FINAL 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Research and 

Special Programs 

Administration

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Acadia National Park

Bar Harbor, Maine

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Cambridge, Massachusetts

November 2002
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 

Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 

17. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

18. NUMBER 

OF 

PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of 

Alternate Transportation for Schoodic 

Peninsula 

Michael G. Dyer 

Scott A. Peterson 

Tom Crikelair 

November 2001 

Prepared by 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Acadia National Park 
4
NOTICE 

Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes 

any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or use of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed. Reference 

herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views 

and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United 

State Government or any agency thereof.

i

Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to thank the numerous organizations and individuals who graciously provided their 

time, knowledge and guidance in the development of this report. Those of particular note are listed 

below. 

 Stakeholders 

Paul Haertel, Superintendent (National Park Service, Acadia National Park) 

Len Bobinchock, Deputy Superintendent (National Park Service, Acadia National Park) 

John Kelly (National Park Service , Acadia National Park) 

Bob Holzheimer (National Park Service) 

Ronald L. Roy (Maine State Department of Transportation, Office of Passenger Transportation) 

James H. Fisher (Hancock County Planning Commission) 

Jean Marshall (Eastern Maine Development Corporation) 

Roger Barto (Town of Winter Harbor) 

Linda Pagels (Town of Gouldsboro) 

Mark Brent (Bar Harbor Whale Watcher) 

Steven Pagels (Bar Harbor Ferries) 

Robert Bowman (Center for Coastal Studies) 

 Staff and Others

Robert Hallett (U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe Center) 

Luis Sirotsky (U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe Center) 

ii

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction 1 

1.1 Purpose of Report 1 

1.2 National Park Service Objectives 1 

1.3 Navy Base Closure 1 

1.3.1 Schoodic Point Base 1

1.3.2 Winter Harbor Housing 2

1.4 Park Service Alternate Transportation Program 2

1.5 Candidate Transportation Services 2

1.6 Organization of Report 3

2 Background 5

2.1 Description of Area 5

2.1.1 Acadia National Park 5

2.1.2 Schoodic Peninsula 5

2.1.2.1 Parkland 5 

2.1.2.2 Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor 6 

2.1.2.3 Navy base 6 

2.1.2.4 Area roads 7 

2.2 Reuse Alternatives 7

2.2.1 Reuse Concept 1 7

2.2.2 Reuse Concept 2 7

2.2.3 Reuse Concept 3 8

3 Approach 9

3.1 General 9

3.2 Transportation Alternatives 9

3.2.1 Ferry services 10 

3.2.1.1 Commuter and recreational markets 10 

3.2.1.2 Vessel selection 11 

3.2.1.3 Terminals 11 

3.2.1.4 Ferry Service Cost and Revenue Model 11 
iii

3.3 Travel Demand Analysis 12 

3.3.1 Overview of data resources 12 

3.3.1.1 Population 12 

3.3.1.2 Employment and journey to work data 13 

3.3.1.3 National Park visitation and survey data 14 

3.3.1.4 Base reuse analysis 15 

3.3.2 Demand modeling process 15 

3.3.2.1 Trip generation 15 

3.3.2.2 Trip distribution 16 

3.3.2.3 Model split 16 

3.3.2.4 Assignment 16 

3.4 Demand for Ferry Service 17 

3.4.1 Data resources 17

3.4.2 Modeling process 17

3.5 Bicycleway Enhancements & Usage 18

3.5.1 Data resources and analysis 18

3.5.2 Park-and-ride assessment 18

3.6 Analysis of Roadway Traffic 19

3.6.1 Data resources 19

3.6.2 Analysis 19

3.7 Bus Services 19

4 Demographics, Land Use, and Park Visitation 21

4.1 Demographics 21

4.1.1 Population 21 

4.1.2 Employment 21 

4.2 Land Use 23 

4.2.1 Winter Harbor 23

4.2.2 Gouldsboro 24

4.3 Park Use 24

5 Ferry Service 27

5.1 Overview 27

5.1.1 Current conditions 27 
iv

5.1.2 Integration with other projects and studies 27

5.2 Candidate Terminals 29

5.2.1 Schoodic Peninsula 29 

5.2.1.1 South Gouldsboro dock (private) 29 

5.2.1.2 Winter Harbor 30 

5.2.1.3 Sorrento Town dock 32 

5.2.1.4 Summary 32 

5.2.2 Bar Harbor 33

5.3 Candidate Routes 35

5.3.1 Bar Harbor to South Gouldsboro 36

5.3.2 Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor 37

5.4 Passenger Boat Selection and Description 37

5.4.1 Monohull 38

5.4.2 Catamaran 39

5.5 Service and Economic Parameters 39

5.5.1 Seasonal service (commuter & recreational) 41 

5.5.2 Year round service (commuter & recreational) 42 

5.6 Demand 43

5.6.1 Commuters 43

5.6.2 Recreational 45

5.7 Ferry Economic Model Results 46

5.7.1 Seasonal service 46

5.7.2 Year round 47

5.7.3 Summary 48

5.8 Bus Service Links 50

6 Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 51

6.1 Access and Use 51

6.1.1 Current conditions and goals 51 

6.1.2 AASHTO guidelines 52 

6.1.3 Issues 53

6.1.4 Integration with other projects and studies 54
v

6.2 Demand 54 

6.2.1 Transportation Alternative 2 55 

6.2.2 Transportation Alternative 3 55 

6.2.3 Transportation Alternative 4 55

6.3 Schoodic Loop Road 55 

6.3.1 Current conditions and options 55 

6.3.2 One-way option 56 

6.3.3 Two-way option 56 

6.3.4 One way / two way option 56 

6.3.5 Two way / one way option 56 

6.3.6 Schoodic Loop Road 57 

6.3.7 Conclusion 57 

6.4 Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Roads 57

6.4.1 Moore Road, Winter Harbor 57

6.4.2 Route 186, Winter Harbor to Birch Harbor 57

6.4.3 Schoodic Road, Gouldsboro 57

6.5 Park and Ride Opportunities 58

6.5.1 Ferry service 58 

6.5.2 Bus and automobile 58

7 Bus Services 59

7.1 Bar Harbor to Schoodic Service 59 

7.1.1 Bus Only – Level One 60

7.1.2 Bus Only – Level Two 61

7.2 Bus Links for Ferry Alternatives 63

7.2.1 Bus /Ferry Links: Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula 64

7.2.1.1 Schoodic bus schedules 67 

7.2.1.2 Bar Harbor village shuttle 69 

7.2.1.3 Midday Bar Harbor – Acadia National Park bus link 69 

7.3 Summary of Vehicle Requirements and Cost Projections 70

8 Transportation Alternatives Summary and Selection 71

8.1 Alternative 2 71

8.2 Alternative 3 71
vi

8.3 Alternative 4 72

8.4 Selection 72

9 Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 75 

9.1 Transportation Alternative 1 75

9.1.1 Impacts 76

9.1.2 Enhancements 77

9.2 Transportation Alternative 2 77

9.2.1 Impacts 77

9.2.2 Enhancements 78

9.3 Transportation Alternative 3 78

9.3.1 Impacts 79

9.3.2 Enhancements 79

9.4 Transportation Alternative 4 80

9.4.1 Impacts 80

9.4.2 Enhancements 81

9.5 Summary 81

10 Findings and Recommendations 83

10.1 Selection of Transportation Alternative 83

10.2 Ferry Services 84

10.3 Bicycle Transport Enhancements 85

10.4 Bus Service 86

10.5 Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 87

References 89
vii

Figures 

2-1 Map of Schoodic Peninsula 6 

4-1 1990 Population Map, Hancock and Washington Counties 22 

4-2 1990 Population Map, Journeys to Work in Bar Harbor 23 

5-1 Schoodic Peninsula and Adjacent Waters 28 

5-2 South Gouldsboro Dock 29 

5-3 Winter Harbor Aerial Photograph 31 

5-4 Winter Harbor Town Dock 31 

5-5 Winter Harbor Marina Dock 33 

5-6 Bar Harbor Aerial Photo 34 

5-7 1 West Street Dock, Harbor Place Dock in Background 35 

5-8 January – March Wind Data, 1998 – 2000 36 

5-9 July – September Wind Data, 1998 – 2000 36 

5-10 Net Income Summary for All Services 49 

5-11 Revenue by Source for All Services 49 

9-1 Roadway Traffic: Effect of Active Alternatives 82 

Relative to “No Action” Alternative 

10-1 Net Annual Ferry Service Finances 85 

10-2 Roadway Traffic: Effect of Active Alternatives 87 

Relative to “No Action” Alternative 
viii

Tables 

4-1 Activities of Park Visitors 25 

5-1 Particulars of Selected Boats 38 

5-2 Ferry Economic and Operational Factors 40 

5-3 Ferry Run Times 40 

5-4 Summer Ferry Schedule, (1) Monohull 41 

5-5 Daily Summer Service Run Time Summary 42 

5-6 Winter Ferry Schedule, (1) Monohull 42 

5-7 Daily Winter Service Run Time Summary 43 

5-8 Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Seasonal 44 

5-9 Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Off-Season 44 

5-10 Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Yearly 44 

5-11 One Monohull Ferry Service: Patronage for All Scenarios 45 

5-12 Seasonal Service Finances, 50’ Monohull 46 

5-13 Seasonal Cost and Patronage Summary 47 

5-14 Year Round Cost and Patronage Summary 48 

6-1 Current Conditions of Roadway for Bicyclists 52 

6-2 Alternative 3 Seasonal Bicycle Trips 55 

7-1 Schedule - Level One Bus Service 60 

7-2 Markets Served, Level One Bus Service 61 

7-3 Schedule - Level Two Bus Service 61 

7-4 Markets Served, Level Two Bus Service 63 

7-5 Integrated Bar Harbor-Schoodic Bus and Ferry Schedule 66 

7-6 Markets Served - Coordinated Bus and Ferry Schedules 67 

7-7 Bar Harbor-Jackson Lab Village Shuttle Schedule 68 

7-8 Summary of Vehicle Requirements and Cost Projections 70 

9-1 Schoodic Area Vehicular Traffic 76 
ix

APPENDICES 

A Draft Reuse Alternatives 

B Ferry Financial Model 

C Population and Employment Data and Forecasts 

D Park Visitation Data and Forecasts 

E Base Reuse Data and Forecasts 

F Ferry Service Schedules, Demand and Patronage Data, Service Costs and Revenue 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

1

1 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of Report 

This report supports Acadia National Park’s (“the Park”) development of an amendment 

to the 1991 General Management Plan (GMP) by identifying and assessing 

transportation alternatives to serve the Park’s Schoodic Peninsula area. The 

amendment will be in response to the planned closure of several U.S. Navy facilities in 

and adjacent to the Park’s Schoodic Peninsula lands and the potential resulting 

changes of use of that parkland. The Navy will return the Naval Security Group Activity 

(“the Navy base”) at Schoodic Point land and facilities to the Park Service in June 2002 

and the Park must identify base reuse alternatives and address the attendant 

transportation issues contiguous to and within the Schoodic parkland. This report 

addresses the transportation implications of the draft reuse concept alternatives 

provided by Acadia Park staff to the Volpe Center. 

The focus of the transportation alternatives analysis will be ferry, bus, and bicycle 

modes to and within the Schoodic parkland, as well as an assessment of Schoodic area 

roadway impacts. The scope of the analysis includes external transport links to Mount 

Desert Island and transportation enhancements in and around the Schoodic parkland. 

1.2 National Park Service Objectives 

The mission objective of the Park Service is to protect the natural resources of the 

Schoodic parkland and to preserve its character as an un-crowded and quiet visitor 

experience. The specific objectives are to 1) identify Navy base reuse alternatives that 

are sensitive to local economic and political issues, and 2) provide for transportation 

needs of future visitors consistent with the mission objective for Schoodic. 

The two specific objectives are clearly intertwined, since reuse of the base will imply 

certain transportation needs and may also affect visitation in the Schoodic parkland. 

This assessment must therefore include a picture of overall transportation needs for 

Schoodic Peninsula, including residents’ commuter and other travel requirements. 

1.3 Navy Base Closure 

The Navy base closure includes the Schoodic Point base and other facilities. The most 

significant of the others is a substantial amount of single-family, duplex, and multi-family 

housing in Winter Harbor. There are also two large industrial and research buildings 

and a large antenna facility in Corea (a village in Gouldsboro). 

1.3.1 Schoodic Point base 

The Schoodic Point base is a campus complex of 90 acres and 50 buildings, including 

offices, residential units of various kinds, fire station, medical clinic, day care center, 

commissary, potable and waste water facilities, and numerous recreational assets put in 

place for use by Navy personnel. It includes buildings of historic value, campsites, a 

medical clinic, and a warehouse. The Navy plans to return the land and its facilities to 

the Park Service. 

The Park Service has drafted three concept alternatives for the reuse of the base, all for 

a campus-style learning center sponsored by two or more public and private entities 
Introduction 

2

(e.g., Park Service, University of Maine, Bigelow Labs), each varying the center’s size 

(both staff and facilities) and allowing for different visitor education opportunities (see 

Subchapter 2.2). 

1.3.2 Winter Harbor Housing 

The Navy housing in Winter Harbor consists of three separate complexes: 1) 20 single 

family houses known as Harbor View, situated north of the downtown area on Newman 

Street; 2) 14 duplexes (28 units) known as Ocean Heights situated just east of the 

downtown area off of Route 186; and 3) four apartment buildings totaling 32 units and 

several garage and storage buildings, known as Misty Harbor, located in the downtown 

area just behind the IGA grocery store. 

The “Down East” communities, particularly Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor, have serious 

concerns about the economic and other community impacts of the base closure. At the 

peak manning levels in previously years, Navy personnel represented 500 people of the 

total Winter Harbor population of 900 and Navy operations provided substantial 

employment and business activity. There has been much public comment to the Park 

Service and in the various base closure fora that the reuse of the Schoodic Point base 

must replace, at least in part, that economic stimulus, as well as a serious concern 

expressed that the departure of the Navy will deplete public school populations and 

threaten the viability of the school district. 

Any consideration of alternate transportation links to that area, particularly a ferry 

service, must account for several sources of patronage, including commuters to Mount 

Desert Island, traffic to and from the future facilities at the Navy base, and Park visitors 

seeking access to Schoodic Peninsula. 

1.4 Park Service Alternative Transportation Program 

The National Park Service has established that vehicle traffic in many national parks is 

equaling or exceeding capacity and has implemented a program to put alternatives in 

place. The benefits of alternative transport are clear: reduced road congestion and 

atmospheric pollution, improved visual and auditory values (i.e., fewer cars to see and 

hear), provision of an improved visitor experience, and more opportunities for resource 

interpretation 

In the case of the Schoodic parkland of Acadia National Park, Park Service staff are in 

the process of establishing its “carrying capacity” through work currently underway by 

the University of Vermont School of Natural Resources. The Acadia GMP states that 

Schoodic is to retain its quiet character. The establishment of alternate transportation 

services to mitigate automobile traffic is intrinsically supportive of both the existing GMP 

and its forthcoming amendment dealing with the Navy base reuse. 

1.5 Candidate Transportation Services 

The Park Service desires an assessment of the MDI/Schoodic Peninsula link and the 

best transportation alternatives for reducing automobile traffic in the Schoodic parkland. 

Initial discussions with NPS staff led to the development of a work plan including 

consideration of ferry services, park and ride sites (car-to-, car-to-bus, and bus-to-), and 

local Schoodic “loop” bus service interface. This report also includes an assessment of 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

3

roadway impacts within and adjacent to the Schoodic parkland, both with and without 

transportation alternatives in place. 

1.6 Organization of Report 

Chapter 2 describes the analytical approach adopted and the data inputs required to 

execute the analyses. Chapter 3 provides a general description of the project area. 

Chapter 4 presents the results of demographics, land use, and visitation data and 

projections. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 are the development and analysis of ferry, bicycle, 

and bus service modes. Chapter 8 summarizes the assessments of the transportation 

alternatives. Chapter 9 describes the projected impacts on Schoodic area roads, both 

without and with implementation of the alternate modes. Chapter 9 is the findings and 

recommendations. 

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

5

2 Background 

2.1 Description of Area 

2.1.1 Acadia National Park 

The following general description of the Park is derived from Park Service literature: 

Acadia National Park was established 85 years ago and comprises 46,000 acres, 

mostly on Mount Desert Island on Maine’s east coast, and including parkland on 

Schoodic Peninsula and many surrounding islands. The Park officially protects a large 

variety of plants, trees, and animals, the latter including 11 species of amphibians, 273 

of birds, and four of fish. There are also many more species of terrestrial and marine 

mammals, including seals giving birth to their young. The Park is also a significant 

scientific and cultural education center for visitors of all ages. 

Acadia Park provides visitors with a great variety of activities including sightseeing, 

hiking, camping, kayaking, canoeing, and bicycling. Guided tours on land and water 

help people understand the area and its biological importance. Popular sites and scenic 

areas include the Park Loop Road, Thunder Hole, Eagle Lake Carriage Road, Baker 

Island Light Station, Abbe Museum, Schoodic Peninsula and the Isle au Haut. 

An important goal of the Park is to retain and restore its pristine condition, which aim is 

partially addressed through air quality monitoring for UV-b radiation, ozone, nitrous 

oxides, visibility, precipitation and other descriptors. Management of vehicular traffic is 

one measure for control of the levels of harmful pollutants. 

Park staff must manage the conflicting needs of 1) providing myriad recreational and 

educational opportunities to millions of visitors and 2) maintaining and restoring a 

pristine condition to the fullest possible extent. The Schoodic peninsula parkland is 

subject to this dichotomy and its future transportation system particularly so since visitor 

impacts in the area are currently far less severe than on MDI. 

2.1.2 Schoodic Peninsula 

Schoodic Peninsula lies to the east of Mount Desert Island, separated by Frenchman 

Bay and a number of smaller islands. It is generally demarked by Maine Route 186 to 

the north connecting Winter Harbor and Birch Harbor, Frenchman Bay to the west, and 

the Gulf of Maine to the south and west. It makes up the southern portion of a larger 

mass of land projecting generally southward, or “down east”, into the Gulf from U.S. 

Route 1 between the town of Sullivan and the border of Hancock and Washington 

Counties. 

2.1.2.1 Parkland 

The National Park owns most of the land on the southern end of Schoodic Peninsula, 

an area about 1.5 miles wide (east to west) and three miles long (north to south), in 

addition to four small islands in the adjacent waters. Big Moose Island is actually the 

southernmost part of the Peninsula and includes the scenic area at Schoodic Point and 

the Navy base. Visitors enjoy rocky shorelines, ocean vistas, and wooded uplands. 
Background 

6

The park road provides access to visitors, most of whom travel through in private 

vehicles, and generally follows the shoreline except where it runs on the east side of the 

Navy base and Big Moose Island. Unimproved roads also provide access to the 

Schoodic Head, the highest point on the peninsula at 440’ elevation, and to the ranger’s 

residence. There is a limited number of hiking trails, one to Schoodic Head and another 

from Blueberry Hill, and many other walking opportunities along the shoreline. 

Source: National Park Service 

Figure 2-1

Map of Schoodic Peninsula 

2.1.2.2 Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor 

The Town of Gouldsboro comprises the villages of West and South Gouldsboro, Birch 

Harbor Prospect Harbor, and Corea, covering the bulk of the landmass in and adjacent 

to Schoodic Peninsula. The 2000 Census reports that the Town’s population is 1940. 

The Town of Winter Harbor seceded from Gouldsboro in the late 1800s and is situated 

around the well protected harbor of the same name. Its downtown is the largest center 

of commercial activity in the area. Grindstone Neck, a small peninsula to the west of 

the harbor, is a residential area including many summer homes for seasonal residents. 

The 2000 Census reports that the Town’s population is 990. 

More detail on demographics and land use in these two towns appears in Chapter 4. 

2.1.2.3 Navy base 

The Naval Security Group Activity at Winter Harbor (the “base”) makes up most of Big 

Moose Island, as seen in Figure 2-1. It now consists of 50 buildings and facilities, as 

described in subsection 1.3.1 and includes most of the northern, western, and southern 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

7

shoreline of Big Moose Island. Access to the base is via the only stretch of two-way 

road within the Schoodic parkland, the spur leading from the one-way loop road to the 

Schoodic Point scenic area. Residents and visitors to the base must enter and exit the 

parkland on the one-way loop road. 

2.1.2.4 Area roads 

Primary road access to Schoodic Peninsula is from U.S. Route (USR) 1, connecting 

Ellsworth and points to the south, and Machias and points to the north. Interstate 

Highway Route 95 passes through Bangor approximately 35 miles north of Ellsworth; 

travelers on I95 take State Route (SR) 3 to Ellsworth, from where they can continue on 

SR 3 to MDI or take USR 1 north to the Schoodic region. 

Access from Route 1 to Schoodic is via SR 186, a loop connecting twice with USR 1, or 

SR 195. SR 186 runs counterclockwise (south, then east, then north) through West 

Gouldsboro, South Gouldsboro, Winter Harbor, Birch Harbor, Prospect Harbor, and 

Gouldsboro. SR 195 leaves USR 1 between the two intersections of SR 186 and runs 

south directly to Prospect Harbor, where it ends at the intersection with SR 186. 

The two local roads of interest for this study are Moore Road in Winter Harbor and 

Schoodic Road in Birch Harbor, which are used for ingress and egress to the park, 

respectively. These roads connect the park road to SR 186. 

2.2 Reuse Alternatives 

Park staff provided draft versions of three base reuse alternatives. While these may not 

represent the reuse alternatives in their final form, they served as a reasonable basis for 

the transportation alternatives analysis. The primary reuse purpose is that of a learning 

center, articulated in various intensities of use in the three alternatives. Summaries of 

the draft reuse alternatives appear below (full text in Appendix A). 

2.2.1 Reuse Concept 1 

Concept 1 is for a modest learning center, utilizing only the historic structures and 

facilities necessary for park support and the learning center and undertaking the most 

site restoration with no expansion of recreational facilities. The system of roads and 

paths would be reconfigured to create a more efficient and pleasant campus 

environment and the network of hiking trails connecting the base to Schoodic parkland 

around the perimeter of Big Moose Island would be opened to the public. Living 

accommodations would be available for up to 200 people and the learning center would 

have as many as 200 program users. The Schoodic parkland would support a 

moderate increase in visitor day use but have much less overnight use than did the 

base at its peak use by the Navy. 

2.2.2 Reuse Concept 2 

Concept 2 is for a more expansive research and education facility, to encompass 

science and education in natural and cultural conservation, and programs in natural and 

cultural history, conservation, science, music, and art. Facilities would include housing, 

food service, classrooms, archival collections storage, and laboratory space. The 

learning center would provide housing for 15-20 researchers and up to 100 students. 
Background 

8

Accommodations would be available for up to a total of 300 people in campsites, 

apartments, and dormitories and the learning center would have as many as 500 

program users daily. The Schoodic parkland would support a moderate increase in 

visitor day use, but it would have less overnight use than did the base at its peak use by 

the Navy. 

2.2.3 Reuse Concept 3 

Concept 3 expands the uses suggested in Concept 2, while retaining most of the 

existing Navy base buildings, leasing those not required for the learning center to 

compatible uses. The learning center would provide housing for 15-20 researchers and 

up to 190 students, with total accommodations available for up to 350 people in 

campsites, cabins, apartments, and dormitories. The learning center might have as 

many as 600 program users on site on a peak day. Leased office or research space 

might provide employment for an additional 50 people. The Schoodic unit of the park 

would experience a moderate increase in visitor day use, as well as overnight use. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

9

3 Approach 

3.1 General 

The premises of the analysis are the 1) the mission objective of the Park Service to 

protect the natural resources of the Schoodic parkland, and 2) the provision for future 

transportation needs consistent with that mission objective and the identified Navy base 

reuse alternatives. It is also necessary to consider future transportation alternatives in 

light of all the needs of residents and non-Park visitors on the Peninsula. The 

transportation alternatives under consideration would consist of services owned and 

operated independent of the Park Service, mostly by private concerns, and would 

embrace all transportation markets in the area, not just Park visitors. 

The approach in this report is therefore a thoroughgoing effort to characterize the 

project area, its demographics, land use and growth trends, current transportation 

services, trip-to-work and other transportation needs (with consideration of the Navy 

properties’ reuses), and the projected visitors’ needs in Acadia National Park. Site 

visits, stakeholder interviews, and data acquisition efforts were all carried out with this 

broad viewpoint in mind. The analyses which follow likewise encompass the entire 

breadth of local transportation markets. 

3.2 Transportation Alternatives 

The Transportation Alternatives considered, by direction of the Park Service, are 

itinerant scheduled services and opportunities such as park-and-ride presented to 

visitors and the public as a whole to leave their cars and proceed by their own chosen 

mode (i.e., on or foot, kayak or canoe). The focus of the study is ferry and/or bus 

service from MDI to Schoodic Peninsula, park-and-ride opportunities on Schoodic, and 

attendant local bus links among MDI service terminuses, local residential areas, and 

recreational destinations both within the Schoodic parkland and the neighboring towns. 

The development and characterization of the Alternatives are set at future dates when 

the Navy base reuse has been implemented and reflect future demand projections. The 

dates chosen for the analysis bracket a “look” period from 2005 to 2015. The year 2005 

is seen as a realistic start point where the Navy base reuse and development of 

proposed transportation infrastructure elements will be fully realized. The 2015 

endpoint matches the time frame under consideration in the GMP amendment. All 

financial elements of the analysis are expressed in year 2001 dollars, however, for 

consistency and simplicity. 

The Alternatives are integrated among the transport modes considered, i.e., route and 

schedule considerations among ferry, bus, and other modes dovetail to provide the best 

conceptual intermodal transfers. The demand and market aspects of each Alternative 

are therefore integrated analytically; the results reflect “organic” wholes rather than 

separate pieces of the system. 

The Transportation Alternatives chosen are the result of the project team’s observations 

of the project area and its needs, practical considerations relating to the identified 

candidate transport modes, and direction of the Park Service. They are: 

3⁄4 Alternative 1 – No action. 
Approach 

10

3⁄4 Alternative 2 – No ferry service, substituted by year round commuter bus 

service, bus service commuter links in Bar Harbor and on Schoodic 

Peninsula, park-and-ride facility in Winter Harbor, and circle bus route on 

Schoodic Peninsula connecting park-and-ride users to destinations in the 

Schoodic parkland and nearby towns. 

3⁄4 Alternative 3 – Seasonal ferry service (May - October) for commuter and 

recreational users, bus service commuter links in Bar Harbor and on 

Schoodic Peninsula, circle bus route on Schoodic Peninsula connecting 

recreational ferry passengers to destinations in the Schoodic parkland and 

nearby towns, winter commuter bus service and backup for ferry 

cancellations, and park-and-ride facility in Winter Harbor. 

3⁄4 Alternative 4 – Year round ferry service for commuter and recreational users, 

bus service commuter links in Bar Harbor and on Schoodic Peninsula, circle 

bus route on Schoodic Peninsula connecting recreational ferry passengers to 

destinations in the Schoodic parkland and nearby towns, backup commuter 

bus service for ferry cancellations due to weather or operational problems, 

and park-and-ride facility in Winter Harbor. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are hitherto collectively referred to as the “active” Alternatives. 

The discussion following presents the approaches taken to characterization of the 

individual modes. 

3.2.1 Ferry services 

The idea of a ferry across Frenchman Bay connecting Bar Harbor to Schoodic 

Peninsula is not new and indeed is a geographically obvious concept. Ferries in the 

past provided vital transportation links both within the area and to greater New England. 

These services faded in the post-war period with the automobile’s rise to primacy, as 

did ferry services nationwide. The recent renewal of public interest in ferries and 

waterborne transportation in general has manifested itself locally in the appearance of a 

number of ferry and excursion services, including a Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor ferry 

which has operated during the summers of 2000 and 2001 (the “Bar Harbor Ferry”). 

The ferry services identified for this study are not similar in their particulars to any past 

or currently existing service. The boats and schedules employed meet the specific 

needs and market demand foreseen, in particular, the speed of the boats and frequency 

of service. 

3.2.1.1 Commuter and recreational markets 

All potential markets are considered as potential sources of patronage for a new ferry 

service. The demand values in the commuter and recreational markets (in both 

directions) are separately calculated; however, the ferry patronage for the various 

scenarios considered is taken as the total of the two and modeled “organically” (demand 

calculations methodology appears in Section 3.3). The two services modeled will be 

year-round and seasonal, the latter taken as the six months from the beginning of May 

through the end of October. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

11

3.2.1.2 Vessel selection 

Candidate boats for the modeled services were selected after discussions with local 

operators, consideration of local needs and conditions, and investigating available ferry 

data bases, notably “Ferry Lines of the United States”, developed by the Volpe Center 

in 2000 for the Federal Highway Administration to meet a mandate of the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). The project team selected catamaran and 

monohull boats with a minimum speed requirement of 18 knots to provide headway 

(service frequency) times of 80 minutes or less. 

3.2.1.3 Terminals 

The project team identified candidate ferry terminal sites both in Bar Harbor and on 

Schoodic Peninsula, with the insight of Park Service representatives and local 

stakeholders. The sites were all visited by Volpe Center representatives and assessed 

for physical condition, automobile access, parking, navigational aspects, and local use 

patterns. 

3.2.1.4 Ferry Service Cost and Revenue Model 

The Volpe Center developed a ferry service cost and revenue model for the U.S Navy 

Office of Naval Research (ONR) while preparing a study on the commercial viability of 

the SLICE, a high speed, multi-hull displacement craft developed by Lockheed, similar 

to “small waterplane area, twin hull” (SWATH) now in use as research vessels and in 

some commercial passenger services (Volpe Center, 2001). The report for ONR 

included eight U.S. regional market case studies comparing SLICE to other high speed 

craft. The ferry model has since been refined and modified for use in several 

commercial passenger service studies by the Volpe Center, including Park Service ATP 

projects for the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area, New York Gateway Parks 

and Fire Island National Seashore. 

The model evaluates the relative economic performance of the various ferry route and 

service alternatives proposed herein. The financial performance in each case is 

expressed by yearly net income or loss (the model also calculates internal rate of return 

on the required equity investment over the estimated vessel service life). The financial 

analysis applies to a broad spectrum of ferry operations, including cases with 

government subsidies, where minimizing the subsidy needed to produce neutral or 

positive return on equity investment is an appropriate measure. 

In keeping with generally accepted principals and methods for the financial analysis of 

transportation business entities, total expenses (cash outflows) are classified into the 

three mutually exclusive categories of vessel debt repayment, direct operating costs

and indirect operating costs. Vessel debt repayment includes principal and interest 

payments on the portion of the vessel purchase price not funded by the equity 

investment of the owners (20% down payment and 15 year term assumed). It is 

assumed that debt service continues for the owner through 2015. 

Direct operating costs for the vessel include crew costs (in these cases, deck crew only, 

excluding passenger service crew), fuel and lubricant costs, hull insurance, and vessel 

maintenance (maintenance costs rise with vessel age and ten years is added to the 
Approach 

12

ages of the candidate boats in the 2015 scenarios). Indirect operating costs include 

terminal related costs such as passenger facility charges, protection and indemnity 

insurance, docking fees, marketing and advertising, and general administration. 

In evaluating vessel attributes that affect operator financial performance (e.g., fuel 

consumption, vessel maintenance, vessel purchase price, etc.), historically observed 

data were obtained whenever possible from sources such as the current operators of 

the vessel(s) or operators of similar vessel(s), or vessel designers and shipyards. 

A complete and detailed description of the ferry financial model appears in Appendix B. 

3.3 Travel Demand Analysis 

The analysis generally must address a number of potential markets in the future, all of 

which together are necessary for the economic and political success of any new 

transportation service. Those markets are characterized overall as recreational and 

commuter users, whose specific elements include the following: 

• Acadia National Park visitors traveling between MDI and Schoodic for 

recreational purposes. 

• Commuters traveling from the Schoodic region to jobs at Jackson Laboratory and 

elsewhere in Bar Harbor and reverse commuters traveling from Bar Harbor to 

jobs in Schoodic Peninsula, including those projected for new activities at the 

Navy base. 

• Acadia National Park staff, staff from the future activities at the Navy base, 

guests and researchers at the Navy base, and other visitors traveling between 

Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula for both business and pleasure. 

3.3.1 Overview of data resources 

The travel demand model set used in this study was developed from several data 

sources in order to help identify patterns of trip making between Mount Desert Island 

and the Schoodic Peninsula. They consist of demographic data, namely, population 

and employment data, National Park Service research on visitation and park use, 

several independent surveys and reports, and field work by the project team. The study 

area that this data was collected for was the Down East and Acadia Region of Maine, 

including Hancock and Washington Counties. 

The look period and scenario forecast years were determined by three criteria: 

• Current conditions scenario – the year 2000, chosen particularly because of 

newly available descriptive data from the census. 

• Short- term forecast year – the year 2005, representative of the realistic 

completion of build out for the Navy base reuse concepts. 

• Horizon year – 2015, as compatible with the vision of the Acadia Park General 

Management Plan amendment, and providing for a long-term perspective. 

3.3.1.1 Population 

The population data came from two sources, the 2000 Census and the Hancock County 

Planning Commission (HCPC). The population data helped to determine the 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

13

distribution of individuals by community in the study area and identify sources of 

possible recreational trip making activity. The 2000 Census was checked against the 

1998 Hancock County Data to determine consistency, and the data then broken down 

into several groups by age. The breakdown helped to identify market segments and the 

effects of changes in land use or transportation services and was structured as follows: 

children younger than 12 years old and 12 to 18 years old, senior citizens, and the 

remaining population. 

Population forecasts for 2005 and 2015 were obtained from the University of Southern 

Maine (USM), Center for Business and Economic Research, developed for use in the 

2000 Long Range Employment and Population Forecasts for the State of Maine 

(Colgan, 2000). Those forecasts, originally developed only for counties and groups of 

counties, were adjusted to the 2000 Census estimates by changing the model's 

estimates of economic migration. The 2005 and 2015 forecasted populations for 

individual towns in the study area were obtained by assuming that they would have 

similar and proportional distributions as the 2000 Census totals (detailed population 

data and forecasts appear in Appendix C). 

3.3.1.2 Employment and journey to work data 

There were three sources for employment data: the 1997 Economic Census, 1990 

journey-to-work Census data, and Employment Profiles from the HCPC. These data 

identified areas generating and attracting work trips in the study area and were the 

basis for a database of current and future commuter trips between Mount Desert Island 

and the Schoodic Peninsula. The 1997 Economic Census and the HCPC provided data 

by sectors for year round employment. HCPC employment data characterized seasonal 

employment by the retail, hotel, and restaurant segments of the workforce. A 1996 

HCPC commuter survey, conducted for a Schoodic - Bar Harbor ferry study, and the 

1990 Census journey-to-work data (2000 Census data not available for this report) were 

the basis for determination of commuter demand and distribution. The commuter 

survey provided insight as to the major employers and the attitudes of their employees 

towards a new ferry service. It was assumed that commuters would work 260 days a 

year. 

Employment forecasts for 2005 and 2015 were also obtained from USM, which updated 

1997 employment data for each region to 1998 and 1999 using the Maine Department 

of Labor data on wage and salary employment. The employment concept used in these 

forecasts is "total employment", which combines wage and salary employment, with 

estimates of self-employment and farm employment. The employment figures are thus 

noticeably higher than those published by the Maine Department of Labor. 

The differences in forecasting concepts necessitated an estimating technique for the 

1998 employment update which adjusts the change in total employment in each region 

and industry by the growth rate in wage and salary employment as measured by the 

Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). For 1999, monthly MDOL data from the Labor 

Market Digest is published for the state and for the Portland and Lewiston Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas. Growth rates for each industry in these two regions were used to 
Approach 

14

estimate future growth. Statewide growth rates for 1999 for each industry were then 

distributed to other regions (Hancock and Washington Counties were taken together) 

based on each industry and region's share of 1998 growth rates. The Hancock and 

Washington Counties employment projections for 2005 and 2015 are also identical to 

the USM estimates. 

