1

450 Pax High Speed Ferry Case Study (Public Entity)

June 25, 2013

Introduction

The vessel was constructed in 2001 and is a catamaran style high speed passenger-only ferry 

which is certified to carry a maximum of 450 passengers and operated by a government 

entity. The ferry has three passenger decks and an operational speed of 36 knots. Although 

the upper deck (second deck) is the only entry deck and under the proposed guidelines, no 

onboard accessible route is required between decks (V206.2.1 Exception 4), to evaluate 

vessel impacts based on passengers needing to travel between two decks to embark and 

disembark the vessel, the study classified the main deck as an entry deck1 which is not used 

at every stops. 

 Main Deck - The main deck is approximately 141 feet long (which includes water jets 

and guards) and 34 feet wide (around 4,300 square feet). Four exterior sliding gates 

operated by crew are used for passenger access to four life raft embarkation slides and the 

two rear ones are classified for purposes of this study as passenger entry and departure 

points. Four exterior hinged doors connect the sliding gates with the interior areas of the 

deck. The forward doors (one on the port and starboard side) are not used by passengers, 

except in emergencies. The after two doors are double leaf doors (with only one operable 

leaf) and are used by passengers to access the two open stairs which connect the upper 

deck. Except for the area near the four sliding gates and the area at the bow, the deck is 

enclosed. Within the enclosed part of the deck, near the stern, a cluster of three 

individual user toilet rooms are provided, one of which is designated as accessible. 

Forward of the toilet rooms, a bar is provided. In the middle of the deck, a double-leaf 

hinged door leads to an interior stair which connects the upper deck. Around this stair, 

168 fixed seats at tables are provided for passenger use. Forward of the stair, near the 

bow, 71 fixed seats not at tables are provided. 

 

1

In the 2008 draft guidelines, this vessel would need vertical access (e.g., platform lift) between the main deck 

and upper deck because none of the exceptions in V206.2.1 applied. In the proposed guidelines, a new 

exception (V206.2.1 Exception 4) would not require vertical access. However, for purposes of documenting 

impacts, the vessel characteristics were modified to still require vertical access between the main and upper 

decks.
2

Figure 1. Main Deck – Original Design

 Upper Deck - The upper deck (second deck) is approximately 88 feet long and 32 feet 

wide (around 2,800 square feet2). Four boarding areas are provided on this deck. The 

after part of the deck is open to the weather and contains 30 fixed seats, a bike storage 

area, and (on each side of the vessel) a boarding area with crew operated sliding gates. 

From this open area, two open stairs connect the main deck, one open stair connects the 

sun deck, and two exterior doors (one on each side of the vessel) allow entry into the 

enclosed part of the upper deck. In the after part of the enclosed area, three toilet rooms 

are provided. One toilet room is for individual use and is designated as accessible. The 

two other toilet rooms are multi-use, one for men and one for women, and are not 

accessible. Near the middle of the enclosed area, an internal stair connects the main 

deck. On three sides of this stair, 81 fixed seats and two wheelchair spaces at tables are 

provided for passengers. Forward of this stair, the deck has 52 fixed seats without tables. 

A bar is located on the starboard side of the interior stair. On each side of the vessel, near 

the middle of the deck, a boarding area with a double-leaf crew-operated hinged door is 

provided. The forward part of the deck footprint contains the roof of the main deck under 

which is crawl space not designed for human occupancy.

Figure 2. Upper Deck – Original Design

 Sun Deck - The sun deck (third deck) is approximately 50 feet in length and 31 feet wide 

(around 1,500 square feet3) and is uncovered at the rear where an open stair connects the 

upper deck. On each side of the stair, 4 fixed seats are provided. Forward of the stair, a 

canopy is provided, under which 40 fixed passenger seats are located. A bike storage 

area is also located in this area. Forward of the bike storage area, the wheelhouse is 

situated and is only open to crew, although in emergencies passengers are allowed to 

 

2 The crawl space under the main deck roof area that is not designed for human occupancy is not included in the 

square footage calculations.

3 The crawl space under the upper (second) deck roof area that is not designed for human occupancy is not 

included in the square footage calculations.
3

travel through the open areas on the sides of the wheelhouse to use the forward means of 

escape from this deck which is a ladder to the lower decks. The forward part of the deck 

footprint contains the roof of the upper deck under which is crawl space not designed for 

human occupancy.

