “NCDOT Ferry Division Environmental Policy.” North Carolina Department of Transportation. n.d. “The History of the NC Ferry Division.” ORCA website. https://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p1_001.do. Accessed April 26, 2010. Oxford University Press. 1998. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1st ed. Oxford, UK. Pacific Business News. August 28, 2008. “Hawaii Superferry, Farm Bureaus Offering Discounts.” Pacific Business News. August 4, 2004. “Hawaii Superferry Ridership Up by 40% in July.” Pacific Business News. January 13, 2004. “Hawaii Superferry Signs Shipbuilding Agreement.” Pacific Business News. October 28, 2008. “2nd Hawaii Superferry ‘On Hold.’ ” Pacific Business News. September 5, 2008. “Hawaii Superferry Offers Fall Fare Special.” Pendleton, R. October 11, 2003. “Superferry Accounting for Whales.” Honolulu Star Bulletin. Purinton, R. “In Memoriam: Arni Richter.” http://washingtonisland-wi.com/in-memoriam-arni-richter/. Accessed April 1, 2010. Random House. 1997. Random House Unabridged Dictionary. New York, NY. Reconnecting America Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2007. Station Area Planning Manual. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Oakland, CA. Regional Plan Association. November 2006. “Ferries in the Region: Challenges and Opportunities.” Reilly, M. December 2, 2005. “Norwest Equity Backs ‘Superferry.’ ” Minnesota Business Journal. 136 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Rice, K. “Strategic Planning Template.” Developed for the California State University Chancellor’s Office of Com- munity Service Learning from work by The Grove Consultants International and the Institute for Cultural Affairs. www.calstate.edu/cce/initiatives/documents/spi_sptemplate.doc. Accessed December 3, 2010. RITA. Table 4: Modal Category Definitions. http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_technical_report/2009_007/ html/table_04.html. Accessed April 8, 2010. San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. June 2009. Emergency Water Transportation System Management Plan. San Francisco, CA. Savitsky, D. October 2, 2003. “On the Subject of High-Speed Monohulls.” Presented to the Greek Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Athens, Greece. Science Applications International Corporation. 2006. TCRP Report 86: Public Transportation Security—Volume 11: Security Measures for Ferry Systems. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing- ton, DC, pp. 25–27. Segal, D. December 22, 2007. “Superferry CEO Weathered the Storms.” Honolulu Star Bulletin. Segal, D. May 20, 2004. “Maui Company Invests in New Interisland Ferry.” Honolulu Advertiser. Sheahan & Conniff. 1983. The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. Remsenburg, NY. Snyder, J. October 2001. “Ferries to the Rescue after World Trade Center Attack.” Marine Log. http://www. marinelog.com/DOCS/PRINT/mmiocfer1.html. Accessed April 20, 2010. Supreme Court of Hawaii Case No. 29035. March 16, 2009. Appeal and Cross-Appeal for the Second Circuit Court. Opinion of the Court by J. Duffy. The Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow, and Kahului Harbor Coalition, Plaintiffs, vs. The Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii, and Hawaii Superferry. The Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History. “Puget Sound’s Mosquito Fleet.” http://www. historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm&file_id=869. Accessed April 22, 2010. The Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History. “Turning Point 9: The Sound and the Ferry: The Birth of Washington State Ferries.” http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm& file_id=930. Accessed April 20, 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 2009. Special Report 298—Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Washington, DC. United States Census Bureau. US Census data, 1990 and 2000. United States Virgin Islands. http://www.governordejongh.com/. Accessed March 21, 2010. U.S. Department of Energy. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=DDR01Y&f=A. Accessed April 14, 2010. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010. Maritime Security: Ferry Security Measures Have Been Implemented, but Evaluating Existing Studies Could Further Enhance Security (GAO-11-207) Washington DC. U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business Training Network. Business Plan Template. http://app1. sba.gov/training/sbabp/bptemplate.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. Vallejo Baylink Ferry. “The History of Vallejo Ferry Service.” http://www.baylinkferry.com/about/history.php. Accessed December 3, 2010. Value Management Strategies, Inc. June 2009. Alaska Class Ferry, AMHS (value engineering study report). Prepared for the Elliott Bay Design Group. Seattle, WA. van Renen van Niekerk, J. 2000. “A Comparison of Power Catamaran Hull Types.” Power Multihulls Magazine, Spring 2000. Washington State Ferries. December 2007. Washington State Ferries Vehicle Level-of-Service: Situation Assessment. Washington State Department of Transportation, pp. 1–7. Washington State Transportation Commission. February 2009. Long-Term Ferry Funding Study: Ferry Funding Recommendations Final Report. Olympia, WA. Wikipedia. “List of ferries across the Hudson River in New York City.” http://en.wikipedia.org/. wiki/List_of_ferries_across_the_Hudson_River_in_New_York_City. Accessed March 4, 2010. Working Group 41 of the Maritime Navigation Commission. 2003. Guidelines for Managing Wake Wash from High Speed Vessels: Report of Working Group 41 of the Maritime Navigation Commission. International Navigation Association. The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC). Brussels, Belgium. References 137