Conversion of future county employment to future community employment was by 

allocation of shares of employment proportionally among the towns in the study area 

based on the 1998 employment distribution in the Economic Census. The new 

employment forecasts by community were the basis of local residence and journey-towork profiles, using the same distribution as the 1990 trip flows. 

It was assumed that the all of the commuters who worked on the Navy base in 1990 

resided in Winter Harbor and this employment was assumed to be reduced by 50% in 

order to calculate the 2000 journey-to-work trip flows. The forecast years had the 

employment for the Navy base in Winter Harbor removed prior to proportionally 

distributing the employment across communities in the study area. After this distribution 

occurred, employment estimates from the conceptual plans were added to Winter 

Harbor and distributed using the distribution of adult population in the study area. 

Detailed employment data and forecasts appear in Appendix C. 

3.3.1.3 National Park visitation and survey data 

The NPS and the HCPC provided data and surveys on use, views, characteristics, and 

preferences of the visitors in and around the National Park. These data were 

instrumental in determining the magnitude and distribution of recreational trips in Acadia 

and Schoodic. The visitation data were derived from official NPS tabulations for every 

year and month between 1990 and 2000. The ten-year time period showed important 

seasonal trends. 

A 1998 visitor study provided data on visitor destinations, transport modes, party sizes, 

and preferences for places and events. The 1996 HCPC ferry service survey provided 

insight into what factors relating to ferry service were important to the tourists. The Park 

Service conducted a survey on the use of the Island Explorer Bus System in the 

summer of 1999. The Island Explorer is the primary public transit option on Mt Desert 

Island; it provides a basis for understanding who might be utilize other transport 

alternatives and why. The project team also examined preliminary research by the 

University of Vermont from the summer of 2000 investigating park use and issues 

relating to carrying capacity. 

In 1999, Acadia Park staff developed an estimate of visitation growth rates for park 

recreational visits using data gathered between 1990 and 1998. The resulting average 

growth rate of 1.26% is the basis for projected visitations for 2005 and 2015, starting 

with actual year 2000 visitation data. The projected monthly and daily visitation are 

based on the same variations seen between 1990 and 2000. It was assumed that the 

daily recreational trips could occur on any day of the week, 360 days a year, but they 

would be function of the monthly variation that the NPS has observed over the last 10 

years. Detailed visitation data and forecasts appear in Appendix D.
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

15

3.3.1.4 Base reuse analysis 

The Schoodic Navy base reuse is a significant element of future employment, visitation, 

and journey-to-work calculations. The characterization and quantification of these 

activities are based on several conditions and assumptions. The bases of the analysis 

are traffic data from the Park Service on the historical trip-making activity at the base 

(between from 1990—full operation—and 2000—partial operation of about 50%) and 

the three conceptual plans developed by the Park Service, each one representing a 

different intensity level of base reuse. Concept 1 is the “Low” or minimum build out 

scenario, while Concept is the “High” or maximum build out scenario. 

For the purpose of this study, 2005 was considered the earliest timeframe that the 

Reuse Concepts could be implemented. The analysis includes the high and low 

buildout scenarios for each year and consideration of three time frames each. The 

seasonal time frame includes the six months of May through October, and the year 

round cases include January through December. The daily demand was calculated as 

an average of weekday and weekend use for the seasonal and year round cases. 

Each of the park’s conceptual plans identifies buildings to be retained and their uses. 

Examination of each building and use is the basis of commuter and recreational tripmaking activities, resulting in numbers of individuals traveling, types of trip, and 

numbers of trips. Park personnel, teachers, researchers, and retail operators were 

considered commuters (with seasonal fluctuation) because they would have a regular 

work schedule on the base. All non-regular visitors to the base qualify as recreational 

trips, including purely recreational visitors, students, and users of the meeting rooms 

(even if present for purposes of work). Detailed base reuse data and forecasts appear 

in Appendix E.

3.3.2 Demand modeling process 

Travel demand calculations are by the commonly applied four step modeling process for 

transportation planning, originally developed in the 1970s by the Federal Highway 

Administration for use by municipal planning organizations. The four steps are: trip 

generation, trip distribution, model split, and assignment. The process combines socioeconomic data and characteristics of the transportation system to predict trip flows 

between different geographic areas, in this study towns on Mount Desert Island and in 

Hancock and Washington Counties. The transportation systems of interest are 

described by the four identified transportation alternatives in the years 2000 (baseline 

only), 2005, and 2015. These systems can include but are not limited to roadways, 

ferries, bus routes, bicycle routes, and walking trails. The socio-economic and 

demographic input factors predict the distribution of trip flows between Mount Desert 

Island and the Schoodic Peninsula, varied for the three Base reuse concepts. 

3.3.2.1 Trip generation 

Trip generation is the first sub-model of the conventional four-step model sequence and 

predicts the number of trips generated at and attracted to a given location, based on all 

persons who could possibly use any mode of transportation. The towns identify the 
Approach 

16

beginning and end points of the trips flows but not where they come from or where they 

go once they leave the town. The trips generated are based on the socio-economic 

characteristics of the study area population, specifically, commuter and recreational 

trips. The trips generated by the base reuse were broken down into commuters and 

recreational trips as well. The basis for commuter trips is journey-to-work totals, 

economic census, and the reuse plans and that for recreational trips is population data, 

park visitation numbers, and base reuse plans. 

3.3.2.2 Trip distribution 

Trip distribution (defined by the variables “i j”) is the second step and it links the trip 

origins and destinations. In this case, the trip distribution model predicts how many of 

the trips originating in town i will terminate in town j. The distribution for work trips in 

this study was derived from Census journey-to-work data for 1990. Because of the lack 

of 2000 journey-to-work data, it was assumed that the 2000, 2005, and 2015 distribution 

of trips would not be significantly different from that of 1990 with the exception of the trip 

patterns due to the base reuse. 

Recreational trips were distributed based on the survey and visitation data. 

Recreational and commuter trips generated by the base reuse were distributed to the 

towns in the study area proportionally based on their population and employment. This 

phase identifies the number of trips, also called the demand, between Mount Desert 

Island and the Schoodic Peninsula. Once the demand was identified, the markets for a 

new ferry service needed to be determined. This was done by looking at travel times 

between all of the communities in the study area using the current transportation system 

and the proposed transportation system that included a ferry and supplemental bus 

services. 

3.3.2.3 Model split 

Model spilt, or mode choice, is the third step in the modeling process and predicts how 

the demand between Mount Desert Island and Schoodic Peninsula will break down, by 

mode of transportation. Data from reports by the HCPC and survey data from the 

Island Explorer Study were the basis of an estimated 7% to 8% of people who would be 

likely to switch from the dominant transport mode (automobile) to an alternative mode 

such as a ferry or a bus. “Elasticities” determine changes in ridership within or between 

transit modes due to variations in service characteristics such as price, run-time, and 

headway (frequency of service). As an example, an elasticity of –0.40 means that for 

every 10% increase in run time a 4% reduction in ridership could be expected. The 

elasticities used here are based on research by the Federal Highway Administration in 

several areas in the United States over the last 20 years. 

3.3.2.4 Assignment 

The last step assigns people to various combinations of transportation modes (e.g., 

vehicle, ferry, bus) and routes. This was done for each year, ferry option, alternative, 

and time frame that was considered. Auto occupancies based on trip purpose were 

used to create vehicle trips. The vehicle trips were manually assigned to the roadway 

based on the shortest observable path. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

17

3.4 Demand for Ferry Service 

3.4.1 Data resources 

The demand for the ferry service was calculated using the four step process described 

above. The demand for three ferry services, both seasonal and year round, was 

identified by commuter and recreational trips, including trips from the base reuse 

options. The analysis includes the high and low reuse scenarios for each year of 

interest (2000, 2005, and 2015). The seasonal use factored in seasonal employment 

based on HCPC research. 

Recreational trips were incorporated based on current and projected visitation data from 

the NPS. Using survey data from the NPS, it was assumed that the recreational trips 

would be derived from three sources. 

• 11% of the total projected visitors to Acadia National Park would visit the 

Schoodic Peninsula (1998 Visitor Survey results). 

• 5% of the inhabitants of Schoodic Peninsula would take annual recreational visits 

to Mount Desert Island (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1993). 

• Recreational trips generated by the high and low base reuse scenarios. 

3.4.2 Modeling process 

The calculation of total trip generation and trip distribution among communities 

(demand) preceded the definition of the market area for commuters and recreational 

riders that might use the ferry service. For commuters, this was based initially on travel 

times between the communities and a rough assessment of the travel time-savings 

benefit for each community. The market area for the ferry service on Mount Desert 

Island was determined to be the communities of Bar Harbor and Mount Desert, because 

of the location of the dock in Bar Harbor and the limited transit options to or from other 

communities on the island. The market area on Schoodic Peninsula consisted of all the 

towns in Hancock and Washington Counties east of Sorrento, based on travel times to 

the dock, wait time, run-time, and a terminal time to access their final destination. The 

wait time was a function of the headway for each ferry option. The run time was the 

total time it took to go from the dock in Winter Harbor to departing the boat in Bar 

Harbor. The terminal time was an average time to get to locations in Bar Harbor or 

Desert Island. 

The market area for recreational trips was developed more narrowly. Survey data 

indicate that Mount Desert Island will provide virtually all demand for Schoodic 

Peninsula. Recreational trips from Schoodic Peninsula to Mount Desert Island were 

assumed to originate from either Winter Harbor or Gouldsboro and be destined to Bar 

Harbor. 

Determination of the mode splits for the market areas was the next step. Research has 

shown that people pick public forms of transit over the automobile about 8% of the time, 

which proportion was the basis for average demand for new ferry services for commuter 

and recreational use. Comparison of different ferry services (candidate boats) was by 

the two key service characteristics of run time and headway. An average run-time and 

headway was calculated for the three services and this was assumed to represent the 
Approach 

18

demand that was derived from mode split. To differentiate the changes in ridership 

between the ferry services, an elasticity of –0.3 was used for the run time and –0.4 for 

the headway for seasonal use. Park Service research and data on off-season use were 

the basis of off-season elasticity factors. These were added together to create yearly 

use. 

The mode assignment had several results: 1) origin and destinations of travelers by 

given transportation modes; 2) determination whether adequate parking spaces are 

available at proposed terminals to encourage use of a particular mode; 3) identification 

from survey data of levels of use; and 4) identification of the impacts to the local 

roadway system. Attributing an auto occupancy based on the nature of the trip to the 

commuters and recreational users of the ferry determined the number of vehicles that 

were changing paths. These vehicles were then added to the roadways by manually 

determining the path that they would have most likely used. 

3.5 Bicycleway Enhancements & Usage 

3.5.1 Data resources and analysis 

The determination of current usage and future enhancement opportunities in and 

around Schoodic Peninsula was straightforward. Current usage for commuters derives 

from 1990 Census Mode of Transportation to Work data. The result was a very low 

number which probably shows only those commuting within their own town. It was 

assumed that none of the commuters in the forecast years would use bicycles to access 

the ferry. 

The 1998 Summer Visitor Survey provides more current data on recreational use. 

Approximately 36% of all Park visitors on MDI use bicycles in some way. The 

University of Vermont’s summer 2000 study showed that 17% of the people visiting the 

Schoodic Peninsula parkland used bicycles. Since Schoodic lacks the attraction of the 

carriage road system on Mount Desert Island, it is unlikely that use on Schoodic there 

will approach that of MDI. Since alternative transportation options and infrastructure 

improvements can be expected to increase use, the midpoint between the two currently 

reported values was chosen as to represent the projected upper level of use. 

Therefore, a range of 17% - 26% of projected recreational trips to Schoodic Peninsula 

are assumed to be on s. 

3.5.2 Park and ride assessment 

The availability of one or more park-and-ride lots on Schoodic would provide the 

opportunity for people to park cars outside the parkland and then go biking or paddling. 

Two candidate lots near the chosen ferry terminal are the subject of analysis of 

commuter use and recreational use. Both of these lots would have access to the 

proposed bus loop service going around Schoodic Peninsula. 

Recreational park-and-ride use is a function of total recreational visits to the Schoodic 

Peninsula, calculated by applying 17% - 26% to the total recreational demand. The 

same percentage determines the number of people bringing s to Schoodic on the ferry. 

users arriving by ferry are subtracted from the total number to determine the number of 

users arriving by automobile and using park-and-ride facilities. Survey data on auto 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

19

occupancies assigns bicyclists to a found number of vehicles, which are then assigned 

to the roadways and park-and-ride lots. 

3.6 Analysis of Roadway Traffic 

3.6.1 Data resources 

The traffic impacts were examined for each alternative, year, and time frame based on 

the assignment process. The roadways that were examined are Moore Road (Schoodic 

parkland entrance), Wonsqueak Road (Schoodic parkland exit), and SR 186 in Winter 

Harbor and Gouldsboro. Traffic data from the HCPC and the State of Maine provide 

details into the base year 2000 traffic volumes. This was supplemented by fieldwork to 

determine traffic patterns and operating speeds on the roadways. 

3.6.2 Analysis 

Transportation Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be compared with Alternative 1 for each year 

and time frame to determine numerical traffic impacts, expressed as average daily 

traffic (ADT). The ADT for each roadway will be related to its theoretical maximum 

carrying capacity to produce the value “volume-to-capacity” (V/C). The maximum 

carrying capacity of a roadway is based on the width, speed limit, shoulders, terrain, 

surrounding land use, types, and numbers of vehicles using it. As the V/C ratio 

approaches 1.0, the effectiveness of the roadway to carry those vehicles decreases. 

This quantifies levels of congestion in a relative manner for a particular roadway. It is 

assumed for these purposes that V/C represents the roadway’s use and performance 

over a 12 hour period each day. This index usually quantifies peak hour performance, 

but because of the lack of data at this temporal scale, the roads can be compared only 

on a daily (12 hour) basis for each combination of Transportation Alternative and Reuse 

Concept. 

3.7 Bus Services 

Inter-regional (between Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula) and local (both for Bar 

Harbor and Schoodic) bus service concepts were developed as integral elements of the 

Transportation Alternatives and, in particular, coordinated with the ferry schedules 

developed for Alternatives 3 and 4. Each is the product of a transportation planning 

consultant based in Bar Harbor with extensive experience with the local bus services. 

Chapter 7 also includes a demand analysis for these bus services whose basis is the 

same as that earlier described for ferry services, with appropriate adjustments of trip 

and headway times, fares, and their associated elasticities. 

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

21

4 Demographics, Land Use, and Park Visitation 

4.1 Demographics 

Past and current demographics and growth projections in and around Schoodic 

Peninsula comprise a critical element of the transportation model and analysis. The two 

key components of the demographics are the geographic distributions of population and 

employment. 

4.1.1 Population 

The population in Hancock County was approximately 51,580 in the year 2000, 

distributed among 37 different communities, with a low of 40 persons in living in 

Frenchboro and a high of 6,460 people in Ellsworth. Hancock County saw an annual 

population growth rate of 7% in the 1990s. The Maine Department of Human Services 

projects that Hancock County's population will increase by 10.5% during the next 

decade; much faster than the 6.3% projected statewide increase. Washington County 

had a population of approximately 33,770 in the year 2000. This was distributed among 

48 communities, with a low of 20 in Codyville and had a high of 2,350 in Calais and 

represented a slight decline in growth during the 1990’s. Figure 4-1 depicts local 

population distribution based on data available from the 1990 Census. 

The highest growth during the last decade was in the coastal areas in both counties and 

is a trend expected to continue into the forecast years, with the highest growth occurring 

in Hancock County. The coastal areas also experience a large seasonal increase of 

population during the summer months 

Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro had populations of 990 and 1,940, respectively, in the 

year 2000. Navy base personnel accounted for about 500 people living in Winter 

Harbor in military housing at its peak use. The population with dependents has declined 

steeply as the Navy has phased out use of the base by many of its tenants and 

functions. Based on the USM forecasts for Hancock and Washington Counties for 

2005, Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are expected to see their population increase 

slightly. This trend is expected to continue through 2015. 

Coastal towns in Washington County east of Schoodic include Stueben, Cherryfield, 

and Milbridge. They all have a populations in the range of 1,100 to 1,300 with Milbridge 

being the largest. Growth there is expected to be lower than in Hancock County’s 

coastal towns. 

4.1.2 Employment 

Year round employment in Hancock County was approximately 34,400 in 1998, 

Ellsworth and Bar Harbor the leading employment sites with 9,800 and 6,900 

respectively. The fastest growing segments of this work force were reported to be the 

service sector and the self-employed. Hancock County also had a seasonal work force 

of 2,700 in the year 2000, mostly in the retail, hotel, and food services (ref HCPC 

Website ). Summer employment can account for 75% of the total workers in these 

sectors. During the 1990s, Hancock County saw a significant increase in year round 

and seasonal employment. This trend is expected to continue, especially in coastal 

areas with good access to the transportation system. 
Demographics, Land Use, and Park Visitation 

22

Source of data: 1990 U.S. Census, GIS data from State of Maine 

Figure 4-1

1990 Population Map, Hancock and Washington Counties 

Washington County had 19,100 year round jobs in 1998 led by Machias with over 

3,700. Several inland communities had no employment. Washington County’s coastal

communities each provide between 140 and 930 jobs. The forecasts show that 

Washington County will see modest gains in year round employment, mainly along the 

coast. 

Winter Harbor had an employment base of 460 individuals in 1998. The base closing 

will ultimately reduce this number by 200 to 300 military and civilian jobs. Gouldsboro 

had an employment base of approximately of 590 jobs, a number expected to decline 

slightly with the closures of the Schoodic base and the Corea radar installation. The 

Conceptual Plans provide for a portion of the jobs lost due to the base closing to be 

replaced in future years. The Volpe Center assessed the building use scenarios in the 

draft reuse concepts prepared by the Park and estimates that Concept 1 (“Low Reuse” 

Concept) will provide 70 jobs and that Concept 2 (“High Reuse” Concept) will provide 

160 jobs; these numbers are held constant in the years 2005 & 2015. 

Bar Harbor is the second largest provider of jobs in the summer and in the winter 

months. Several of the largest employers in this area are located here. They include 

Jackson Labs with over 1,000 employees, the College of the Atlantic and MDI Labs. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

23

Bar Harbor also has a large number of seasonal workers, of course. Because of the 

lack of affordable housing on Mount Desert Island, a number of these workers commute 

from towns more than 20 miles away, proportional to the numbers of year round 

workers in those towns. Bar Harbor summer employment can increase by up to 2,000 

(totaling 2,700) to cater to seasonal trade demands. Employment growth in Bar Harbor 

has been and will continue to be heavily influenced by recreational visitation to Acadia 

National Park, which is expected to see steady growth. 

Source of data: 1990 U.S. Census, GIS data from State of Maine 

Figure 4-2

1990 Population Map, Journeys to Work in Bar Harbor 

4.2 Land Use 

Characterization of an area’s land use brings an understanding of the setting in which 

population and employment comparisons are made and provides insight into the type of 

structures the population is living in, their density, the surrounding environment, and 

work place descriptors. 

4.2.1 Winter Harbor 

Winter Harbor traditionally has been a fishing village with some commercial shipping of 

lumber in its early days. According to the Town’s last Comprehensive Growth Plan 

(1994), the town covers 8,031 acres, 38% of which is tree growth. The town also has 
Demographics, Land Use, and Park Visitation 

24

an extensive wetlands system. There has been limited farming and no known mining 

activity. The largest tract of undeveloped land is owned by Acadia National Park. Other 

tracts are held by private and corporate entities and the majority of them have access to 

the local road system (Town of Winter Harbor, 1994). 

In the last 20 years, very little new housing or roads have been built with the exception 

of the military housing units. The military housing can be divided up into 3 groups, 

officer housing, military apartments, and military owned duplexes. Most new private 

residential construction has been in the Deep Cove area, along Summer Harbor Road, 

and along Hillcrest Drive. Other new housing units exist but they are few and scattered 

across the town. There were approximately 200 year round single-family homes and 

120 seasonal homes in 1994. Overall, residential housing accounted for approximately 

6% of the land cover in the town. 

Commercial structures account for less than 2% of the land cover. Most of the retail 

and service industries operate in pre-existing structures that have historically been used 

for that purpose. There are approximately 80 structures in town that serve this purpose. 

Several local roads and State Rte (SR) 186 account for the majority of the 

transportation system. 

4.2.2 Gouldsboro 

Gouldsboro is a large town geographically, made up of several distinct villages offering 

a wide variety of landscapes including small village centers, harbors and shorelines, 

forests, and open fields. According to the Town’s last Comprehensive Growth Plan 

(1993), the town covers 51,519 acres, of which 22,045 acres are bodies of water or 

wetlands. There are significant fishing activities, limited farming, and no current mining 

in the town. Most of the town is undeveloped with the exception of the coastline. Many 

interior portions are undeveloped because of limited transportation access (Town of 

Gouldsboro, 1993). 

The town is made up of several distinct villages; Corea, Prospect Harbor, South 

Gouldsboro, West Gouldsboro, Birch harbor, and Bunker Harbor. Residential units 

account for the majority of developed land in the town, at nearly 5%. This is spread out 

through the villages and the coastline. Commercial and industrial units account for less 

than 1% of the land cover in town and are primarily located along the waterfront. The 

town has several key roads (USR 1, SR 186, and SR195) as well as local roads. 

4.3 Park Use 

Research on visitation to and use of Acadia National Park has historically focused on 

Mount Desert Island, and Schoodic Peninsula has only recently been the subject of 

systematic data collection. Visitation in the Park overall has increased gradually over 

the last ten years and leveled off in the last two years. Recreational visits to Acadia in 

the year 2000 numbered 2.47 million. “High” season is June through August, August 

being the busiest with 595,000 visitors. The shoulder months of May and October saw 

166,000 and 253,000 visitors, respectively. Visitation drops off markedly outside of the 

peak and shoulder months. 

Based on the 1.26% annual growth rate, the Park is expected to see an increase of 

160,000 recreational visits for a total of 2.63 million in 2005. Projected visitation in the 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

25

year 2015 is 510,000 more people than in the year 2000, a total of 3.14 million. T1he 

majority of the growth will likely occur between May and October. 

Surveys conducted on Mount Desert Island and on Schoodic Peninsula over the last 

three years give a good understanding of Park visitor activities currently and those they 

are likely to choose in the future (Table 4-1). Scenic drives are the most common 

activity in both areas, with similarly high proportions. Hiking and walking are chosen far 

more often on MDI than at Schoodic, a fact easily explained by MDI’s extensive trail 

system contrasting to the limited opportunities at Schoodic. There is significant boating 

and kayaking activity MDI, but these data are currently lacking for Schoodic. 

Recreational trip making activities tend to peak in the midday, between 10:00 am and 

2:00 pm. The midday peak is more pronounced on Schoodic Peninsula because of its 

relatively remote location.

Activity by Visitors 

Mount 

Desert 

Island 

Schoodic 

Peninsula 

Scenic drive 86% 81% 

Hike on trails 72% 33% 

Walk 40% 27% 

Bicycle 36% 17% 

Boat on lakes 13% No data 

Kayak 11% No data 

Mount Desert Island data from summer of 1998 

Schoodic data from summer of 2000 

Sources: Littlejohn, 1999; University of 

Vermont, 2000. 

Table 4-1

Activities of Park Visitors 

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

27

5 FERRY SERVICE

This chapter addresses the technical and economic aspects of ferry service between 

Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula (see chart, Figure 5-1). Candidate routes, 

terminals, and boats are identified and selected, and the economic model for ferry 

service exercised, with demand inputs as developed in Chapter 4. These analyses are 

for the seasonal and year round ferry services included in Transportation Alternatives 3 

and 4, respectively. 

5.1 Overview 

5.1.1 Current conditions 

Local passenger boat operations are and have been in recent years predominantly 

excursion services. Two whale watching companies, an “underwater” excursion, and 

another naturalist excursion operate from Bar Harbor. There is also a square rigged 

sailing vessel excursion operating twice daily from Bar Harbor. All of these services are 

seasonal. 

Three ferry services currently operate from Mount Desert Island. Bay Ferries runs a 90 

meter long high speed catamaran (Incat design and build, approximately 43 knots) from 

their terminal just north of downtown Bar Harbor to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Service is 

twice daily and is seasonal. 

Bar Harbor Ferries has a new service running from the Harbor Point dock to the Winter 

Harbor Marina dock. The service caters to the recreational market in both directions, 

with 46’ long wooden monohull (service speed of 8-9 knots). The run takes about 50 

minutes. Commuter rates with early morning and evening runs were offered early in the 

2001 season, but have been discontinued because of low ridership. 

The Beal and Bunker Mail Boat Ferry runs from Northeast Harbor south to the 

Cranberry Isles, providing year round mail service and ferry service with a seasonally 

adjusted schedule (six trips daily in the summer, and three or four trips daily in the 

offseason). The boat is a 44’ long monohull giving 20 minute service to Great 

Cranberry 30 minute service to Islesford. 

The Maine State Ferry Service operates from Bass Harbor on southwest MDI to Swans 

Island year round, offering passenger and freight service, as well as providing gasoline 

delivery to the island. Service is five or six times daily in the summer and shoulder 

seasons, and four or five times daily in the offseason, depending on the day traveled. 

5.1.2 Integration with other projects and studies 

The only current or recently completed project or study which specifically addresses 

ferry service from Bar Harbor to Schoodic Peninsula was the Hancock County Planning 

Commission’s (HCPC) “Schoodic Bar Harbor Ferry Feasibility Study”, completed in 

1998. It considered only commuter traffic and was based on a coordinated survey effort 

among workers at major employers on Mount Desert Island. Its finding was that a ferry 

from Schoodic could be compete with cars on a time basis, but that “only 27 persons” 

showed a “definite interest” in using it. 
Ferry Service 

28

Public perception has been that the HCPC report returned a negative finding. A careful 

reading, however, reveals that potential undercounting of commuters into Bar Harbor 

and the prospect for growth on Schoodic plus reuse of the Navy base could translate 

into greater demand. The report alludes to tourist users without including them in 

demand projections and also refers to “inadequate” docking facilities in Schoodic. The 

dock infrastructure situation has changed (see below) and the demand from multiple 

markets is much better understood here as a result of the work presented in Chapters 4 

and 5. 

Source: NOAA Chart #13318 

Figure 5-1

Schoodic Peninsula and Adjacent Waters 

The Maine State DOT’s Strategic Passenger Transportation Plan (Maine State DOT, 

1999) calls for new regional links in all modes. Bangor is designated a “Gateway 

Intermodal Hub” and there is a concept plan to provide a rail link between the Bangor 

and Trenton-Bar Harbor Airports. Several new regional ferry service links are planned 

and Rockland terminal project is in the detail design stage. The Rockland terminal 

would provide new service to Portland and Bar Harbor; the Bay Ferries line has 

expressed interest in operating the service. The projected impact of this service on 

visitation to MDI is unknown and does not factor into these ferry demand calculations. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

29

The prospect of travelers arriving in the Acadia area by this mode is, however, 

encouraging for the future of local ferry service. 

5.2 Candidate Terminals 

The inventory of candidate terminals for a future ferry service accounts for navigational 

approach conditions, depth and bottom characteristics, infrastructure (dock, float(s), 

parking, amenities), access from the roads network, and proximity to target markets. 

The selection of the best candidates is a qualitative judgment based on knowledge and 

experience of project staff. 

The Schoodic Peninsula docks receive detailed consideration because there are 

significant operational and financial differences among them. It is taken here as a given 

that a ferry service will operate from Bar Harbor; therefore, the docks there do not 

receive the same scrutiny. Brief descriptions of the potentially available Bar Harbor 

docks follow the assessments of the Schoodic docks below. 

5.2.1 Schoodic Peninsula 

5.2.1.1 South Gouldsboro dock (private) 

The South Gouldsboro dock is an inactive, privately owned structure co-located with an 

active commercial fishing dock and a large, tidally fed lobster pound. The dock is 

approximately 100’ long and 35’ wide (see Figure 5-2) and constructed of wooden 

pilings and planking; its condition is generally poor with much rot in the intertidal area 

and unsafe planking on the surface. A major reconstruction is needed and the owner 

states he plans to rebuild its base with granite ballast. 

Figure 5-2

South Gouldsboro Dock 

There is no cost estimate available for this work, but comparison to a similar project in 

Casco Bay, Maine is insightful. The Bustins Island Village Corporation, a political subentity of the Town of Freeport, has developed an estimate and the 2001 annual 

Corporation meeting authorized funding in the amount of $135,000 (Bustins Island 
Ferry Service 

30

Village Corporation, 2001) to rebuild a wooden dock with granite pilings. The Bustins 

Island dock will be approximately 75’ long and eight feet wide, only about 17% of the 

surface area of the South Gouldsboro dock (assuming that the future configuration 

would remain the same). The Bustins Island dock estimate could reasonably be 

multiplied by a factor of three or four; therefore, funding on the order $400,000 appears 

to be a reasonably conservative estimate for reconstruction of the South Gouldsboro 

dock, with floating crane and materials the major expenses. 

The South Gouldsboro anchorage is afforded some protection by Stave and Jordan 

Islands to the west and south, but is not otherwise a well protected harbor. Boats at 

anchor are as close to shore as the limited minimum depth allows and there is currently 

no channel that would allow easy, direct passage of a relatively large passenger boat 

into the dock. Low tide depths to a muddy bottom, particularly on spring tides, would 

likely restrict or passage of boats with even four feet of draft. Furthermore, the available 

depth decreases closer to shore and probably rules out shortening the dock as a cost 

limiting measure for reconstruction. Some dredging would probably be necessary 

whatever the final configuration of the dock for reliable passenger ferry service. Finally, 

it has been reported that this area ices over in some winters (HCPC, 1998). 

Access from USR 1 to the South Gouldsboro dock is good, only 3.4 miles on SR 186 

and less than a quarter mile on Shore Road. Available parking at the dock is 

nonexistent at this time as the property lines to privately owned land press quite close to 

the dock head. The owner submits that lease or purchase of land about 1/10 mile up 

the road, currently used for storage of boats, cars, and other items, could serve the 

purpose. The likelihood of this outcome is not known and the needs of commuters for 

smooth intermodal transfer would not be served in any case. 

Finally, it must be noted that other users of the South Gouldsboro anchorage and docks 

have expressed serious misgivings about a regularly scheduled ferry service there. 

Local user input is an important consideration in the project planning and 

implementation process. 

5.2.1.2 Winter Harbor 

Two dock sites in Winter Harbor offer a much better protected terminal than South 

Gouldsboro, although at a longer distance over more exposed waters from Bar Harbor. 

Grindstone Neck and Schoodic Peninsula bound the greater harbor on the west and 

east, respectively, and Turtle, Mark, and Ned Islands protect the southern entrance. 

Three separate inner anchorages (Sand Cove, Inner Winter Harbor, and Henry Cove) 

lie at its northern end (see chart, Figure 5-1 and aerial photograph, Figure 5-3). 

Winter Harbor Town Dock

The Winter Harbor Town dock fronts on the west portion of the inner harbor, a very well 

protected anchorage, with intensive commercial and recreational use. It is well 

maintained and its construction is of both granite and wooden pilings (see Figure 5-4). 

The float is currently used by small tender boats on the shoreward side and by transient 

boats, mostly commercial fishermen, on the seaward side. The depth would be 

adequate for a commercial passenger boat. The approach through the anchorage does 

not afford a channel for ease of navigation by a relatively larger boat. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

31

Source U.S. Geodetic Survey Website 

Figure 5-3

Winter Harbor Aerial Photograph 

Figure 5-4

Winter Harbor Town Dock 
Ferry Service 

32

Access to the Winter Harbor Town dock is not direct, involving two local roads from SR 

186 in the downtown, the second of which is a steep and winding track through a 

residential area to the head of the dock. There is limited reserved and open parking 

there and no area for expansion without the taking of adjacent land for the purpose. 

Current usage of the lot by commercial and recreational boaters would probably not 

allow for ferry parking. As in South Gouldsboro, the sentiment of local users seems to 

be rather strongly against this additional use of the dock. 

Marina dock (private)

The Winter Harbor Marina dock is situated on the east side of the east part of the inner 

harbor. The location is also well protected; the approach, however, is much less 

congested than that of the Town dock or the South Gouldsboro dock. Depth is 

adequate at all tides (8’ at low tide) for any of the boats under consideration and no 

winter icing conditions are reported. 

The “hammerhead”, L-shaped dock is in good condition, founded entirely on granite, 

and surfaced with a fine stone mixture. The float pictured (Figure 5-5) was on the 

landward side of the hammerhead at the time of the project team’s last visit and was 

adequate for the tie-up of tenders and the occasional docking of Bar Harbor Ferry. The 

owner was in the process of expanding the floats to the seaward sides of the 

hammerhead in the summer of 2001 and also intends to move the tenders and all 

recreational activity to a separate dock just to the north (schedule for this change 

unknown). 

Access to this dock is relatively straightforward, approximately 1⁄4 mile on a local road 

from SR 186 in downtown Winter Harbor, and about 6.5 miles from USR 1 via SR 186. 

The marina’s owner has already undertaken to provide extensive parking on-site (see 

Section 6.2). 

5.2.1.3 Sorrento Town dock 

The project team visited the Sorrento Town facility and found a well built dock and 

adequately sized float for the purpose of a passenger ferry in the required size range. 

However, access from USR 1 is poor, there is very little nearby parking, and the dock’s 

location simply does not serve the Park Service’s needs on Schoodic Peninsula. The 

Sorrento dock was dropped from further consideration. 

5.2.1.4 Summary 

The Winter Harbor Marina dock offers the best facility from the standpoints of 

navigation, condition of the dock infrastructure, ease of access and parking, and 

freedom from political friction. The dock is not the best in terms of access from USR 1 

and maximizing commuter demand, but it clearly serves the Park Service’s interests 

most effectively, as the facility closest to the Winter Harbor Park entrance and the most 

convenient location for possible future Schoodic Peninsula bus service links. 

The other Schoodic Peninsula docks examined each had multiple and significant 

problems which would require one or more of the following: serious capital investment in 

infrastructure; navigational improvements; and a significant public education and 

publicity effort to garner the political good will of neighbors and co-users. It must be 

added that none of the Schoodic docks currently meet the access requirements of the 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

33

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The stringent provisions of access at 

Government facilities would not apply directly to the privately owned docks, but major 

reconstruction would mean provision of at least “reasonable accommodations” under 

the law. The 12::1 slope requirement (for the gangway) would likely be the most difficult 

compliance item, given tidal heights of 12 feet and higher. 

Figure 5-5

Winter Harbor Marina Dock 

5.2.2 Bar Harbor 

It is often said that Bar Harbor is not a harbor at all; its shoreline is exposed to both 

north and south wind and waves except, in the former case, when the sand bar to Bar 

Island (after which the town is named) emerges at low tide. The assumption for this 

study is that one dock or another will emerge for use by a future ferry service; the 

choice would cause negligible impact to ferry route times and schedules, but local bus 

connections would require some adjustment for the particular location. All docks will 

have issues of parking availability downtown and exposure to wind and waves at 

various times. 

From north to south, the docks and landmarks are: Bay Ferries Terminal, College of the 

Atlantic docks, the tidal bar, the Bar Harbor Inn Pier, the 1 West Street docks 

(whalewatcher and other excursions), the Harbor Place pier and Bar Harbor public 

dock, and the Bar Harbor Inn Pier (see aerial photograph, Figure 5-6). 