Figure 3. Sun Deck – Original Design

Methodology

A representative of the Access Board reviewed the original designs of the vessel with a 

representative4of the ferry to identify passenger features that would not meet the 2006 draft 

passenger vessel accessibility guidelines5. The ferry representative proposed new designs for 

the passenger features that would meet the draft guidelines and estimated how much the 

designs would add to the new vessel’s construction cost if built in 2008, and noted other 

impacts. It was recognized early in the study that some changes in the new designs created 

ripple effects that would have led a designer to completely reconfigure the layout of the new 

vessel. As the case study does not have the funding to explore the impact in such detail, the 

study uses the current layout to estimate impacts. 

The Access Board has updated the study to represent the requirements in the proposed 

passenger vessel accessibility guidelines. The 2008 costs recorded in the 2008 draft of the 

study (available on the Board’s website) that applied to the guidelines were multiplied by

1.08596to produce 2011 values which have been rounded. The updates have not been 

reviewed by the ferry representative.

 

4 Although the report notes decisions made by the ferry representative, it should be noted that the Access Board 

hired a consultant (acceptable to the ferry representative) to provide most impact information (including cost 

estimates) which was used by the ferry representative in the case study decision making process. Most 

cost/weight estimates include an added 20% contingency which the consultant noted would represent the typical 

cost and weight outcome.

5

2006 draft guidelines, as amended by Board action at the 2007 and April 2008 meetings.

6

1.085857424
4

Update Note: The case study represents the results of the proposed guidelines 

applied to a newly constructed vessel based on the design of an existing vessel. The 

proposed guidelines have no provisions which address non-pool stairs, except the 

protruding object requirements for passenger circulation paths (see V204). However, 

issue summaries below containing costs (in 2011 dollars) and other impacts of the 

stair access provisions (and their minor ripple effects into other issues) discussed in 

the 2008 draft of the study have not been adjusted for this updated study. 

Option 1 (Same Footprint) - The ferry representative estimated that it would cost about 

$10,432,5007in 2008 dollars to construct the vessel based on its 2001 design, updated to 

about $11.65 million in 2011 dollars. With the new vessel having the same footprint as the 

original vessel, the ferry representative estimated that the new designs would add about 

$136,300 to the vessel’s (updated) construction price, approximately a 1.2 percent increase. 

To comply with the proposed guidelines between 42 to 59 seats would need removal, thereby 

reducing the 450 carrying capacity to that of 408 to 391 passengers8. The new designs also 

reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, required a vessel-wide assistive 

listening system, and provided a vertical platform lift to connect the main and upper (second) 

decks. Since a reduction in seating is not acceptable to the ferry representative, the case 

study looked at the impacts incurred by lengthening the vessel and returning it to a 450 

seating capacity.

Option 2 (Longer Footprint) - Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are 

at 100 percent capacity (and passengers are left at the pier), the ferry representative indicated 

a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service and a larger ferry was needed to 

return the seating capacity back to 450. The longer footprint option is estimated to increase 

the cost to construct the new vessel by $487,800, or approximately a 4.2 percent increase. 

Cost increases include:

 Adding four feet to vessel length for $217,200 and 3.3 tons (2240 lbs./long ton).

 Reconfiguration of main and upper deck seating layouts for $8,200.

 Adding larger engines to regain a minimum 35.5 knot speed for $127,200.

 Adding features from “same footprint option” for $135,2009.

The increase in vessel weight is estimated to increase the fuel consumption by about 10 

percent which increases the 547,000 annual gallons used by 55,000 gallons. At $3.89 per 

gallon, this increases annual operating costs by $214,000.

Below, the actions taken on features in the original vessel designs to create new designs 

meeting the draft guidelines for a new vessel are discussed below, as updated to reflect the 

requirements of the proposed guidelines. The case study sought to identify actions that (a) 

 

7 The vessel was estimated to cost $9,750,000 to construct in (fall) 2006. With an estimated one year shipyard 

inflation rate of 5%-6%, (using 7 percent as more than a year has past) gives an early 2008 cost of $10,432,500.

8 Although each passenger is not required to have a seat, for customer service reasons, the ferry representative 

believes (in general) one seat is needed for each passenger, recognizing 48 would be exterior and not used in

bad weather. Therefore, the case study assumes that for each seat lost, one passenger is lost. Seating capacity 

per USCG requirements was not evaluated, as a lengthening was needed anyway.