138 Bluewater Network. “Air Pollution from Passenger Ferries in New York Harbor.” Bluewater Network (July 2003), pp. 1–19. Boesel, J. and J. J. Corbett. “Passenger Ferries, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gases: Can System Expansion Result in Fewer Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area?” Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2003). British Columbia Ferries, “2007–08 Business Plan.” British Columbia Ferries (2008), pp. 1–37. California Air Resources Board. “1996 Estimated Annual Average Emissions: San Francisco Bay Area Basin.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/emisinv/eib.htm; http://www.arb.ca.gov/emisinv/maps/basins/absfmap.htm; and http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php. (As of November 2000). California Air Resources Board. “State of California Air Resources Board Meeting, November 15, 1978.” In California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA (1978). California Air Resources Board. “State of California Air Resources Board Meeting, October 26, 1978.” In California Air Resources Board, San Francisco, CA (1978). CALSTART. Passenger Ferries, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases: Can System Expansion Result in Fewer Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area? Gas Technology Institute, Brookhaven National Laboratory—Department of Energy, Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting (July 2002). Cambridge Systematics, Inc. “Long Term Ferry Finance Study. Part I Report–Financial Background and Sum- mary of Previous Studies.” Washington State Transportation Commission (February 2008), pp. 2–2 to 2–16. Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies and N.N. Team. “The World’s First LNG-Powered Ferry Goes into Operation in Norway.” Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies, Stockholm, Sweden (2000), pp. 2. City of Alameda. “Memorandum: Hold a Public Hearing on the Proposed Fare Increase for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year Extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, Adopt Associated Budgets, and Approve the Proposed Fare Increases for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service.” (June 2007), pp. 1–22. City of Alameda. “Memorandum: Hold a Public Hearing on the Proposed Implementation of a Fuel Surcharge for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year Extension of the har- bor Bay maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement to Extend the Term for One Additional year, Adopt Associated Budgets, Approve Fiscal Year 2007–2008 Budget Adjustment and measure B Allocation, and Approve the Proposed Fuel Surcharge for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry.” (June 2008), pp. 1–15. Cooper, D. A. “Exhaust Emissions from High Speed Passenger Ferries.” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 35, No. 24 (2001), pp. 4,189–4,200. Cooper, D. A. and K. Andreasson. “Predictive NOx Emission Monitoring On Board a Passenger Ferry.” Atmos- pheric Environment, Vol. 33, No. 28 (1999), p. 4,637. Cooper, D. and K. Peterson. “Emission Measurements from a Urea-Based SCR/OXI Catalytic NOx/HC Exhaust Gas Treatment System Onboard a Diesel Powered Passenger Ferry—Operation After 12,000 Hours Service.” Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), Gothenburg, Sweden (2005). Cooper, D. A., K. Peterson, and D. Simpson. “Hydrocarbon, PAH and PCB Emissions from Ferries: A Case Study in the Skagerak-Kattegatt-Oresund Region.” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 30, No. 14 (1996), pp. 2,463–2,473. Corbett, J. J. “Vessel Operator Engine Emissions Measurement Guide.” United States Maritime Administration, Washington, DC (2002), p. 45. Corbett, J. J. and A. Farrell. “Environmental Challenges for Ferry Expansion.” Marine News (June 26, 2000) pp. 30–33. Bibliography A P P E N D I X A