The 1 West Street dock is afforded the best protection from wind and waves of the 

group with lees from Harbor Place dock to the south and a privately owned dock to the 

north (see Figure 5-7). All the downtown docks face the Bar Harbor anchorage, which 

is crowded and relatively close to shore during the summer. Any operational route 

would have to include significant “go slow” time and an approach via the navigational 

channel. 
Ferry Service 

34

The Bar Harbor Inn Pier lies just south of the tidal bar granite construction, with hotel 

building covering the most of the dock’s surface and several floats located around the 

perimeter for recreational use. The current use of the dock probably rules it out as a 

candidate for this service. 

The Bar Harbor public dock is given over to use by fishing boats, recreational 

fishermen, and other boaters. Any commercial service use here would require public 

discourse and accommodation by the Town government. ADA access here is 

problematic for the same reasons given in the discussion of the Schoodic Peninsula 

docks. 

Source: U.S. Geodetic Survey Website 

Figure 5-6

Bar Harbor Aerial Photo 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

35

Figure 5-6

1 West Street Dock, Harbor Place Dock in Background 

The College of the Atlantic and Bay Ferries docks lie north of the downtown and the 

“bar”. Their potential for these purposes was not substantively explored, particularly not 

in terms of the organizations’ willingness to consider such a service. These docks are 

at a greater distance from the downtown business area and the large businesses to 

which commuters would be traveling and, as at the downtown locations, parking 

availability is an issue. 

5.3 Candidate Routes 

Ferry service between Mount Desert Island and Schoodic Peninsula would traverse 

Frenchman Bay, a partially protected waterway of the Atlantic Ocean. The Bay spans 

between four and five nautical miles from its southern point (between Schooner Head 

on MDI and Big Moose Island) to its northern extreme between Cape Levi on MDI 

Waukeag Neck (Town of Sorrento); its length is approximately 8 nautical miles. Mount 

Desert Island lies to the west, Schoodic Peninsula to the east, and the mainland to the 

north, including the towns of Sullivan, Sorrento, and Ashville. 

The two routes under consideration both originate in Bar Harbor, and would provide 

service to either South Gouldsboro or Winter Harbor. In each case, Frenchman Bay 

challenges mariners with long fetches for wind from varying directions, while numerous 

islands offer lee from both north and south winds. 

Weather data indicate that Frenchman Bay receives relatively even amounts of 

precipitation on a month to month basis, (Acadia National Park, 1994), but the wind 

patterns vary seasonally. Wind intensity rises in the fall and winter and the direction 

tends to be from the north. Reports from local mariners indicate that storms in fall, 

winter, and spring can come from both the north and south and that occasional service 
Ferry Service 

36

cancellations would be likely. Spring and summer bring lighter winds, with frequent 

onshore southwest winds. The wind direction on a given day will influence the mariner’s 

choice of exact route for the smoothest, fastest service.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

N NE E SE S SW W NW

Jan. - Mar.

MPH

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Ave. Wind

Speed 

Percent 

Source: National Weather Service, Portland, Maine 

Figure 5-8

January – March Wind Data, 1998 - 2000 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

N NE E SE S SW W NW

Jul. - Sep.

MPH

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Ave. Wind

Speed 

Percent 

Source: National Weather Service, Portland, Maine 

Figure 5-9

July – September Wind Data, 1998 - 2000 

5.3.1 Bar Harbor to South Gouldsboro 

The route between Bar Harbor and South Gouldsboro is approximately 4.69 nautical 

miles one way, and would be fairly direct. The Porcupine Islands lie in a line about ENE 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

37

from Bar Harbor and extend about 2/3 of the distance across Frenchman Bay. The 

Islands would provide a lee from either northerly or southerly winds. In the latter case 

(common during the spring and summer months), the more protected route is to the 

north of the Porcupines and also would offer lee from Ironbound Island once to the east 

of Long Porcupine. Northerly winds, more prevalent in the winter, would dictate the 

more protected route south of the islands. In either case, the mariner departing Bar 

Harbor would run about ENE parallel to the Porcupine Islands and in their lee, make for 

Stave Island Harbor (between Stave and Jordan Islands), and turn north for the South 

Gouldsboro dock at Bunker Harbor. 

The anchorage at Bunker Harbor is congested in the summer, with boats within 100’ of 

the docks, riding in shallow water (occasionally grounding in some cases) at low tide. 

The approach would be slow for at least the last 1⁄4 mile, and a passenger boat of the 

size considered herein would have to maneuver in tight quarters to approach the dock. 

The route would be reversed for the run to Bar Harbor. The approach to the docks 

there would be at slow speed for the last 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile, as the mariner would probably 

choose to approach via the channel at the south end of the anchorage (Bald Porcupine 

Island and the breakwater) and turn northwest along the Bar Harbor waterfront. 

5.3.2 Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor 

The Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor route would be an approximately 7.4 nautical mile run. 

The boat, on departing Bar Harbor, would follow the channel north of Bald Porcupine 

Island, turn approximately ESE and run south of Ironbound Island, and then turn east 

for the entrance to the marked channel along Grindstone Neck (Winter Harbor). Bad 

weather from the south might dictate running north of Ironbound Island and turning 

southeast through the channel at Halibut Hole; this course adds over a mile to the run 

and affords only limited relief from the weather. 

The channel entrance is at the No. 5 green light north of Crow Island. The channel runs 

SSW about 1 nautical mile to the red-green light at Roaring Bull, then east between 

Grindstone Ledge and Ned Island to Winter Harbor. Finally, the course would be north 

about 1 1⁄2 nautical miles to the Marina dock in Winter Harbor. The approach to the 

dock would be at service speed except for the last 1⁄4 mile. There would also be some 

reduction in speed through the Grindstone Neck channel. 

5.4 Passenger Boat Selection and Description 

The identification of candidate boats for the route analysis followed upon conversations 

with local operators, application of common sense parameters as to service schedule, 

and review of the Volpe Center’s U.S. ferry services data base. The desired attributes 

were: 

• Monohull and catamaran – The logic is that planning for a modern ferry 

operation must consider both types. 

• Length – The desired length is less than 65’, because of the regulatory 

breakpoint in the Coast Guard regulations for Subchapter “T” boats affecting 

several construction and operational (and, therefore, cost) areas, and the sense 
Ferry Service 

38

that nothing larger is appropriate for the service, both in terms of aesthetics and 

the likely demand for ferry service. 

• Service speed – The experience of a current operator with a slow boat and the 

basic demand versus time relationship (especially for commuter service) dictate 

more speed than currently available services offer. A minimum of 18 knots for a 

well designed monohull or a small catamaran is reasonable. 

• Capacity – Passenger capacity of between 50 and 100. This is below the Coast 

Guard Subchapter T breakpoint of 149, would certainly suffice for either year 

round or seasonal commuter service, and is manageably sized for tourist and 

recreational service. In the latter instance, it fits the possibility of a ranger 

onboard for Park visitor education (as the Bar Harbor Ferry currently offers) and 

the lower passenger loads that may be expected in shoulder seasons. 

• Age – A used vessel was decided upon in order to limit the purchase price and 

annual debt service. The boat should have built within the last five to ten years, 

young in terms of passenger service and offering a somewhat reduced purchase 

price. 

Project staff reviewed industry journals and the Volpe Center Ferry Lines Data Base 

and identified several candidate monohulls and catamarans. These were proven 

vessels, in service elsewhere. Final selections were on the basis of the best fit to the 

specifications shown previously. The identities of the boats, builders, and current 

operators are not included here. 

HULL TYPE MONOHULL CATAMARAN

Length (ft) 50’ 78’ 

Breadth (ft) 13.7’ 26.2’ 

Depth(ft) 7.1’ 8.5‘* 

Draft (ft) 4.5’* 4.9’ 

Passengers 64 100 

Service Speed 22 knots 27 knots 

Engine Type 2 Diesel 2 MTU 

Power 1420 hp 2100 hp 

Fuel Consumption at 

Service Speed 60 gal/hr 100 gal/hr 

Age (as of 2001) 4 years 3 years 

Approx. Price (2001)* $500,000 $1,200,000 

* Estimated value. 

Table 5-1

Particulars of Selected Boats 

5.4.1 Monohull 

The 50’ monohull chosen offers the speed required for reasonably short commuter 

service head time (frequency of round trip service, including loading and unloading) and 

one way trip duration. The boat can travel at lower speed if so desired, e.g., for the 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

39

purposes of tourist service. The draft allows for passage into most area harbors at low 

tide. Passenger capacity should suffice for all but the busiest peak tourist demands. 

Both the monohull and the catamaran selected are relatively young (as of 2001); 

however, they would be eight and seven years old, respectively, at the projected start of 

service in 2005. The capital purchase cost for each will therefore have decreased 

significantly by that time. 

5.4.2 Catamaran 

The catamaran is typical of the type built in United States shipyards in the early stage of 

the industry’s move into the production of high speed vessels. Licensing agreements 

between the Australian designers and shipbuilders and U.S. firms (e.g., Nichols 

Brothers and Gladding-Hearn) spawned production first of these smaller sized (length = 

50’ – 100’) catamarans and has progressed to larger sized boats (length = 120’ – 180’) 

in recent years. The market has remained strong for the smaller boats and the number 

of domestic shipyards capable of their construction has increased steadily. A new or 

used boat of the type described should be readily available at reasonable terms at the 

projected date of service startup. 

The draft and passenger capacity of the selected catamaran are suitable for the 

selected harbors, although there will probably be more excess capacity for many trips 

than for the monohull. The speed of this boat affords even lower head times and trip 

times than the monohull, although at the price of greater fuel consumption. Debt 

service and maintenance costs will also be higher for this boat. 

5.5 Service and Economic Parameters 

The notional services described herein would each draw patronage from at least three 

target markets: commuters and reverse commuters between the Schoodic – “Down 

East” area, vocational and educational users of the future facility at the Schoodic Navy 

base, and recreational users traveling in either direction. The analyses of seasonal and 

year round services each include twelve scenarios, inputs for which are the following: 

• Boats –Service by either one or two monohulls, or one catamaran. Trip times 

and head times vary for each. 

• Demand – Both high and low demand inputs based upon the stipulated base 

reuse concepts. 

• Year – Both the initial (2005) and end (2015) years of the look period. 

Economic and operational factors common to all scenarios appear in Table 5-2. 

There several points for the reader to bear in mind: 

• The value of the owner’s initial equity is not included in the model. 

• The assumed fares for these services were derived through industry 

comparisons and discussions with local transportation providers. There was, in 

particular, the realization that commuter fares must not exceed the perceived tripto-work expenses for Schoodic commuters, i.e., gasoline costs. 

• The term of loan spans the full look period for the analysis and debt service is 

therefore the same in each case for 2005 and 2015. 
Ferry Service 

40

• Maintenance costs rise as the vessels age and are therefore higher in 2015. 

Marine hull insurance costs likewise decline with age. 

• Insurance and administrative costs tied to passenger units vary depending on 

reuse scenario and year. 

• Fares are assumed constant in 2001 dollars throughout, although they would be 

likely to rise in real terms. 

Factor Value 

Annual capital depreciation of vessel 2.3% 

Initial owner’s equity 20% 

Interest rate 10% 

Term of loan 15 years (equal payment schedule) 

Annual maintenance cost 3.5%: 60% fixed costs; 40% tied to operating 

hours, absolute cost rises with actual hours 

Crew (1) master; (1) mate 

Fuel $1.41/gallon 

Lubricant 0.4% of fuel consumption, $8.00/gallon 

Docking fees $0.10/passenger, each terminal 

Marine hull insurance 2.0% of vessel value 

Protection and indemnity insurance $0.35/passenger 

Marketing, advertising, sales 3.5% of total revenues 

General administration $5,000/year + $0.50/passenger 

Fare – commuter $3.00 each way 

Fare – recreational $20.00/$12.00 round trip adult/child 

Table 5-2

Ferry Economic and Operational Factors 

The schedules are based upon the times and distances appearing in Table 5-3 for both 

the monohull and catamaran. Service are shown slightly reduced from the rated values 

to account for the effects of wind and waves, as well as the slight losses in speed 

expected as a boat ages. 

Table 5-3

Ferry Run Times 

Speed (knots) Distance (nm) Time (min) Speed (knots) Distance (nm) Time (min)

Slow speed out 10 0.50 3.00 Slow speed out 10 0.50 3.00

Service speed 20 6.38 19.14 Service speed 25 6.38 15.31

Slow speed in 10 0.50 3.00 Slow speed in 10 0.50 3.00

Totals/averages 17.61 7.38 25.14 Totals/averages 20.78 7.38 21.31

Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor, monohull Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor, catamaran
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

41

5.5.1 Seasonal service (commuter & recreational) 

Seasonal service is for an assumed 26-week period annually, including the summer and 

“shoulder” seasons which altogether are the months of May through October. All cost 

and revenue factors are tied directly to the actual service modeled, i.e., one way trips 

and operating hours for those months. Annual debt service and marine hull insurance 

costs are reduced to an estimated 60% of the calculated total on the assumption that 

the boat(s) would enter winter service somewhere else and that layup time would be 

shared between the two seasonal services. 

Both commuter service schedule, during weekday morning and evening peak hours, 

and scheduled recreational runs seven days per week would be constant during the six 

month service period. Frequencies and schedules vary according to the boat(s) in each 

scenario. The schedule for the single monohull appears in Table 5-4 (others are in 

Appendix F) and the daily service and run time summary in Table 5-5. Schedule cells 

shaded in yellow indicate the start of service in the morning and departure times with 

longer than minimum layover times, usually between commuter and recreational runs. 

Table 5-4

Summer Ferry Schedule, (1) Monohull 

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

5:15 AM 5:40 AM 5:55 AM 6:20 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM 8:40 AM 9:05 AM

6:35 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:40 AM 9:20 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM

7:55 AM 8:20 AM 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 10:40 AM 11:05 AM 11:20 AM 11:45 AM

10:00 AM 10:25 AM 11:00 AM 11:25 AM 11:45 AM 12:10 PM 12:25 PM 12:51 PM

12:00 PM 12:25 PM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM 1:06 PM 1:31 PM 1:46 PM 2:11 PM

2:00 PM 2:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:55 PM 2:26 PM 2:51 PM 3:06 PM 3:31 PM

4:10 PM 4:35 PM 4:50 PM 5:15 PM 3:46 PM 4:11 PM 4:26 PM 4:51 PM

5:30 PM 5:55 PM 6:10 PM 6:35 PM 5:06 PM 5:32 PM 5:47 PM 6:12 PM

6:50 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:55 PM 6:27 PM 6:52 PM 7:07 PM 7:32 PM

Schedule I - summer - weekdays Schedule II - summer - weekends

Morning Morning

Afternoon Afternoon
Ferry Service 

42

Table 5-5

Daily Summer Service Run Time Summary 

5.5.2 Year round service (commuter & recreational) 

Year round service would run for 50 weeks annually, allowing two weeks for layup, 

maintenance, and repair during the winter and providing for the needs of commuters 

and Navy base users during all seasons. Schedules are similar to those for the six 

month seasonal service during peak and shoulder seasons. Commuter service runs are 

maintained in the off season. Weekday recreational runs are reduced to four daily and 

weekend runs total ten per day. The single monohull schedule appears in Table 5-6 

and others are in Appendix F. The daily run time summary for winter service appears in 

Table 5-7. 

Table 5-6

Winter Ferry Schedule, (1) Monohull 

freq. run time(hrs) layover (hrs) freq. run time(hrs) layover (hrs)

commuter 10 3.55 2.50 7 2.49 1.75

78' Cat. recreational 10 3.55 2.50 13 4.62 3.25

total 20 7.10 5.00 20 7.10 5.00

50' Mono commuter 9 3.77 2.25 7 2.93 1.75

hull recreational 9 3.77 2.25 11 4.61 2.75

total 18 7.54 4.50 18 7.54 4.50

(2) 50' commuter 20 9.09 5.00 8 3.64 2.00

Monohulls recreational 18 8.18 4.50 16 7.27 4.00

total 38 17.27 9.50 24 10.91 6.00

Weekday Weekend

Summary: Winter Harbor, Summer Service

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

5:15 AM 5:40 AM 5:55 AM 6:20 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM 8:40 AM 9:05 AM

6:35 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:40 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 10:40 AM 11:05 AM

7:55 AM 8:20 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 11:20 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:25 PM

11:30 AM 11:55 AM

1:00 PM 1:25 PM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM 1:40 PM 2:05 PM

2:30 PM 2:55 PM 3:30 PM 3:55 PM 3:00 PM 3:25 PM 3:40 PM 4:05 PM

4:10 PM 4:35 PM 4:50 PM 5:15 PM

5:30 PM 5:55 PM 6:10 PM 6:35 PM

6:50 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:55 PM

Afternoon Afternoon

Schedule III - winter - weekdays Schedule IV - winter - weekends

Morning Morning
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

43

Table 5-7

Daily Winter Service Run Time Summary 

5.6 Demand 

The demand calculations for all three ferry service scenarios are based on voyage time, 

headway times, and distances to commuter residences, derived separately for 

commuter and recreational trips. National and Park-specific survey data provide mode 

preference percentages which are applied to the demographic, land use, and visitation 

data for the ferry usage results, context of the Transportation Alternatives, Reuse 

Concepts 1 and 3 (high and low use intensity), and in the years 2005 and 2015. Tables 

5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 present the daily demand results for all scenarios involving the single 

monohull service (full data set appears in Appendix F). 

5.6.1 Commuters 

The majority of the commuters would originate east of Gouldsboro and drive personal 

vehicles to Winter Harbor via Rte 186. The commuter fare structure has been 

deliberately kept low, so as to be affordable for most residents. The weekly cost of the 

$6 per day round trip would be roughly equivalent to what many are paying for gasoline 

for their automobile commutes. It is possible that a commuter subsidy would enable the 

operator to charge this fare value; none is included in the economic assessment, 

however. 

The two monohull ferry service would capture the greatest number of commuter trips 

due to its frequency of service. The single catamaran service was very close to the two 

monohull option in all scenarios due to its short run time, while the single monohull 

service was a close third. The ranges in annual seasonal ridership numbers in the “Low 

2005” scenario were small among the three ferry services, ranging from a low of 3,770 

for the single monohull, to a high of 4,290 for the two monohull option. In the “High 

2015” scenario, the single monohull service would attract a low of 5,460 commuters 

while the two monohull service would draw 6,370 commuters. The year round 

commuter trips followed the same trends. Total ridership would be higher in all cases 

than for seasonal service, as one would expect, but there would be declines in average 

daily use. 

freq. run time(hrs) layover (hrs) freq. run time(hrs) layover (hrs)

commute 10 3.55 2.50 4 1.42 1.00

78' Cat. recreational 6 2.13 1.50 6 2.13 1.50

total 16 5.68 4.00 10 3.55 2.50

50' Mono comm. 9 3.77 2.25 4 1.68 1.00

hull rec. 7 2.93 1.75 6 2.51 1.50

total 16 6.70 4.00 10 4.19 2.50

(2) 50' comm. 20 9.09 5.00 6 2.73 1.50

Monohulls rec. 8 3.64 2.00 6 2.73 1.50

total 28 12.72 7.00 12 5.45 3.00

Summary: Winter Harbor, Winter Service

Weekday Weekend
Ferry Service 

44

Table 5-11 shows the results for patronage of the one monohull service for all seasonal 

and year round scenarios (full set of results appears in Appendix F), resulting from 

extrapolation of the daily numbers. Annual commuter patronage appears in the $6 fare 

columns. 

Table 5-8

Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Seasonal 

Table 5-9

Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Off-Season 

Table 5-10

Average Daily Roundtrips, 1 Monohull, Yearly 

Year Total

Concept

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Average 

Daily 

Roundtrips

2005

High-Concept 3 24 9 46 171 250

Low-Concept 1 24 5 20 110 159

2015

High-Concept 3 32 10 63 193 298

Low-Concept 1 29 8 28 131 196

Commuter Recreational

Year Total

Concept

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Average 

Daily 

Roundtrips

2005

High-Concept 3 18 3 18 12 51

Low-Concept 1 18 2 18 8 46

2015

High-Concept 3 24 3 24 14 65

Low-Concept 1 22 2 22 9 55

Commuter Recreational

Year Total

Concept

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Bar 

Harbor 

Bound

Schoodic 

Bound

Average 

Daily 

Roundtrips

2005

High-Concept 3 21 6 32 92 151

Low-Concept 1 21 4 19 59 103

2015

High-Concept 3 28 7 44 104 182

Low-Concept 1 26 5 25 70 126

Commuter Recreational
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

45

Number of Round Trips, Annual 

 Seasonal Service Year Round Service 

Fare $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $12 $20 Total 

 Year 2005 

 Reuse Concept 1 3,770 3,076 20,584 27,430 6,312 3,230 21,613 31,155

 Commuter Trips 3,770 0 0 3,770 6,312 0 0 6,312

 Recreational Trips 0 3,076 20,584 23,660 0 3,230 21,613 24,843

 Reuse Concept 3 4,290 5,134 34,360 43,784 6,993 5,391 36,078 48,462

 Commuter Trips 4,290 0 0 4,290 6,993 0 0 6,993

 Recreational Trips 0 5,134 34,360 39,494 0 5,391 36,078 41,469

 Year 2015 

 Reuse Concept 1 4,810 3,762 25,176 33,748 7,960 3,950 26,435 38,345

 Commuter Trips 4,810 0 0 4,810 7,960 0 0 7,960

 Recreational Trips 0 3,762 25,176 28,938 0 3,950 26,435 30,385

 Reuse Concept 3 5,460 6,057 40,535 52,052 8,983 6,360 42,561 57,904

 Commuter Trips 5,460 0 0 5,460 8,983 0 0 8,983

 Recreational Trips 0 6,057 40,535 46,592 0 6,360 42,561 48,921

Note: Commuter fare = $6; recreational fares = $20 and $12, for adults and children. 

Table 5-11

One Monohull Ferry Service: Patronage for All Scenarios 

5.6.2 Recreational 

Recreational trips would, in spite of a much higher fare structure relative to commuters, 

account for a tremendous majority of passengers and revenue for all scenarios. 

Examination of currently excursion fares in Bar Harbor, plus the desire to keep the 

model’s assumptions conservative. The fare values used are roundtrips of $20 and $12 

for adults and children (10 years and younger), respectively, somewhat lower than fares 

currently charged for similar services. It was assumed that children make up 13% of the 

total visitors (Ref Littlejohn). 

The following examples illustrate the dominance of the recreational market. In the “Low 

2005” seasonal use scenario for one monohull, the 23,660 recreational roundtrips 

account for 86% of total trips. In the “High 2015” seasonal use scenario for two 

monohulls, the 55,874 projected recreational roundtrips would be 90% of the total. As 

for commuter trips, recreational demand would be highest for the two monohull service, 

followed closely by the catamaran and single monohull services, in every case and for 

the same reasons of voyage time and head time. Year round use is only 10 to 20% 

more than the seasonal use due to the fact that recreational trips drop off significantly 

during the winter months. 

Table 5-11 shows the results for patronage of the one monohull service for all seasonal 

and year round scenarios (full set of results appears in Appendix F). 
Ferry Service 

46

5.7 Ferry Economic Model Results 

The ferry economic model calculates costs of operation in detail, as described in 

Chapter 3. One example each of the detailed cost results appears in the subsections 

on both seasonal and year round services, for both 2005 and 2015 and the high and low 

revenue projections. Revenue inputs are per the demand calculations appearing 

previously, and appear here in both commuter and recreational categories. Summaries 

for all scenarios include total direct and indirect costs, as well as patronage data 

(passengers and revenue). Detailed cost and revenue results for all boats and 

scenarios appear in Appendix F. 

5.7.1 Seasonal service 

Seasonal service operation has the obvious effect of maximizing recreational revenues 

and minimizing operational costs such as labor and fuel. Table 5-12 is an example (one 

50’ monohull) of the detailed cost and aggregate revenue results (others appear in 

Appendix F). It shows that debt service and direct operating costs for the service are 

the same (in constant 2001 dollars) for both years 2005 and 2015 and the high and low 

reuse options. Indirect costs which correlate to patronage and gross revenues vary as 

expected, the latter due to demand variations explained in section 5.6. 

The cost and patronage summary for all seasonal services and scenarios appears in 

Table 5-13. All scenarios show the potential for profitable operation, particularly the 

high end reuse options. Recreational patronage and fares are clearly the dominant 

elements of the potential success of seasonal service. This aspect is treated in more 

detail in subsection 5.7.3. 

Table 5-12

Seasonal Service Finances, 50’ Monohull

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 37,757 37,757 $ 37,757 $ 37,757 $ 

$ 80,113 80,113 $ 80,113 $ 80,113 $ 

$ 89,885 89,885 $ 89,885 $ 89,885 $ 

$ 21,039 21,039 $ 24,667 $ 24,667 $ 

$ 5,973 5,973 $ 4,758 $ 4,758 $ 

$ 197,010 197,010 $ 199,422 $ 199,422 $ 

$ 9,424 15,491 $ 18,539 $ 11,550 $ 

$ 7,068 11,618 $ 13,904 $ 8,663 $ 

$ 5,486 8,757 $ 10,590 $ 6,750 $ 

$ 19,201 30,649 $ 37,066 $ 23,624 $ 

$ 32,430 48,784 $ 57,952 $ 38,748 $ 

$ 73,609 115,299 $ 138,052 $ 89,335 $ 

$774,548 $471,212 $926,944 $577,524

$424,482 $162,836 $551,713 $251,010

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

General Administration

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

50' Monohull, Seasonal Operation

Vessel Debt Service
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

47

Table 5-13

Seasonal Cost and Patronage Summary 

5.7.2 Year round 

Year round service presents a markedly different cost picture due to the fuel and labor 

costs associated with the extra hours of vessel operation, as well as the allocation of 

100% of debt service costs to the budget. Revenues overall meanwhile rise only 

slightly since recreational use in the off-season is limited; commuter revenues rise 

proportionally with the extra operating time (for year round commuters only), but these 

represent a small fraction of total revenues. Only the single 50’ monohull operation 

shows the potential for profit in all year round scenarios. The low end Navy base reuse 

alternative would result in net losses for both the catamaran and two monohull services 

in the years 2005 and 2015. Results are summarized in Table 5-14. 

The operator of a year round service will face the added issues of winter weather and 

the possibilities of service cancellations and increased voyage times. The exposure of 

the Winter Harbor route means that both northeast storms and high winds from other 

quadrants will affect the captain’s decisions as to route and speed. Voyage times are 

short enough to avoid the acute effects of motion sickness for most passengers, but 

higher frequency of passenger discomfort can be expected. Service cancellations and 

scheduled off-season maintenance layups will mean that the operator will have to 

substitute bus service for the ferry. 

2005 High 2005 Low 2005 High 2005 Low 2005 High 2005 Low

Total Costs $350,066 $308,376 $547,428 $498,046 $506,295 $457,251

Direct Costs + Debt Service $234,767 $234,767 $411,162 $411,162 $373,679 $373,679

Indirect Costs $115,299 $73,609 $136,266 $86,884 $132,616 $83,572

Patronage

Commuter 2-way Fares 4,290 3,770 4,940 4,290 5,200 4,290

Commuter Revenue $25,740 $22,620 $29,640 $25,740 $31,200 $25,740

Recreational 2-way Fares 39,494 23,660 47,138 28,410 45,500 27,118

Recreational Revenue $748,808 $448,592 $893,736 $538,656 $862,680 $514,160

NET INCOME $424,482 $162,836 $375,948 $66,350 $387,585 $82,649

2015 High 2015 Low 2015 High 2015 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

Total Costs $375,231 $326,514 $577,085 $520,576 $537,101 $482,650

Direct Costs + Debt Service $237,180 $237,180 $415,406 $415,406 $381,021 $381,021

Indirect Costs $138,052 $89,335 $161,679 $105,170 $156,080 $101,630

Patronage

Commuter 2-way Fares 5,460 4,810 6,370 5,460 6,370 5,330

Commuter Revenue $32,760 $28,860 $38,220 $32,760 $38,220 $31,980

Recreational 2-way Fares 47,492 28,938 55,874 34,580 53,690 33,306

Recreational Revenue $894,184 $548,664 $1,059,368 $655,640 $1,017,960 $631,480

NET INCOME $551,713 $251,010 $520,503 $167,824 $519,079 $180,810

50' Monohull (2) X 50' Monohull 78' Catamaran
Ferry Service 

48

Table 5-14

Year Round Cost and Patronage Summary 

5.7.3 Summary 

The economics model projects costs and revenues based on a set of specific 

assumptions previously described. The cost figures are conservatively high in some 

instances, particularly for fuel ($1.41/gallon is higher than many operators pay, at least 

in 2001) and the capital costs of the boats. Demand projections are also subject to 

some uncertainty and the actual numbers could be higher or lower than the analysis 

predicts; the fare bases, however, are conservatively low. The outlook for some form of 

ferry service is positive, even given the uncertainties. The opportunities in both 

commuter and recreational markets are tangible (especially given the conservative 

assumptions built into the model) and will brighten further as both Park visitation and 

area populations grow. 

Figure 5-6 indicates that all seasonal service scenarios considered would be profitable. 

Year round service results in lower profits and, in the cases of catamaran and two 

monohull services, losses in the “low” reuse scenarios. It is important to point out the 

extent to which recreational revenues drive these results. Figure 5-7 presents those 

data graphically and shows that recreational revenues would be the lion’s share in every 

case (92%-93% in “low reuse” scenarios, 94% - 95% in “high reuse” scenarios). 

2005 High 2005 Low 2005 High 2005 Low 2005 High 2005 Low

Total Costs $522,648 $478,591 $835,962 $783,747 $762,913 $710,917

Direct Costs + Debt Service $396,584 $396,584 $687,038 $687,038 $617,681 $617,681

Indirect Costs $126,064 $82,007 $148,924 $96,709 $145,232 $93,235

Patronage

Commuter 2-way Fares 6,993 6,313 8,075 7,223 8,415 7,223

Commuter Revenue $41,955 $37,875 $48,450 $43,335 $50,490 $43,335

Recreational 2-way Fares 41,469 24,843 49,495 29,829 47,775 28,474

Recreational Revenue $786,252 $471,020 $938,428 $565,556 $905,812 $539,864

NET INCOME $305,559 $30,304 $150,916 -$174,856 $193,389 -$127,718

2015 High 2015 Low 2015 High 2015 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

Total Costs $548,833 $499,199 $869,422 $808,985 $798,397 $740,046

Direct Costs + Debt Service $399,509 $399,509 $691,829 $691,829 $626,800 $626,800

Indirect Costs $149,325 $99,691 $177,593 $117,156 $171,596 $113,246

Patronage

Commuter 2-way Fares 8,963 7,960 10,518 9,040 10,463 8,813

Commuter Revenue $53,775 $47,760 $63,105 $54,240 $62,775 $52,875

Recreational 2-way Fares 48,921 30,385 58,668 36,309 56,374 34,971

Recreational Revenue $927,540 $576,100 $1,112,344 $688,420 $1,068,848 $663,052

NET INCOME $432,482 $124,661 $306,027 -$66,325 $333,226 -$24,119

50' Monohull (2) X 50' Monohull 78' Catamaran
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

49

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

50' Monohull,

Year Round

(2) X 50'

Monohull,

Year Round

78'

Catamaran,

Year Round

50' Monohull,

Seasonal

(2) X 50'

Monohull,

Seasonal

78'

Catamaran,

Seasonal

Boat and Service

Net Annual Income Scenarios

2005 High

2005 Low

2015 High

2015 Low

Figure 5-10

Net Income Summary for All Services 

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

2005

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2005

Low

2015

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2015

Low

50' Monohull (2) X 50'

Monohull

78' Catamaran 50' Monohull (2) X 50'

Monohull

78' Catamaran

Seasonal Year Round

Service

Commuter

Revenue

Recreational

Revenue

Figure 5-11

Revenue by Source for All Services 
Ferry Service 

50

5.8 Bus Service Links 

Ferry service between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor would require well designed 

transit links at both ends, serving both commuter and recreational passengers, in order 

to succeed to its fullest extent. Specifics are addressed in Chapter 7. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

51

6 Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 

A discussion of current conditions for bicycling in Schoodic Peninsula, currently 

applicable standards for bicycle paths, and the projected demand for future bicycling 

lead to a qualitative assessment of roadway improvements for the provision of bicycle 

paths and park-and-ride facilities. These improvements are not specifically linked to the 

Schoodic Transportation Alternatives advanced herein, but would support all of the 

“active” Alternatives, i.e., 2, 3, and 4. 

6.1 Access and Use 

The Schoodic Peninsula provides the bicyclist many opportunities to see picturesque 

views of the Maine seashore, woods, and coastal villages. This opportunity depends on 

the visitor’s ability to bring a bicycle to the location and then to safely traverse the 

roadways and trails. Chapter 6 examines the bicyclist’s options for transport to the 

area, the current state of bicycling opportunities, and options for the development or 

improvement of bicycle paths. A brief on the roadway and bicycle path standards 

prepared by the American Association of State Highways and Transportation 

Organizations (AASHTO) is included to highlight the identification of roadway 

deficiencies and suggested improvements. 

6.1.1 Current conditions and goals 

The bicyclist touring Schoodic Peninsula currently can use a 13.0 mile loop made up of 

six segments (identified in Table 6-1). All of the roads outside of the park (5.2 miles in 

total length) are two-way for both cars and bicycles. The road inside the park, with the 

exception of the road to Schoodic Point, is one-way (7.8 miles in total length) and 

dictates the direction of the bicyclist. The loop is paved surface throughout. The Park 

does not allow the use of bicycles on trails in the Schoodic parkland. 

The roadway classification is based on design criteria and usage. Table 6-1 

summarizes the roadway conditions observed and descriptive data collected, including 

lane configuration, volume of traffic, shoulders, speed, terrain, and striping for bicycling. 

The SR 186 segment has the highest volume in the loop with an average of 2,000 

vehicles daily traveling this route. The volumes on all of the roadways peak during the 

summer time and drop off during the winter months. 

No provision has been made on these roads to provide designated, safe bicycle paths. 

Bicyclists must avoid conflicts with vehicular traffic by using the shoulders, i.e., the 

portions of the roadways to the immediate right of the travel lane. The configuration of 

the shoulder and its composition are important considerations in the analysis of bicycle 

lanes. The roads of interest outside the park all have shoulders between two and four 

feet in width, made up of mostly of gravel and, occasionally, loose pavement. 

The shoulders on the Park roads average less than one foot in width and are composed 

of dirt or grass. Coping stones were originally placed along the shoulder to limit 

vehicular traffic and they sometimes preclude use of the shoulder. There are several 

naturally occurring rock outcroppings along the roadway that limit or prevent use of the 

shoulder. 
Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 

52

Current 

Conditions Moore Road Moore Rd 

inside of Park

Schoodic 

Point Road 

Wonsqueak 

Rd inside of 

Park 

E. Schoodic 

Road SR 186 

Description 

Between 

Winter 

Harbor, SR 

186 & Park 

Entrance, 

Frazer Point 

Between 

Winter Harbor, 

Moore Rd & 

Road to 

Schoodic Point

Between Park 

Loop Road & 

Schoodic Point

Between Road 

to Schoodic 

Point and E. 

Schoodic Road

Between Birch 

Harbor, SR 

186 & Park 

Entrance 

Between 

Winter Harbor, 

Moore Rd & 

Birch Harbor, 

East Schoodic 

Rd 

Lanes 1 lane each 

way 

2 lanes oneway 1 lane each 

way 

2 Lanes oneway 1 lane each 

way 

1 lane each 

way 

Length 1.25 miles 3.3 miles 1 miles 2.5 miles 1.8 miles 1.7 miles 

Classification Minor 

Collector 

Minor 

Collector Local Road Minor Collector Minor Collector Major Collector 

Yr 2000 

Average Daily 

Traffic 

800 700 700 700 1000 2000 

Shoulder 2' - Gravel 1' - Dirt None 1' - Dirt 2' - Gravel 3' - Gravel 

Avg. Speed 35 mph 30 mph 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 

Terrain Gently Rolling Level Level Level Level Gently Rolling

Accidents Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor

Striping for 

bicycles None None None None None None 

Bicycle 

Signage None None None None None None 

Intersection 

Points Some None One None Some Some 

Table 6-1

Current Conditions of Roadway for Bicyclists

Moore Road and East Schoodic Road are the Schoodic parkland entry and exit roads 

leading from and to SR 186, respectively, and they have an average speed of 35 mph. 