9

$1,100 was removed, as wheelchair space and seating reconfiguration cost in “same footprint option” is 

included in $8,200 for reconfiguring the main and upper deck seating areas.
5

have significant impacts, (b) incurred additional costs but did not have significant impacts, or 

(c) have other outcomes which should be noted. 

An action is identified as having a significant impact where the redesign of the feature would 

add more than 0.5 percent to vessel’s construction costs; would substantially reduce the 

vessel’s usable space or necessitate an increase in the vessel’s size; or would present major 

operational issues. An action is identified as incurring an additional cost but not having a 

significant impact where a specific cost can be attributed to the redesign of a feature but it 

does not meet the criteria for a significant impact. Costs include materials, installation labor 

and engineering work. Where the impact is the same in both the “same footprint option” and 

“longer footprint option”, no mention of these options is made in the discussion material. 

Designs That Have Significant Cost Impacts

1. Vertical Access Between Main and Upper (Second) Decks10

The ferry has three passenger decks connected by stairs with only the upper (second) deck 

being an entry deck in the original vessel. Because the sun (third) deck has no enclosed 

passenger spaces and an uncovered passenger area is provided on the upper (second) deck, 

no vertical access is required to the sun deck. V206.2.1 Exception 5. With the main deck 

being classified11 as an entry deck for purposes of this case study, the proposed guidelines 

require a means of vertical access to connect the two entry decks, the main and upper decks. 

V206.2.1. 

As the upper deck is less than 

3,000 square feet, the proposed 

guidelines allow a platform lift to 

be used to connect the main and 

upper decks12. V206.7.1. In 

evaluating the impact of 

providing a two-deck platform 

lift, three lift locations are 

discussed below. 

Location 1 - The platform lift is 

positioned on the upper deck just 

forward of the starboard side 

entry point. On both decks, the 

 

11 In the 2008 draft of the case study (based on the 2008 draft of the guidelines), vertical access was required in 

the new designs between the main and upper decks. However, due to the impacts identified in the 2008 draft of 

the study, a new exception was added to the proposed guidelines (V206.2.1 Exception 4). Due to this 

exception, the new designs based on the original vessel’s operation characteristics are no longer required to 

have the two decks connected by an onboard accessible route. The Board chose to not modify the study results 

but instead modify the operational characteristics of the original vessel to then document how vertical access 

could impact this type of vessel.

12 See notes 2 and 3 .
6

platform lift opens toward the bow with a bulkhead separating it from the seating located 

forward of its position. This location occupies the area of about 12 seats (all at tables), and 

increased the cost to construct the new vessel by $99,900 and added 1.5 tons to the vessel’s 

weight.

Location 2 - The platform lift is 

positioned in the space occupied by 

a single-user toilet room on the 

upper deck of the original vessel

(Fig. 5 shows the toilet rooms in 

the new designs). The lift opens on 

the upper deck toward the bow and 

on the main deck toward the stern. 

Although the stern stair to the sun 

deck projects into this toilet room, 

the room has sufficient vertical 

clearance so the stair probably does 

not need shifting toward the stern 

to allow the platform lift in the 

room. The platform lift increased 

the cost to construct the new vessel

by $99,900, added 1.5 tons to the vessel’s weight, occupied the area of about 9 seats, all at 

tables (18 seats, if the main deck cross aisle needs to be restored), and causes the loss of one 

toilet fixture.

Location 3 - The platform lift is positioned on the portside of the interior stair, in the area of 

the fire station on the upper deck. The lift opens toward the bow. This location occupies the 

area of about 13 seats13 and requires the repositioning of the upper deck fire station and 

drinking fountain which is estimated to cause the loss of 2 additional seats, for a total loss of 

15 seats (13 at tables). In addition, this lift location added $95,600 to the cost to construct 

the new vessel and increased the weight of the vessel by 1.4 tons14. 