Corbett, J. J. and A. Farrell. “Mitigating Air Pollution Emissions From Ferries.” Transportation Research D: Energy and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2002), pp. 197–211. Corbett, J. J., J. J. Winebrake, and P. Woods. “An Evaluation of Public-Private Incentives to Reduce Emissions from Regional Ferries: Synthesis Report.” Rutgers, State University of New Jersey and University of Delaware, New Brunswick, NJ (2005), p. 15. Dames & Moore. “Ferry Boat Estimated Emissions in Comparison to Motor Vehicles.” Cited in Sweeney SNAME report on ferries (1999). East, R. S. and E. Armstrong. “Intermodal Ferry Terminal Master Plans for Washington State Ferries: Plan- ning for the Future.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Board, No. 1677 (1999), pp. 105–116. Einang, P. M. “Natural Gas as a Ferry Fuel.” In GASTECH 96: 17th International LNG/LPG/Natural Gas Confer- ence & Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, London RAI (1996). Environmental Engineering Division, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. “Access for Persons with Disabilities to Passenger Vessels and Shore Facilities: The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Environment, Energy and Safety (July 1996), pp. 1–67. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulatory Announcement: EPA Finalizes More Stringent Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-ignition Engines.” Office of Transportation and Air Quality (March 2008). Farrell, A. and J. Corbett. “Meeting Environmental Challenges for Ferries.” TR News, No. 209, (2000) pp. 19–28. Farrell, A. and J. J. Corbett. “Needed: A Clear Vision of Ferries’ Future.” Journal of Commerce, Vol. 421, No. 29, 534 (1999). Farrell, A. and M. Glick. “Natural Gas as a Marine Propulsion Fuel: Energy and Environmental Benefits in Urban Ferry Service.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1738, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2000), pp. 77–85. Farrell, A., D. Keith, and J. J. Corbett. “Adaptive Management of Technological Change: Strategy for Introducing Hydrogen into Transportation.” TRB 81st Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, (2002). Farrell, A., D. Redman, J. Corbett, and Winebrake, J. “Comparing Air Pollution from Ferry and Landside Commuting.” Transportation Research D: Energy and Environment, Vol. 8, No. 5 (2003) pp. 343–360. Farrell, A., J. J. Corbett, and J. J. Winebrake, “Controlling Air Pollution from Passenger Ferries: Cost Effectiveness of Seven Technological Options.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 52 (December 2002), pp. 1,399–1,410. Firestone, J. and J. J. Corbett. “Coastal and Port Environments: International Legal and Policy Responses to Reduce Ballast Water Introductions of Potentially Invasive Species.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Fall 2006), pp. 45–49. “Fresh Fuel.” Marine Log (October 2008). pp. 17–22. Gootman, E. “For Commuters, a Third Way to Manhattan.” The New York Times (May 13, 2001), p. 3. Gorman, B. “Clearing the Fog About Ferries: National Study to Shed New Light.” TR News, No. 209 (July–August 2000), pp. 12–18. Grant, A. J., M. J. Holden, B. Ludlow, and T. M. Thiele. “Washington State Ferries Wireless Connection Project.” U.S. Department of Transportation (May 2005), pp. 1–49. Habib, P., A. Bloch, and R. Roess. Functional Designs of Ferry Systems. Final Report—Phase I. Maritime Admin- istration, U.S. Department of Transportation (July 1980), pp. 1–145. Hallenbeck, M. “Ferry Systems Data, Scheduling and Billing: Scheduling Systems Analysis.” Washington State Transportation Center (1987), pp. 1–37. Harrald, J. R., M. Grabowski, R. Van Dorp, and J. Merrick. “Assessing Risk in the Washington State Ferry System.” In Contingency, Emergency, Crisis, and Disaster Management: Defining the Agenda for the Third Millennium Proceedings: Sixth Annual Conference of the Emergency Management Society, TIEMS’ 99, Delft, Netherlands (1999), pp. 1–10. International, Inc. and Environment Canada. “NYC Private Ferry Fleet Emissions Reduction Technology Study and Demonstration, Final Report 06-15.” Prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), New York (2006), 543 p. International Maritime Organization. “Formal Safety Assessment.” http://www.imo.org/TCD/mainframe.asp? topic_id=351. (As of February 25, 2009). Kågeson, P. and N. Associates. “Economic Instruments for Reducing Emissions from Sea Transport.” Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Göteborg, Sweden and Brussels, Belgium (1999), p. 36. Kettleson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglass, Inc., and K. Hunter- Zaworski. “Part 6—Ferry Capacity.” In TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC (2003), pp. 6-1 to 6-25. Appendix A 139

Latorre, R. G. and P. D. Herrington. “Design of a 33-Knot Aluminum Catamaran Ferry.” Marine Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2000), pp. 88–99. National Research Council and Committee on Ships’ Ballast Operations. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Intro- ductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (1996), 160 p. Norris, C. “Assessment of Ferries as Alternative to Land-Based Transportation: Executive Summary Volume I.” The Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- portation (May 1994), pp. 1–30. Norris, C., “Assessment of Ferries as Alternative to Land-Based Transportation: Phase 1: System Types and Surveys Volume II.” The Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (May 1994), pp. 5–10. Northern Economics, Inc. “Passenger/Vehicle/Cabin Rate Study for the Alaska Marine Highway System.” Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities/Alaska Marine Highway System (April 2008), pp. 1–12. Oestreich, H. H. and G. Whaley. “Transit Labor Relations Guide.” Mineta Transportation Institute (September 2001), pp 5–9. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “Regulatory Announcement: Emission Standards for New Commercial Marine Diesel Engines.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (November 1999), pp. 1–2. Opinion Research Northwest. “2007 Ferry Customer Survey Focus Groups Summary Report.” Washington State Transportation Commission (January 2008), pp. 1–60. Outwater, M., S. Castleberry, Y. Shiftan, M. Ben-Akiva, Y. Zhou, and A. Kuppam, “A Market Segmentation Approach to Mode Choice and Ferry Ridership Forecasting.” Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 32–42. Perardi, T., “Memorandum: Independent Analysis of the Bay Area Water Transit Authority’s Implementation and Operations Plan.” Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA (2003), pp. 9. Perata, D. Senate Bill No. 428 in Government Code (1999). Pilsch, M. C. “The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 on the Waterborne Passenger Ves- sel Industry.” Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Federal Transit Administration (February 1993), pp. 1–59. Pilsch, M. C., A. L. Held, and D. Terkla. “Impact of a Ferry System Upon Its Communities.” Urban Harbors Institute (May 1994), pp. 1–10. Roberto, E. “Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Special Report Highlights of the 2006 National Census of Ferry Operators.” Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (August 2008), pp. 1–4. San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority. “A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmen- tally Friendly Ferry Service: Implementation and Operations Plan.” (December 2002), pp. 1–65. Science Applications International Corporation. TCRP Report 86: Public Transportation Security—Volume 11: Security Measures for Ferry Systems. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing- ton DC (2006), pp. 25–27. Seaworthy Systems Inc., Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, “NYC Private Ferry Fleet Emis- sions Reduction Technology Study and Demonstration—Final Report 06-15.” New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York (2006), 543 p. Slater, R. E. “Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System.” Report to Congress (September 1999). pp. 1–122. Special Report 294—The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2008), pp. 22–49. Swedish Port and Stevedores Association. “Differential Charging for Environmental Purposes.” http://www. shsf.se/espodiff.htm. (As of March 1999). Sweeny, T. and P. Soumoy. “Effects of Enhanced Ferry Service on Golden Gate Corridor Transportation: From Dromedary to Camel, How MV Del Norte Inverted the Ferry Ridership Curve.” 79th TRB Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2000). Ullberg, Cy. “Ferry Pricing Strategies Analysis.” Washington State Transportation Center (November 1989), pp. 1–74. University of Washington Labor Relations. “Inland Boatmen’s Union Contract.” http://www.washington.edu/ admin/hr/laborrel/contracts/ibu/contract/index.html. (As of February 25, 2009). URS Corporation. “Draft Program Environmental Impact Report: Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Water Transit Authority, San Francisco, CA (2003), pp. 501. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment on Consolidated Implementation of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project.” United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY (2003), pp. 44. 140 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services