SR 186 was designed for more traffic at the higher speed of 40 mph. The Park road is 

30 mph with some stretches that go down to 25 mph. The terrain is generally level with 

some sections with gently rolling hills. There have been, generally, few accidents, with 

no evidence seen of concentration in any particular locations. Accidents on the Park 

road, reported anecdotally to the project team, were mostly due to Navy personnel, 

especially during the winter months. 

None of the roadways have lane striping or signage for bicyclists. This area is sparsely 

settled and has large tracts of undeveloped land; there are, therefore, very few access 

points onto the roadways. 

6.1.2 AASHTO guidelines 

Established in 1914, AASHTO has been the primary source of technical information on 

the design, construction, and maintenance, use of highways, roads, and other 

transportation facilities. AASHTO is the only national organization recognized by the 

Federal Highway Administration whose interests include all of the transportation modes, 

including bicycling. They have identified ten safety issues for consideration when a 

bicycle path uses the same right-of-way (ROW) as vehicular traffic. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

53

1. Width: Bicycle paths on paved roadway without parking should have their own 

exclusive ROWs with striping to separate them from automobile traffic. Paths 

should be 4 feet wide and allow for a two-foot wide shoulder at the roadways 

edge. If parking is allowed on the side of the roadway, the parking should be ten 

feet wide from the inside of the shoulder with a striped five foot bicycle path, 

abutting the roadway. Bicycle paths should never be placed on sidewalks. 

2. One-way paths: On two-way streets, bicycle paths should be provided on both 

sides of the street, to the right of the right-most through lane. Under no condition 

should a two-way lane be provided on one side of a roadway. 

3. Side of the road: On one-way streets, a one way lane should be generally be 

provided on the right side of the road. There may be special instances that 

dictate striping a lane on the left side of the roadway but this should be given 

careful thought. 

4. Designation: Bicycle paths should be designated by lane striping, regulatory 

signs, and pavement markings determined by local authorities’ rules on signage. 

5. Striping: Bicycle paths should be separated from other travel lanes by a 6-inch 

to 8-inch solid white stripe. 

6. Regulatory Signage: Signage to identify bicycle routes, especially at 

intersections, should be used. 

7. Pavement Markings: Pavement markings are an alternative to regulatory 

signage and to minimize the aesthetic impact of signage on the environment. 

8. Intersections: Depending on the level of use of an intersection, simple striping of 

the bicycle lane can be used in most cases with signage or pavement markings 

to help direct the bicyclist in the right direction.

9. Parking: Parking should be to the traffic side of all curb-side or parallel parking 

locations. The standard width for parking is between 8 and ten feet and should 

not be narrowed to accommodate a bicycle lane. Diagonal parking does not 

work well with lanes and should be avoided if possible. 

10. Signals: If a traffic-actuated signal is to be included, special accommodations 

should be made to allow them to be detected and synchronized with the turning 

movements of vehicles. 

6.1.3 Issues 

The major issues for consideration in planning for bicycle paths in and around Schoodic 

Peninsula are: 

• None of the roadways or bicycle routes in the study area currently complies with 

AASHTO guidelines. Each of the six roadway segments need improvements to 

at least approach AASHTO safety guidelines. 

• Coordination among all stakeholding governmental bodies, namely the Park 

Service, the State of Maine, and the towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro, for 

identifying funding options, prioritizing projects, and the proper planning and 

phasing of construction work. 

• The third issue is the proposed designation of the National Park on Schoodic 

Peninsula as a National Resource District, which would identify the park road as 

an historic feature with a high level of integrity. If the designation occurs, any 
Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 

54

modifications to the roadway would have to adhere to the guidelines established 

by the Interior Department’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

and the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (IDS-HPGTCL). 

• Planners must take both the short term and long term views of bicycle access 

planning. All of the bicycle routes in this study have ROWs following pre-existing 

paved roadways, dictating the development of bicycle routes in the short term. 

Long term expansion of opportunities for bicyclists may mean acquiring private 

ROWs or easements. a potentially difficult process. 

6.1.4 Integration with other projects and studies 

Several studies and transportation improvement initiatives by stakeholders affect bicycle 

route planning and will require effective coordination. The State of Maine’s document 

“Examination of Tourism in Maine: Its Economic Impact and Marketing” (April 2001) 

should be revised to include Schoodic bicycle route planning. The State’s roads 

maintenance plan must include improvements for bicycle routes to minimize the effort 

and costs associated with the work. 

Any work that the Park Service performs should consider the roadway as a historic 

feature due to the IDS-HPGTCL and be planned to minimize impact on historic features 

of the area. 

Two studies by the HCPC examine transportation planning for Schoodic Peninsula. 

The first was a grant application to the FHWA’s National Scenic Byways Program for 

pedestrian and bicycle access improvements for the Schoodic Byway. Therein, HCPC 

identified several sections of roadway in need of a bicycle lane and other safety 

measures and estimated costs for design, construction, and implementation. Secondly, 

the HCPC produced a draft report by the Pedestrian Subcommittee for the Region Two 

Transportation Advisory Committee in September of 2000 in response to a new regional 

plan under development by the Maine Department of Transportation. This report 

identifies priorities for shoulder paving in Hancock and Washington Counties. 

The towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are both in the process of updating their 

Comprehensive Plans, which include identification of opportunities for improving 

pedestrian and bicycle access and mention of the possibilities for acquiring new ROWs 

or easements for bicycle paths parallel to the roadways. This is would be part of a longterm bicycle transportation plan in the area. 

6.2 Demand 

The demand for bicycle transportation in Schoodic Peninsula is the proportion of visitors 

indicating in surveys that they rode or would ride bicycles in Acadia National Park 

multiplied by the projected visitation numbers for Schoodic for the various 

Transportation Alternatives. The 1998 Mount Desert Island survey (Littlejohn) indicated 

that 36% of visitors there used bicycles, while the 2000 survey work by University of 

Vermont in Schoodic found 17% did. A range is chosen here with a minimum of 17% 

and a maximum splitting the difference between the two survey values, or 26%. In the 

latter case, transportation systems improvements may be expected to enhance 

demand, but would probably not elevate it to the levels seen on MDI where bicycling 

opportunities are much better. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

55

6.2.1 Transportation Alternative 2 

The seasonal demand for bicycle use is a function of total recreational trips. Table 6-2 

presents the total numbers of bicyclists for each year and Reuse Concept. Between 5% 

and 6% of the bicycle trips for all scenarios would be people arriving by bus in the bus 

service only Alternative. 

6.2.2 Transportation Alternative 3 

The seasonal demand for bicycle use is a function of total recreational trips. The 

demand calculation includes the assumptions that Alternative 3 would provide the visitor 

free access for bicycles on the ferry or bus and that there would be no constraint on 

parking for those who wish to bring their bicycles with their vehicles. The results of the 

demand analysis appear in Table 6-2, which shows that the bicycle trips would range 

from a low of 35,200 in the 2005 Low Reuse scenario to a maximum of 48,300 in the 

2015 High Reuse scenario. 

Table 6-2

Alternative 3 Seasonal Bicycle Trips 

6.2.3 Transportation Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would result in a marginally small increase in bicycle trips for all scenarios 

relative to Alternative 3 (a range of 5 - 7 % higher), due to recreational users from the 

ferry during the off-season. Most bicycle use will occur during the May to October 

seasonal ferry and bus loop service provided by Alternative 3. 

6.3 Schoodic Loop Road 

The following discussion of reconfiguration options for the Schoodic Loop Road is on 

the assumption that there is no expansion (i.e., widening) of the roadway in any case 

because of the pending designation of the Schoodic parkland as a National Resource 

District because of its historic value. 

6.3.1 Current conditions and options 

Bicyclists touring Schoodic generally follow the loop as dictated by the direction of the 

one-way Park road, i.e., west to east (Winter Harbor to Birch Harbor, then back to 

Winter Harbor). The following options explore ways in which the Park roads could be 

Year Recreational Bicycle 

Visits Trips Auto Bus Auto Ferry

Concept 3, High 26% 255,031 66,308 62,330 3,978 61,666 4,642 

Concept 3, High 17% 255,031 43,355 40,754 2,601 40,320 3,035 

Concept 1, Low 26% 207,342 53,909 51,213 2,695 50,674 3,235 

Concept 1, Low 17% 207,342 35,248 33,486 1,762 33,133 2,115 

Concept 3, High 26% 284,379 73,939 69,502 4,436 68,763 5,176 

Concept 3, High 17% 284,379 48,344 45,444 2,901 44,960 3,384 

Concept 1, Low 26% 235,024 61,106 58,051 3,055 57,440 3,666 

Concept 1, Low 17% 235,024 39,954 37,956 1,998 37,557 2,397 

2015

Bicycle 

Usage Base Reuse

Annual Trips

Alt. 2 (Bus) Bicycle Alt. 3 (Ferry) Bicycle

2005
Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 

56

modified through directional changes and application of modern design criteria to 

provide the safest bicycle route. 

6.3.2 One-way option 

This option would reconfigure the two-lane Park road to one lane for vehicular traffic, a 

wide bicycle lane, and an extended shoulder running south from Frazer Point to 

Schoodic Point Road, then turning north towards Birch Harbor. This option would limit 

the bicyclist to one direction of movement and require completion of the 12-mile loop. It 

provides the maximum width for a bicycle lane on the right side of the roadway without 

expanding the existing roadway and would preserve the historic configuration and 

character of the road. 

6.3.3 Two-way option 

This approach would reconfigure the loop road to a two-way road with direct access 

from the Winter Harbor and Birch Harbor sides. Each lane on the roadway would be 

only about 10 feet wide, inadequate by current AASHTO standards, with two foot wide 

gravel shoulders. There would be no opportunity to incorporate a bicycle lane without 

widening the road and removing numerous copingstones and several rock 

outcroppings, all actions inimical to the intent of IDS-HPGTCL for National Resource 

Districts. Such an expansion would not allow even soft shoulders on both sides for 

bicycle use and would therefore limiting bicyclists to one direction, probably west to 

east. This option provides more benefit for vehicular traffic than for bicyclists and is not 

a viable course of action from the standpoint of the bicycling mode. 

6.3.4 One way / two way option 

This concept includes the retention of the one-way road from Frazer Point to Schoodic 

Point Road, with the integration of a bicycle path, and the reconfiguration of the Park 

road from Schoodic Point Road to Birch Harbor for two-way vehicular traffic. The 

roadway from Schoodic Point to Birch Harbor would not meet AASHTO guidelines and it 

would be difficult to have any bicycle lane with changing the character of the roadway. 

Moore Road up to the Schoodic Point Road would have an improved bicycle path 

without having to expand. 

These changes would provide the benefit of a two-lane road for cars on one portion of 

the road and the benefit of improved bicycle access on another, a “neither fish nor fowl” 

result failing to improve transport by either mode. On balance, the benefits would favor 

motorists rather than bicyclists and would not be a desirable option. 

6.3.5 Two way / one way option 

This concept is the mirror image of the previous approach and would have the same 

problems. The road from Frazer Point to Schoodic Point would be reconfigured for twoway traffic. Expanded width would be unlikely because of the necessity to remove 

copingstones; therefore a bicycle lane to Winter Harbor could not be included. The road 

to Birch Harbor would have improved bicycle access without any expansion but would 

be limited by its short two-way portion just before the Park exit. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

57

6.3.6 Schoodic Loop Road 

This section is currently a two-way spur road and needs to be maintained as such for 

access to the Navy base entrance and the Schoodic Point Visitor Area. It is narrow and 

has some exposed ledge protruding out over the shoulder near the parking lot. This 

section should have its shoulders widened to accommodate a bicycle lane on either 

side of the roadway. 

6.3.7 Conclusion 

The goal of providing a safe bicycle route through the Schoodic parkland, one that 

adheres to AASHTO guidelines, is best attained by retaining the one-way loop 

configuration from Frazer Point to the Park exit at Birch Harbor and reassigning the 

existing lanes as follows: one lane for vehicular traffic, and the seaward lane for 5’ wide 

bicycle lane and a 5’ extended shoulder. Striping, signage, and pavement markings are 

important elements of the conversion that would have minimal impact on the roadway. 

Some restriction of traffic flow would occur at peak periods, but the effect would be 

mitigated by promoting the use of the park-and-ride lots, ferries, and buses and 

reducing automobile traffic. Otherwise, expansion of the roadway’s width would be 

required for a bicycle path, whether for two lane, one-way or two lane, two-way 

automobile traffic configuration. The latter choice depends on the outcome of the road’s 

designation as part of an historic district. 

The Schoodic Point spur road must continue as a two way vehicular way. The 

recommendation for bicycle lanes on both sides means that this would be the one area 

requiring road surface expansion. This would be a small proportion of the total length of 

roads in the Schoodic parkland. 

6.4 Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Roads 

6.4.1 Moore Road, Winter Harbor 

This section of roadway should have the gravel shoulders replaced with pavement. A 

couple of ledge outcroppings near the shoulders should be removed. Lane striping and 

signage should be added. 

6.4.2 Route 186, Winter Harbor to Birch Harbor 

This section of roadway needs paved shoulders, lane striping and signage. The 

Regional Transportation Advisory Committee considered this road a safety priority due 

to its heavy seasonal use. SR 186 has the largest daily volume of traffic and also the 

fastest average speed. This stretch of narrow, relatively high speed roadway has some 

rolling hills and curves and poses added danger to bicyclists and pedestrians. 

6.4.3 Schoodic Road, Gouldsboro 

This section of roadway has very narrow shoulders that need to be expanded by 2 to 3 

feet on either side to accommodate a bi-directional four-foot bicycle lane. Lane striping 

and signage should be added to direct the bicyclist along the route. There may be 

some problems expanding the roadway due to the proximity of people’s yards to the 

shoulder. This may require easements or acquiring a 2 to 4 foot ROW along either side 

of the roadway. 
Schoodic Bicycling Enhancement Options 

58

6.5 Park and Ride Opportunities 

6.5.1 Ferry service 

The ferry service should be inter-modal, allowing people to get and use bicycles at 

either end of the trip. For commuters, a bicycle rack should be made available at the 

Winter Harbor Dock and at the terminal in Bar Harbor. For recreational trips, bicycles 

should be allowed on the ferry or be available from rentals near the Winter Harbor Town 

Center Lot or the marina dock. Signage or bicycle route maps should be readily 

available to the bicyclist as well as the local schedules. 

6.5.2 Bus and automobile 

People who visit the Schoodic parkland in their cars should have the option of using a 

park-and-ride lot in central Winter Harbor and transferring to loop bus service or 

bicycles. It has been suggested that a park-and-ride lot is an appropriate use at the site 

of the Navy’s Misty Harbor Apartments, which are to be turned over to the Town of 

Winter Harbor. Such a conversion would require bicycle racks, as well as a variable 

message sign in Winter Harbor as you approach Main Street with information on loop 

road traffic and limited parking inside the Schoodic parkland. Motorists would thus be 

encouraged to use the park-and-ride lot at peak times. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

59

7 BUS SERVICES

Bus services would play critical roles in each of the three active Transportation 

Alternative, both to link the Schoodic Peninsula and Mount Desert Island and to provide 

local transit at either end. Two distinct services are described: 

1. Between Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula, with five, six, or seven daily 

roundtrips. The services described would be 1) the sole year round inter-regional 

transit option under Alternative 2, 2) the sole off-season (November - April) interregional transit option under Alternative 3; and 3) the back-up service for the year 

round ferry under Alternative 4. 

2. Connecting loop service from the Winter Harbor terminal, rather bus or ferry, to 

other Schoodic Point stops, and service between the Bar Harbor terminal to 

major MDI employers and other bus lines on MDI (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). 

Each service description addresses the needs of multiple markets, as described in 

Chapter 3. 

Commuter markets will require year-round weekday service for all active Alternatives. 

Midday links for staff and program participants are likely to be needed on a regular fiveday-a-week basis, although it would be possible to limit midday transportation to special 

occasions. Evening trips would likely be offered only on days when special conference 

outings are planned. 

The need for weekend service will depend in part on whether weekend conferences are 

planned at Schoodic Point, and in part on whether seasonal tourist traffic will be great 

enough to justify seasonal weekend operations. There is unlikely to be sufficient 

demand for weekend commuter service. 

Recreational use of the bus service between Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula by 

Park visitors would occur for those Alternatives lacking ferry service either year round or 

seasonally and in those instances when ferry service is not available (maintenance and 

repairs, weather cancellations). It is likely, however, that this recreational demand in 

any of those cases will be less than demand for ferry service, given the visitor 

experience value of a ferry ride. Discussion of markets and services in this chapter 

therefore focuses on non-recreational users, i.e., commuters, Park staff, and staff, 

researchers, and guests at the future facilities on the Navy base. 

7.1 Bar Harbor to Schoodic Service 

“Bus only” service between Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula would address a variety 

of possible scenarios under the active Transportation Alternatives: 

• Ferry service fails to start up or fails to succeed once started due to economic, 

operational, or infrastructure issues. 

• Buses replace seasonal service ferries during off-season months. 

• Buses operate as back-ups to ferry service on individual days when ferries 

cannot operate due to weather or sea conditions, or repair and maintenance 

needs. 
Bus Services 

60

7.1.1 Bus Only – Level One 

“Level One “ service would provide two buses for limited commuter and midday links 

between the Schoodic Peninsula and Bar Harbor. One 35 or 40 passenger bus would 

be based on the Schoodic peninsula and offer four daily roundtrips. A second smaller 

bus would be based in Winter Harbor overnight and would remain at the Jackson 

Laboratory during the day. The second bus would offer a single run from Winter Harbor 

to Bar Harbor in the morning and a single return trip in the late afternoon. 

A draft schedule for this limited “bus only” service is presented in Table 7-1. A 

description of how target markets would be accommodated is presented in Table 7-2. 

Schoodic 

Winter 

Harbor ANP 

Bar 

Harbor 

Jackson

Lab 

Jackson 

Lab 

Bar 

Harbor ANP 

Winter 

Harbor Schoodic

5:30 a 5:45 a 6:45 a 6:55 a 7:00 a 7:05 a 7:10 a 7:20 a 8:20 a 8:35 a 

7:00 a 7:15 a 8:15 a 8:25 a 8:30 a 

 

9:00 a 9:15 a 10:15 a 10:25 a 10:30 a 10:35 a 10:40 a 10:50 a 11:50 a 12:05 p 

 

2:00 p 2:15 p 3:15 p 3:25 p 3:30 p 3:35 p 3:40 p 3:50 p 4:50 p 5:05 p 

 5:05 p 5:10 p 5:20 p 6:20 p 6:35 p 

5:15 p 5:30 p - 6:40 p - - *6:40 p - 7:50 p 8:05 p 

 *8:00 p - 9:10 p 9:25 p 

*Optional late returns to accommodate conference attendees 

Table 7-1

Schedule - Level One Bus Service 

This service plan assumes that the driver of the second bus would be employed during 

the day at the Jackson Laboratory, avoiding the cost of “deadhead” runs in the morning 

and afternoon. The proposed schedule has this driver arriving at the Laboratory at 8:35 

a.m. and departing at 5:15 p.m. These times could be shifted to match commuter 

demand. 

A medium-duty 28-passenger bus could be used for the dedicated Jackson Laboratory 

run. The remainder of the service should be provided using comfortable, heavy-duty 

equipment. The best approach would be to utilize a new or used 40-passenger 

motorcoach. While this equipment is more expensive, it is very durable and reliable, 

and it will ensure the highest level of comfort for commuters, staff, and Park program 

participants. 

The Level One service would involve approximately 15.5 vehicle service hours per day. 

The first bus would operate approximately 6.5 hours in the morning and 6 hours in the 

afternoon, with a 2-hour midday break. The second bus would operate approximately 

1.5 hours in the morning and 1.5 hours in the afternoon. Evening service will add 

roughly 1.5 to 2 hours for each day it is provided. 

 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

61

Market Available options Comments 

Jackson Lab 

commuters 

Arrive at the Laboratory at 7:00 

a.m. and 8:30 a.m. 

Depart the Laboratory at 3:35 

p.m. and 5:05 p.m. 

This serves the main 7:30 a.m. – 3:30 

p.m. shift, while also accommodating 

administrators and scientists who 

work past 3:30 p.m. 

MDI residents 

employed at 

Schoodic 

Arrive at the new ANP facility at 

8:35 a.m. and depart at 5:15 

p.m. 

Attendees at midday 

meetings on 

Schoodic 

Arrive at Schoodic at 8:35 a.m. 

or 12:05 p.m. 

Depart Schoodic at 2:00 p.m. 

or 5:15 p.m. 

The shortest available midday stay 

would be 4.5 hours. 

Attendees at midday 

meetings on MDI 

Arrive at ANP headquarters at 

8:15 a.m., 10:15 a.m., or 3:15 

p.m. 

Depart at 10:50 a.m., 3:50 

p.m., or 5:20 p.m. 

Accommodates midday stays of 2.5 

and 5.5 hours. 

Evening trips to Bar 

Harbor to serve 

conference 

attendees 

Arrive in Bar Harbor at 3:25 

p.m. or 6:40 p.m. 

Depart Bar Harbor at 8:00 p.m. 

This would involve holding the 6:40 

p.m. “deadhead” bus in Bar Harbor 

until 8:00 p.m. The departure time 

could be customized for particular 

groups. 

Table 7-2

Markets Served, Level One Bus Service 

Downeast Transportation, Inc. (DTI), the public transit provider for Hancock County, 

would be the likely operator of Bar Harbor-Schoodic bus service. DTI’s current 

operating cost is $25 per service hour. With this unit cost, the cost of year-round 

weekday service would total approximately $96,875. Evening runs would cost an 

additional $40-50 per day. If thirty evening conference trips are scheduled, the 

additional cost would be between $1,200 and $1,500. 

There are a number of options for reducing the scope and cost of Level One service. It 

would be possible to omit the scheduled midday 9:00 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. roundtrip, 

holding the bus in reserve for special trips instead on an as needed basis. It would also 

be possible to do without the extra Jackson Laboratory bus, relying on just the 7:00 a.m. 

arrival and the 3:35 p.m. departure. Each of these changes would save roughly three 

hours each day, or roughly $18,750 each per year. 

If only one Jackson Lab commute trip is offered, this will likely limit the usefulness of the 

transportation service for many Laboratory employees. In addition to serving a later 

work shift, the later run provides a back up for earlier workers who sometimes need to 

work past 3:30 p.m. 

7.1.2 Bus Only – Level Two 

A more intensive “bus only” service would use two regularly scheduled buses, one 

based on Schoodic Peninsula and the other based in Bar Harbor. The schedule 
Bus Services 

62

presented in Table 7-3 includes a total of six weekday roundtrips, plus an optional 

evening roundtrip. The bus based on Schoodic would offer a single morning roundtrip 

and a single afternoon roundtrip, plus the optional evening service. The Bar Harbor bus 

would offer two morning roundtrips, one midday roundtrip, and one late afternoon 

roundtrip. This service plan would accommodate markets as described in Table 7-4. 

Schoodic 

Winter 

Harbor ANP 

Bar 

Harbor 

Jackson 

Lab Schoodic

Winter 

Harbor ANP 

Bar 

Harbor 

Jackson 

Lab 

 5:30 a 5:35 a 5:45 a 6:45 a 7:00 a 

5:30 a 5:45 a 6:45 a 6:55 a 7:00 a 7:05 a 7:10 a 7:20 a 8:20 a 8:35 a 

7:05 a 7:20 a 8:20 a 8:30 a 8:35 a 8:50 a 8:55 a 9:05 a 10:05 a 10:20 a

 

10:30 a 10:45 a 11:45 a 11:55 a 12:00 p 12:05 p 12:10 p 12:20 p 1:20 p 1:35 p 

1:45 p 2:00 p 3:00 p 3:10 p 3:15 p 

 3:35 p 3:40 p 3:50 p 4:50 p 5:05 p 

3:30 p 3:45 p 4:45 p 4:55 p 5:00 p 5:05 p 5:10 p 5:20 p 6:20 p 6:35 p 

5:10 p 5:25 p - 6:35 p 6:40 p 

*6:40 p 6:55 p - 8:05 p - - 8:15 p - 9:25 p 9:40 p 

*Optional evening run to accommodate conference attendees 

Table 7-3

Schedule - Level Two Bus Service 

This service could be provided using two 35 or 40 passenger buses. The best strategy 

would be to use heavy-duty motorcoach equipment to ensure maximum reliability and 

passenger comfort. 

This alternative would involve a total of roughly 20 hours per day, plus an additional 3 

hours per day when evening runs are scheduled. One bus would operate just over 13 

hours a day, from 5:30 a.m. until 6:40 p.m. This would require two drivers, one working 

an 8-hour shift and another working a 5-hour shift. The second bus would require a split 

shift of three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, plus an additional 3 

hours when evenings runs are scheduled. 

At $25 per hour, this level 2 bus only service will cost approximately $125,000 per year 

for regular weekday service. Extra evening runs will cost about $75 per day, or $2,250 

for 30 evening runs per year. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

63

Market Available options Comments 

Jackson Lab 

commuters 

Arrive at the Laboratory at 7:00 

a.m. and 8:35 a.m. 

Depart the Laboratory at 3:35 

p.m. and 5:05 p.m. 

This is similar to the Level 1 option. It 

serves the main 7:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. 

shift, plus administrators and scientists 

who start later or who work until 5:00 

p.m. 

MDI residents 

employed at 

Schoodic 

Arrive at the new ANP facility at 

7:00 a.m. and 8:35 a.m. 

Depart at 3:30 p.m. and 5:10 

p.m. 

This alternative provides better 

commuter links for the new ANP 

research facility. It serves both a 7:00 

a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift and a 8:30 a.m. 

to 5:00 p.m. shift. 

Attendees at 

midday meetings 

on Schoodic 

Arrive at Schoodic at 8:35 a.m., 

10:20 a.m., or 1:35 p.m. 

Depart Schoodic at 10:30 a.m., 

1:45 p.m., 3:30 p.m., or 5:15 

p.m. 

This option provides a better choice of 

midday stays at Schoodic. 

Attendees at 

midday meetings 

on MDI 

Arrive at ANP headquarters at 

8:20 a.m., 11:45 a.m., or 3:00 

p.m. 

Depart at 12:20 p.m.., 3:50 p.m., 

or 5:20 p.m. 

This option also provides a better 

choice of midday stays in Bar Harbor. 

Evening trips to 

Bar Harbor to 

accommodate 

conference 

attendees 

Arrive in Bar Harbor at 3:10 

p.m., 4:55 p.m., or 6:35 p.m. 

Depart Bar Harbor at 8:15 p.m. 

This involves a separate evening 

roundtrip. The departure time from Bar 

Harbor can be later to suit the needs of 

individual groups. 

Table 7-4

Markets Served, Level Two Bus Service 

7.2 Bus Links for Ferry Alternatives 

If ferry service is provided between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor, two different 

connecting bus services will be required: 

• Service from the Winter Harbor terminal to Schoodic Point and other points on 

the Peninsula be needed to accommodate commuters from Bar Harbor, Park 

Service staff and others traveling to and from the new research facility, and 

seasonal visitors traveling from Bar Harbor to the Schoodic portion of Acadia 

National Park. 

• Service between the Bar Harbor terminal to major employers and other points in 

Bar Harbor to accommodate commuter and recreational ferry passengers 

arriving in Bar Harbor. 

Additional markets could be served, although it may prove difficult to accomplish this 

with a single bus at each end of the ferry route. Other potential bus links include: 
Bus Services 

64

• Midday buses between the Bar Harbor town pier and Acadia National Park 

headquarters. 

• A bus from Winter Harbor to Corea for MDI residents commuting to jobs at the 

former Navy facility. 

• A commuter bus from Milbridge to Winter Harbor for Washington County 

residents employed at Jackson Lab. 

• A more extensive visitor shuttle serving a small number of tourist destinations 

located north of Prospect Harbor. 

While these extra services have been considered during the planning process, detailed 

schedules and service plans have not been developed for these markets. 

7.2.1 Bus /Ferry Links: Bar Harbor and Schoodic Peninsula 

The schedule and frequency of connecting bus service on both sides of Frenchman’s 

Bay depends on the schedule and frequency of ferry service. The ferry and bus 

schedules have been designed around a 25 minute voyage time between Bar Harbor 

and Winter Harbor (one monohull service, Chapter 5) and a minimum layover time of 10 

minutes between ferry runs. The one monohull schedule developed has uniform 

layover times of 15 minutes or more. 

These ferry schedules result in a total of at least 80 minutes between roundtrip ferry 

departures. This results in a window of approximately 90 minutes within which a 

Schoodic bus can distribute arriving ferry passengers and pick up new riders for delivery 

to the ferry terminal. At least five factors need to be considered in developing 

coordinated schedules at both ends of the ferry route: 

(1) The amount of time required for a bus to travel around the Schoodic Peninsula. 

(2) Desired arrival and departure times for people commuting to jobs at Schoodic 

Point. 

(3) The amount of time required for a bus to link the Bar Harbor town pier with the 

Jackson Laboratory. 

(4) Major shift changes at Jackson Laboratory and desired arrival and departure 

times. 

(5) The need to minimize disruption of non-ferry users of an in-town Bar HarborJackson Lab shuttle bus. 

A number of desired features should be included, if possible, in a set of coordinated bus 

and ferry timetables: 

• Jackson Laboratory employees should be able to arrive at the Bar Harbor town 

pier and transfer directly to a waiting bus for a six-minute ride to the Laboratory. 

The main Laboratory work shift begins at 7:30 a.m., and most workers prefer to 

arrive by about 7:10 a.m. 

• Other Laboratory commuters should be able to arrive for shifts that begin at 6:00 

a.m. and 8:30 a.m. 

• Laboratory workers should be able to board buses there when their shift ends 

and travel directly to the town pier for direct transfers to a departing ferry. 

• Bus runs between the Laboratory and the town pier should cause minimal 

disruption of Bar Harbor village shuttles for bus riders who do not use the ferry. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

65

This is important to avoid the cost of operating a separate bus for just three 

morning and three afternoon ferry runs. 

• MDI residents employed at Schoodic Point should be able to get off the ferry and 

board a bus at the Winter Harbor dock for direct rides to the new Acadia National 

Park research facility. 

• A bus should be waiting for Schoodic Point workers at the end of the workday to 

return them to a ferry waiting in Winter Harbor. 

• ANP staff and program participants should be able to transfer directly between 

ferries and buses in Winter Harbor for travel to and from the new Schoodic Point 

research facility. 

• Seasonal visitors should be able ride the ferry from Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor 

and then transfer to a bus that would take them to destinations in the Schoodic 

area of Acadia National Park. 

• Bus schedules should provide visitors with convenient options for visiting Winter 

Harbor’s village center. 

• Buses should transport bicycles, allowing cyclists to limit their biking to the oneway portion of the Schoodic road. 

• Buses in Winter Harbor should serve major in-town residential subdivisions, 

providing Winter Harbor residents with car-free access to the ferry dock. 

• Buses operating between Winter Harbor and Schoodic Point should provide a 

transportation link for local residents employed at the new ANP Schoodic facility 

Because a roundtrip circuit of the Schoodic peninsula can be completed in 45 minutes, 

it should be possible, if necessary, for buses to offer two complete round trips between 

the arrival of a ferry and a subsequent departure. In-town stops on these runs may 

need to be limited to ensure that there is enough time to complete both runs. 

To maximize benefits for groups traveling in both directions, it will be necessary in some 

instances for a bus to deliver passengers to a departing ferry, while also picking up ferry 

passengers that have just arrived. 

One possible scheduling solution is presented in Table 7-5. This draft schedule shows 

times for a Schoodic bus, Winter Harbor-Bar Harbor ferries, and a bus link between the 

Bar Harbor town pier and Jackson Laboratory. A summary of markets served appears 

in Table 7-6. The Bar Harbor in-town shuttle schedule appears in Table 7-7. 

The draft schedule of Table 7-5 includes nine ferry round trips: 

• Three roundtrips between 5:15 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., followed by a 60 minute 

layover. 

• Two roundtrips between 10:00 a.m. and 12:40 p.m., followed by a 50 minute 

layover. 

• Three roundtrips between 1:30 p.m. and 6:40 p.m.. 

During commute hours, ferry times are determined mostly by Jackson Laboratory shift 

changes. Midday ferry times are affected by the need to allow convenient transfer times 

to and from buses traveling the Schoodic loop. 
66

Table 7-5

Integrated Bar Harbor-Schoodic Bus and Ferry Schedule 

Jax B. Hbr. W. Hbr. W. Hbr. Frazier Navy Schoodic Birch Prospect W. Hbr. 

Lab Dock Marina IGA Point Base Point Harbor Harbor IGA Marina 

5:15 a 5

* 6:21 a # 6:25 a 6:35 a 7

5:55 a 6:22 a 6:25 a 6:27 a - - 6:40 a - 6:50 a 6:55 a 7:00 a # 7:05 a

* 7:41 a # 7:45 a 7:52 a 8

7:15 a 7:42 a 7:45 a 7:47 a - - 8:00 a - 8:10 a 8:15 a 8:20 a # 8:25 a8:30 a 8:57 a 9:00 a 9:02 a # 9:10 a 9:18 a 9:20 a 9:30 a 9:35 a 9:40 a # 9:45 a 10:00 a 1

10:20 a 10:22 a # 10:30 a 10:38 a 10:40 a 10:50 a 10:55 a 11:00 a # 11:05 a 11:20 a 1

10:40 a 11:07 a 11:10 a 11:12 a # 11:20 a 11:28 a 11:30 a 11:40 a 11:45 a 11:50 a # 11:55 a

12:10 p 12:37 p 12:40 p 12:42 p # 12:50 p 12:58 p 1:00 p 1:10 p 1:15 p 1:20 p # 1:25 p 1:30 p 1

1:45 p 1:47 p # 1:55 p 2:03 p 2:05 p 2:15 p 2:20 p 2:25 p # 2:30 p 2:50 p 3

2:00 p 2:06 p 2:10 p 2:37 p 2:40 p * 2:46 p # 2:55 p 3:03 p 3:05 p 3:15 p - 3:20 p # 3:25 p

3:30 p 3:32 p # 3:40 p 3:50 p - 4:00 p - 4:05 p - 4:07 p 4:20 p 4

3:30 p 3:36 p 3:40 p 4:07 p 4:10 p * 4:16 p # - 4:30 p - 4:40 p - * 4:49 p # 4:54 p

4:54 p - - - 5:10 p - 5:20 p - * 5:29 p # 5:34 p 5:40 p 6

4:49 a 4:55 a 5:00 p 5:27 p 5:35 p * 5:41 p #

6:10 p 6:37 p8:00 p 8:27 p Optional evening ferry run when conferences are scheduled

* Includes stops at former Navy housing complexes in Winter Harbor.# Operates via Bar Harbor Banking and Trust on Main Street, Winter Harbor.

F E R R 

Ferry to Winter 

Harbor

B U S F E R R Y B U S

Ferry to 

Harbo
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

67

Market Available options Comments 

Jackson Lab 

commuters 

Arrive at the Laboratory at 5:51 

a.m., 7:11 a.m., and 8:28 a.m. 

Depart the Laboratory at 2:00 

p.m., 3:30 p.m., and 4:49 p.m. 

Serves three shifts: 

6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 

7:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. 