The platform lift located on the upper deck also impacts passenger movement at one of the 

two main entry points for the ferry on the port side, which is the side primarily used by the 

ferry. In addition, the lift reduces the port side fore/aft aisle width from about 50 inches to 34 

inches at this location15. This width does not conflict with US Coast Guard (USCG) 

requirements but would need at least 36 inches to provide an accessible route to the platform 

lift16. Reducing the portside entry point by a few inches and/or shifting the internal stair to 

 

13 Two seats (Xed out in the Fig. 6, Upper Deck) are not included in the 13 seats lost due to the platform lift. 

Although not usable because the aisle access way is basically not available, in the reconfiguration of the deck 

seating layout (see issue #4 below), the case study assumes these two seats would be available.

14 As the platform lift shares the A-60 stair fire bulkhead, the cost and weight of the lift is reduced. 

15 The port side entry point enclosure projects out into the port side aisle a few inches. Across from it, a 

bulkhead (wall) supporting the drinking fountain also projects a few inches into the aisle. The distance between 

these two projects is about 50 inches. With the platform lift added, the lift projects out further than the drinking 

fountain bulkhead and reduces the aisle at the entry point to 34 inches. The USCG requires at least 32 inches.

16 As about 90 passengers have seating in the forward half of the upper deck cabin, 45 could use the port side 

aisle as a means of escape to the interior stair, thereby a minimum width of 32 inches would be required by 

USCG. However, a minimum 36 inch clear width onboard accessible route is needed to the platform lift. The 
7

the starboard side are estimated to have an insignificant impact on the new vessel. On the 

main deck, the port side aisle is not reduced because of the lift. 

Summary - Platform Lift - The above three options17 provide a range of outcomes which 

combined provide a general picture of the impact of the proposed guidelines regarding 

vertical access when connection between two decks is required. For purposes of this 

(updated) case study, to provide vertical access, it is estimated this action would increase the 

cost to construct the new vessel by $95,600 to $99,900 (average of $97,800), and increase the 

vessel weight by 1.4 to 1.5 tons. The action would cause the loss of 9 to 18 seats and could 

impact other amenities of the vessel such as aisle widths, toilet rooms, number of seats with 

tables, and food service locations. 

2. Accessible Means of Escape and Protected Waiting Areas

From the top down, toward the stern, one exterior stair connects the sun deck with the upper 

deck, and two exterior stairs connect the upper deck with the main deck. A forward exterior 

ladder connects the sun deck with the main deck and near the center part of the vessel one 

interior stair connects the upper deck with the main deck. The stairs have a tread depth and 

riser height which produces a slope, as allowed by the USCG, which is much steeper than 

most landside exit stair requirements.18. The exterior stairs at the stern are part of one means 

of escape (MOE) required by the USCG and the internal stair and the forward sun deck 

ladder are part of the second MOE required by the USCG which connect all three decks. 

The main deck contains four life raft embarkation stations. 

The proposed guidelines require two accessible means of escape (AMOE) from the upper 

deck to the main deck, but only one19 from the sun deck to the upper deck. V207.1 and 

V207.1 Exception 1. The guidelines permit stairs, elevators, and platform lifts to be 

components of an AMOE. Advisory V207.1. However, the AMOE provisions establish no 

technical requirements for AMOE stairs and no other provisions address non-pool stair 

access, except the protruding object requirements for passenger circulation paths (see V204).

After AMOE – The ferry representative decided to use one of the two stern exterior MOE 

stairs in the new designs as part of the AMOE that connects the upper deck with the main 

 

route could run forward along the starboard side aisle, across the bow cross aisle, and aft along the port side 

aisle. To maintain the clear width of 36 inches, management policies would need to ensure the legs of seated 

passengers did not block the accessible route at the bow cross aisle. Therefore, to avoid management issues, the 

case study widened the aisle between the platform lift structure and the port side entry point. 

17 The case study did evaluate use of a limited-use/limited-application elevator (LULA), a small elevator, 

instead of a platform lift. A LULA requires a small “penthouse” on the top which projected into the sundeck 

and limited the LULA location to aft the pilot house, and increased vessel costs by $152,000 and added 3.0 tons 

to the vessel weight. When positioned along the port side of the interior stair, 9 seats were loss. In addition, the 

LULA reduced the portside fore/aft aisle to a width of 22 inches on the upper deck which would mean the 

interior stair would have to be shifted to the starboard side at least 10 inches (to meet minimum USCG 

requirements) which would impact seating on the starboard side.

18 For example, the stair between the upper and sun deck may be near 39 degrees. Landside exit stair 

requirements can produce slopes of around 32.5 degrees.