Washington State Ferries. “Final Long Range Plan.” Department of Transportation Ferries Division (June 30, 2009), pp. 45–55. Washington State Ferries. “Operational Strategies: Situation Assessment.” Washington State Department of Transportation (December, 2007), pp. 1–9. Washington State Ferries. Washington State Ferries Vehicle Level-of-Service: Situation Assessment. Washington State Department of Transportation (December 2007), pp. 1–7. Water Transit Authority. “A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System: Final Implementation & Operations Plan.” San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, San Francisco, CA (2003), pp. 70. Water Transit Authority. “A Strategy to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Improve Air Quality: Draft Imple- mentation & Operations Plan.” San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, San Francisco, CA (2002), pp. 66. Winebrake, J. J., J. J. Corbett, and P. E. Meyer. “Energy Use and Emissions from Marine Vessels: A Total Fuel Cycle Approach.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 57 (January 2007), pp. 102–110. Winebrake, J. J., J. J. Corbett, C. Wang, A. Farrell, and P. Woods. “Optimal Fleetwide Emissions Reductions for Passenger Ferries: An Application of a Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming Model for the New York- New Jersey Harbor.” Journal of Air & Waste Management, Vol. 55, No. 4 (2005), pp. 458–466. Appendix A 141

142 Methodology Following the approval of the survey instrument, the survey was pretested with several panel members and was refined before being fielded. Telephone interviews were conducted from May through July 2009. The telephone interviews covered the same topics as the literature review. The survey sample was designed to include representatives of the full range of ferry operators, from very small to those that carry more than a million passengers, from seasonal to year-round, and from private ownership and operation to federal, state/provincial, and local public operation. The sample also selected operators from various geographic regions. The survey was designed to allow for multiple respondents from the same operator to answer questions, which occurred dur- ing interviews with larger operators. A $100 incentive was offered to encourage participation in order to complete the desired number of interviews. Results Forty-three interviews were completed. The survey respondents answered anonymously dur- ing the reporting process. Additional characteristics of the respondents include: • Of the 15 publicly owned ferries surveyed, one is a federal agency, seven are state or provin- cial governments, and seven are local operators. • Twenty are privately owned and operated, while seven are publicly owned but operated by private companies under contract. • Fourteen ferries are seasonal, while 16 operate year-round. • The number of passengers carried annually ranged from less than 500 to 2 million. • Twenty-five respondents operated one to two lines, 10 had three to six lines, and six had seven or more lines. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the survey topics on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important. Average responses for major areas are presented in Figure B-1. Overall, respondents assigned the highest importance to ferry operation and maintenance (O&M) issues that directly affect everyday functioning, such as engine, hull, and terminal main- tenance. Regulatory compliance, funding issues, labor relations, and ferry planning all received only slightly lower importance ratings averaging 8.5 to 8.8, indicating that these functions, too, are considered quite important by ferry operators. Somewhat lower-average importance ratings were assigned to disaster response/passenger security (7.4) and to marketing (6.9) and emission/ greenhouse gas issues (6.4). Ferry Operators’ Survey Results A P P E N D I X B

Each of these broad issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections, with the goal of identifying specific tools or activities that individual operators have found to be helpful in successfully meeting challenges. Planning The questions related to ferry planning were geared toward gaining a better understanding from operators how they treated planning, both in the short and long term. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of various planning-related issues, as well as list any planning- related activities that were to be performed in the near term. General themes include: • Respondents who rated the importance of planning highly explained their rating by stating, among other reasons, that planning is a critical element of ferry management, that it is essen- tial to coordinate repairs and USGS inspections, and cited their own organization’s failure to plan in the past leading to the need for service cutbacks within the past several years. • Those who assigned lower importance to planning explained that they were long-established operations meeting the needs of a specific market (for example, National Park visitors, island residents) so that little planning was required. • Across all respondents, individual planning tools received lower-average importance ratings than did planning overall. • Among individual planning tools, use of models to plan routes or terminals received the low- est rating, although several operators said that they informally use past and current passenger and traffic data to plan future operations. • Publicly owned ferries and those operated by private contractor assigned higher important ratings to several planning tools, including political considerations, public input and feedback, and the need to plan for regulatory requirements. • While private owner/operators assigned significantly greater importance to planning overall than did either public agencies or contract operators of publicly owned ferries, they assigned lower levels of importance to specific planning tools that involve external feedback or input. Appendix B 143 8.5 8.7 6.9 9.4 8.8 8.6 7.4 6.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pla nn ing Ma rke tin g O& M Iss ue s Em iss ion /Gr ee nh ou se Ga s Is sue s Re gu lato ry Co mp lian ce Dis as ter Re sp on se /Pa ss en ge r S ecu rity La bo r R ela tio ns /W ork for ce M an ag em en t Ma na gin g F un din g S ou rce s Figure B-1. Importance ratings of ferry management and operations issues.