8:30 a.m. – 4:45 p.m. 

MDI residents 

employed at 

Schoodic 

Arrive at the new ANP facility at 

6:40 a.m., 8:00 a.m., and 9:18 

a.m. 

Depart at 2:03 p.m., 3:50 p.m., 

and 5:10 p.m. 

Serves a variety of possible work 

hours: 

6:40 a.m. – 2:03 or 3:50 p.m. 

8:00 a.m. – 3:50 or 5:10 p.m. 

9:18 a.m. – 5:10 p.m. 

Attendees at midday 

meetings on 

Schoodic 

Arrive at Schoodic at 9:18 a.m., 

11:28 a.m., 12:58 p.m., or 3:03 

p.m. 

Depart Schoodic at 10:38 a.m., 

12:58 p.m., 2:03 p.m., 3:50 p.m., 

or 5:10 p.m. 

Provides a wide selection of 

midday stays at Schoodic. 

Attendees at midday 

meetings on MDI 

Arrive in Bar Harbor at 10:27 a.m., 

11:47 a.m., 1:57 p.m., or 3:17 p.m. 

Depart at Bar Harbor 12:10 p.m.., 

2:10 p.m., 3:40 p.m., or 5:00 p.m. 

Provides a choice of midday stays 

in Bar Harbor. A midday bus may 

be needed for rides between the 

Bar Harbor town pier and ANP 

headquarters. 

Evening trips to Bar 

Harbor to 

accommodate 

conference 

attendees 

Arrive in Bar Harbor at 2:50 p.m., 

4:20 p.m., or 5:40 p.m. 

Depart Bar Harbor at 8:00 p.m. 

Involves holding the 6:10 p.m. 

deadhead ferry departure from 

Bar Harbor. The departure time 

from Bar Harbor can be set to suit 

the needs of individual groups. 

Table 7- 6

Markets Served - Coordinated Bus and Ferry Schedules 

7.2.1.1 Schoodic bus schedules 

The Schoodic bus schedule includes eleven trips around the Schoodic peninsula. 

Schedules call for eleven hours of bus service each day, with a six-hour shift running 

from 6:21 a.m. until 9:45 a.m., and a 5-hour shift running from 12:40 p.m. until 5:40 p.m. 

Most Schoodic bus runs are scheduled to depart the Winter Harbor ferry terminal within 

three minutes of the arriving ferry. In most cases, buses are scheduled to arrive at the 

Winter Harbor dock 15 minutes before ferries are scheduled to depart. The exceptions 

are the two afternoon commuter connections, with transfer times of 13 and 6 minutes. 

During commute hours, buses include stops at former Navy housing complexes in 

Winter Harbor. All bus runs include stops at the Winter Harbor IGA. Most runs also 

serve Main Street in Winter Harbor, with a turn at the Bar Harbor Banking and Trust 

building. Early morning and midday bus runs have sufficient time to include stops in 

Prospect Harbor after they exit Acadia National Park and before they arrive back in 

Winter Harbor. Afternoon commuter runs bypass Prospect Harbor. 
Bus Services 

68

MORNING SERVICE 

Jackson 

Lab Store Pier 

Ledgelawn COA West St. 

Ext. 

Ledgelawn Pier Store Jackson 

Lab 

 5:36 a 5:41 a - 5:45 a 5:48 a 5:51 a 

6:00 a 6:03 a - 6:05 a 6:10 a 6:15 a 6:17 a - 6:20 a 6:23 a 

6:30 a 6:33 a - 6:35 a 6:40 a 6:45 a 6:47 a - 6:50 a 6:53 a 

6:55 a - 7:00 a - - - - 7:05 a 7:08 a 7:11 a 

7:15 a 7:18 a - 7:20 a 7:25 a 7:30 a 7:32 a - 7:35 a 7:38 a 

7:45 a 7:48 a - 7:50 a 7:55 a 8:00 a 8:02 a - 8:05 a 8:08 a 

8:10 a 8:15 a - - - - 8:22 a 8:25 a 8:28 a 

8:30 a 8:33 a - 8:35 a 8:40 a 8:45 a 8:47 a - 8:50 a 8:53 a 

9:00 a 9:03 a - 9:05 a 9:10 a 

AFTERNOON SERVICE 

Jackson 

Lab Store Pier 

Ledgelaw

n COA 

West St. 

Ext. 

Ledgela

wn Pier Store 

Jackson 

Lab 

2:00 p 2:03 p 2:06 p - - - - 2:06 p - 2:12 p 

2:15 p 2:18 p - 2:20 p 2:25 p 2:30 p 2:32 p - 2:35 p 2:38 p 

2:45 p 2:48 p - 2:50 p 2:55 p 3:00 p 3:02 p - 3:05 p 3:08 p 

 

3:30 p 3:33 p 3:36 p - - - - 3:36 p - 3:42 p 

3:45 p 3:48 p - 3:50 p 3:55 p 4:00 p 4:02 p - 4:05 p 4:08 p 

4:15 p 4:18 p - 4:20 p 4:25 p 4:30 p 4:32 p - 4:35 p 4:38 p 

4:49 p 4:52 p 4:55 p - - - - 4:55 p - 5:01 p 

5:05 p 5:08 p - 5:10 p 5:15 p 5:20 p 5:22 p - 5:25 p 5:28 p 

5:35 p 5:38 p - 5:40 p 5:45 p 5:50 p 5:52 p - 5:55 p 5:58 p 

6:05 p 6:08 p - 6:10 p 6:15 p 6:20 p 6:22 p 

Table 7-7

Bar Harbor-Jackson Lab Village Shuttle Schedule 

There does not appear to be sufficient time to offer commuter bus links to Corea or 

Milbridge using just one bus. A separate bus designed to transport Jackson Lab 

commuters from Milbridge to the Winter Harbor ferry dock could perhaps also be 

scheduled to provide a commuter link between Winter Harbor and a potential future job 

site in Corea. 

If a Schoodic bus operates year-round on weekdays only, this should result in an 

estimated 2,750 annual service hours. At $25 an hour, the cost for operations should 

total approximately $68,750 per year. If weekend service is offered seven hours per 

day for six months, this will add another 364 hours of service, at an estimated cost of 

$9,100 per year. 

A bus like the 28-passenger Island Explorer buses would likely be suitable for Winter 

Harbor-Schoodic bus service. Assuming that it would be operated by DTI, this 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

69

Schoodic bus would use the Island Explorer name and paint scheme. Use of propane 

fuel would required the following: (1) pressurized tanks for winter operation; (2) a heated 

overnight storage building; and (3) a propane fueling facility. The last two facilities could 

be provided at the former Navy base on Schoodic Point. 

7.2.1.2 Bar Harbor village shuttle 

The Jackson Laboratory has expressed an interest in possible year-round shuttle bus 

service linking the Laboratory with Bar Harbor’s downtown residential neighborhoods. It 

may be possible to design a downtown village shuttle that also accommodates ferry 

passengers who arrive from Winter Harbor at the Bar Harbor town pier. This 

arrangement would be much less expensive than operating a separate ferry connector 

bus. 

The ability to serve both markets with one bus will depend on the level of demand from 

Bar Harbor village residents and from ferry riders. It will also depend on afternoon 

traffic congestion at the town pier during peak summer months. It may be necessary to 

utilize separate buses in the afternoon when tourist-related traffic is backed up at the 

town pier. 

This service plan calls for diverting buses from their regular cross-town route to meet 

arriving ferry commuters in the morning and to deliver departing ferry commuters in the 

afternoon. It may be possible to utilize a bus from the Island Explorer vehicle fleet from 

September through mid-June. An additional bus would be needed from mid-June 

through August, unless the Island Explorer fleet is expanded to accommodate increased 

summer demand. 

As indicated above, a separate ferry shuttle bus may be needed during July, August, 

and September because of seasonal traffic congestion near the town pier. It will not be 

acceptable to ask other Jackson Lab commuters to wait for a shuttle vehicle that is 

delayed by waterfront traffic. It may be possible to schedule a seasonal Island Explorer 

bus to fill this afternoon gap during July, August, and September. This will require 

implementation of a plan to expand the current Island Explorer vehicle fleet. 

Bar Harbor village shuttle service will involve roughly eight hours of service each 

weekday. This will result in 2,000 service hours per year, with an anticipated operating 

cost of $50,000. Additional use of an Island Explorer bus for two hours each weekday 

during July, August, and September would add roughly 140 service hours at an 

estimated additional cost of $5,600 per year. 

7.2.1.3 Midday Bar Harbor – Acadia National Park bus link 

A midday link may be needed to transport ANP staff and Schoodic program participants 

between the Bar Harbor town pier and ANP headquarters. This transportation link could 

be provided with an Acadia National Park van. Or it may be possible to adjust 

Downeast Transportation’s year round Bar Harbor bus service to accommodate this 

need. 

DTI currently provides only two-day-a-week midday shuttle service in Bar Harbor. 

Expanding in-town midday shuttle service to five days a week would involve about five 

hours per day, or roughly 750 hours per year. This service expansion would cost an 
Bus Services 

70

estimated $18,750 per year. In addition to the National Park Service, beneficiaries 

would include Bar Harbor senior citizens and the College of the Atlantic. DTI has 

submitted a request to MDOT for planning funds to develop strategies for expanding 

year round bus service on Mount Desert Island. 

7.3 Summary of Vehicle Requirements and Cost Projections 

Vehicle requirements and operating cost projections are summarized in Table 7-9. 

Operating cost estimates are based on Downeast Transportation’s current unit cost of 

$25 per hour. 

Service 

Option 

Vehicle Needs Operating cost Comments 

Bus Only 

Level 1 

weekdays 

only 

1 motorcoach @ 

roughly $250,000 

1 medium-duty 

28-passenger bus 

@ $100,000 

3,875 annual hours 

at a cost of $96,875 

Optional evening 

runs could increase 

the cost to $100,000

Costs would be shared by 

Acadia National Park, Jackson 

Laboratory, and fare-paying 

passengers. The service may 

be eligible for FTA intercity 

funding. 

Bus Only 

Level 2 

weekdays 

only 

2 motorcoaches 

@ roughly 

$250,000 each 

5,000 annual hours 

at a cost of 

$125,000 

Optional evening 

runs could add 

between $2,500 and 

$5,000 per year. 

Costs would be shared by 

Acadia National Park, Jackson 

Laboratory, and fare-paying 

passengers. The service may 

be eligible for FTA intercity 

funding. 

Schoodic bus 

to meet 

ferries from 

Bar Harbor 

1 28-passenger 

Island Explorer 

bus @ roughly 

$100,000 

2,750 hours of 

weekday service @ 

$68,750 per year 

364 hours of sixmonth weekend 

service @ $9,100 

per year 

Connecting ferry passengers 

would not pay an additional fare 

to ride the bus. ANP transit 

fees would cover most costs, 

with possible contributions from 

towns and local bus riders. The 

service may be eligible for up to 

50% FTA funding. 

Bar Harbor 

village 

shuttle to 

meet Winter 

Harbor 

ferries 

1 28-passenger 

Island Explorer 

bus @ roughly 

$100,000 

2,000 weekday 

hours @ $50,000 

per year 

Funding would be provided by 

Jackson Laboratory and the 

College of the Atlantic. The 

service may be eligible for up to 

50% FTA funding. Passenger 

fares could be charged to 

reduce subsidy requirements. 

Table 7-8

Summary of Vehicle Requirements and Cost Projections 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

71

8 Transportation Alternatives Summary and Selection 

The Transportation Alternatives from 1 to 4 represent incrementally more ambitious 

planning concepts, with a central focus on ferry service. Improvements in bicycling 

opportunities and bus service are a common thread for all Alternatives and indeed are 

desirable outcomes whatever the future holds for ferries. Discussion in this chapter 

therefore is concentrated on ferries and the other modes as they relate to ferry service. 

More specific findings relating to those modes appear in Chapter 10. 

8.1 Alternative 2 

Bus only service between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor would not substantially 

improve regional transport, particularly since there is already a privately operated 

service, nor would it effectively address the Park’s goal of moving people into and 

around Schoodic by alternate transport modes. The demand analysis shows that such 

a service could have limited success with commuters and others on official business 

between Acadia National Park on MDI and the new activities at the Navy base on 

Schoodic. 

Bus service is not likely, however, to attract substantial numbers of recreational riders, 

for whom it will not enhance the Park visitor experience. The added time and 

inconvenience of riding the bus over the same route available to the private automobile 

would be a serious disincentive, particularly if a good park-and-ride lot is available in 

Winter Harbor for bicyclists. 

8.2 Alternative 3 

The ferry economic analysis clearly indicates that fully developed seasonal ferry service 

could be profitable in all scenarios considered, without any subsidies, when the Navy 

base redevelopment is complete. The reader should note that the analysis indicated 

these results on the basis of conservatively high cost assumptions and low fare bases 

for commuter and recreational passengers. 

The ferry service’s success would depend in part on other transportation system 

components put in place under this Alternative. Those components would include 

bicycle lane improvements in and around the Schoodic parkland, availability of free 

bicycle transport on the ferry and rented bicycles in Winter Harbor, an automobile parkand-ride facility in central Winter Harbor, local bus service links from both the Bar 

Harbor and Winter Harbor ferry docks, and bus service between the two towns for the 

offseason and for unscheduled down time for the ferry. 

The analysis of candidate terminals on Schoodic Peninsula showed that the privately 

operated Winter Harbor Marina dock would be the best choice. In addition to best 

serving the Park’s need for convenience to the Schoodic parkland, it offers the best 

dock and parking infrastructure, and the least restrictive navigational approach and 

operating depths. Other docks considered have higher use by local boaters and 

fishermen in more congested areas and are therefore less viable for scheduled ferry 

service. 

The projected annual ferry operation profit margins favor the selection of single 

Subchapter T monohull, less than 65’ in length (a 50’ vessel was the subject of the 
Transportation Alternatives Summary and Selection 

72

analyses), over two such boats or a single catamaran. The differences in head time are 

not great and the speed advantage of the catamaran over the 7 mile route trims only a 

few minutes from the voyage times. The added capital and operating expenses of two 

monohulls or a catamaran far outweigh the revenue increment gained by slightly better 

service frequencies and speeds. 

Over 90% of revenues are from recreational users in all cases, because they would 

constitute most passengers (“demand”) and would pay much higher fares (commuter 

fares are held to $3 one way). Service times and frequencies are much less important 

for the recreational passenger. The single monohull would, nonetheless, effectively 

serve commuter needs, as the integrated ferry/bus schedule in Chapter 7 illustrates. 

8.3 Alternative 4 

The results of the year round ferry service (again with local bus links and backup 

service, and the noted bicycling mode improvements) analyses are analogous to 

Alternative #3 as they relate to the efficacy of the particular boats, operational and 

infrastructure choices, and the character of the patronage and revenue. Offseason 

service adds considerable capital (only 60% of debt service assumed for seasonal 

scenarios) and operating expense for little extra income from the fare box. The obvious 

reason for the latter is that few recreational passengers would use the service and that 

the fare receipts from commuters would be low. Some service scenarios project losses, 

i.e., the Low Reuse Concepts with the high capital expense boats. Profit margin in all 

other cases are considerably less. Additional maintenance and repair, and offseason 

weather-related cancellations would also affect financial performance. 

The results of the finance model taken together with the uncertainties inherent in any 

economic forecasting argue against year round service, at least initially. Absent capital 

or operating subsidies, the probability of economic failure would be significantly higher 

than for seasonal service. 

8.4 Selection 

Acadia National Park visitation numbers will continue to increase into the foreseeable 

future, along with the general population growth and the intensification of coastal use. 

The Schoodic parkland will most likely not be an exception to this trend. The Park must 

support the development of attractive alternate transportation options for visitors and 

commuters. Ferry service has obvious visitor experience value to the recreational 

traveler and practical value to the “Down East” commuter going to work in Bar Harbor; 

the one, in fact, supports the other. 

The economic promise of profitable seasonal ferry operations between Bar Harbor and 

Winter Harbor points to Alternative 3 as the best choice at this time. A single monohull 

service would provide adequate frequency and speed for the commuter and could be 

the centerpiece of a very attractive day trip package (including circle bus service and 

bicycling opportunities in Schoodic) for recreational passengers. The high profit 

margins for these scenarios indicate low financial risk for the operator, for whom the 

option of a second boat and/or year round service would be available after the service’s 

start-up period. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

73

The bus service schedules presented in Chapter 7 show the efficacy of providing local 

inter-modal service links at both ferry terminals, as well as the Bar Harbor/Winter Harbor 

service needed for off-season and other ferry service interruptions. The bicycling 

opportunities arising from provision of bicycle lanes around Schoodic, conveniently 

located park-and-ride lots, and bicycle rentals are an integral part of Alternative 3 and 

should be a goal of the Park for the future as well. 

Whichever the Park Service chooses as its preferred alternative, environmental review 

per the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be required 

before proceeding to further analysis and implementation activities. 

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

75

9 Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

Vehicular traffic in the Schoodic area is projected to increase at a rate of slightly more 

than 1% a year over the next 15 years on the major routes and slightly less for local 

roads, without accounting for additional traffic generated by Navy base reuse activities. 

The base generated about 350 vehicle trips daily when in full use, up through the mid1990s. These traffic volumes were fairly constant in those years but had decreased by 

at least 50% by the year 2000 due to the gradual reductions of its work force. 

The roadway impacts for the High and Low Reuse Concepts and Transportation 

Alternatives are measured by two traffic metrics: 1) average daily traffic (ADT) on the 

roadways; and 2) volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Both metrics are the basis of 

comparison to base line traffic in the year 2000. The traffic analysis for the three active 

Transportation Alternatives distinguishes commuter and recreational trips by for the four 

major roadway segments, which are SR 186 between Winter Harbor and Birch Harbor, 

Moore Rd in Winter Harbor, Schoodic Point Road, and Wonsqueak Rd in Gouldsboro. 

Table 9-1 summarizes the roadway traffic characterization and is the basis of discussion 

in the following subsections. The discussion of each alternative focuses on the ADT 

value changes relative to the 2000 baseline values. Current ADTs are 2000 on SR186 

and from 700 to 800 in and directly adjacent to the Schoodic parkland. Table 9-1 

should be examined for details. 

9.1 Transportation Alternative 1 

The No Action alternative would result in the highest roadway traffic volumes in both 

2005 and 2015 for all scenarios, and the Concept 3 “High Reuse” scenario would be the 

worst case. The roadways would be unchanged in this Alternative. Commuters 

destined to the base would originate throughout Schoodic Peninsula and the 

surrounding communities. Work trips to the base would account for only about 20% of 

all vehicle trips using the roadway; this value varies only slightly for the different Reuse 

Concepts because the proportion of work trips is so low relative to total trips. Work trips 

peak in the early morning and late afternoon commuting hours. Outside of these peaks, 

commuters to the base would not significantly contribute to traffic on any of the local 

roadways. 

Most recreational trips would be via USR 1, SR 186, and Moore Road, leading to the 

base or the Schoodic Point visitor area, where more then 88% of all recreational trips 

would be destined. Vehicular traffic increases in all scenarios are mitigated because of 

the initial removal of the traffic associated with the baseline use of the base, 

approximately 300 vehicles daily. 
Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

76

Table 9-1

Schoodic Area Vehicular Traffic 

9.1.1 Impacts 

Summarized results of the traffic analysis follow: 

• SR 186 would handle more traffic in all reuse scenarios relative to the baseline. 

The ADTs change in the range of +50 – +400, the lowest value corresponding to 

the Low Reuse, 2005 scenario and the highest to the High Reuse, 2015 

scenario. The daily V/C ratio is about 0.08 for the base year. In none of the 

scenarios for 2005 and 2015 does this value exceed 0.10, which represents a 

very modest increase over current levels. 

• Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road have higher capacities than the roads inside 

the park due to their widths, shoulders, and access. The ADTs change in the 

range of -20 - +170, these extreme values corresponding to the same scenarios . 

The V/C stays fairly constant throughout all of the scenarios. 

• The ADT values for the segments of Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road inside 

the Park are the same as those calculated for those roads outside the Park. 

Their traffic capacity is reduced, however, resulting in slightly higher V/C ratios 

Cap. ADT ADT/12 V/C Cap. ADT ADT/12 V/C Cap. ADT ADT/12 V/C Cap. ADT ADT/12 V/C

2,000 2,000 167 0.08 1,800 800 67 0.04 900 720 60 0.07 1,800 800 67 0.04

No Low 2,000 2,050 171 0.09 1,800 780 65 0.04 900 700 58 0.06 1,800 780 65 0.04

High 2,000 2,250 188 0.09 1,800 800 67 0.04 900 720 60 0.07 1,800 800 67 0.04

Action Low 2,000 2,170 181 0.09 1,800 820 68 0.04 900 740 62 0.07 1,800 820 68 0.04

High 2,000 2,400 200 0.1 1,800 970 81 0.04 900 880 73 0.08 1,800 970 81 0.04

Bus Low 2,000 2,030 169 0.08 900 760 63 0.07 900 680 57 0.06 900 760 63 0.07

High 2,000 2,210 184 0.09 900 780 65 0.07 900 700 58 0.06 900 780 65 0.07

Service

Low 2,000 2,150 179 0.09 900 800 67 0.07 900 720 60 0.07 900 800 67 0.07

Only High 2,000 2,360 197 0.1 900 950 79 0.09 900 860 72 0.08 900 950 79 0.09

Seasonal Low 2,000 2,000 167 0.08 900 730 61 0.07 900 660 55 0.06 900 730 61 0.07

High 2,000 2,180 182 0.09 900 760 63 0.07 900 670 56 0.06 900 760 63 0.07

Ferry Low 2,000 2,120 177 0.09 900 770 64 0.07 900 700 58 0.06 900 770 64 0.07

High 2,000 2,320 193 0.1 900 920 77 0.09 900 830 69 0.08 900 920 77 0.09

Year Low 2,000 1,990 166 0.08 900 720 60 0.07 900 650 54 0.06 900 720 60 0.07

High 2,000 2,170 181 0.09 900 750 63 0.07 900 660 55 0.06 900 750 63 0.07

Round

Low 2,000 2,110 176 0.09 900 760 63 0.07 900 680 57 0.06 900 760 63 0.07

Ferry High 2,000 2,310 193 0.1 900 900 75 0.08 900 810 68 0.08 900 900 75 0.08

NOTES:

 Cap. = Daily roadway capacity

 ADT = Average Daily Traffic

 ADT/12 = Average hourly distribution of total daily traffic, over 12 hours only

 V/C = Roadway volume / Capacity

Alternative 4 

Year 2005

Year 2015

Year 2015

Alternative 3 

Year 2005

Year 2015

Year 2005

Year 2015

Alternative 2 

Year 2005

Wonsqueak Rd, outside 

Base Year

Year 2000

Alternative 1 

Alternative

Rte 186, E. of Moore Rd Moore Rd, outside Park Schoodic Point Rd
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

77

(increasing from 0.06to– 0.07). Bicycles and vehicles parking on the side of the 

road could cause more congestion and safety concerns. 

• The roadway to Schoodic Point will see a slight reduction in the Low 2005 

scenario but will increase to current levels in the High 2005 scenario. The Low 

2015 scenario sees an increase of 40 vehicles over current conditions but is 

expected to increase by 160 in the High 2015 scenario. There is the potential 

that people could use the base as a parking area unless it is restricted to 

authorized vehicles. 

• The parking lots inside the park will fill to capacity more frequently, especially in 

the High Reuse scenarios, due mainly to increased volume of recreational trips. 

• The reader should note that, in all scenarios, the V/C ratios reported are daily 

average numbers which would of course include significantly higher peaks 

because of seasonal variations (i.e., summer) and daily variations (commuter 

hours and midday recreational peak hours). The daily averages are in any case 

a good measure of relative volume and capacity. 

9.1.2 Enhancements 

There are no roadway enhancements for the no action Transportation Alternative. 

9.2 Transportation Alternative 2 

A year bus service linking Bar Harbor and the Schoodic Peninsula would serve both 

commuters and recreational users with seven daily trips on USR 1 and SR 3 between 

Bar Harbor & Schoodic averaging 1 hour and 25 minutes one way. The projected 

demand during the summer season would be equally divided between commuters and 

recreational trips, while during the off-season, commuters would be the dominant 

element. The service would be integrated with the Downeast Service and the Island 

Explorer, with fares similar to others in their schedule.

9.2.1 Impacts 

The bus only Alternative would remove between 20 vehicles daily (2005, Low Reuse, 

Concept 1) and 40 vehicles daily (2015, High Reuse, Concept 3) from SR 186 east of 

Moore Road. The buses will need pick-up and drop-off areas inside and outside the 

Navy base. This could decrease traffic flow during pick-up and drop-off situations, but, 

given the limited number of trips and stops, this should not be a problem along this 

roadway. The resulting V/C ratios are in the range of 0.08 to 0.10, slightly lower than 

those for Alternative 3. 

Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road would see reduction of about 20 vehicles daily for 

all Reuse Concepts in 2005 and 2015. Infrequent service and long travel time 

compared to personal vehicles will not entice recreational passengers, most of whom 

would choose to drive. The V/C would increase significantly from the base year 2000 in 

all of the alternatives, conceptual plans, and years, because of the presumed capacity 

reduction along the Park roads for bicycle lanes. This would limit vehicle use to one 

lane and devote the second lane to bicycle use and shoulder parking. Even with an 

increase from 0.04 to 0.09, the impact for the driver on the road would not be significant 

except during peak days of the summer months. 
Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

78

Schoodic Point Road would have a similar traffic reduction. The V/C ratios show little 

change, between a reduction of 0.01 to an increase of 0.01 along this stretch of 

roadway. Traffic turning into the base, especially left hand turns by east-bound cars, 

could cause occasional traffic delays. This two way roadway segment is very narrow 

and could cause safety problems if not widened to include a bike lane. Bus service 

here could occasionally cause minor traffic problems in the visitor parking area during 

stops for boardings and alightings but this should be only be a problem during peak 

times. 

9.2.2 Enhancements 

Several enhancements to the local roadways and supporting activities should be 

considered to help the bus alternative function as smoothly as possible. 

• SR 186 needs of maintenance and expansion in several areas. The 

maintenance consists of repairing the pavement and re-striping the shoulder 

lanes and the bike lanes and widening would allow for the inclusion of a bicycle 

lane and for turning lanes at the major intersections. This stretch of roadway 

should be limited access and allow for stops only where it meets East Schoodic 

Road and Moore Road. 

• Enhancements to Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road, both inside and outside 

the park, need consideration. The options inside the park are limited by the IDSHPGTCL. The roads should continue to be one-way from Frazier Point to 

Schoodic Point Rd then North to Birch Harbor. This would allow for the least 

amount of impact to the roadway and still permit a bike lane with shoulder to be 

included. Stops should be limited to the following locations: 

3⁄4 Frazier Point 

3⁄4 The Base 

3⁄4 Schoodic Point 

3⁄4 Blueberry Hill 

3⁄4 Park Exit near Wonsqueak Harbor 

The stops should be well marked and include the schedule of operations. They 

should also be in locations that allow for vehicles and bicycles to pass without safety 

concerns. 

• Schoodic Point Road needs widening to allow for a shoulder with a bike lane to be 

added from the loop road down to the parking area on Schoodic Point. A right hand 

turning lane on southbound side of Schoodic Point Rd. into the Navy base also 

should be included. To limit congestion caused by left hand turns into the Navy 

base from vehicles leaving Schoodic Point, a ban on left hand turns should be 

considered during peak summer months. To minimize parking problems, excess 

visitor parking for Schoodic Point should be allowed on the base during peak 

summer months. To enhance bicycle use all buses should be equipped with bicycle 

racks. 

9.3 Transportation Alternative 3 

Commuter and recreational trip making patterns change in the study area because of 

diversions from the automotive mode to ferry and bus, and the use of park-and ride lots, 

particularly between Sorrento and Bar Harbor. Commuter trips originating east of 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

79

Schoodic Peninsula to use the ferry would be diverted from USR 1 to SR 186 as they 

transit to the park-and-ride lot at the Winter Harbor marina dock, increasing traffic 

slightly on SR 186 from USR 1 to Birch Harbor to Winter Harbor. Recreational trips 

would be reduced along SR 186, Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road due to diversions 

to bus service. Traffic would increase along Main Street in Winter Harbor due to bus 

traffic and the use of the Winter Harbor Town Center Park-and-Ride Lot.

9.3.1 Impacts 

Summarized results of the traffic analysis follow: 

• SR 186 would handle more traffic in all reuse scenarios relative to the baseline. The 

ADT changes relative to the baseline range from zero for the Low Reuse, 2005 

scenario to +320 for the High Reuse 2015 scenario. When compared to Alternative 

1, these are all decreases in vehicular traffic. Recreational vehicle trips decrease 

while commuter vehicle trips going to the Winter Harbor dock cause an increase. 

The V/C ratios are very close to those for Alternative 1. 

• Both Moore and Wonsqueak Roads would see ADT reductions between 30 and 70 

vehicles daily relative to the base year for all except the High Reuse 2015 scenario, 

for which ADT would increase by 120. The V/C ratios would not differ significantly 

from the base year. 

• Moore and Wonsqueak Roads inside the park would see similar levels of traffic as 

outside the park, but the V/C ratios could increase significantly if one of the two 

lanes of the one-way loop is used as a bike lane. This would be exacerbated by a 

higher percentages of recreational trips than in the base year, associated with which 

are more frequent stops, slower speeds, and parking at scenic spots. 

• Schoodic Point Road is the main access to the base and is frequented by almost 

90% of all of the recreational trips to Schoodic Peninsula. This area has limited 

parking and experiences parking shortages during the peak summer months. The 

roadway entering the parking lot area is narrow with little to no shoulder for bicyclist. 

This roadway will have V/C ratios between 0.06 and 0.08. 

9.3.2 Enhancements 

There are several potential enhancements to the roadway that can improve travel or 

reduce traffic, categorized as roadway improvements and transportation systems 

management (TSM). Roadway improvements enhance traffic capacity and flow through 

better performance of maintenance or expansion of the roadway itself. TSM measures 

maximize the effectiveness of the system through operational, communications, and 

other “soft” techniques. These might include variable message signs (VMS) with status 

of parking lots, congestion alerts, and alternate route suggestions. It is also important to 

maintain a current and accurate database on park use and traffic through the use of 

traffic counters on the roadways and at the visitor areas. 

Specific candidate enhancements for the consideration of roadway managers are the 

following: 

• SR 186 is in need of maintenance and expansion. Maintenance needs include 

pavement repair and lane re-striping (Schoodic Byway Committee). Roadway 
Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

80

expansion would accommodate bicycle lanes on the shoulders and turning lanes 

at the major intersections. While AASHTO specifies separate shoulders and 

breakdown lanes in association with bicycle lanes, the focus of these guidelines 

is on high traffic volume areas; that requirement is not necessary or feasible in 

this area. TSM measures would include improved traditional signage and/or 

VMS. 

• Candidate enhancements to Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road outside the Park 

include paving of the shoulders and widening in selected locations to provide for 

bike lanes on both sides. Wonsqueak Road has a very narrow shoulder whose 

expansion may require easements or land acquisitions for a ROW. 

• Enhancements to Moore Road and Wonsqueak Road inside the Park are limited 

by the IDS-HPGTCL. The recommendation herein is that they should continue to 

be one-way from Frazer Point down to Schoodic Point then back to Birch Harbor. 

This approach would cause the least impact to the roadway while allowing for a 

bicycle lane. Any widening considered should be to the left (landward) side of 

the road where degradation of the area’s natural beauty is minimized; removal of 

copingstones must in all cases be minimized. The cost of this kind of work 

averages between $100,000 to $200,000 per mile depending on the project’s 

particulars, and would probably suffice for these suggested improvements, 

including a bicycle path on the right most lane. Parking should be restricted to 

the visitor parking areas so that “casual” roadside parking does not restrict 

bicycle movement and degrade safety. Traffic counters should be maintained at 

the Schoodic parkland’s entry and exit points. 

• The spur road to Schoodic Point and the Navy base would require expansion and 

TSM measures to mitigate increased traffic volumes. The roadway should be 

widened to accommodate a bicycle lane into the parking area. The roadway 

should be striped or marked to identify that pedestrians and bicyclists have the 

right of way. Allowing for an overflow lot to be located on the base property 

would expand parking. A camera showing traffic delays in the parking area 

would allow Park staff to manually or electronically update the VMS in Winter 

Harbor. A traffic counter should be installed somewhere on Schoodic Point Road 

to track use of the parking lot. 

9.4 Transportation Alternative 4 

Transportation Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 only in that it would continue ferry 

service year round, i.e., into the offseason. The impacts and enhancements are similar 

to Alternative 3; there may, however, be lesser, minor variations in the ADT and the 

V/C’s during the offseason relative to the “no action” Transportation Alternative. 

Commuter trips using the ferry year round would cause a small reduction in vehicle trips 

on USR 1, but cause a corresponding increase along SR 186. The roadways into and 

out of the park would see little if any change in ADT relative to Alternative 3. The large 

majority of recreational vehicular trips occur during the seasonal time period (May - 

October), and the seasonal traffic would be identical to that for Alternative 3. 

9.4.1 Impacts 

The impacts would be similar to Alternative 3. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

81

9.4.2 Enhancements 

The recommended enhancements would be the same Alternative 3. 

9.5 Summary 

The key roadway analysis quantifies the effect of the active Transportation Alternatives 

(2, 3, and 4) on the roadways relative to the Alternative 1, the no action approach. The 

brief analysis which follows undertakes a comparison of each scenario (i.e., high/low 

reuse concept, year) for the active alternatives relative to the same scenario for 

Alternative 1. The premise is that some reuse of the Navy base will occur and the years 

2005 and 2015 will come to pass, regardless of action taken to develop alternative 

transportation options. The results illuminate the true benefits of the active alternatives 

in lower traffic volumes (ADTs) on the roads. The ADT values understate the 

effectiveness of the active alternatives at times of peak demand and at system 

chokepoints, particularly parking lots. The results appear in Table 9-2. 

Table 9-2 shows clearly that the incrementally more aggressive transportation system 

development represented by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 result in progressively higher 

benefits in terms of removing automobiles from the Schoodic area roads. The effect is 

also greater in the year 2015 because of the higher levels of both recreational and 

commuter travel anticipated. 

All of the Alternatives should include the roadway transportation system management 

initiatives advanced herein, including new signage (e.g., variable message boards) and 

monitoring of traffic for both real time management and accurate long term data 

collection. 
Schoodic Peninsula Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

82

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Delta ADT

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Scenario

SR 186

Moore Rd.

Schoodic Pt. Rd.

Wonsqueak

 Note: “Delta ADT” denotes the change in average daily traffic. 

Figure 9-1

Roadway Traffic: 

Effect of Active Alternatives Relative to “No Action” Alternative 

 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

83

10 Findings and Recommendations 

The Park Service faces a dilemma in planning for the future of the Schoodic Peninsula 

parkland. The local needs of Down East communities affected by the Navy base 

closure dictate its reuse in a way that sustains, in a roughly similar way, the economic 

and demographic character of the area. The Park’s goal of preserving the quiet, 

unspoiled nature of the Schoodic parkland requires an effort to mitigate the increasing 

levels of automobile traffic which now carry nearly all visitors into the area. This report 

has shown that Transportation Alternatives combining new ferry service from Mount 

Desert Island to Schoodic Peninsula with enhanced bus and bicycling opportunities are 

technically and economically feasible and could carry significant numbers of trip-to-work 

and recreational travelers. It is possible and perhaps probable that the private sector 

will see the opportunity and move to develop such a service, perhaps as the initial stage 

of a future expanded regional service taking on some of the elements embodied in the 

State of Maine’s transportation strategy. 