19 Where a USCG required means of escape is permitted to use a ladder, the corresponding accessible means of 

escape is not required. As the forward means of escape from the sun deck includes a ladder, only one accessible 

means of escape is required from the sun deck. V207.1 Exception 1.
8

deck. As the stairs are open to the weather, no protected waiting areas20 (PWA) would be 

expected. Advisory V207.1. Therefore, the proposed guidelines have no impact on the area 

around the stern stair and the stair itself. The stern stair connecting the sun deck with the 

upper deck is addressed separately in issue #8 below. 

Forward AMOE - Based on the current layout, to provide a second AMOE between the 

upper deck and the main deck, the ferry representative had the choice in the new designs 

(under the proposed guidelines) of either (a) adding an automatic sprinkler system to protect 

the vessel and use the (unchanged) interior MOE stair, (b) provide the (unchanged) interior 

MOE stair with two PWAs21, or (c) providing the platform lift with two PWAs and 

emergency power. Advisory V207.1. The impacts of these three options are summarized 

below. 

a) Sprinkler System - An automatic sprinkler system would increase the cost to construct the 

new vessel by $249,700 and add 2.3 tons to the new vessel’s weight. This weight by itself is 

estimated to increase annual fuel consumption by 9 percent which equals around 50,000 

gallons (see issue #5 below for more information on fuel consumption). If the vessel is 

protected by an automatic sprinkler system, PWAs would not be expected at the interior stair. 

Advisory V207.1.

b) Internal Stair with Protected Waiting Areas - The interior stair serves the forward part of 

the vessel and has a slope of about 37 degrees. Since this internal (exit) stair has a width of 

about 72 inches, it is assumed it is designed to handle 216 passengers22. Therefore, a PWA 

associated with the stair would be expected to have a size which will at least hold two clear 

deck spaces (each generally, at least 30 by 48 inches) for two passengers who use 

wheelchairs or other mobility aids. A PWA is needed at both ends of the interior stair, as it is 

assumed escape travel occurs in both directions depending on which deck has an emergency. 

Advisory V207.1.

 

20 Per Advisory V207.1, a protected waiting area is an area protected from fire and smoke where persons with 

disabilities can wait at AMOE components that need crew assistance to use, such as stairs and crew operated 

elevators. A protected waiting area should be sized to accommodate at least one clear deck space (see V305) 

for each occupant to be served. Building codes typically require one such space per 200 occupants based on the 

occupant load of all accessible spaces to be served by the protected area. The clear deck spaces should not 

reduce the required width of any means of escape traveling through the area. Where more than two clear deck 

spaces are provided at a single location, each space should be accessible without necessitating travel through 

more than one adjoining clear deck space. Protected areas should be equipped with an audible and visible twoway communication system that connects the bridge of the vessel or other space where emergency actions are 

directed.

21 A means of escape/evacuation plan for the vessel was not available to make the determination as to whether 

the main deck needs a protected waiting area (PWA) at the internal stair, in addition to the one expected on the 

upper deck. It is understood that in many evacuation plans, passengers are first sent to higher decks when 

emergencies occur on lower decks, then if emergencies require evacuation, passengers are directed to 

evacuation points generally on the main deck. If the USCG required means of escape from the main deck does 

not run up to the higher decks on this vessel, but only connects the open areas on the bow and stern, no PWA is 

required on the main deck. If so, the PWA cost and weight increase would be reduced by about one half. The 

case study assumes the evacuation plan would route passengers to higher decks when emergencies occur on the 

main deck and therefore an accessible means of escape would run up the interior stair and a PWA would be 

expected on the main deck. Advisory V207.1.

22 In general, the Coast Guard requires a passenger exit stair to be at least 32 inches wide and have a width of 1 

inch for each 3 passengers using it (72 inches multiplied by 3 equals 216).
9

Since the AMOE is required to have a substantially equivalent level of fire and smoke 

protection as the MOE and because some passengers would wait for assistance in a PWA, the 

case study assumes the administrative authority would require the interior stair to be 

protected (enclosed) with fire doors at both ends. Therefore, the new designs create a 

protected landing at both ends, in which are located the PWAs. 

On the upper deck, magnetically held open fire doors were added to this landing on each 

side. An area to the port side of the stair but within the protected landing was used to hold 

the two clear deck spaces (36 inches by 48 inches)23. The drinking fountain which was in the 

area of the PWA was moved to another part of the vessel and the fire station relocated to the 

port side of the PWA bulkhead. 