Respondents were also asked to rate how successful they felt their planning had been with regard to specific activities. Results are summarized in Figure B-2. Planning for new or expanded terminals, changing staffing levels, and adjusting seasonal serv- ices were seen as the most successful planning activities, while efforts to eliminate routes were considered least successful (note that planning efforts to reduce the frequency of service were seen as considerably less problematic). The most commonly mentioned major planning challenge for the near future was the economy and the effect of the recession on ferry usage as well as on public sector budgets. Respondents mentioned dealing with specific challenges such as cost control, personnel man- agement, fleet upgrades, tighter regulations, and maintenance issues in the context of the more restrictive operating environment. One large operator mentioned a long-term chal- lenge of planning expanded parking and ferry service despite local opposition; another described a planned consolidation of three ferries operated by individual cities into a single public entity. 144 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services 6.2 5.6 7.8 6.7 7.5 7.8 6.9 6.1 6.2 8.2 7.3 6.2 7.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Adding new routes Eliminating routes Changing seasonal services More frequent service Less frequent service Expanding or reducing staffing levels Increasing number of vessels Increasing size of vessels Replacing vessels New or expanded terminals New fare structure New cost recovery mechanisms Working toward smoother intermodal interface Figure B-2. Success of planning efforts toward selected goals (0 to 10 scale).

Based on the planning experiences and challenges faced by survey respondents, best practices with regard to planning appear to include the following: • Use public input to assess customer needs and to help advance operational improvements. • Take advantage of the knowledge and experience of ferry staff. • Observe and learn from the experience of other ferry operators. • Plan service to accommodate the needs of passengers. • Recruit informed stakeholders as part of an Advisory Board. • Conduct periodic audits of internal procedures. • Focus on planning for and managing vehicle traffic. Managing Funding Sources Managing funding sources is a critical element for service management for operators. Whether it is public operators relying on public funds to private operators relying on profits from rider- ship, maintaining a constant funding source is of the utmost importance. This section focuses on the aspects of funding management that operators view as important to their operation. Both public and private operators view funding management as important. The survey devel- oped specific questions aimed at the different interests each sector faces. These issues are pre- sented in Tables B-1 and B-2. Private owner/operators were most concerned with increasing their revenues (9.5 average rating) and managing operating expenses, with other funding issues taking on less importance. Specifically, making capital investments to reduce operating expenses (average rating of 7.2) and refinancing or restructuring existing debt (6.1) were deemed less critical to the success of operations. For operators of publicly owned facilities, managing existing operating funding sources was significantly more important than either investigating new operating funding sources or man- aging existing capital funding sources. Identifying new capital funding sources was relatively more important, however, with respondents recognizing that these new capital sources would be crucial to future success. Several commented on both the difficulty of securing capital to per- form the required upgrades to their aging vessels and terminals and on the opportunities offered Appendix B 145 Ability to manage finances and increase revenues Managing operating expenses Making capital investments that reduce operating expenses Refinancing/ restructuring existing debt Working to increase revenues 9.5 9.1 7.2 6.1 9.5 Table B-1. Importance of funding issues to operators of privately owned ferries. Managing existing operating funding sources Identifying and investigating new operating funding sources Managing existing capital funding sources Identifying and investigating new capital funding sources How important will these new capital funding sources be in the future 9.1 6.4 8.0 8.8 9.2 Table B-2. Importance of funding issues to operators of publicly owned ferries. Tab. 1, 2

by economic stimulus funds. Operators specifically mentioned the Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as well as the Economic Recovery Act. Most operators, both public and private, must look to multiple funding sources. The ques- tions in Table B-3 highlight some of the funding strategies that have begun to be implemented with other transit modes. One severe funding challenge faced by all the ferries was the sharp run-up in fuel prices in 2008. When asked how they had coped with the fuel price increase, almost half (45%) of public ferries reported having instituted a fuel surcharge, compared to about 20% of private and con- tract operators. While several operators said the surcharge had allowed them to cope with the cost increases, at least one reported that the surcharge had cut their market share. Among those that did not increase fuel-specific surcharges, several said they raised fares, while others said the increased cost was simply reflected in a larger operating loss. Among both groups, a significant number said they were successful at instituting fuel-saving operational changes, including: • Turning off engines in lieu of idling. • Reducing speed or optimizing engine revolutions per minute. • Limiting the amount of excess fuel on board to reduce weight. • Making fewer trips. • Installing a fuel monitoring system to track consumption. • Assigning responsibility for fuel management to individual captains. Based on the funding experiences and challenges faced by survey respondents, best practices with regard to managing funding resources appear to include the following: • Use stimulus money. • Dedicate staff resources to pursuing grants and other sources of capital funds. • Manage fuel costs through contracts, competitive bidding, and operational adjustments, including fuel monitoring systems and assign responsibility for fuel management to captains; use fuel surcharges cautiously. • Consider and apply alternate pricing, particularly seasonal pricing and systems that offer dis- counts to heavy users through a paperless ticketing system. Marketing Engaging in marketing practices can assist operators in raising their profile among the many transportation options people can choose from. This section looks to highlight what types of marketing activities and strategies operators use, as discussed in Table B-4. Generally, there were two perceptions of the importance of marketing. One group included those who do not see marketing as important. Most of these were publicly owned (either publicly 146 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services HOV lane pricing at terminals Congestion pricing Different pricing for different times of day, days of week, or seasons Different pricing for different categories of customers Different pricing for different payment methods 6.5% 9.7% 45.2% 71.0% 22.6% Table B-3. Percentage of respondents using alternate pricing strategies.