The Park Service must face the possibility that such transportation services will have 

the conflicting effects of mitigating automobile traffic and inducing increased demand for 

travel, particularly for recreational users. Travel to Acadia National Park, including 

Schoodic Peninsula, is likely to increase over the period considered for this study, and 

the question will be whether the effect of induced demand outweighs the benefit of 

reduced automobile traffic. The estimates for recreational patronage do not indicate 

that total visitation to Schoodic would rise dramatically over the current level of 11% of 

total Acadia visitors. The development of future alternative transportation services is a 

strong possibility in any event and the Park Service should take an active role in 

shaping its role. 

The Park Service appears to have limited leverage in the process of future ferry service 

development, since no concessions involving Park land for dock and terminal facilities 

would be necessary. The Park can, however, exert influence through their role in the 

development of the necessary inter-modal transportation links (i.e., buses), cooperative 

arrangements with the ferry operator in the enhancement of the visitor experience (e.g., 

rangers onboard for interpretive voyages, publicity for the service), and the possibility of 

direct or indirect subsidies. The prospect of a successful ferry service to Schoodic 

Peninsula is tantalizing as the results of this study show; Acadia National Park will need 

to be an actively involved partner in order to achieve the desired balance of attractive 

Transportation Alternative and the measured pace of growth in the future for Schoodic 

Peninsula. 

10.1 Selection of Transportation Alternative 

The Park must support the development of attractive alternate transportation options for 

visitors and commuters. Ferry service provides both visitor experience value to the 

recreational traveler and practical value to the “Down East” commuter going to work in 

Bar Harbor. These markets support each other. 

The promise of profitable seasonal ferry operations between Bar Harbor and Winter 

Harbor points to Alternative 3 as the best choice at this time. A single monohull service 

would provide adequate frequency and speed for the commuter and would be the 
Findings and Recommendations 

84

centerpiece of a very attractive Schoodic day trip package (with bus and bicycling 

opportunities) for recreational passengers. The high profit margins for the seasonal 

scenarios indicate low financial risk for the operator, for whom the option of a second 

boat and/or year round service would be available once the service is on firm footing. 

Schoodic-to-MDI bus service would provide needed coverage for the off-season and 

other ferry service interruptions. Local bus service links at both ferry terminals would 

perform both transit and excursion duties at both ends. The bicycling opportunities 

arising from provision of bicycle lanes around Schoodic, conveniently located park-andride lots, and bicycle rentals are an integral part of Alternative 3 and should be a goal of 

the Park for the future as well. 

10.2 Ferry Services 

The ferry economic analysis indicates that fully developed seasonal service could be 

profitable in all scenarios considered, without any subsidies, when the Navy base 

redevelopment is complete, and is based on a number of conservatively high cost 

assumptions and low fare bases for commuter and recreational passengers. 

The projected annual ferry operation profit margins favor the selection of single 

Subchapter T monohull, less than 65’ in length (a 50’ vessel was the subject of one set 

of analyses), over two such boats or a single catamaran. The differences in head time 

are not great and the speed advantage of the catamaran over the 7 mile route trims only 

a few minutes from the voyage times. Nonetheless, the single monohull would certainly 

serve commuter needs effectively, as the integrated ferry/bus schedule in Chapter 7 

illustrates. The added capital and operating expenses of two monohulls or a catamaran 

far outweigh the revenue increment gained by slightly better service frequencies and 

speeds. The net annual profit/loss for all scenarios appears in Figure 10-1, repeated 

from Chapter 5. 

Over 90% of projected revenues are from recreational users in all cases, because they 

would constitute most passengers (“demand”) and would pay much higher fares 

(commuter fares are held to $3 one way). Service times and frequencies are much less 

important for the recreational passenger. Round trip patronage numbers for the 2005 

seasonal scenarios range from 23,660 to 47,138 recreational passengers and from 

3,770 to 5,200 commuters. In the 2015 scenarios, the numbers of recreational 

passengers rise between 18% and 22% and commuters between 22% and 27%, 

relative to 2005. 

The analysis of candidate terminals on Schoodic Peninsula showed that the privately 

operated Winter Harbor Marina dock would be the best choice. In addition to best 

serving the Park’s need for convenience to the Schoodic parkland, it offers the best 

dock and parking infrastructure, and the least restrictive navigational approach and 

operating depths. Other docks examined had much higher use by local boaters and 

fishermen in more congested areas. The superiority of the Winter Harbor Marina dock 

more than compensates for the relative disadvantages of the length and exposed 

waters of its route relative to the South Gouldsboro route. 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

85

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

50'

Monohull,

Year Round

78'

Catamaran,

Year Round

(2) X 50'

Monohull,

Seasonal

Boat and Service

Net Annual Income Scenarios

2005 High

2005 Low

2015 High

2015 Low

Figure 10-1

Net Annual Ferry Service Finances 

10.3 Bicycle Transport Enhancements 

The consideration of bicycle transport enhancements went forward with the National 

Scenic Byway designation for most of the affected roads and the proposed designation 

of the Schoodic parkland as a National Resource District in mind. Most suggested 

improvements to roads in the park come forward with the premise that the roads’ 

configuration cannot be changed. This report adopts a number of bicycle lane 

improvements suggested in the National Scenic Byway proposal for roads outside the 

Park. 

Bicycle usage demand arising from the implementation of new transportation options is 

high. Analysis of Transportation Alternative 3 yielded the following results: year 2005, 

from 35,248 to 61,207; year 2015, from 39,954 to 73,939. The projected numbers of 

total bicyclists for Alternative 2 are identical, including 5% to 6% who would ride the bus 

to Schoodic. The results for Alternative 4 were virtually the same since so few would 

choose to ride bicycles in the winter months. 

The goal of providing a safe bicycle route through the Schoodic parkland, one that 

adheres to AASHTO guidelines, is best attained by retaining the one-way loop 

configuration from Frazer Point to the Park exit at Birch Harbor and reassigning the 

existing lanes as follows: one lane for vehicular traffic, and the seaward lane for 5’ wide 

bicycle lane and a 5’ extended shoulder. Striping, signage, and pavement markings are 

important elements of the conversion that would have minimal impact on the roadway. 

Some restriction of traffic flow would occur at peak periods, but the effect would be 

mitigated by promoting the use of the park-and-ride lots, ferries, and buses and 
Findings and Recommendations 

86

reducing automobile traffic. Otherwise, expansion of the roadway’s width would be 

required for a bicycle path, whether for two lane, one-way or two lane, two-way 

automobile traffic configuration. The latter choice depends on the outcome of the road’s 

designation as part of an historic district. 

The Schoodic Point spur road must continue as a two way vehicular way. The 

recommendation for bicycle lanes on both sides means that this would be the one area 

requiring road surface expansion. This would be a small proportion of the total length of 

roads in the Schoodic parkland. 

Outside the park land, the specifics of the bicycle lane improvements suggested in the 

Scenic Byway proposal are reiterated here: paved shoulders replacing gravel on both 

sides of the Schoodic Road in Gouldsboro, Moore Road in Winter Harbor, and SR 186 

between Winter Harbor and Birch Harbor, along with bicycle lane striping and pavement 

signs. This need is particularly acute along SR 186 because of its heavier traffic, higher 

speeds, and terrain including numerous hills and curves. 

A park-and-ride lot at Misty Harbor Apartments in Winter Harbor should be part of any 

Transportation Alternative adopted. Such a conversion would require bicycle racks, and 

a variable message sign in Winter Harbor on the approach to Main Street with 

information on Schoodic loop road traffic and the status of parking inside the Schoodic 

parkland. Motorists would thus be encouraged to use the park-and-ride lot at peak 

times. option of using a park-and-ride lot in central Winter Harbor and transferring to 

loop bus service or bicycles. Bicycle amenities are also recommended at the ferry dock 

for Alternatives 3 and 4. 

10.4 Bus Service 

Chapter 7 includes detailed schedule proposals for Bar Harbor to Winter Harbor service 

and local loop services in each town. These are designed to met the needs of many 

ridership markets, most particularly residents and users of the Navy base in its future 

makeup. The services’ variations meet the different intents of the four Transportation 

Alternatives, namely no ferry service and seasonal and year round services between 

Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor. In the latter cases, an integrated bus and ferry schedule 

demonstrates how a rider from the Schoodic area or further east would make all the 

necessary mode shifts to commute to Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor and back. 

“Level One” service would provide limited commuter and midday links between the 

Schoodic Peninsula and Bar Harbor with one 35 or 40 passenger bus and would suffice 

for Alternative 2 bus only service or Alternative 3 offseason service. “Level Two” 

service addresses the same Alternatives with two such buses and more frequent runs, 

aimed at a wider variety of people conducting business at or with new activities at the 

Navy base. 

The local bus links are designed for minimal mode change times at the ferry docks on 

either end. These would serve both commuter and recreational riders with a single 28 

passenger bus. 

The Level One service would cost approximately $97,000 per year to operate 3,875 

hours; the figures for Level Two service are $125,000 and 5,000 hours per year. The 

annual cost of the Schoodic Peninsula link service would be $69,000 for weekday 
Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

87

service and an additional $9,000 for weekends. The Bar Harbor shuttle service would 

cost $50,000 per year for weekday service. 

10.5 Roadway Impacts and Enhancements 

Traffic on the Schoodic roads would increase steadily in the coming years due to 

population and Park visitation growth. These increases are mitigated by all the active 

Transportation Alternatives as measured by Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Volume to 

Capacity ratios do not change dramatically on the affected roads since long time scale 

averages are involved. The beneficial effect of transportation system enhancements in 

the form of new ferry and bus services would be concentrated at times of peak demand 

and at system chokepoints, particularly parking lots. 

The key measure is the difference in ADT values in the future between the active 

Transportation Alternatives (2, 3, and 4) and Alternative 1, the no action approach. 

Table 9-2, repeated here as 10-2, shows those values for all scenarios (i.e., high/low 

reuse concept, year) for the active alternatives relative to Alternative 1. The benefits of 

the active Transportation Alternatives are clear, and increase with the incrementally 

more aggressive transportation system development approaches represented by 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The effect is also greater in the year 2015 because of the 

higher levels of both recreational and commuter travel anticipated. 

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Delta ADT

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

2005

Low

2005

High

2015

Low

2015

High

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Scenario

SR 186

Moore Rd.

Schoodic Pt. Rd.

Wonsqueak

Figure 10-2

Change in Average Daily Traffic: 

Effect of Active Alternatives Relative to “No Action” Alternative 

Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate 

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula 

89

REFERENCES 

Acadia National Park, General Management Plan, 1994. 

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

AASHTO “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”, 1998. 

Bicycle Pedestrian Subcommittee for the Region Two Transportation Advisory 

Committee, Draft Report, September, 2000. 

Bustins Island Village Corporation, 2001 Annual Meeting Warrant. 

Colgan, Charles, Population Forecasts prepared from Policy Insight Models, University 

of Southern Maine Website, February 2000. 

Federal Highway Administration “Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local 

Level”, Publication #FHWA-98-105, 1998. 

Hancock County Planning Commission “Schoodic Bar Harbor Feasibility Study”, 1996. 

Hancock County Planning Commission “Schoodic Bar Harbor Ferry Feasibility Study”, 

October, 1998. 

Hancock County Planning Commission Website, 2001. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers “Transportation Planning Handbook”, 1993 edition. 

Littlejohn, Margaret “Summer of 1998 Visitor Study”,1999. 

Maine State DOT “Strategic Passenger Transportation Plan”, Spring 1999. 

Schoodic Scenic Byway Corridor Management Committee “Project Summary 2002, 

FHWA National Scenic Byways Program Grant Application”, May 2001. 

Town of Gouldsboro, Comprehensive Growth Plan, 1993. 

Town of Winter Harbor, Comprehensive Growth Plan, 1994. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center “High Speed Vessels to Market: 

Comparative Case Studies in the Passenger Trade”, prepared for the Office of Naval 

Research, September, 2001. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center “The National Ferry Database”, prepared 

for the Federal Highway Administration, December 2000. 
APPENDIX A 

Draft Reuse Alternatives 
APPENDIX A 1

DRAFT Alternative Reuse Concepts 

Schoodic Peninsula General Management Plan Amendment 

Acadia National Park y Maine 

Please note that all concepts are intended to meet stated goals and principles for this plan and that 

environmental impacts of concepts will be analyzed and reviewed by the public before a course 

of action is decided. 

Concept 1 

 

This concept represents the most site restoration of all the alternatives while supporting a modest 

learning center. Only the historic structures and facilities necessary for park support and the 

learning center would remain. Under this concept, visitors would continue to enjoy an 

uncrowded park experience. Recreational facilities would not expand, but there would be 

increased interpretive and educational opportunities. 

This allows for the learning center to be located in Buildings 1 (Rockefeller) and 84 (dormitory), 

which would include a laboratory, classrooms, offices, and accommodations for up to 190 

students and 5 to 10 researchers. Building 105 (galley) would remain for food service. A small 

exhibit area and visitor contact station would be located on the first floor of Building 1, which 

would include a book sales operation and information about the site's history. 

The network of hiking trails connecting the base to the National Park lands around the perimeter 

of Big Moose Island would be opened to the public. 

Park operations would be located in Building 216 (public works), which would include offices, 

storage, garages, and meeting rooms. NPS staff at Schoodic would include permanent 

maintenance, protection, administrative, and interpretive positions, in addition to those needed to 

operate the learning center programs. 

The water tower would be removed and a new and smaller potable water system would be 

installed. The existing wastewater treatment facility would be scaled back to handle decreased 

demand. 

The system of roads, paths, parking lots, and open space would be reconfigured to create a more 

efficient and pleasant campus environment. 

The remaining portions of the disturbed site, once cleared of structures, would be restored to the 

appropriate native plant communities. About 40 acres of disturbed landscape would be restored. 

Accommodations would be available for up to 200 people in dormitories and apartments. The 

learning center may have as many as 200 program users on site on a peak day. The Schoodic unit 

of the park would experience a moderate increase in visitor day use but have much less overnight 

use than it does today. 
APPENDIX A 2

Building Use Summary: 

Bldg. 1: Research facilities, including laboratory and library; apartment housing for 

researchers and/or park staff; learning center administration office; visitor contact 

station with exhibits and book sales 

Bldg. 2: Generator house 

Bldg. 9: Gatehouse/visitor contact station 

Bldg. 45: Generator house 

Bldg. 84: 190 beds for students, classroom/meeting space 

Bldg. 105: Food service with full-service kitchen and cafeteria 

Bldg. 183: Wastewater treatment facility 

Bldg. 216: Park operations with offices, workshop, garages, storage, and meeting room 

Bldg. 225: Sand/salt storage 

Bldg. 228: Potable water treatment facility 
APPENDIX A 3

Concept 2

This concept focuses on research and education facilities for the proposed learning center at 

Acadia, which will promote science and scholarship while informing and educating students of all 

ages about important natural and cultural conservation issues and the application of research 

results. It will offer a variety of programs for people of all ages in the fields of natural and 

cultural history, conservation, science, music, and art. Programs might include, for example, 

scientific research, environmental education, artists-in-residence, life-long learning, and 

university extensions. Facilities would include housing, food service, classrooms, and laboratory 

space. The learning center would operate under a new organization supported by the National 

Park Service and other partnership organizations, and would use the facilities at Schoodic as a 

base of operations for research and educational activities consistent with the mission of Acadia 

National Park. 

Learning center programs would be clustered in the center of the current Navy base. Programs 

would be offered in Building 39 (commissary), where 2 classrooms or laboratories would be 

located along with an outdoor classroom, and a small office for the learning center. Building 1 

(Rockefeller) would provide exhibit space, a small visitor center, and offices for the learning 

center and its partnership organizations. Building 105 (galley) would provide food service with 

its full-service kitchen and cafeteria. Other program space would be available in Building 164 

(child development center) which would house a small theater and in Building 143 (Schooner 

Club) which has a kitchen, a classroom and 2 dining or meeting rooms with a capacity of 50 

people each. The Navy’s history at Schoodic and Mount Desert Island would be interpreted in 

the original portion of Building 3, which would be restored to its former appearance. Other 

learning center facilities would be housed in the remaining portions of the building, now the base 

chapel, including offices and 3 classrooms or laboratories. 

The learning center could provide housing for 15-20 researchers and up to 100 students. Students 

would be housed in Building 84 (dormitory), or in the onsite campground in the summer months. 

Researchers and park staff would be accommodated in the Schoodic Shores housing complex, 

from which 16 apartments and garages would be removed, for a remaining 16 two-bedroom 

apartments. The campground and picnic pavilion would remain for learning center use, and a 

group camping area would be constructed where the ball field is now situated. 

The system of roads, paths, parking lots, and open space would be reconfigured to create a more 

efficient and pleasant campus environment. 

Park operations would be located in Building 216 (public works), and would include offices, 

storage, garages, and a meeting room. Archival collections would be stored and maintained in 

Building 162, now a bowling alley. The number of NPS personnel at Schoodic would depend 

upon the operational and programmatic needs of the learning center, and would include full-time, 

permanent maintenance, protection, administrative, and interpretive positions. The current 

wastewater treatment facility and potable water system, including the water tower, would remain. 

The remaining portions of the disturbed site, once cleared of structures, would be restored to the 

appropriate native plant communities. About 16 acres of disturbed landscape would be restored. 

Accommodations would be available for up to 300 people in campsites, apartments, and 

dormitories. The learning center might have as many as 500 program users on site on a peak day. 
APPENDIX A 4

The Schoodic unit of the park would experience a moderate increase in visitor day use, but it 

would have less overnight use than it does today. 

Building Use Summary: 

Bldg. 1: Visitor center, exhibits, book sales, offices 

Bldg. 2: Generator house 

Bldg. 3: Navy interpretive exhibits, offices, and 3 classrooms/laboratories 

Bldg. 9: Gatehouse/visitor contact station 

Bldg. 39: 2 classrooms/laboratories, outdoor classroom 

Bldg. 45: Generator house 

Bldg. 84: 190 beds for students 

Bldg. 105: Food service with full-service kitchen and cafeteria 

Bldg. 139: Picnic pavilion to serve 15-site campground and group camping area 

Bldg. 141: Water tower 

Bldg. 143: 1 classroom, kitchen, 2 meeting rooms 

Bldg. 162: Park archives 

Bldg. 164: Theater 

Bldg. 183: Wastewater treatment facility 

Bldgs. 184, 185, 190, 191: Schoodic Shores 16 townhouses for researchers and employees 

Bldg. 216: Park operations with offices, workshop, garages, storage, and meeting room 

Bldg. 225: Sand/salt 

Bldg. 228: Potable water treatment facility 
APPENDIX A 5

Concept 3 

Concept 3 is an expansion of Concept 2 and, while still intended primarily for the learning center, 

it would retain most of the existing buildings. This would allow for more educational and 

research programs in expanded facilities. Buildings not needed by the learning center would be 

made available for lease for compatible uses. 

Learning center programs would be clustered in the center of the current Navy base. Programs 

would be offered in Building 39 (commissary), where 2 classrooms or laboratories would be 

located along with an outdoor classroom, and a small office for the learning center. Building 1 

(Rockefeller) would provide exhibit space, a small visitor center, and offices for the learning 

center and its partnership organizations. Building 105 (galley) would provide food service with 

its full-service kitchen and cafeteria. Other program space would be available in Building 164 

(child development center) which would house a small theater and in Building 143 (Schooner 

Club) which has a kitchen, a classroom and 2 dining or meeting rooms with a capacity of 50 

people each. The Navy’s history at Schoodic and Mount Desert Island would be interpreted in 

the original portion of Building 3, which would be restored to its former appearance. Other 

learning center facilities would be housed in the remaining portions of the building, now the base 

chapel, including offices and 3 classrooms or laboratories. 

The learning center could provide housing for 15-20 researchers and up to 190 students. Students 

would be housed in Building 84 (dormitory), or in the onsite campground in the summer months. 

Researchers and park staff would be accommodated in the Schoodic Shores housing complex 

with 24 two-bedroom apartments and 8 four-bedroom units. Three 2-bedroom cabins would be 

available for additional overnight lodging and could be leased out by the learning center to gain 

revenue. The campground and picnic pavilion would remain for learning center use, and a group 

camping area would be constructed where the ball field is now situated. Building 138 

(gymnasium) would be converted into a multi-purpose large assembly space. 

Roads, paths, and open space would be reconfigured to create a more efficient and pleasant 

campus environment. 

Park operations would be located in Building 216 (public works), and would include offices, 

storage, garages, and a meeting room. Archival collections would be stored and maintained in 

Building 162, now a bowling alley. The number of NPS personnel at Schoodic would depend 

upon the operational and programmatic needs of the learning center, and would include full-time, 

permanent maintenance, protection, administrative, and interpretive positions. The current 

wastewater treatment facility and potable water system, including the water tower, would remain. 

Buildings not needed for the learning center and available for lease might include the medical 

clinic, salt and sand storage, and some housing units. 

The system of roads, paths, parking lots, and open space would be reconfigured to create a more 

efficient and pleasant campus environment. The remaining portions of the disturbed site, once 

cleared of structures, would be restored to the appropriate native plant community. About 10 

acres of disturbed landscape would be restored. 

Accommodations would be available for up to 350 people in campsites, cabins, apartments, and 

dormitories. The learning center might have as many as 600 program users on site on a peak day. 

Leased office or research space might provide employment for an additional 50 people. The 
APPENDIX A 6

Schoodic unit of the park would experience a moderate increase in visitor day use, as well as 

overnight use. 

Building Use Summary: 

Bldg. 1: Visitor center, exhibits, book sales, offices 

Bldg. 2: Generator house 

Bldg. 3: Navy interpretive exhibits, offices, and 3 classrooms/laboratories 

Bldg. 9: Gatehouse/visitor contact station 

Bldg. 39: 2 classrooms/laboratories, outdoor classroom 

Bldg. 45: Generator house 

Bldg. 84: 190 beds for students 

Bldg. 105: Food service with full-service kitchen and cafeteria 

Bldg. 138: Gymnasium 

Bldg. 139: Picnic pavilion to serve 15-site campground and group camping area 

Bldg. 141: Water tower 

Bldg. 143: 1 classroom, kitchen, 2 meeting rooms 

Bldg. 148: Research 

Bldg. 162: Curatorial office, research facilities, and archives storage 

Bldg. 165: Gas Station 

Bldg. 167: Fire Station 

Bldg. 183: Wastewater treatment facility 

Bldgs. 184-200: Schoodic Shores 32 townhouses for researchers and employees 

Bldg. 216: Park operations with offices, workshop, garages, storage, and meeting room 

Bldg. 225: Sand/salt storage 

Bldg. 228: Potable water treatment facility 
APPENDIX B 

Ferry Financial Model 
APPENDIX B 1

Ferry Operator Financial 

Performance Model 

For the purposes of evaluating the relative economic performance of the various ferry 

route alternatives proposed in this waterborne transportation plan, the financial 

performance of the different vessel types and operating scenarios is measured by 

calculating the rate of return on required equity investment over the estimated project life 

cycle on a discounted cash flow (DCF) basis. The project life cycle refers here to the 

time period over which a new vessel is introduced and operated, which is based here 

largely upon reasonable estimates of vessel service life. Even in the case of government 

subsidized ferry services, minimizing the subsidy amount required to generate a positive 

return on equity investment is an appropriate measure of the economic performance of 

the ferry operator, even though the operation might not be considered a strictly 

commercial enterprise. Therefore, the financial analysis approach outlined below is 

applicable to a broad spectrum of ferry operations. 

The income statement known as a statement of cash flows is used here as the basis for 

determining the return on equity investment on a discounted cash flow basis. A series of 

annual cash flow statements are estimated for every year of the project life cycle, under 

the various operating scenarios, using different vessel types and with estimated levels of 

ridership. The net cash flows before taxes (sometimes referred to as the residual) for 

each year of the project are then compared to the required equity investment over the 

project life, all on a discounted basis. 

Required equity investment typically includes a portion of the vessel purchase price (i.e., 

the down payment), start-up expenses and provision of working capital for new routes, 

and any cash deficits experienced during the project life cycle. Start-up expenses and 

provision of working capital represent one-time costs associated with the start-up of a 

completely new service (e.g., marketing and advertising, accounting, legal, permitting, 

licensing, etc.). This category of required equity investment is discussed in more detail 

later under the section entitled Indirect Operating Costs. 

The stream of annual cash flows is compared to the required equity investment on a 

discounted basis, resulting in the calculation of the projects internal rate of return (IRR). 

The internal rate of return is the discount rate or interest rate that equalizes the expected 

positive cash flows with the negative cash flows (equity investment) of the project. That 

scenario which yields the greatest internal rate of return provides the greatest return on 

required equity investment over the project life cycle, and is therefore considered 

superior in its economic performance to other scenarios that yield lesser internal rates of 

return. 

In keeping with generally accepted principals and methods for the financial analysis of 

transportation business entities, total expenses (cash outflows) are classified into three 

mutually exclusive categories of vessel debt repayment, direct operating costs and 

indirect operating costs. Vessel debt repayment includes principal and interest payments 
APPENDIX B 2

on the portion of the vessel purchase price not funded by the equity investment of the 

owners. Direct operating costs are defined here as vessel direct operating costs, which 

are generally considered to include crew costs (in this case deck and engine crew only, 

excluding passenger service crew), fuel and lubricant costs, hull insurance, and vessel 

maintenance. Indirect operating costs are defined here as including items that are not 

included under the direct operating costs category, for example, passenger service crew 

costs (if applicable), terminal related costs such as passenger facility charges and docking 

fees, marketing and advertising, and general administration. 

In evaluating vessel attributes that affect operator financial performance (e.g., fuel 

consumption, vessel maintenance, vessel purchase price, etc.), historically observed data 

were obtained whenever possible from sources such as the current operators of the 

vessel(s) or operators of similar vessel(s), or vessel designers and shipyards. 

In evaluating the economic performance of a particular vessel type and operating 

scenario, operating and financial data obtained from various ferry operators, as well as 

data from other ferry service feasibility studies, were used to develop plausible estimates 

of unit costs that were subsequently utilized in arriving at the estimated annual income 

statements for each alternatives analysis. Wherever possible, estimates based on actual 

operating experience were utilized. 

Certain cost elements, such as labor expense, and to a lesser extent vessel debt 

repayment, usually represent a disproportionately large share of total expenses, whereas 

certain indirect costs elements are quite modest and in some cases relatively insignificant 

relative to overall expenses. Therefore, when necessary, priority was placed upon 

obtaining reasonable and accurate estimates for those cost elements that represent the 

largest share of overall operating costs, since it is here where any variation would result 

in the greatest relative change in financial performance. Also, for many of the indirect 

cost categories, it is not clear that there is any basis for assuming that the costs incurred 

would vary as a function of different vessel types. 

Table 0-1 presents the discounted cash flow analysis expense and revenue categories 

examined for each case study. Unless otherwise noted, all dollar values noted in this 

report represent year 2000 U.S. dollars. 

The definition of each individual element of expense and revenue reviewed, and how 

each varies as a function of items such as vessel hours, number of passengers, or other 

factors, is presented in the remainder of this chapter, and follows in the order they are 

presented in Table 0-1. 

Vessel Debt Repayment 

Vessel debt repayment represents principal and interest payments on the portion of the 

vessel purchase price not funded by the equity investment of the owners. Leasing 

expense, for example under a bareboat charter arrangement, would be an alternative 

method of accounting for ownership expenses, and in some cases, leasing allows for the 

indirect realization of certain tax advantages. In many instances, leasing is used 

primarily as a mechanism for the ferry company to limit its potential liability, in which a 
APPENDIX B 3

leasing company that is separate from, but related to, the ferry company is set up in order 

to protect the vessels against any lawsuits that may be brought against the ferry company. 

Three possible scenarios are possible with respect to this expense element: 

(1) a newly built or existing used vessel may be purchased by the operator in order to 

provide service on the route being studied 

(2) an existing vessel already owned and operated by an operator may be used to 

provide service on the route 

(3) in certain scenarios, it is possible that the proposed vessels will be in excess of 30 

years old or older, and therefore perhaps owned outright and fully depreciated, 

such that ownership cost per se is virtually zero. However, in such cases 

maintenance and overhaul expenses are often higher than if a newer vessel were 

to be utilized, and changes to maintenance expense category should be made 

accordingly. 

Regardless of which of these three scenarios is likely to be the case for a given 

alternatives analysis, unless the vessel in question is used entirely and exclusively only on 

TABLE 0-1: FERRY OPERATOR EXPENSE AND REVENUE CATEGORIES

EXPENSES

Annual Vessel Debt Repayment

Annual Vessel Debt Repayment (combined principal and interest)

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits (Deck and Engine, Officers & Crew)

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Marine Hull Insurance

Indirect Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits (Onboard Passenger Service Crew)

Marketing and Advertising

Reservations & Sales

Dockage Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

General Administration

Outside Professional Services

Onboard Food & Beverage Sales - Cost of Sales

REVENUES

Passenger Fares

Ancillary Sales - Onboard Food & Beverage Sales

Ancillary Sales - Parking Revenues

Federal, State or Local Operating or Non-Operating Subsidy

NET CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES

Net Cash Flow Before Taxes
APPENDIX B 4

the ferry route being studied, care must be taken to properly allocate vessel debt 

repayment expense among the different routes on which the vessel is being operated.1

In an attempt to arrive at reasonable purchase price estimates for new vessels, the 

observed purchase prices for recently acquired vessels of varying types and capacities can 

be used for guidance. Alternatively, for existing vessels already in operation on other 

routes by an operator, the amount of existing vessel debt repayment for a given existing 

vessel could be used as the basis for this expense element. 

For the acquisition of a newly built vessel, in industry practice, various vessel financing 

terms are possible, including various amortization schedules, loan terms, and interest rate 

amounts and types (fixed, variable, etc.). For vessels receiving a loan guarantee under 

the Title XI program of the U.S. Maritime Administration (discussed in Appendix D), a 

minimum ownership equity contribution (down payment) of 12.5% is required, and a 

level principal, rather than equal payment, amortization schedule is used in almost all 

cases. This results in larger payment amounts earlier in the loan term, when the interest 

component is the largest. 

Based on a review of available data and discussions with existing ferry operators, 

purchase prices for newly built vessels suitable for serving Acadia National Park are 

estimated as function of the passenger capacity of the vessel and the vessel hull material, 

as follows: 

Aluminum hull: $3,950 per passenger seat 

Steel hull: $3,000 per passenger seat 

Wood hull: $2,300 per passenger seat 

all of which are expressed in year 2000 dollars. Therefore, for example, for the purposes 

of this study, a newly built 250 passenger vessel with an aluminum hull would be 

assumed to have an acquisition price of approximately $987,500. 

To estimate the value of a used vessel, its value as a new vessel is estimate as above, and 

is then depreciated by an amount equivalent to 2.3% of the new vessel purchase price 

annually, for vessels that are 37 years old or younger. For older vessels, 15% of the new 

vessel price is assumed as the value of the vessel. Therefore, for example, a 15 year old, 

250 passenger vessel with a steel hull is estimated to have a current value of $469,000. 

To calculate the debt repayment expense in each of the case studies, unless otherwise 

specified for a particular scenario, an equal payment amortization schedule is assumed, 

with a required owner equity (down payment) of 20% of the purchase price, a loan term 

of 15 years, and a fixed interest rate of 10%. Alternatively, for existing vessels already in 

operation on other routes by an operator, the amount of existing vessel debt repayment 

for a given existing vessel should be used as the basis for this expense element. 

 

1

 For example, if a new vessel is purchased and is to be operated on two separate routes, the total vessel 

debt repayment expenses should be allocated to each route accordingly, using vessel hours operated on 

each route as a suitable basis for the allocation.
APPENDIX B 5

Direct Operating Costs (DOC) 

DOC - Salaries, Wages and Benefits (Deck and Engine, Officers & Crew) 

In a typical analysis of direct operating costs for a ferry operation, the total crew 

complement required for the operation of each vessel is classified into the three 

functional categories of deck crew, engine crew, and passenger service crew, with the 

passenger service crew category reviewed later under indirect cost elements. For the 

purpose of assigning appropriate rates of compensation, both the deck crew and engine 

crew functional categories are then assigned the further job classifications of either 

officer or general crew. Depending upon the vessel type and size, the deck crew labor 

category typically may include positions such as the captain, deck officers, navigator and 

other bridge crew, and deckhands. Similarly, the engine crew labor category typically 

may include a chief engineer, other engineering officers and engineering crew. 

For the ferry routes serving this area, vessel sizes, route lengths and the location of the 

routes in a protected bay result in a relatively simple set of crew labor categories that 

consist of captains and deck hands. For vessels that are less than 65 feet in length and 

have a certificated passenger capacity of 150 passengers or less, one captain and one deck 

hand are required. 

Hourly compensation rates by labor function and job classification represent the cost of 

salaries, wages and benefits (i.e., fully burdened rates). Total expense for this income 

statement category is therefore a function of the hourly compensation rate by job function 

and job classification, vessel operating hours or block hours, plus an additional amount of 

time equal to 25% of vessel operating hours, added to account for labor time required for 

vessel preparation and vessel turnaround activities. 

For the analysis of ferry routes serving Acadia National Park, fully burdened labor rates 

of $37.50 per hour are utilized for captains, $10.00 per hour for senior deck hands, and 

$6.00 per hour for deck hands. 

The total crew complement for each labor category and for each vessel type analyzed was 

determined on the basis of the observed manning requirements of existing vessel types. 

DOC - Vessel Fuel and Lubricants 

Vessel fuel and lubricant expenses represent the capital, maintenance, and administrative 

costs associated with the provision of fuel and refueling services, including fuel taxes. 

For a specific vessel type, total annual fuel and lubricant expense is a function of total 

vessel hours by operating mode, fuel consumption rate by operating mode, and the unit 

fuel and lubricant cost. Fuel consumption at idle is accounted for by assuming that vessel 

hours at idle are equal to 15% of vessel operating hours or block hours. 

Route profiles detailing the distance traveled and operating speed over each segment of a 

route for each vessel type can be used if desired, and are developed using electronic 

charting software and digital nautical charts. Less detailed route descriptions can also be 

specified if desired. Fuel consumption rates by vessel and by operating mode (e.g., 

service speed, intermediate speed, slow speed, idle, etc.) are based on detailed data 
APPENDIX B 6

obtained for existing vessels, with fuel consumption rates for various operating speeds 

estimated based on vessel powering data and the specific fuel consumption of various 

marine diesel engine types. The resulting fuel consumption rates by operating mode were 

then further verified by comparing the resulting estimates to actual data for a sample of 

ferry vessels that currently serve the area. 

There is a wide variety of commercially available diesel fuel oil. Diesel No. 2 (low 

sulfur) is commonly utilized for ferry vessels, and is assumed here for all analyses. 

Purchased in bulk at a wholesale price, the price per gallon for Diesel No. 2, including all 

taxes, was $1.41 in late 2000. Vessel serving cross-bay routes generally require refueling 

after completing eight round trips, with most vessels having a fuel capacity of between 

275 and 600 gallons depending upon the specific vessel. 

Based on discussion with shipyards and vessel operators, the quantity of lubricant 

consumed is assumed to be 0.4% of the quantity of fuel consumption, with the unit cost 

of lubricant assumed to be $8.00 per gallon. 

DOC - Vessel Maintenance Costs 

Vessel maintenance expenses represent the cost of vessel hull and engine repairs and 

preventative maintenance, including periodic replacement of engines and related systems. 

Maintenance is assumed to be carried out either in-house, or contracted to an outside 

service provider, with the maintenance expense representing all components of total 

maintenance cost, including labor, materials and parts, and burden (overhead). 

In general, it is thought that maintenance for high speed vessels such as catamarans is 

more preventative, more proactive, and done more frequently than for conventional 

vessels. Despite this, maintenance expense for older conventional monohull vessels may 

not necessarily be less than for a high speed vessel, due in large part to the age of these 

older vessels and the possibility of more frequent upgrades and overhauls being required. 