On the main deck, the stair landing was increased in size to hold the two clear deck spaces. 

The magnetically held open fire doors on the bottom of the stair were repositioned to the 

sides of the PWA/stair landing space24. 

The PWA (and stair door maneuvering clearances on the main deck) would occupy the space 

of 8 seats25 on the main deck, plus 8 more seats if an after cross aisle is needed for the center 

aisle, with another 4 seats26 on the upper deck being lost. 

 

23 Because the forward most clear deck space (CDS) is confined on 3 sides, the width requirement increases 

from 30 inches to 36 inches and a 36 inch wide accessible route must connect it which means the after CDS is 

36 inches wide. The after CDS can overlap the accessible route. Travel through one CDS to get to another is 

allowed by the guidelines (Advisory V207.1 and V305).

24 The case study recognizes that the stair/protected waiting area configuration shown is only a rough 

conceptualization of the impacts and would most likely require the relocation of the stair and reconfiguration of 

the surrounding seating.

25 In general, 2 seats were lost within the footprint of the main deck protected waiting area, 6 seats were lost due 

to the maneuvering clearances for the repositioned stair fire doors (which are held open during normal 

operations by magnets but would be closed during emergencies). Four other seats Xed off in Figure 7, are 

basically not usable but would be restored in the reconfiguration of the seating layout (see issue #3 below). 
10

This stair/PWAs option would 

increase the cost to construct the 

new vessel by about $30,000, add 

about 0.5 tons to the new vessel’s 

weight27, and cause the loss on both 

decks of 12 to 20 seats28 (10 to 18 

at tables). 

c) Platform Lift with Protected 

Waiting Areas - Since an AMOE 

must provide a substantially

equivalent level of protection from 

hazards as is required by the USCG 

for the MOE (V207.1), the second 

AMOE must be reasonably

separated from the first AMOE. 

Therefore, using the internal stair 

location as a guide for reasonable 

separation, the platform lift 

location (discussed above) in the 

upper deck toilet room is not an 

acceptable location for providing a 

second AMOE. The platform lift 

located at the side of the internal 

stair was further evaluated to 

determine its impact if two 

 

However, if a cross aisle is needed, these 4 seats would be included in the 8 seats loss to provide a narrow cross 

aisle. 

26 In general, 2 seats (on the port side of the stair) were lost within the footprint of the upper deck protected 

waiting area (PWA) and enclosed stair landing and 2 seats were lost for the relocation of the drinking fountain. 

The 2 seats, Xed off in Figure 7, are no longer usable but are restored in the seating layout reconfiguration (see 

issue #4 below). The seat at the top and bottom of the 2 Xed off seats could be turned 90 degrees and would be 

usable. The wheelchair space at the table and ceiling support swapped location for access to the center aisle.

27 On the main deck, 168 linear inches of A-60 bulkhead was added to the stair landing to create the protected 

waiting area (PWA). On the upper deck, 140 inches were added to create the PWA. At 1.88 pounds and $60 

per linear inch -- equals $18,480 and 0.4 tons (includes 135 pounds for two fire doors and 200 pounds for stair 

lengthening). Plus, $3,258 for one damper and fan, $1,085 for two fire doors on the upper deck (the two fire 

doors for the main deck PWA are already provided, just repositioned), and $2,172 for stair lengthening equals a 

cost increase of about $25,000. As in most cost estimates in the case study, the value is multiplied by 20% 

which covers typical contingency costs, giving $30,000 and 0.5 tons. The upper deck PWA assumes 81 inches 

from the fire bulkhead on the portside of the stair was used on the portside of the PWA. Note: The proposed 

guidelines do not require the stair to be lengthened to produce a shallower slope, as noted in the 2008 draft of 

the study. The lengthening impact (and the relatively minor ripple effect into other issues) has not been 

adjusted. When the guidelines are finalized, the case study will be adjusted.