or privately operated) operations, often quite small, that do not think they need to market to retain what they often see as a captive audience. The majority of respondents, however, assigned relatively higher importance ratings to marketing. Private owner-operators rated marketing higher than did either publicly operated ferries or pri- vate contractors who operate publicly owned ferries. Even with small sample sizes for each group, the difference between the perceived importance of marketing among public operators (5.0) and private owner-operators (8.6) is significant. Public ferries had lower importance ratings for all specific aspects of marketing, whether using marketing to improve their image as a viable transit alternative, using marketing or market research to improve service, or using marketing to address other issues. When asked about their biggest marketing challenge in the next several years, responses tended to fall into three categories: • Difficulties of coping with the economy, which had led to decreased ridership and reduced marketing budgets, so that the need for marketing is greatest just when the resources to support it are declining. • Need to continue to promote the availability and benefits of their ferry. • Ability to recognize the importance of electronic media and marketing. Despite the relatively low importance assigned to marketing, a few operators appear to be using marketing and market research effectively to improve their business. Candidates for best practices include: • Creating and building a brand or image to help build awareness and differentiate one ferry line from others. • Using electronic media (including timely, updated Web sites and social media) to stay in touch with customers and market. • Fielding surveys to gather customer feedback and, as needed, make operational adjustments. Operations and Maintenance O&M was the only category of issues to receive an average importance rating higher than 9. As shown in Table B-5, O&M issues were rated highly by every category of ferry operation, with every group assigning an average of importance of at least 9.3. For all public and private operators, the average importance of maintenance-related issues to the success of operations was consistently high, as shown below. Engine, transmission, and generator maintenance received the highest average rating (9.4). However, regular haul-outs/inspections required by USGS (8.7), hull maintenance (8.4), cabin Appendix B 147 Marketing Using marketing to improve image as a viable transit alternative Using marketing or market research to improve service Using marketing to address other issues All Public 5.0 3.3 4.3 4.1 All Private 7.9 6.0 5.5 4.5 Privately Owned 8.6 6.5 6.1 4.7 Contract Operator 5.7 4.3 3.8 3.7 All 6.9 5.1 5.1 4.3 Table B-4. Importance of marketing to ferry success.

cleaning (8.3), terminal maintenance (7.4), and even vessel restroom maintenance (6.8) all rated higher than any other non-maintenance operational issues such as automated reservations or tick- eting, managing wait times, or managing entry/exit queuing and metering, as shown in Table B-6. When asked about their most serious maintenance challenge, respondents offered a variety of concerns but most often mentioned rising costs, the difficulty of maintaining aging vessels and engines, and the need to comply with a variety of regulations. Often those concerns overlap, such as when operators cite the high cost of replacing old engines to comply with more stringent envi- ronmental regulations. When looking at their greatest operational challenge more broadly, ferry managers again men- tioned cost (10 respondents) and regulations (cited by seven respondents). However, three also mentioned operating in severe weather as a challenge, and two noted problems associated with operating in shallow water (for example, rudder, propeller damage) as their biggest challenge. Work force issues were mentioned as a major issue by five operators. With the very high importance assigned to operations and maintenance, ferry managers are using whatever tools they feel are most effective in overcoming significant operational challenges. Potential best practices include: • Use computerized maintenance records to track vessel usage and identify needed scheduled maintenance. • Use automated scheduling and ticketing. • Use online reservations to reduce wait times. • Provide online information on ferry status. • Pro-actively conduct maintenance to anticipate USGS inspections. • Conduct preventive maintenance off-season. • Use centralized maintenance base for economies of scale. • Maintain good relationship with USGS to support flexible solutions to maintenance emergencies. • Structure fares to encourage foot traffic rather than vehicles. 148 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Importance ratings for operations and maintenance issues All Public 9.3 All Private 9.4 Privately Owned 9.4 Contract Operator 9.7 All 9.4 Table B-5. Importance of operational and maintenance issues. Automated ferry scheduling Automated ticketing/ reservations Managing wait times for vehicles Managing wait times for other passengers Encouraging motorists to switch to other modes Increasing passenger- only ferry service Managing entry/exit queuing and metering All Public 2.3 4.2 5.1 5.4 2.5 2.3 4.1 All Private 1.9 5.2 2.3 3.8 2.1 4.8 3.6 Privately Owned 1.6 5.8 2.5 4.2 1.6 4.8 3.8 Contract Operator 2.7 3.3 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.7 2.8 All 2.0 4.9 3.2 4.3 2.2 3.9 3.8 Table B-6. Importance of non-maintenance issues.