Whenever possible, observed values for vessel maintenance expense were used, data 

were obtained on observed maintenance expenditures for similar vessels operating 

elsewhere, or maintenance cost information provided by shipyards was used. 

In order to refine these maintenance costs estimates, and provide estimates for vessels for 

which limited data was available, the existing data were reconciled and combined into the 

following maintenance cost estimation methodology, based in part upon maintenance 

cost methodologies used in other ferry service feasibility studies. 

Total annual maintenance expense per vessel is hypothesized to be partially dependent 

upon total vessel hours per year, especially for engine maintenance. Based on the 

observed data, total annual vessel maintenance expense for a new vessel is estimated to 

be equal to 3.5% of the purchase price of the purchase price of the vessel, for a vessel 

operating a nominal 1,000 hours annually. To account for variation in total annual 

maintenance expense resulting from different levels of annual vessel operating hours and 

different vessel ages, the following formula is then used to estimate total annual 

maintenance expenses for a vessel: 
APPENDIX B 7

[ M * F * P] + [(M * V * P) * (Ha / Hn)] 

M = estimated total annual maintenance cost for new vessel, expressed as a percentage of the 

new vessel purchase price 

F = percent of maintenance cost that is fixed (does not vary with vessel hours) 

P = new vessel purchase price 

V = percent of maintenance cost that varies with vessel hours 

Ha = actual annual vessel hours operated 

Hn = nominal annual vessel hours (1,000 hours) 

In this formula, 60% of total maintenance expenses is essentially fixed, with the 

remainder varying as a function of total vessel hours, with nominal annual vessel hours 

assumed to be 1,000. For a vessel operated less than 1,000 hours annually, total 

maintenance expense is reduced somewhat, and above 1,000 hours, it is increased. Note 

that the resulting value for vessel maintenance, expressed as a per hour rate, may actually 

be less for higher operating hours, since although total maintenance expense increases, it 

increases at a slower rate than do total annual operating hours, resulting in somewhat 

lower hourly figures for maintenance. 

Finally, to account for variations in maintenance expense resulting from the age of a 

vessel, the result of the above formula is then increased for each year of vessel age by a 

value equal to 2% of the new vessel annual maintenance expense, for each year of vessel 

age. Therefore, a ten year old vessel would have an annual maintenance expense that is 

20% more than that for a similar new vessel. 

DOC - Marine Hull Insurance 

Hull insurance primarily represents property insurance coverage for the vessel and 

equipment, although it often includes collision liability coverage for damage to other 

vessels and their cargo as well. In determining insurance premiums, a variety of factors 

are usually taken into consideration. These include: (1) size of vessel, (2) age of vessel, 

(3) hull value, (4) area of navigation, (5) years of operating experience, (6) completion of 

USCG safety courses, and (7) extent of fire protection equipment on the vessel. 

Although high speed craft do not currently seem to have a substantially greater insurance 

risk than conventional vessels, some industry observers agree that the risk issues with 

high speed craft are different than with conventional vessels, and that the insurance 

underwriting market has yet to fully assess high speed craft for the potential risks that 

may be associated with them.2

Based on discussion with ferry operators, policies are treated here as "actual cash value" 

policies, which pay the depreciated value of the vessel, rather than the full replacement 

value of a new vessel, in the event of a loss. The hull insurance expense element is 

calculated here as a function of the current estimated value of the vessel. The current 

value of the vessel is estimated as described earlier in Section 0, "Vessel Debt 

Repayment," and assumes that vessels are depreciated by an amount equivalent to 2.3% 

of the new vessel purchase price annually. Estimates obtained from shipyards, existing 

ferry operators, and other ferry service feasibility studies suggest that annual marine hull 

 

2 Fast Ferry International. July-August 1997. Page 21.
APPENDIX B 8

insurance expense typically equals between 1% to 3% of the value of the vessel being 

insured. A value of 2% of the vessel value is used here as a reasonable estimate of 

annual hull insurance expense. 

Indirect Operating Costs (IOC) 

As noted earlier in the discussion of required equity investment, although not applicable 

to many of the alternative scenarios evaluated as part of the National Park Service studies 

currently being conducted by the Volpe Center, start-up expenses and provision of 

working capital represent one-time costs associated with the start-up of a completely new 

service (e.g., marketing and advertising, accounting, legal, permitting, licensing, etc.). 

Where applicable, start-up expense and provision of working capital for completely new 

ferry operators and services are assumed to equal 11% of total year 3 (equilibrium 

patronage) passenger revenues, including any ancillary revenues, and is assumed to be 

provided from owner equity in year zero (before project start-up). 

IOC - Salaries, Waves and Benefits (Onboard Passenger Service Crew) 

As noted earlier, the total crew complement required for the operation of each vessel is 

classified into the three functional categories of deck crew, engine crew, and passenger 

service crew, with the deck crew and engine crew categories reviewed earlier under direct 

cost elements. Depending upon the vessel type, size, and typical voyage length, the 

passenger service crew category may include positions such as cabin attendants, pursers, 

and stewards, although for the scenarios evaluated as part of the National Park Service 

studies currently being conducted by the Volpe Center, would be limited to staff engaged 

primarily in the onboard sales of food and beverage, if applicable. In most if not all 

scenarios, such duties may be carried out deck crew members in addition to their other 

tasks, and therefore there would be no dedicated onboard passenger service crew. 

As with deck and engine crew, hourly compensation rates for passenger service crew 

represent the cost of salaries, wages and benefits (i.e., fully burdened rates). Total 

expense for this income statement category is therefore a function of the hourly 

compensation rate, vessel operating hours or block hours, plus an additional amount of 

time equal to 25% of vessel operating hours, added to account for labor time required for 

vessel preparation and vessel turnaround activities. 

IOC - Marketing and Advertising 

This indirect cost category represents the production and distribution of marketing 

materials and costs associated with the purchase of print, radio, television or other media 

advertising. This category is of particular importance to new startup services in creating 

awareness and building ridership. Based on previous ferry feasibility studies, this 

expense category is assumed to vary as a function of total passenger revenues, including 

ancillary revenues (and thus indirectly as a function of total ridership), and to be equal to 

2% of these revenues. For a completely new operator and route, a higher value of 4% of 

these revenues is more appropriate. 
APPENDIX B 9

IOC - Reservations & Sales 

This cost category includes labor costs of reservations and sales personal, and 

commissions costs, or direct charges arising from sales of passenger tickets. Based on 

previous ferry feasibility studies, this expense category is assumed to vary as a function 

of passenger revenues (and thus indirectly as a function of total ridership), and to be 

equal to 1.5% of passenger revenues. 

IOC - Dockage Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations 

For ferry terminal facilities owned by the ferry operator, shore operations costs represent 

the direct and indirect costs to the ferry operator (terminal operator) of operating, 

manning (e.g., ticket sales, etc.), maintaining, insuring, and providing security for the 

terminal facilities. For ferry terminal facilities owned by another party (a port authority, 

municipality, private entity, etc.), shore operations costs are typically reflected as a 

terminal usage fee, often assessed as a flat annual fee or a per passenger charge, and in 

some cases a vessel docking fee that is often assessed per foot of vessel length. For each 

case study, the specific method of calculating total expenses for this cost category may 

vary based on whether the shore facilities are owned by the ferry operator or not, and the 

manner in which terminal usage fees are assessed (e.g., as an annual fixed fee, or as a per 

passenger boarding charge). For the Acadia National Park analyses, dockage fee are 

assessed at a zero to minimal rate because the operator is assumed to own the docks or 

pay very small charges. 

IOC - Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance 

This expense category includes insurance against passenger liability, crew liability, and 

other liabilities (which often include liquor liability, pollution liability, premises liability 

and medical payments). P&I covers a wide range of liability exposures and 

miscellaneous expenses that a vessel owner might incur. Injuries to crew members and 

other persons on board the insured vessel are generally the most common claims. 

Coverage is typically provided for injury to persons aboard other vessels struck by the 

insured vessel, and for damage to property (other than vessels) struck by the insured 

vessel. Accidental pollution from the discharge of fuel oil or other similar substances is 

also often covered, unless due to negligence by the operator. 

Based on previous ferry feasibility studies, this expense category is assumed to vary as a 

function of the number of passengers carried, and to be equal to $0.35 per passenger 

boarding. 

IOC - General Administration 

This expense category represents costs of a general corporate nature that are incurred in 

performing activities which contribute to more than a single operating function. Specific 

examples include leasing of office space, telephone & communications costs, office 

supplies, travel, and management and administrative personnel compensation and 

benefits. 

Based on previous ferry feasibility studies and information from ferry operators including 

those currently serving the Mount Desert Island area, this expense category is assumed to 
APPENDIX B 10

be equal to a fixed annual amount of $5,000, plus an additional amount equal to $0.50 per 

passenger boarding 

IOC - Outside Professional Services 

This cost may vary as a function of the total number of passengers depending on the 

service, no cost is allocated here. 

IOC - Onboard Food & Beverage Sales - Cost of Sales 

Although not applicable to most of the alternative scenarios evaluated as part of the 

National Park Service studies currently being conducted by the Volpe Center, the 

financial performance model can accommodate scenarios in which ancillary revenues are 

earned from onboard food and beverage sales. This cost category represents the costs 

associated with the purchase of supplies and onboard food and beverage sales operations. 

Based on previous ferry feasibility studies and standard food service industry practice, it 

is assumed here that the cost of sales for onboard food and beverage sales is equal to 65% 

of onboard food and beverage revenues. 

Revenues 

Revenues - Passenger Fares 

Passenger fares are the primary source of revenue for all routes, and revenues from the 

sale of advertising space either onboard the vessel or at the ferry terminals is not 

considered here, since even in transportation operations where this practice tends to be 

widespread (e.g., bus and rail public transit), revenues received from advertising are only 

a small fraction of overall revenues. The model can accommodate a full adult fare, as 

well as a discount fare level (e.g., adult, child). If one-way fares of an amount reater than 

half of the round trip fare are charged and make up a significant portion of passenger fare 

revenues, then the model can be modified to accommodate this scenario if necessary. 

Similarly, if more complex multi-trip discount ticket scenarios are necessary, the model 

can be modified to accommodate this as well. 

Revenues - Ancillary Sales - Onboard Food & Beverage Sales 

Although not applicable to most of the alternative scenarios evaluated as part of the 

National Park Service studies currently being conducted by the Volpe Center, the 

financial performance model can accommodate scenarios in which ancillary revenues are 

earned from onboard food and beverage sales. This revenue category represents revenues 

from food and beverage sales, including bar sales of liquor and vending machine 

revenues, if applicable. This revenue category is assumed to vary as a function of total 

passenger boardings, and can be specified at various amounts depending upon experience 

in similar or related routes or markets. 

Revenues - Parking Revenues 

For ferry operators who maintain ownership and control of parking facilities at or near 

their ferry terminals and at which ferry passengers will park their vehicles for a fee, 

parking revenues may contribute significantly to the financial viability of a proposed 
APPENDIX B 11

ferry route or service. In order to properly calculate the magnitude of these revenues, an 

estimate must be made both of the mode of ground access to the ferry terminal for 

patrons of the new ferry service, and of the length of stay of these passengers. 

Consideration must also be given, however, to the fact that necessary capacity must be 

available at the parking facilities in order to accommodate the number of vehicles that 

would result during the seasons, days of week, or times of day being studied. 

Revenues - Federal, State or Local Operating or Non-Operating Subsidy 

If applicable, the financial performance model can accommodate scenarios in which 

federal, state or local operating or non-operating subsidies are provided for the service. 

As noted earlier, for government subsidized ferry services such as these, minimizing the 

total net cost (the difference between total revenues and total expenses), and thus the 

required subsidy, is an appropriate measure of the economic performance of the ferry 

operator even though the operation might not be considered a strictly commercial 

enterprise. 

Net Cash Flow Before Taxes 

The net cash flow before taxes is the total revenues earned by the ferry operator, net of 

expenses and before taxes, and represents a summary measure of the financial 

performance of the operator under a given operating scenario for a particular year of the 

project period. Negative values for annual net cash flow before taxes are, by implication, 

considered here to be additional funds provided by the equity investors to cover these 

cash deficits. Net cash flow is considered here before taxes largely as a matter of 

convenience, since the explicit incorporation of the many federal, state and local taxes 

which a ferry operator would be subject to extends beyond the scope of this study. Also, 

for the comparative operational analyses for which this financial performance model is 

meant to be applied, it is assumed that the exclusion of taxes, though perhaps affecting 

the absolute financial performance of various alternative analyses, will not significantly 

affect the relative financial performance of these alternative analyses to any significant 

extent.
APPENDIX C 

Population and Employment Data and Forecasts
APPENDIX C 1

 Population Forecasts 

County Town 1990 2000 2005 2015 

Hancock Amhurst 227 238 244 255

Hancock Aurora 82 86 88 93

Hancock Blue Hill 1,948 2,044 2,092 2,190

Hancock Brooklin 788 827 846 886

Hancock Brooksville 763 800 819 858

Hancock Bucksport 4,841 5,081 5,201 5,445

Hancock Castine 1,165 1,223 1,251 1,310

Hancock Cranberry Isles 190 199 204 213

Hancock Dedham 1,233 1,294 1,325 1,387

Hancock Deer Isle 1,835 1,926 1,972 2,064

Hancock Eastbrook 290 304 312 326

Hancock Ellsworth 5,995 6,292 6,441 6,742

Hancock Franklin 1,145 1,202 1,230 1,288

Hancock Frenchboro 44 46 47 50

Hancock Great Pond 59 62 64 67

Hancock Hancock 1,942 2,038 2,086 2,183

Hancock Lamoine 1,315 1,381 1,413 1,479

Hancock Mariaville 271 284 291 305

Hancock Orland 1,811 1,901 1,946 2,037

Hancock Osborn 72 76 78 81

Hancock Otis 356 374 383 401

Hancock Penobscot 1,135 1,191 1,219 1,276

Hancock Sedgwick 908 953 976 1,021

Hancock Sorrento 296 311 318 333

Hancock Southwest Harbor 1,959 2,056 2,104 2,203

Hancock Stonington 1,256 1,318 1,350 1,413

Hancock Surry 1,007 1,057 1,082 1,133

Hancock Swans Island 349 366 375 393

Hancock Tremont 1,328 1,394 1,427 1,494

Hancock Trenton 1,064 1,116 1,143 1,196

Hancock Verona 517 542 555 581

Hancock Waltham 277 291 298 311

Hancock Gouldsboro 1,993 2,091 2,141 2,241

Hancock Sullivan 1,122 1,177 1,205 1,262

Hancock Winter Harbor 1,161 1,218 1,247 1,306

Hancock Bar Harbor 4,458 4,679 4,789 5,014

Hancock Mount Desert 1,905 2,000 2,047 2,143

Hancock County Total 47,107 49,441 50,607 52,977 
APPENDIX C 2

 Population Forecasts 

County Town 1990 2000 2005 2015 

Washington Addison 1,118 1,173 1,201 1,257 

Washington Beals 669 702 719 753 

Washington Cherryfield 1,187 1,246 1,275 1,335 

Washington Columbia 438 460 471 493 

Washington Columbia Falls 554 581 595 623 

Washington Harrington 896 940 963 1,008 

Washington Jonesboro 587 616 631 660 

Washington Jonesport 1,530 1,606 1,644 1,721 

Washington Machias 2,578 2,705 2,769 2,899 

Washington Machiasport 1,170 1,228 1,257 1,316 

Washington Milbridge 1,309 1,374 1,407 1,473 

Washington Steuben 1,088 1,142 1,168 1,223 

Washington Alexander 480 503 515 539 

Washington Baileyville 2,038 2,139 2,189 2,292 

Washington Baring 276 290 296 310 

Washington Beddington 43 45 46 49 

Washington Calias 3,976 4,173 4,272 4,472 

Washington Centerville 30 32 32 34 

Washington Charlotte 272 285 292 306 

Washington Codyville 35 37 38 39 

Washington Cooper 124 131 134 140 

Washington Crawford 89 94 96 100 

Washington Cutler 782 820 840 879 

Washington Danforth 712 748 765 801 

Washington Deblois 73 77 79 82 

Washington Dennysville 356 374 383 401 

Washington E. Machias 1,222 1,283 1,313 1,374 

Washington Eastport 1,972 2,069 2,118 2,217 

Washington Grand Lake Stream plant. 175 183 188 196 

Washington Lubec 1,859 1,951 1,997 2,091 

Washington Marshfield 463 485 497 520 

Washington Meddybemps 133 140 143 150 

Washington Northfield 99 104 107 112 

Washington Passamaquoddy Indian Township 619 650 665 696 

Washington Passamaquoddy Pleasant Point 574 602 617 645 

Washington Pembroke 855 897 918 961 

Washington Perry 761 798 817 855 

Washington Princeton 976 1,025 1,049 1,098 

Washington Robbinson 497 521 534 559 

Washington Roque Bluffs 235 246 252 264 

Washington Talmadge 62 65 67 70 

Washington Topsfield 236 247 253 265 

Washington Unorganized 1,161 1,218 1,247 1,306 

Washington Vanceboro 202 212 217 227 

Washington Waite 119 125 128 134 

Washington Wesley 146 154 157 165 

Washington Whiting 408 429 439 459 

Washington Whitneyville 242 254 260 272 

County Total 35,428 37,183 38,060 39,842 
APPENDIX C 3

 Employment Forecasts 

County Town 1990 2000 2005 2015 

Hancock Amhurst 15 18 19 20

Hancock Aurora 55 65 68 72

Hancock Blue Hill 1,591 1,884 1,985 2,102

Hancock Brooklin 306 362 382 404

Hancock Brooksville 174 206 217 230

Hancock Bucksport 3,460 4,099 4,318 4,573

Hancock Castine 603 714 752 797

Hancock Cranberry Isles 61 72 76 80

Hancock Dedham 114 135 142 150

Hancock Deer Isle 492 583 614 651

Hancock Eastbrook 79 93 98 104

Hancock Ellsworth 8,248 9,771 10,295 10,901

Hancock Franklin 179 212 223 236

Hancock Frenchboro 15 18 19 20

Hancock Great Pond 15 18 19 20

Hancock Hancock 501 594 626 663

Hancock Lamoine 164 194 204 216

Hancock Mariaville 38 45 47 50

Hancock Orland 529 626 660 699

Hancock Osborn 58 68 72 76

Hancock Otis 36 43 45 48

Hancock Penobscot 338 400 422 446

Hancock Sedgwick 164 194 204 216

Hancock Sorrento 35 41 43 46

Hancock Southwest Harbor 1,351 1,601 1,686 1,786

Hancock Stonington 659 781 822 871

Hancock Surry 206 244 257 272

Hancock Swans Island 103 122 129 136

Hancock Tremont 354 420 442 468

Hancock Trenton 248 294 310 328

Hancock Verona 62 74 78 82

Hancock Waltham 6 7 8 8

Hancock Gouldsboro 766 908 957 1,013

Hancock Sullivan 359 425 448 474

Hancock Winter Harbor 217 257 270 286

Hancock Bar Harbor 4,684 5,549 5,846 6,190

Hancock Mount Desert 1,141 1,351 1,424 1,508

Hancock County Total 27,424 32,488 34,229 36,246 
APPENDIX C 4

 Employment Forecasts 

County Towns 1990 2000 2005 2015 

Washington Addison 176 208 219 232

Washington Beals 148 176 185 196

Washington Cherryfield 442 524 552 585

Washington Columbia 153 181 191 202

Washington Columbia falls 201 239 251 266

Washington Harrington 258 305 321 340

Washington Jonesboro 214 253 267 282

Washington Jonesport 464 549 579 613

Washington Machias 3260 3862 4069 4308

Washington Machiasport 189 224 236 250

Washington Milbridge 723 856 902 955

Washington Steuben 83 99 104 110

Washington Alexander 36 43 45 48

Washington Baileyville 2413 2859 3012 3189

Washington Baring 108 127 134 142

Washington Beddington 29 34 36 38

Washington Calias 3386 4011 4226 4475

Washington Centerville 0 0 0 0

Washington Charlotte 50 59 62 66

Washington Codyville 0 0 0 0

Washington Cooper 15 18 19 20

Washington Crawford 2 2 2 2

Washington Cutler 48 57 61 64

Washington Danforth 432 511 539 571

Washington Deblois 118 140 147 156

Washington Dennysville 26 31 32 34

Washington E. Machias 461 546 575 609

Washington Eastport 1198 1419 1496 1584

Washington 

Grand Lake Stream 

plant. 12 14 15 16

Washington Lubec 894 1059 1115 1181

Washington Marshfield 5 5 6 6

Washington Meddybemps 24 29 30 32

Washington Northfield 2 2 2 2

Washington 

Passamaquoddy 

Indian Township 303 359 378 400

Washington 

Passamaquoddy 

Pleasant Point 258 305 321 340

Washington Pembroke 118 140 147 156

Washington Perry 308 364 384 406

Washington Princeton 357 424 446 472

Washington Robbinson 24 29 30 32

Washington Roque Bluffs 12 14 15 16

Washington Talmadge 0 0 0 0

Washington Topsfield 33 39 42 44

Washington Unorganized 454 538 567 601

Washington Vanceboro 52 61 64 68

Washington Waite 91 108 113 120

Washington Wesley 47 56 59 62

Washington Whiting 44 52 55 58

Washington Whitneyville 21 25 26 28

County Total 17,690 20,956 22,079 23,380 
APPENDIX C 5

County Towns 1990 2000 2005 

Low)

2005 

(High)

2015 

(Low)

2015 

(High)

Hancock Amhurst - - - 

Hancock Aurora - - - 

Hancock Blue Hill 2 2 2 3 - 

Hancock Brooklin - - - 

Hancock Brooksville - - - 

Hancock Bucksport 12 14 14 15 - 

Hancock Castine 2 2 2 3 - 

Hancock Cranberry Isles 3 55635

Hancock Dedham 4 5 5 5 - 

Hancock Deer Isle 5 7 7 8 2 3

Hancock Eastbrook 10 12 12 13 1 6

Hancock Ellsworth 216 262 276 291 32 55

Hancock Franklin 57 66 69 73 3 9

Hancock Frenchboro - - - 

Hancock Great Pond - - - 

Hancock Hancock 73 91 96 101 15 34

Hancock Lamoine 68 82 87 92 10 21

Hancock Mariaville 8 11 11 12 3 5

Hancock Orland 8 9 9 10 - 

Hancock Osborn 3 3 4 4 - 

Hancock Otis 9 10 11 11 - 

Hancock Penobscot 2 2 2 3 - 

Hancock Sedgwick 8 9 9 10 - 

Hancock Sorrento 5 6 6 6 - 

Hancock Southwest Harbor 190 240 253 267 45 77

Hancock Stonington - - - 

Hancock Surry 33 44 46 48 11 19

Hancock Swans Island - - - 

Hancock Tremont 177 224 236 249 43 81

Hancock Trenton 134 163 171 181 20 34

Hancock Verona - - - 

Hancock Waltham - - - 

Hancock Gouldsboro 19 24 25 26 4 377

Hancock Sullivan 23 27 29 30 2 33

Hancock Winter Harbor 8 9 9 10 - 108

Hancock Bar Harbor 1,877 2,172 2,288 2,411 98 169

Hancock Mount Desert 700 1,045 1,101 1,160 441 753

Hancock Total 3,656 4,545 4,789 5,046 733 1,790

JTW - Destination Bar Harbor, Mount Desert Island
APPENDIX C 6

County Towns 1990 2000 2005 

(Low)

2005 

(High)

2015 

(Low)

2015 

(High)

Washington Addison 2 2 2 3 - 6

Washington Beals - - - 5

Washington Cherryfield 2 2 2 3 - 8

Washington Columbia - - - 3

Washington Columbia Falls - - - 4

Washington Harrington 8 11 11 12 3 14

Washington Jonesboro 4 5 5 5 - 

Washington Jonesport - - - 9

Washington Machias 2 3 4 4 2 3

Washington Machiasport - - - 

Washington Milbridge 9 10 11 11 - 27

Washington Steuben 9 11 12 13 2 39

Washington Alexander - - - 

Washington Baileyville - - - 

Washington Baring - - - 

Washington Beddington - - - 

Washington Calias - - - 

Washington Centerville - - - 

Washington Charlotte - - - 

Washington Codyville - - - 

Washington Cooper - - - 

Washington Crawford - - - 

Washington Cutler - - - 

Washington Danforth - - - 

Washington Deblois - - - 

Washington Dennysville - - - 

Washington E. Machias - - - 

Washington Eastport - - - 

Washington Grand Lake Strea - - - 

Washington Lubec - - - 

Washington Marshfield - - - 

Washington Meddybemps - - - 

Washington Northfield - - - 

Washington Passamaquoddy - - - 

Washington Passamaquoddy P - - - 

Washington Pembroke - - - 

Washington Perry - - - 

Washington Princeton - - - 

Washington Robbinson - - - 

Washington Roque Bluffs - - - 

Washington Talmadge - - - 

Washington Topsfield - - - 

Washington Unorganized - - - 

Washington Vanceboro - - - 

Washington Waite - - - 

Washington Wesley - - - 

Washington Whiting - - - 

Washington Whitneyville - - - 

Washington Total 36 45 47 50 7 119

JTW - Destination Bar Harbor, Mount Desert Island
APPENDIX C 7

County Towns 1990 2000 2005 

(Low)

2005 

(High)

2015 

(Low)

2015 

(High)

Hancock Amhurst - - 

Hancock Aurora - - 

Hancock Blue Hill - - 

Hancock Brooklin - - 

Hancock Brooksville - - 

Hancock Bucksport - - 

Hancock Castine - - 

Hancock Cranberry Isles - - 

Hancock Dedham - - 

Hancock Deer Isle - - 

Hancock Eastbrook 4 5 5 5

Hancock Ellsworth 20 22 23 29 51 59

Hancock Franklin 6 7 7 8 5 6

Hancock Frenchboro - - 

Hancock Great Pond - - 

Hancock Hancock 13 15 16 18 13 15

Hancock Lamoine 4 5 5 5

Hancock Mariaville - 

Hancock Orland - - 

Hancock Osborn - - 

Hancock Otis - - 

Hancock Penobscot - - 

Hancock Sedgwick - - 

Hancock Sorrento 9 10 11 13 23 27

Hancock Southwest Harbor - - 

Hancock Stonington - - 

Hancock Surry 1 1 1 1 3 3

Hancock Swans Island - - 

Hancock Tremont 8 9 10 10

Hancock Trenton - - 

Hancock Verona - - 

Hancock Waltham - - 

Hancock Gouldsboro 665 652 687 771 611 604

Hancock Sullivan 60 68 71 82 76 88

Hancock Winter Harbor 470 375 396 470 712 668

Hancock Bar Harbor 10 11 12 14 20 24

Hancock Mount Desert - - 

Hancock Total 1,270 1,179 1,243 1,427 1,514 1,493

Journey to Work -- Destination: Winter Harbor/Gouldsboro
APPENDIX D 

Park Visitation Data and Forecasts 
APPENDIX D 

 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. 

1990 16,084 13,383 30,060 71,898 148,090 290,533 554,953 645,522 355,864 207,770 47,633 

1991 24,588 14,667 31,291 75,738 157,252 295,348 574,529 640,990 377,904 224,497 45,518 1992 17,510 21,110 30,312 63,276 164,400 262,173 539,109 615,843 391,798 211,573 46,316 1993 19,402 15,556 29,040 57,707 192,823 300,647 586,449 719,671 417,317 254,615 43,755 1994 13,364 18,112 29,086 58,788 182,781 311,803 617,622 720,079 421,106 268,779 48,907 1995 14,894 20,510 32,120 86,198 175,550 355,270 626,947 753,799 439,553 271,606 54,121 1996 17,655 15,576 32,452 76,597 166,290 327,723 571,017 714,090 426,562 280,577 56,828 1997 16,292 17,230 27,035 77,005 132,194 340,064 622,847 758,140 404,808 287,171 57,810 1998 16,726 17,028 27,500 81,896 148,052 307,208 565,477 701,097 391,378 266,138 55,225 1999 16,430 17,162 33,688 82,993 174,610 315,980 562,996 639,073 426,024 277,644 39,416 2000 22,500 23,848 35,423 78,555 166,456 319,208 547,929 594,904 378,135 253,626 33,693 

11 Year 

Total 195,445 194,182 338,007 810,651 1,808,498 3,425,957 6,369,875 7,503,208 4,430,449 2,803,996 529,222 

Yearly 

Average 17,768 17,653 30,728 73,696 164,409 311,451 579,080 682,110 402,768 254,909 48,111 

2005 18,003 17,887 31,135 69,698 166,587 315,578 586,753 691,148 408,105 258,286 48,749 2015 20,407 20,275 35,292 79,003 188,829 357,711 665,090 783,424 462,591 292,770 55,257 

Acadia National Park Recreational Visits (Source: NPS Website)
APPENDIX D 

 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov

1990 0.67% 0.56% 1.26% 3.00% 6.19% 12.14% 23.18% 26.97% 14.87% 8.68% 1.991991 0.99% 0.59% 1.26% 3.06% 6.35% 11.93% 23.21% 25.89% 15.26% 9.07% 1.841992 0.74% 0.89% 1.27% 2.66% 6.90% 11.01% 22.63% 25.85% 16.45% 8.88% 1.941993 0.73% 0.59% 1.09% 2.17% 7.26% 11.32% 22.08% 27.10% 15.71% 9.59% 1.651994 0.49% 0.67% 1.07% 2.17% 6.74% 11.50% 22.78% 26.56% 15.53% 9.92% 1.801995 0.52% 0.72% 1.13% 3.03% 6.17% 12.49% 22.03% 26.49% 15.45% 9.55% 1.901996 0.65% 0.58% 1.20% 2.83% 6.15% 12.12% 21.11% 26.40% 15.77% 10.37% 2.101997 0.59% 0.62% 0.98% 2.79% 4.79% 12.32% 22.56% 27.47% 14.67% 10.40% 2.091998 0.64% 0.66% 1.06% 3.16% 5.71% 11.84% 21.80% 27.02% 15.08% 10.26% 2.131999 0.63% 0.66% 1.29% 3.19% 6.71% 12.14% 21.64% 24.56% 16.37% 10.67% 1.512000 0.91% 0.97% 1.43% 3.18% 6.74% 12.93% 22.19% 24.09% 15.31% 10.27% 1.36

11 Year 

Ave. 0.68% 0.68% 1.18% 2.83% 6.32% 11.98% 22.28% 26.24% 15.49% 9.81% 1.85

2005 0.68% 0.68% 1.18% 2.65% 6.34% 12.00% 22.32% 26.29% 15.52% 9.82% 1.852015 0.68% 0.68% 1.18% 2.65% 6.34% 12.00% 22.32% 26.29% 15.52% 9.82% 1.85

Acadia Park Recreational Visits: Distribution by Month (Source: NPS website)
APPENDIX D 

 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. 