28 In the overhead of the interior stair, a locker contains life jackets for 50 adults and 20 children and a cooler 

for the upper deck bar is provided. In the 2008 draft of the study, the stair slope was reduced to maintain an 80 

inch high head clearance on the stair which may have required the relocation of these storage features to seating 

areas for an estimated loss of 4 more seats. The proposed guidelines do not require the stair to have a reduced 

slope (and thus lengthened), but the minor impacts recorded in the 2008 draft and related ripple effects into 

other issues have not be removed from the study.
11

PWAs was added. On both decks, if the platform lift opened in the direction of the bow, into 

an PWA, and the PWA had two parallel clear deck spaces (each 30 inches wide and 48 

inches long) and an entry door which opened inward, the PWA would have an external 

length of 132 inches and project toward the portside from the stair bulkhead 64 inches. 

Added to this length, the maneuvering clearance on the push side of the PWA entry door 

would occupy another 42 inches. 

The PWA projection from the stair bulkhead reduced the portside aisle width on the upper 

deck to 28 inches which could require the platform lift, PWA, and internal stair to be moved 

toward the starboard side about four inches to restore a Coast Guard required minimum width 

of 32 inches and move another four inches to provide the 36 inch wide onboard accessible 

route to the platform lift. The impact of moving these features was not evaluated, but would 

probably be insignificant in the longer vessel new designs. It was also recognized that 

reducing the depth of the port side entry point may also be an option to provide some of the 

needed aisle width. 

The PWA itself (including the entry door maneuvering clearances and restoring the main 

deck stair cross aisle, but not including the 15 seats impacted by the platform lift) would 

occupy the space of 5 seats on the main deck and 9 seats on the upper deck, for a total of 14 

seats (7 at tables) loss29. In addition to the platform lift cost, the two PWAs would increase 

the cost to construct the new vessel by about $14,100 and add 0.2 tons to the new vessel’s 

weight30. The impact does not address the location of the portside fire door at the bottom of 

the stair which is magnetically held open during normal operations. 

Summary - AMOE, PWAs and Sprinklers - Assuming an automatic sprinkler system would 

not be used, it is estimated that to provide two PWAs and meet other accessible means of 

escape requirements, these actions would increase the cost to construct the new vessel by

$14,100 to $30,000 (average of $22,100)31, add 0.3 to 0.5 tons to the vessel weight, and 

cause the loss of 9 to 20 seats. 

 

29 Combined with the space impacts of the platform lift (15 seats), a total of about 29 seats were lost. The case 

study did evaluated the protected waiting area (PWA) impacts if added to the starboard side platform lift. The 

PWA configuration was similar to the PWA layout at the interior stair platform lift, but the entry door is on the 

side and its maneuvering clearance is in the starboard side aisle. This starboard side setup occupied 8 to 12 

seats and combined with the platform lift’s 12 seat impact, created a total loss of 20 to 24 seats. On the upper 

deck, the starboard aisle width was reduced from 54 inches to 32 inches. To provide a 36 inch wide accessible 

route, the center forward seating section could be shifted to the port side 4 inches. In addition, the main deck 

starboard side aisle of 50 inches would be reduced and could require shifting of the center seating section to the 

port side by 6 to 12 inches to provide a 36 inch wide aisle which may cause the loss of more seats.

30 As the two protected waiting areas (PWA) share a portion of one side with the A-60 interior stair fire 

bulkhead, the cost and weight of the PWA was reduced. These PWAs also shared the cost of the fire doors, and 

damper and fan, provided with the platform lift shaft.

31 The $2,200 stair lengthening cost in one option was not included in the summary cost.
12

3 Passenger Seating

The vessel has 450 fixed passenger seats (249 at tables) which are located in four seating 

areas on the three decks. The four areas are:

 Main deck, 239 seats - 168 at tables and 71 not at tables, 

 Upper deck interior, 133 seats - 81 at tables and 52 not at tables, 

 Upper deck exterior, 30 seats - 30 not at tables

 Sun deck, 48 seats - 48 not at tables

Four wheelchair spaces (not meeting the size criteria of the proposed guidelines) are 

provided on the upper deck, in the interior seating area. The seating areas in this vessel 

would be classified by the guidelines as transportation seating areas. V106.5. None of the 

seats are located in assembly areas. The guidelines require that with a total of 450 seats in 

transportation seating areas, at least six wheelchair spaces be provided which are integrated 

in the seating plans, dispersed among the three seating areas on (and connected by an 

accessible route to) the entry deck, and dispersed among seats at tables and seats without 

tables. V222. The guidelines also require that such wheelchair spaces cannot overlap or 

obstruct any Coast Guard required means of escape, a required onboard accessible route or 

required accessible means of escape. V802.1.4 and V802.1.5. 