• Clean cabins and restrooms after every trip. • Assign clear responsibility for maintenance tasks, with captains ultimately responsible for onboard maintenance. Regulatory Issues Regulatory issues were considered important across the board but were rated especially impor- tant by privately owned and operated ferries. Ferries must comply with a range of regulations, whose relative importance is summarized in Table B-7. USGS and safety issues received the highest average importance ratings, followed by homeland security issues, emissions requirements, ADA compliance, and EPA discharge regulations. Note that several classes of regulatory concerns were deemed less important by private owner-operators than by publicly owned and operated ferries, including emission requirements (6.8 versus 7.4), use of automatic ID systems (3.5 versus 5.4), EPA regulations (5.8 versus 7.4), ADA compliance (5.9 versus 7.1), and homeland security issues (7.0 versus 8.3). Respondents were also asked specifically which of the above regulatory issues has had the greatest impact on their operations. Answers are summarized in Table B-8. Operators emphasize the multiple regulations they are required to comply with, that all the regulations are equally important (and, in many ways, equally burdensome), and that failure to comply leads to the operation being shut down. When asked about the importance of regulatory issues over the next several years, 10 respon- dents specifically mentioned Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) and installing the required card readers as a potential challenge. Both engine emissions and vessel discharge requirements were also mentioned as very important future concerns. The ferries most successful in dealing with regulatory concerns appear to be those that say they have anticipated requirements and that work closely with regulators such as the USGS to iden- tify potential compliance issues. Several respondents described how they provided input during public comment periods on proposed new regulations and were able to make them “come into play in a more reasonable fashion than what they were proposed.” Appendix B 149 Regulatory compliance issues ADA compliance Coast Guard issues Use of automatic ID systems EPA vessel general permit (VGP) Emissions requirements Safety issues Homeland security issues All Public 8.3 7.1 9.0 5.4 7.4 7.4 9.0 8.3 All Private 8.8 5.9 8.7 3.7 5.6 6.6 8.5 7.4 Privately Owned 9.3 5.9 8.8 3.5 5.8 6.8 8.7 7.0 Contract Operator 7.3 5.7 8.6 4.1 5.2 6.1 7.9 8.4 All 8.8 6.3 8.8 4.1 6.1 6.9 8.6 7.7 Table B-7. Importance of regulatory issues. ADA 4.7% Coast Guard 25.6% HL Security 18.6% Safety issues 25.6% All equal 25.6% Table B-8. Regulatory issue importance ranking.

As indicated in the discussions above, strict compliance with applicable regulations is a min- imal requirement for continued operation. However, it appears that there are some steps ferry operators can take to best anticipate regulations and interact with regulators. Some of these potential best practices include the following: • Establish and maintain good relations with the USGS, especially local personnel. • Provide well-documented input regarding local effects of proposed new regulations during public comment periods. • Plan and budget for likely regulatory changes, such as stricter emission requirements, even when the specific regulations have not been finalized. Workforce Management Issues Labor relations and workforce management issues received an overall rating of 8.6 when respondents were asked how important these issues had been to the success of ferry operations over the past 2 years—roughly the same as planning, managing funding sources, and regulatory compliance. Ratings for workforce management are presented in Table B-9. Private operators of publicly owned ferries appear to be somewhat less concerned than other groups about labor relations and workforce management issues overall, but they assigned greater importance to the availability of licensed, experienced staff, issues associated with drug testing, and providing benefits (recall that there are only seven of these contract operators, so that individual responses can more significantly affect the group average). When asked about the most significant workforce management issues for the next several years, most responses focused on the need to replace an aging workforce as existing staff retire, the cost of healthcare and other benefits, and generally being able to find good people at a manageable cost. The extent to which operators have flexibility in implementing new workforce manage- ment practices depends in part on whether and how much of the work force is unionized. Overall, however, the following appear to be consistent with efficient operation and good employee morale: • Because customer interaction is an important function for almost all positions on the ferry, select and recruit personnel accordingly. • Cooperate with other firms to have drug testing performed to reduce cost. • Train and promote from within the company to ensure high-quality staff and employee retention. • Take advantage of cyclical downturns in other industries to improve the ability of ferry operators to hire qualified staff even at relatively lower compensation levels. 150 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Labor relations and workforce management Availability of licensed (experienced) captains and deckhands Cost/ efficiency of drug testing Adapting to use of TWIC cards Providing benefits (health care, retirement plans, etc.) Interacting with unions and union negotiations All Public 8.3 7.7 6.1 5.4 8.3 5.7 All Private 8.8 8.4 7.1 5.2 7.6 2.4 Privately Owned 9.3 8.1 6.8 5.3 7.4 2.5 Contract Operator 7.3 9.8 8.2 4.8 8.4 2.0 All 8.6 8.2 6.8 5.2 7.8 3.5 Table B-9. Importance of workforce management issues.