1990 3,096 4,056 6,036 10,802 18,414 25,704 41,814 51,264 31,824 18,594 8,786 1991 4,733 4,445 6,283 11,379 19,553 26,130 43,289 50,904 33,795 20,091 8,396 1992 3,370 6,398 6,087 9,507 20,442 23,195 40,620 48,907 35,037 18,934 8,543 1993 3,735 4,715 5,831 8,670 23,976 26,599 44,187 57,153 37,320 22,786 8,071 1994 2,572 5,489 5,840 8,832 22,728 27,586 46,536 57,185 37,658 24,054 9,021 1995 2,867 6,216 6,450 12,950 21,828 31,431 47,239 59,863 39,308 24,307 9,983 1996 3,398 4,721 6,516 11,508 20,677 28,994 43,024 56,709 38,146 25,110 10,482 1997 3,136 5,222 5,429 11,569 16,437 30,086 46,930 60,208 36,201 25,700 10,663 1998 3,220 5,161 5,522 12,304 18,409 27,179 42,607 55,677 35,000 23,818 10,186 1999 3,163 5,201 6,764 12,469 21,712 27,955 42,420 50,752 38,098 24,847 7,270 2000 4,331 7,228 7,113 11,802 20,698 28,241 41,285 47,244 33,816 22,698 6,215 

11 Year 

Total 37,621 58,851 67,871 121,793 224,875 303,101 479,950 595,866 396,204 250,939 97,616 

11 Year 

Ave. 3,420 5,350 6,170 11,072 20,443 27,555 43,632 54,170 36,019 22,813 8,874 

2005 3,465 5,421 6,252 10,471 20,714 27,920 44,210 54,887 36,496 23,115 8,992 2015 3,928 6,145 7,087 11,870 23,480 31,647 50,113 62,215 41,368 26,201 10,192 

Schoodic Parkland Recreational Visits by Month (Source: NPS website) (Growth Matche
APPENDIX E 

Base Reuse Data and Forecasts 
APPENDIX E 1

Employees Visitors Employees Visitors Employees Visitors Employees Visitors

Admin 20 10 15 3 20 10 15 3

Research 20 7 10 3 20 7 10 3

Library 5 5 2 1 5 5 2 1

Vistor Ctr 5 90 0 0 5 180 1 0

Navy Museum 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 0

Classrooms 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 0

Classroom 0 0 0 0 2 40 2 10

Dormitory 1 20 1 20 2 20 1 20

Classroom 4 60 1 0 7 90 2 0

Cafeteria 5 1 2 1 6 2 3 1

Assembly Hall 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 10

Meeting Space 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 10

Archives 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0

Theater 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 0

Park HQ 10 7 4 2 30 10 10 7

0 0 0 0 2 45 1 0

0 0 0 50 7 50 5

70 200 35 30 160 600 100 70

Campsites

Leased Office Space

Totals

Schoodic Navy Base Reuse Plan: 2005 Employment & Visitation

Bldg 143

Bldg 162

Bldg 164

Bldg 216

Bldg 39

Bldg 84

Bldg 105

Bldg 138

Winter

by Reuse Scenario

Bldg 1

Bldg 3

Trip Making Activity Summer Winter Summer

Average Daily Concept 1 Concept 3
APPENDIX E 2

Employees Visitors Employees Visitors Employees Visitors Employees Visitors

Admin 20 10 15 3 20 10 15 3

Research 20 7 10 3 20 7 10 3

Library 5 5 2 1 5 5 2 1

Vistor Ctr 5 130 0 0 5 220 1 0

Navy Museum 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 0

Classrooms 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 0

Classroom 0 0 0 0 2 40 2 10

Dormitory 1 20 1 20 2 20 1 20

Classroom 4 60 1 0 7 90 2 0

Cafeteria 5 1 2 1 6 2 3 1

Assembly Hall 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 10

Meeting Space 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 10

Archives 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0

Theater 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 0

Park HQ 10 7 4 2 30 10 10 7

0 0 0 0 2 60 1 0

0 0 0 50 7 50 5

70 240 35 30 160 655 100 70

Campsites

Leased Office Space

Totals

Bldg 143

Bldg 162

Bldg 164

Bldg 216

Bldg 39

Bldg 84

Bldg 105

Bldg 138

Winter

by Reuse Scenario

Bldg 1

Bldg 3

Trip Making Activity Summer Winter Summer

Schoodic Navy Base Reuse Plan: 2015 Employment & Visitation at the Base

Average Daily Concept 1 Concept 3
APPENDIX E 3
APPENDIX F 

Ferry Service Schedules, Demand and Patronage Data, 

Service Costs, and Revenues 
APPENDIX F 1

78' Catamaran schedules

Schedule I - summer - weekdays Schedule II - summer - weekends

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

Morning Morning

5:15 AM 5:36 AM 5:51 AM 6:12 AM 8:00 AM 8:21 AM 8:36 AM 8:57 AM

6:27 AM 6:48 AM 7:03 AM 7:25 AM 9:12 AM 9:33 AM 9:48 AM 10:10 AM

7:40 AM 8:01 AM 9:00 AM 9:21 AM 10:25 AM 10:46 AM 11:01 AM 11:22 AM

9:45 AM 10:06 AM 10:30 AM 10:51 AM 11:37 AM 11:59 AM 12:14 PM 12:35 PM

11:15 AM 11:36 AM Afternoon

Afternoon 12:00 PM 12:21 PM 12:50 PM 1:11 PM 1:26 PM 1:48 PM

1:45 PM 2:06 PM 2:30 PM 2:51 PM 2:03 PM 2:24 PM 2:39 PM 3:00 PM

3:06 PM 3:27 PM 3:42 PM 4:03 PM 3:15 PM 3:37 PM 3:52 PM 4:13 PM

4:18 PM 4:40 PM 4:55 PM 5:16 PM 4:28 PM 4:49 PM 5:04 PM 5:26 PM

5:31 PM 5:52 PM 6:07 PM 6:29 PM 5:41 PM 6:02 PM 6:17 PM 6:38 PM

6:44 PM 7:05 PM 7:20 PM 7:41 PM 6:53 PM 7:14 PM 7:29 PM 7:51 PM

comm. one ways 10 rec. one ways 10 comm. one ways 7 rec. one ways 13

total one ways 20 total one ways 20

Schedule III - winter - weekdays Schedule IV - winter - weekends

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

Morning Morning

5:15 AM 5:36 AM 5:51 AM 6:12 AM 8:00 AM 8:21 AM 8:36 AM 8:57 AM

6:27 AM 6:48 AM 7:03 AM 7:25 AM 10:00 AM 10:21 AM 10:36 AM 10:57 AM

7:40 AM 8:01 AM 9:30 AM 9:51 AM 11:12 AM 11:33 AM 11:48 AM 12:10 PM

11:00 AM 11:21 AM

Afternoon Afternoon

12:30 PM 12:51 PM 1:00 PM 1:21 PM 1:36 PM 1:57 PM

2:00 PM 2:21 PM 3:30 PM 3:51 PM 3:00 PM 3:21 PM 3:36 PM 3:57 PM

4:06 PM 4:27 PM 4:42 PM 5:03 PM

5:18 PM 5:40 PM 5:55 PM 6:16 PM

6:31 PM 6:52 PM 7:07 PM 7:29 PM

comm. one ways 10 rec. one ways 6 comm. one ways 4 rec. one ways 6

total one ways 16 total one ways 10
APPENDIX F 2

2 x 50' Monohull schedules

Schedule I - summer - weekdays Schedule II - summer - weekends

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

Morning Morning

5:15 AM 5:40 AM 5:15 AM 5:40 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM

5:55 AM 6:20 AM 5:55 AM 6:20 AM 8:40 AM 9:05 AM 8:40 AM 9:05 AM

6:35 AM 7:00 AM 6:35 AM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM

7:15 AM 7:40 AM 7:15 AM 7:40 AM 10:40 AM 11:05 AM 10:40 AM 11:05 AM

7:55 AM 8:20 AM 7:55 AM 8:20 AM Afternoon Afternoon

8:35 AM 9:00 AM 8:35 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:25 PM 12:00 PM 12:25 PM

10:00 AM 10:25 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 12:40 PM 1:05 PM 12:40 PM 1:05 PM

10:40 AM 11:05 AM 10:40 AM 11:05 AM 2:00 PM 2:25 PM 2:00 PM 2:25 PM

Afternoon 2:40 PM 3:05 PM 2:40 PM 3:05 PM

12:00 PM 12:25 PM 12:00 PM 12:25 PM 5:00 PM 5:25 PM 5:00 PM 5:25 PM

12:40 PM 1:05 PM 12:40 PM 1:05 PM 5:40 PM 6:05 PM 5:40 PM 6:05 PM

2:00 PM 2:25 PM 2:00 PM 2:25 PM 6:20 PM 6:45 PM 6:20 PM 6:45 PM

2:40 PM 3:05 PM 2:40 PM 3:05 PM 7:00 PM 7:25 PM 7:00 PM 7:25 PM

3:20 PM 3:45 PM 3:20 PM 3:45 PM

4:00 PM 4:25 PM 4:00 PM 4:25 PM

4:40 PM 5:05 PM 4:40 PM 5:05 PM

5:20 PM 5:45 PM 5:20 PM 5:45 PM

6:00 PM 6:25 PM 6:00 PM 6:25 PM

6:40 PM 7:06 PM 6:40 PM 7:06 PM

7:21 PM 7:46 PM 7:21 PM 7:46 PM

comm. one ways 20 rec. one ways 18 comm. one ways 8 rec. one ways 16

total one ways 38 total one ways 24

Schedule III - winter - weekdays Schedule IV - winter - weekends

Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor Winter Harbor Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Winter Harbor

Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Leave Arrive

Morning Morning

5:15 AM 5:40 AM 5:15 AM 5:40 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM 8:00 AM 8:25 AM

5:55 AM 6:20 AM 5:55 AM 6:20 AM 11:00 AM 11:25 AM 11:00 AM 11:25 AM

6:35 AM 7:00 AM 6:35 AM 7:00 AM 11:40 AM 12:05 PM 11:40 AM 12:05 PM

7:15 AM 7:40 AM 7:15 AM 7:40 AM Afternoon

7:55 AM 8:20 AM 7:55 AM 8:20 AM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM

8:35 AM 9:00 AM 8:35 AM 9:00 AM 3:00 PM 3:25 PM 3:00 PM 3:25 PM

Afternoon 4:00 PM 4:25 PM 4:00 PM 4:25 PM

11:00 AM 11:25 AM 11:00 AM 11:25 AM

11:40 AM 12:05 PM 11:40 AM 12:05 PM

2:00 PM 2:25 PM 2:00 PM 2:25 PM

2:40 PM 3:05 PM 2:40 PM 3:05 PM

3:30 PM 3:55 PM 3:30 PM 3:55 PM

4:10 PM 4:35 PM 4:10 PM 4:35 PM

4:50 PM 5:15 PM 4:50 PM 5:15 PM

5:30 PM 5:55 PM 5:30 PM 5:55 PM
APPENDIX F 3

PRIMARY MODEL INPUTS, 50' MONOHULL

Vessel Related Inputs

Vessel Name Expeditions II

Number of vessels required 1

Total number of vessel one-way trips annually 3,536

Passenger capacity 64

Vessel length in feet 50.2

Vessel Hull Material Type Aluminum

Vessel age in years 8

Vessel Ownership Cost Inputs

New ALUMINUM HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $3,950

New STEEL HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $3,000

New WOOD HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $2,300

Annual Straight-Line Depreciation (% of New Vessel Price) to Estimate Used Vessel Price (Y 2.3%

Value of Used Vessel that is 38 years old or older (as a % of New Vessel Price) 15.0%

Estimated NEW VESSEL PURCHASE PRICE, per vessel (Year 2000 US$) $610,000

Estimated Current DEPRECIATED Value of the Vessel (Year 2000 US$) $497,760

Percent Vessel Debt Repayment Allocated to this route 60.0%

Vessel owner equity / down payment as a percent of purchase price 20.0%

Interest rate 10.00%

Loan period / anticipated useful vessel life (years) 15

Amortization schedule (equal payment or equal principal) equal payment

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Annual Maintenance Cost per vessel (at a nominal 3,000 operating hours annually) as a % o 2.50%

Portion of Annual Maintenance Cost that is "fixed" 60.00%

Portion of Annual Maintenance Cost that varies with respect to total annual operating hours 40.00%

Nominal Annual Vessel Operating Hours 1,000

Additional maintenance expense for used vessels for each year of age (as a % of new vess 2.00%

Annual NEW Vessel Maintenance Expense (for the observed number of operating hours pe $18,137

Annual ACTUAL Vessel Maintenance Expense $21,039

Fuel Consumption Rates by Operating Mode (gallons per hour at indicated speed)

GPH at service speed 49

GPH at Low Speed #4 23

GPH at Low Speed #3 16

GPH at Low Speed #2 14

GPH at Low Speed #1 12

GPH at idle 11

Lubricant Consumption in gallons as a percent of fuel consumption in gallons 0.4%

Vessel Operating Hours (Total and by Mode of Operation)

Vessel Service Speed (knots) 22

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Idle, as a percent of total operating hours 15.0%

Total Annual Vessel Operating Hours 1,473

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Service Speed 1,120

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #4 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #3 354

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #2 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #1 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Idle 221
APPENDIX F 4

PRIMARY MODEL INPUTS, 50’ MONOHULL (CONT’D.) 

Patronage Related Inputs

Total number of annual one-way passenger seats available 226,304

Total number of annual passenger boardings (equilibrium years 3 through 25) 47,320

 Percent total passenger boardings at full adult fare 86.8%

 Percent total passener boardings at discount fare (child, senior) 13.2%

Year 1 ridership as a percent of equilibrium year 3 ridership 100.0%

Year 2 ridership as a percent of equilibrium year 3 ridership 100.0%

Passenger capacity utilization rate 20.91%

Percent of passengers participating in onboard gaming 0.0%

Passenger Facilities Charges per passenger boarding at Terminal #1 $0.10

Passenger Facilities Charges per passenger boarding at Terminal #2 $0.10

Docking Fee per Foot of vessel length at Terminal #1 $0.00

Docking Fee per Foot of vessel length at Terminal #2 $0.00

Unit Economic Values

Diesel fuel price per gallon $1.41

Lubricant price per gallon $8.00

Adult ONE-WAY passenger fare (including pfc's, but not departure taxes) $0.00

Discount (child, senior) ONE-WAY fare as a percent of full adult one-way fare 60.0%

Discount (child, senior) one-way passenger fare (including pfc's, but not departure taxes) $0.00

Total Crew Complement by Function and Job Classification

Captains 1

Senior Deck Hands 0

Deck Hands 1

Engine Crew 0

Onboard Passenger Service Crew 0

Total Crew Complement 2

Crew Hourly Compensation by Function and Job Classification (fully burdened rates)

Non-block time crew hours, as a percent of total vessel operating hours (e.g., vessel turnaro 25.0%

Captain hourly pay rate $37.50

Senior Deck Hand hourly pay rate $10.00

Deck Hand hourly pay rate $6.00

Engine Crew hourly pay rate $31.73

Passenger Service Crew hourly pay rate $14.44

Cost Model Coefficients

"Marine Hull Insurance" annual cost as a percent of vessel current vessel value 2.0%

"Marketing & Advertising" expense as a percent of total revenues 2.0%

"Reservations & Sales" as a percent of passenger & vehicle fare revenues 1.5%

"P&I Insurance" cost per passenger $0.35

Onboard food and beverage revenue per passenger $0.00

Onboard food and beverage cost of sales, as a percent of food & beverage revenues 65.0%

Gift shop revenue per passenger $0.00

Gift shop cost of sales, as a percent of gift shop revenues 45.0%

Onboard Gaming revenue per participating passenger $0.00

Percent of total passengers participating in onboard gaming 0.0%

Onboard Gaming cost of sales, as a percent of Onboard Gaming revenues 50.0%

Onetime Start-Up Costs for new operations, as a percent of Year 3 total fare and ancillary s 0.0%

Interest rate at which onetime start-up expenses are amortized at 10.0%

Loan period (years) over which the onetime start-up expenses are amortized 5

Fixed annual amount for "General Administration" expense $5,000

"General Administration" cost per passenger boarding $0.50

Intercept term for the linear model estimating the per passenger "Outside Profession Service 0

"Outside Professional Services" expense per passenger boarding $0.00
APPENDIX F 5

PRIMARY MODEL INPUTS, 78' CATAMARAN

Vessel Related Inputs

Vessel Name Evercrest

Number of vessels required 1

Total number of vessel one-way trips annually 3,640

Passenger capacity 100

Vessel length in feet 78.7

Vessel Hull Material Type Aluminum

Vessel age in years 2

Vessel Ownership Cost Inputs

New ALUMINUM HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $3,950

New STEEL HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $3,000

New WOOD HULL Vessel Purchase Price PER PASSENGER SEAT (Year 2000 US$) $2,300

Annual Straight-Line Depreciation (% of New Vessel Price) to Estimate Used Vessel Price (Y 2.3%

Value of Used Vessel that is 38 years old or older (as a % of New Vessel Price) 15.0%

Estimated NEW VESSEL PURCHASE PRICE, per vessel (Year 2000 US$) $1,200,000

Estimated Current DEPRECIATED Value of the Vessel (Year 2000 US$) $1,144,800

Percent Vessel Debt Repayment Allocated to this route 60.0%

Vessel owner equity / down payment as a percent of purchase price 20.0%

Interest rate 10.00%

Loan period / anticipated useful vessel life (years) 15

Amortization schedule (equal payment or equal principal) equal payment

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Annual Maintenance Cost per vessel (at a nominal 3,000 operating hours annually) as a % o 3.50%

Portion of Annual Maintenance Cost that is "fixed" 60.00%

Portion of Annual Maintenance Cost that varies with respect to total annual operating hours 40.00%

Nominal Annual Vessel Operating Hours 1,000

Additional maintenance expense for used vessels for each year of age (as a % of new vess 2.00%

Annual NEW Vessel Maintenance Expense (for the observed number of operating hours pe $50,680

Annual ACTUAL Vessel Maintenance Expense $52,707

Fuel Consumption Rates by Operating Mode (gallons per hour at indicated speed)

GPH at service speed 80

GPH at Low Speed #4 22

GPH at Low Speed #3 22

GPH at Low Speed #2 20

GPH at Low Speed #1 18

GPH at idle 18

Lubricant Consumption in gallons as a percent of fuel consumption in gallons 0.4%

Vessel Operating Hours (Total and by Mode of Operation)

Vessel Service Speed (knots) 27

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Idle, as a percent of total operating hours 15.0%

Total Annual Vessel Operating Hours 1,517

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Service Speed 1,153

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #4 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #3 364

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #2 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Low Speed #1 0

Annual Vessel Operating Hours at Idle 228
APPENDIX F 6

PRIMARY MODEL INPUTS, 78’ CATAMARAN (CONT’D.) 

Patronage Related Inputs

Total number of annual one-way passenger seats available 364,000

Total number of annual passenger boardings (equilibrium years 3 through 25) 51,324

 Percent total passenger boardings at full adult fare 86.8%

 Percent total passener boardings at discount fare (child, senior) 13.2%

Year 1 ridership as a percent of equilibrium year 3 ridership 100.0%

Year 2 ridership as a percent of equilibrium year 3 ridership 100.0%

Passenger capacity utilization rate 14.10%

Percent of passengers participating in onboard gaming 0.0%

Passenger Facilities Charges per passenger boarding at Terminal #1 $0.10

Passenger Facilities Charges per passenger boarding at Terminal #2 $0.10

Docking Fee per Foot of vessel length at Terminal #1 $0.00

Docking Fee per Foot of vessel length at Terminal #2 $0.00

Unit Economic Values

Diesel fuel price per gallon $1.41

Lubricant price per gallon $8.00

Adult ONE-WAY passenger fare (including pfc's, but not departure taxes) $10.00

Discount (child, senior) ONE-WAY fare as a percent of full adult one-way fare 60.0%

Discount (child, senior) one-way passenger fare (including pfc's, but not departure taxes) $6.00

Total Crew Complement by Function and Job Classification

Captains 1

Senior Deck Hands 0

Deck Hands 1

Engine Crew 0

Onboard Passenger Service Crew 0

Total Crew Complement 2

Crew Hourly Compensation by Function and Job Classification (fully burdened rates)

Non-block time crew hours, as a percent of total vessel operating hours (e.g., vessel turnaro 25.0%

Captain hourly pay rate $37.50

Senior Deck Hand hourly pay rate $10.00

Deck Hand hourly pay rate $6.00

Engine Crew hourly pay rate $31.73

Passenger Service Crew hourly pay rate $14.44

Cost Model Coefficients

"Marine Hull Insurance" annual cost as a percent of vessel current vessel value 2.0%

"Marketing & Advertising" expense as a percent of total revenues 2.0%

"Reservations & Sales" as a percent of passenger & vehicle fare revenues 1.5%

"P&I Insurance" cost per passenger $0.35

Onboard food and beverage revenue per passenger $0.00

Onboard food and beverage cost of sales, as a percent of food & beverage revenues 65.0%

Gift shop revenue per passenger $0.00

Gift shop cost of sales, as a percent of gift shop revenues 45.0%

Onboard Gaming revenue per participating passenger $0.00

Percent of total passengers participating in onboard gaming 0.0%

Onboard Gaming cost of sales, as a percent of Onboard Gaming revenues 50.0%

Onetime Start-Up Costs for new operations, as a percent of Year 3 total fare and ancillary s 0.0%

Interest rate at which onetime start-up expenses are amortized at 10.0%

Loan period (years) over which the onetime start-up expenses are amortized 5

Fixed annual amount for "General Administration" expense $5,000

"General Administration" cost per passenger boarding $0.50

Intercept term for the linear model estimating the per passenger "Outside Profession Service 0

"Outside Professional Services" expense per passenger boarding $0.00
APPENDIX F 7

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 37,757 37,757 $ 37,757 $ 37,757 $ 

$ 80,113 80,113 $ 80,113 $ 80,113 $ 

$ 89,885 89,885 $ 89,885 $ 89,885 $ 

$ 21,039 21,039 $ 24,667 $ 24,667 $ 

$ 5,973 5,973 $ 4,758 $ 4,758 $ 

$ 197,010 197,010 $ 199,422 $ 199,422 $ 

$ 9,424 15,491 $ 18,539 $ 11,550 $ 

$ 7,068 11,618 $ 13,904 $ 8,663 $ 

$ 5,486 8,757 $ 10,590 $ 6,750 $ 

$ 19,201 30,649 $ 37,066 $ 23,624 $ 

$ 32,430 48,784 $ 57,952 $ 38,748 $ 

$ 73,609 115,299 $ 138,052 $ 89,335 $ 

$774,548 $471,212 $926,944 $577,524

$424,482 $162,836 $551,713 $251,010

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

General Administration

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

50' Monohull, Seasonal Operation

Vessel Debt Service

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 62,929 62,929 $ 62,929 $ 62,929 $ 

$ 139,019 139,019 $ 139,019 $ 139,019 $ 

$ 155,977 155,977 $ 155,977 $ 155,977 $ 

$ 28,705 28,705 $ 33,654 $ 33,654 $ 

$ 9,955 9,955 $ 7,930 $ 7,930 $ 

$ 333,656 333,656 $ 336,580 $ 336,580 $ 

$ 10,178 16,564 $ 19,626 $ 12,477 $ 

$ 7,633 12,423 $ 14,720 $ 9,358 $ 

$ 6,231 9,692 $ 11,577 $ 7,669 $ 

$ 21,809 33,923 $ 40,518 $ 26,842 $ 

$ 36,156 53,462 $ 62,884 $ 43,345 $ 

$ 82,007 126,064 $ 149,325 $ 99,691 $ 

$828,207 $508,895 $981,315 $623,860

$305,559 $30,304 $432,482 $124,661

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

Vessel Maintenance Costs

General Administration

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

50' Monohull, Year Round Operation

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Vessel Debt Service

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance
APPENDIX F 8

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 75,515 75,515 $ 75,515 $ 75,515 $ 

$ 134,306 134,306 $ 134,306 $ 134,306 $ 

$ 150,689 150,689 $ 150,689 $ 150,689 $ 

$ 38,706 38,706 $ 45,379 $ 45,379 $ 

$ 11,946 11,946 $ 9,516 $ 9,516 $ 

$ 335,647 335,647 $ 339,891 $ 339,891 $ 

$ 11,288 18,468 $ 21,952 $ 13,768 $ 

$ 8,466 13,851 $ 16,464 $ 10,326 $ 

$ 6,540 10,416 $ 12,449 $ 8,008 $ 

$ 22,890 36,455 $ 43,571 $ 28,028 $ 

$ 37,700 57,078 $ 67,244 $ 45,040 $ 

$ 86,884 136,266 $ 161,679 $ 105,170 $ 

$923,376 $564,396 $1,097,588 $688,400

$375,948 $66,350 $520,503 $167,824

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

Vessel Maintenance Costs

General Administration

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

(2) X 50' Monohull, Seasonal Operation

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Vessel Debt Service

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 125,858 125,858 $ 125,858 $ 125,858 $ 

$ 230,913 230,913 $ 230,913 $ 230,913 $ 

$ 259,080 259,080 $ 259,080 $ 259,080 $ 

$ 51,277 51,277 $ 60,118 $ 60,118 $ 

$ 19,910 19,910 $ 15,861 $ 15,861 $ 

$ 561,180 561,180 $ 565,971 $ 565,971 $ 

$ 12,178 19,738 $ 23,509 $ 14,853 $ 

$ 9,133 14,803 $ 17,632 $ 11,140 $ 

$ 7,410 11,514 $ 13,837 $ 9,070 $ 

$ 25,936 40,299 $ 48,430 $ 31,744 $ 

$ 42,052 62,570 $ 74,186 $ 50,349 $ 

$ 96,709 148,924 $ 177,593 $ 117,156 $ 

$986,878 $608,891 $1,175,449 $742,660

$150,916 -$174,856 $306,027 -$66,325

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

General Administration

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

(2) 50' Monohulls, Year Round Operation

Vessel Debt Service
APPENDIX F 9

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 74,277 74,277 $ 74,277 $ 74,277 $ 

$ 82,469 82,469 $ 82,469 $ 82,469 $ 

$ 150,489 150,489 $ 150,489 $ 150,489 $ 

$ 52,707 52,707 $ 62,843 $ 62,843 $ 

$ 13,738 13,738 $ 10,943 $ 10,943 $ 

$ 299,402 299,402 $ 306,744 $ 306,744 $ 

$ 10,798 17,878 $ 21,124 $ 13,269 $ 

$ 8,099 13,408 $ 15,843 $ 9,952 $ 

$ 6,282 10,140 $ 12,012 $ 7,727 $ 

$ 21,986 35,490 $ 42,042 $ 27,045 $ 

$ 36,408 55,700 $ 65,060 $ 43,636 $ 

$ 83,572 132,616 $ 156,080 $ 101,630 $ 

$893,880 $539,900 $1,056,180 $663,460

$387,585 $82,649 $519,079 $180,810

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

Vessel Maintenance Costs

General Administration

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

78' Catamaran, Seasonal Operation

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Vessel Debt Service

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

2005 High 2005 Low 2015 High 2015 Low

$ 123,795 123,795 $ 123,795 $ 123,795 $ 

$ 141,375 141,375 $ 141,375 $ 141,375 $ 

$ 257,981 257,981 $ 257,981 $ 257,981 $ 

$ 71,635 71,635 $ 85,411 $ 85,411 $ 

$ 22,896 22,896 $ 18,239 $ 18,239 $ 

$ 493,887 493,887 $ 503,006 $ 503,006 $ 

$ 11,664 19,126 $ 22,632 $ 14,319 $ 

$ 8,748 14,345 $ 16,974 $ 10,739 $ 

$ 7,139 11,238 $ 13,367 $ 8,757 $ 

$ 24,988 39,333 $ 46,786 $ 30,648 $ 

$ 40,697 61,190 $ 71,837 $ 48,784 $ 

$ 93,235 145,232 $ 171,596 $ 113,246 $ 

$956,302 $583,199 $1,131,623 $715,927

$193,389 -$127,718 $333,226 -$24,119

Marketing and Advertising

Indirect Operating Costs Subtotal

Revenue- passenger fares

Net Annual Cash Flow Before Taxes

Docking Fees / Passenger Facility Charges / Shore Operations

Reservations & Sales

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

General Administration

Vessel Maintenance Costs

Marine Hull Insurance

Direct Operating Costs Subtotal

Indirect Operating Costs

Direct Operating Costs

Salaries, Wages and Benefits

Vessel Fuel and Lubricants

78' Catamaran, Year Round Operation

Vessel Debt Service
APPENDIX F 

Commuter Off-Season Daily Seasonal Daily -0.30 -0.40 0.04 

Sources of Trips Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership IVTT Freq Elast-Rid Elast-IVTT Elast-Freq Elast-Rid Induced 

Bar Harbor Bound Trips

2005-Low-m1 2,340 18 3,120 24 25 40 26 0.99 0.91 23.59 0

2005-Low-c1 2,730 21 3,640 28 21 32 26 1.05 1.00 27.17 0

2005-Low-m2 2,730 21 3,640 28 27 24 26 0.97 1.12 28.27 0

2005-Low-Avg 20 26 24 32 2005-High-m1 2,340 18 3,120 24 25 40 26 0.99 0.91 23.59 0

2005-High-c1 2,730 21 3,640 28 21 32 26 1.05 1.00 27.17 0

2005-High-m2 2,730 21 3,640 28 27 24 26 0.97 1.12 28.27 0

2005-High-Avg 20 26 24 32 2015-Low-m1 2,828 22 3,770 29 25 40 30 0.99 0.91 27.22 0

2015-Low-c1 3,120 24 4,160 32 21 32 30 1.05 1.00 31.35 0

2015-Low-m2 3,218 25 4,290 33 27 24 30 0.97 1.12 32.62 0

2015-Low-Avg 23 30 24 32 2015-High-m1 3,120 24 4,160 32 25 40 34 0.99 0.91 30.84 32

2015-High-c1 3,608 28 4,810 37 21 32 34 1.05 1.00 35.53 37

2015-High-m2 3,705 29 4,940 38 27 24 34 0.97 1.12 36.97 38

2015-High-Avg 26 34 24 32 

Schoodic Bound Trips

2005-Low-m1 202 2 650 5 25 40 5 0.99 0.91 4.54 0

2005-Low-c1 202 2 650 5 21 32 5 1.05 1.00 5.23 0

2005-Low-m2 202 2 650 5 27 24 5 0.97 1.00 4.87 0

2005-Low-Avg 2 5 24 32 2005-High-m1 363 3 1,170 9 25 40 10 0.99 0.91 9.07 0

2005-High-c1 484 4 1,560 12 21 32 10 1.05 1.00 10.45 0

2005-High-m2 403 3 1,300 10 27 24 10 0.97 1.00 9.73 0

2005-High-Avg 3 10 24 32 2015-Low-m1 322 2 1,040 8 25 40 9 0.99 0.91 8.16 0

2015-Low-c1 363 3 1,170 9 21 32 9 1.05 1.00 9.41 0

2015-Low-m2 363 3 1,170 9 27 24 9 0.97 1.00 8.76 0

2015-Low-Avg 3 9 24 32 2015-High-m1 403 3 1,300 10 25 40 11 0.99 0.91 9.98 10

2015-High-c1 484 4 1,560 12 21 32 11 1.05 1.00 11.50 12

2015-High-m2 443 3 1,430 11 27 24 11 0.97 1.00 10.71 11

2015-High-Avg 3 11 24 32 

m1 = one mono hull m2 = two mono hulls Low = Concept 1 of the Base Reusec1 = one catamaran High = Concept 3 of the Base Reuse

COMMUTERS: Mode Split Demand Calculations by Ferry Service Automobile
APPENDIX F 

Recreational Off-Season Daily Seasonal Daily -0.30 -0.40 0.04 Sources of Trips Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership IVTT Freq Elast-Rid Elast-IVTT Elast-Freq Elast-Rid Induced Schoodic Bound Trips

2005-Low-m1 1,001 8 20,020 110 25 40 121 0.99 0.91 109.77 0.002005-Low-c1 1,147 9 22,932 126 21 32 121 1.05 1.00 126.46 0.002005-Low-m2 1,201 9 24,024 132 27 24 121 0.97 1.12 131.58 0.002005-Low-Avg 8 121 24 32 

2005-High-m1 1,556 12 31,122 171 25 40 188 0.99 0.91 170.55 0.002005-High-c1 1,793 14 35,854 197 21 32 188 1.05 1.00 196.49 0.002005-High-m2 1,856 14 37,128 204 27 24 188 0.97 1.12 204.44 0.002005-High-Avg 13 188 24 32 2015-Low-m1 1,192 9 23,842 131 25 40 144 0.99 0.91 130.63 0.002015-Low-c1 1,374 11 27,482 151 21 32 144 1.05 1.00 150.50 0.002015-Low-m2 1,429 11 28,574 157 27 24 144 0.97 1.12 156.59 0.002015-Low-Avg 10 144 24 32 2015-High-m1 1,756 14 35,126 193 25 40 213 0.99 0.91 193.23 2012015-High-c1 2,020 16 40,404 222 21 32 213 1.05 1.00 222.62 2322015-High-m2 2,102 16 42,042 231 27 24 213 0.97 1.12 231.63 2412015-High-Avg 15 213 24 32 

Bar Harbor Bound Trips

2005-Low-m1 182 1 3,640 20 25 40 22 0.99 0.91 19.96 0.002005-Low-c1 209 2 4,186 23 21 32 22 1.05 1.00 22.99 0.002005-Low-m2 218 2 4,368 24 27 24 22 0.97 1.12 23.92 0.002005-Low-Avg 2 22 24 32 

2005-High-m1 419 3 8,372 46 25 40 51 0.99 0.91 46.27 0.002005-High-c1 482 4 9,646 53 21 32 51 1.05 1.00 53.30 0.002005-High-m2 501 4 10,010 55 27 24 51 0.97 1.12 55.46 0.002005-High-Avg 4 51 24 32 2015-Low-m1 255 2 5,096 28 25 40 31 0.99 0.91 28.12 0.002015-Low-c1 291 2 5,824 32 21 32 31 1.05 1.00 32.40 0.002015-Low-m2 300 2 6,006 33 27 24 31 0.97 1.12 33.71 0.002015-Low-Avg 2 31 24 32 2015-High-m1 573 4 11,466 63 25 40 67 0.99 0.91 60.78 632015-High-c1 664 5 13,286 73 21 32 67 1.05 1.00 70.02 732015-High-m2 692 5 13,832 76 27 24 67 0.97 1.12 72.86 762015-High-Avg 5 67 24 32 m1 = one mono hull m2 = two mono hulls Low = Concept 1 of the Base Reusec1 = one catamaran High = Concept 3 of the Base Reuse

RECREATIONAL: Mode Split Demand Calculations by Ferry Service & Automobile
APPENDIX F 

Number of Round Tripsby the Round Trip Cost $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $ Year 2005

Low-Concept 1 6,312 3,230 21,613 31,155 7,222 3,702 24,772 35,696 7,222 3,8

 

 Commuter Trips 6,312 - - 6,312 7,222 - - 7,222 7,222 -  Recreational Trips - 3,230 21,613 24,843 - 3,702 24,772 28,474 - 3,8

 

High-Concept 3 6,993 5,391 36,078 48,462 8,414 6,211 41,564 56,189 8,073 6,4

 

 Commuter Trips 6,993 - - 6,993 8,414 - - 8,414 8,073 -  Recreational Trips - 5,391 36,078 41,469 - 6,211 41,564 47,775 - 6,4

 

 Year 2015

Low-Concept 1 7,960 3,950 26,435 38,345 8,813 4,546 30,425 43,784 9,041 4,7

 

 Commuter Trips 7,960 - - 7,960 8,813 - - 8,813 9,041 -  Recreational Trips - 3,950 26,435 30,385 - 4,546 30,425 34,971 - 4,7

 

High-Concept 3 8,983 6,360 42,561 57,904 10,462 7,329 49,045 66,836 10,518 7,6

 

 Commuter Trips 8,983 - - 8,983 10,462 - - 10,462 10,518 -  Recreational Trips - 6,360 42,561 48,921 - 7,329 49,045 56,374 - 7,6

 

Yearly is based on 52 weeks from January through DecemberCommuter trips are based on a 5 day work week.Commuters are charged $6 for a round trip fare based on regular use of serviceRecreational users under 10yrs are charged $12 for a roundtrip fare.Recreational users over 10 yrs are charged $20 for a roundtrip fare.

Acadia National Park Reuse of the Naval Security Group Activity Center on Schoodic 

Average Yearly Demand for Ferry Service Between Bar Harbor & Winter Harbor

1 Monohull 1 Catamaran 2 M
APPENDIX F 

Number of Round Tripsby the Round Trip Cost $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $12 $20 Total $6  Year 2005

Low-Concept 1 154 2,542 1,029 3,725 2,932 176 1,180 4,288 2,932 

 

 Commuter Trips 2,542 - - 2,542 2,932 - - 2,932 2,932 

 

 Recreational Trips - 154 1,029 1,183 - 176 1,180 1,356 - 

 

High-Concept 3 257 2,703 1,718 4,678 3,214 296 1,979 5,489 3,133 

 

 Commuter Trips 2,703 - - 2,703 3,214 - - 3,214 3,133 

 

 Recreational Trips - 257 1,718 1,975 - 296 1,979 2,275 - 

 

 Year 2015

Low-Concept 1 188 3,150 1,259 4,597 3,483 216 1,449 5,148 3,581 

 

 Commuter Trips 3,150 - - 3,150 3,483 - - 3,483 3,581 

 

 Recreational Trips - 188 1,259 1,447 - 216 1,449 1,665 - 

 

High-Concept 3 303 3,523 2,026 5,852 4,092 349 2,335 6,776 4,148 

 

 Commuter Trips 3,523 - - 3,523 4,092 - - 4,092 4,148 

 

 Recreational Trips - 303 2,026 2,329 - 349 2,335 2,684 - 

 

Off-Season is based on 26 weeks from November through AprilCommuter trips are based on a 5 day work week.Commuters are charged $6 for a round trip fare based on regular use of serviceRecreational users under 10yrs are charged $12 for a roundtrip fare.Recreational users over 10 yrs are charged $20 for a roundtrip fare.

Acadia National Park Reuse of the Naval Security Group Activity Center on Sc

Average Off-Season Demand for Ferry Service Between Bar Harbor & Win

1 Monohull 1 Catamaran 2 
APPENDIX F 

Number of Round Tripsby the Round Trip Cost $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $12 $20 Total $6 $12  Year 2005

Low-Concept 1 3,770 3,076 20,584 27,430 4,290 3,525 23,593 31,408 4,290 3,693 

 Commuter Trips 3,770 - - 3,770 4,290 - - 4,290 4,290 - 

 Recreational Trips - 3,076 20,584 23,660 - 3,525 23,593 27,118 - 3,693 

High-Concept 3 4,290 5,134 34,360 43,784 5,200 5,915 39,585 50,700 4,940 6,128 

 Commuter Trips 4,290 - - 4,290 5,200 - - 5,200 4,940 - 

 Recreational Trips - 5,134 34,360 39,494 - 5,915 39,585 45,500 - 6,128 

 Year 2015

Low-Concept 1 4,810 3,762 25,176 33,748 5,330 4,330 28,976 38,636 5,460 4,495 

 Commuter Trips 4,810 - - 4,810 5,330 - - 5,330 5,460 - 

 Recreational Trips - 3,762 25,176 28,938 - 4,330 28,976 33,306 - 4,495 

High-Concept 3 5,460 6,057 40,535 52,052 6,370 6,980 46,710 60,060 6,370 7,264 

 Commuter Trips 5,460 - - 5,460 6,370 - - 6,370 6,370 - 

Recreational Trips - 6,057 40,535 - 46,592 6,980 46,710 - 53,690 7,264 

Season is based on 26 weeks from May through October.Commuter trips are based on a 5 day work week.Commuters are charged $6 for a round trip fare based on regular use of serviceRecreational users under 10yrs are charged $12 for a roundtrip fare.Recreational users over 10 yrs are charged $20 for a roundtrip fare.

1 Monohull 1 Catamaran 2 Mon

Acadia National Park Reuse of the Naval Security Group Activity Center on Schoodic He

Average Seasonal Demand for Ferry Service Between Bar Harbor & Winter Harbor
Volpe Center DRAFT Guide to NPS Document Design Standards, November 17, 2004 1

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has the responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; 

protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our parks and 

historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy

and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-303 / July 2005