Disaster Response and Passenger Security Issues The perceived importance of disaster response and passenger security issues to the success of operations seems to depend on whether respondents interpret it to mean homeland security–related issues or operational issues that affect the safety of passengers. As shown in Table B-10, disaster response and passenger security issues overall received an importance rat- ing of 7.4, somewhat lower than several other issues investigated in this study. Publicly operated ferries assigned a higher level of importance to this issue overall than did private operators, particularly operators of privately owned facilities. Several specific issues related to disaster response and security were also perceived as moderately important, including ferry disaster response and support (7.5), development of a security plan (6.8), protection and safety from terrorist attacks (5.8), and passenger screen- ing (5.5). Passenger safety and other operational safety issues received importance ratings of more than 9.0 for all categories of operators, suggesting that respondents see the traditional empha- sis on safety as more consistent with their success than the need to comply with security- related regulations imposed by DHS and the USGS. The different perceptions regarding these two distinct types of passenger security are reflected in the comments offered for each set of issues. As with other issues, a number of operators tie future security and safety challenges to fund- ing and the economic downturn, since there may be a tendency to want to save money on train- ing, maintenance, and other aspects of operations that directly affect safety and security. Also cited were concerns regarding the need to adapt to new and changing regulations (including installing TWIC card readers), the possibility of renewed terrorist threats that would raise secu- rity alert levels and require more rigorous passenger screening, and the need to hire skilled cap- tains and crews capable of meeting high safety standards. Strategies used by ferry operators to address safety and security issues that may be candidates for best practices include the following: • Use a PVA plan or develop own safety plan, working with USGS and DHS, as well as other law enforcement agencies. • Coordinate safety and security plans with other ferry operators in the region. • Implement standard procedures in accordance with plan and ensure they are followed. • Implement regular, rigorous training on all aspects of disaster response. • Conduct anonymous (mystery shopper) review of safety and security procedures. Appendix B 151 Disaster response and passenger security issues Development of security plan/ alternate security plan (ASP) Passenger screening and response screening Ferry protection and safety from terror attacks Passenger safety Ferry operational Safety Ferry disaster response and support All Public 8.2 6.4 5.0 6.1 9.2 9.1 8.3 All Private 7.0 7.0 5.8 5.7 9.2 9.2 7.1 Privately Owned 6.9 6.8 5.9 5.3 9.1 9.1 7.4 Contract Operator 7.6 7.7 5.4 6.7 9.4 9.7 6.3 All 7.4 6.8 5.5 5.8 9.2 9.2 7.5 Table B-10. Importance of disaster response and passenger security issues.

Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Issues Emissions and greenhouse gas issues are viewed overall as less important than other regulatory issues, workforce management issues, and marketing, with the lowest mean importance rating across all respondents of any category of issues, as shown in Table B-11. The importance rating for emissions issues is consistent across public and private operators with a difference of just 0.3 point between the highest and lowest rating. For individual issues, the level of importance shows more variation across different types of operators. The importance of new programs to reduce emissions, for example, ranges from 3.4 for contract operators to 5.4 for public ferries, while the rating for new engine technologies averages 5.9 for private owner- operators but only 3.2 for contract operators. Only a handful of operators said they had received or were working towards any specific green certification. Three respondents said they had received Travel Green Wisconsin certification, while two mentioned a PVA Best Practices program, and one reported that they had worked with EPA to develop a Green Port strategy and were now seeking funding to implement the strategy. When asked what they see as the most significant emission- and greenhouse gas-related chal- lenge over the next 2 years, almost all respondents focused on the increasingly stringent EPA reg- ulations, with at least one noting the uncertainty that surrounds current planning efforts. “We are heading into period where everything might have to be scrapped for 2014 regulations . . . it is holding everybody back.” Since most of the actions taken to address emissions and greenhouse gas issues involve com- plying with new and sometimes unforeseen regulations, best practices tend to be similar to those for regulatory issues. Candidates for best practices include the following: • Use engine manufacturers for support in complying with engine emissions guidelines. • Select cleanest fuel consistent with engine operating requirements. • Work with appropriate agencies to seek recognition for “green” practices. • Work together with ports and other authorities to establish and use emission monitoring program. • Seek out stimulus funding, grants, or other sources to help pay for engine retrofits or replacements. 152 Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Emission and greenhouse gas issues Emission monitoring programs New programs/ initiatives to reduce emissions Use of alternative fuels Retrofitting vessel to reduce emissions Use of tools, models to understand total fuel cycle energy, emissions impacts New engine technologies to reduce emissions Planning new routes to conform to air quality planning goals All Public 6.3 3.3 5.4 3.3 4.7 2.2 5.5 1.5 All Private 6.4 2.9 4.7 2.8 4.4 3.4 5.2 2.3 Privately Owned 6.4 3.0 5.2 2.8 5.2 3.9 5.9 2.2 Contract Operator 6.6 2.7 3.4 3.2 2.0 2.0 3.2 2.5 All 6.4 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.5 3.1 5.3 2.1 Table B-11. Importance of emission and greenhouse gas issues.

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 152: Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services examines the history and characteristics of ferry systems throughout North America and offers guidelines for planning, marketing, operating, and managing a ferry system as a component of an overall transportation network.

The report also explores the potential benefits of and impediments to ferry transportation services and identifies potential planning, operational, and management benchmarks.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!