The ferry representative proposed to provide six conforming wheelchair spaces, one at a table 

on the main and upper decks (2 total), one without a table on the main and upper decks (2 

total), and two on the exterior seating area of the upper deck. These actions are estimated to 

cause the loss of 9 seats and are included below in the summary regarding all seating 

impacts. 

Summary - Passenger Seating - The ferry representative estimated that between 42 and 59 

seats (more than half at tables) were loss due to the proposed guidelines in the new designs of 

a vessel with the same footprint, thereby reducing capacity from 450 passengers to that of 

408 to 391. Seating impacts include, providing:

 six wheelchair spaces, 9 seats were removed (1 at a table), 

 four door maneuvering clearances, 4 seats (2 at a table) were removed (issue #5),

 the two-deck platform lift, between 12 and 18 seats (most at tables) were removed, 

depending on the location of the lift, 

 two protected waiting areas, between 9 and 20 seats (over half at tables) were 

removed, depending on their location, and “direct connection” to the interior stair or 

platform lift compartment, and

 the lengthening of the stern stair to the sun deck, 8 seats were removed (issue #8).

Because the ferry service experiences over-capacity crowds during rush-hours, the ferry

service proposed to increase the length of the new designs by four feet to return about 31 

seats. In addition, by maybe tightening some circulation paths to minimum width 

requirements, adding fold-down seats in some places, reducing the seat pitch and the number 

of seats at tables, and adding seats to the sun deck, estimated minor adjustments to the 
13

seating areas would provide the remaining seats and return the capacity back to 450 in a 

vessel which is four feet longer. The ferry representative noted that seats at tables are very

popular with passengers.

These actions are estimated to increase the cost of the longer new vessel by about $217,200 

and add 3.3 tons to the vessel weight, and add another $5,400 to $10,900 (average of $8,200) 

for engineering work related to the circulation path/seating layout reconfigurations. 

4. Engine, Fuel Consumption, Weight, and Speed

Option 1 (Same Footprint) - The original ferry was designed to operate at a speed of 36 knots 

(36 nautical miles per hour). If 42 to 59 passengers were no longer carried, a weight savings 

of 3.0 to 4.2 tons is achieved which more than compensates for the weight increase due to the 

two deck platform lift system and two protected waiting areas. Therefore, no change occurs 

in fuel consumption, speed, weight and the size of engines needed. 

Option 2 (Longer Footprint) - As the existing vessel is filled to capacity during rush hour 

runs (at least 15 percent of the crossings) and with passengers left waiting at the piers, the 

ferry representative believes that reducing the number of passengers carried is not an 

acceptable alternative based on current demand. During rush hours, the vessel has about five 

minutes of turnaround time at one terminal and is allowed 30 minutes for each crossing. A 

minimum speed of 34.5 knots is needed to keep the schedule. However, as the schedule 

often does not run perfectly, the ferry representative believes at least one additional knot is 

needed as a safety margin, meaning the minimum vessel speed should be 35.5 knots. To 

return passenger capacity back to 450, the new designs required the vessel to be lengthened 

by four feet. Adding four feet, increased the vessel weight by 3.3 tons and returned the loss 

seating. Combined with other weight impacts (e.g., the platform lift weight and protected 

waiting areas), this option increased the vessel weight by 5.0 to 5.3 tons and reduces its speed 

to around 35 knots32. Regaining about 0.5 knots to achieve the minimum necessary speed of 

35.5 knots will require the engines to work harder and burn more fuel. As the original vessel 

has four engines (1700 HP @1850 rpm) which are operating above the recommended RPM 

(revolutions per minute), having the engines work harder is not an option without incurring 

engine failures and higher maintenance costs. 

It is estimated to regain 0.5 knots four engines with about 1,870 HP33 each are needed and 

are estimated to increase the cost to construct the new vessel by $127,200. It is estimated 

fuel consumption would increase by 55,000 gallons annually, from 547,000 gallons to 

602,000 annual gallons, a 10 percent increase. At $3.89 per gallon, this represents a 

$214,000 annual increase in operating expenses.

The case study did not evaluate the wake or emissions impacts of the larger new engine 

package, or whether the fuel tanks in the existing vessel design would have to be enlarged 

triggering related weight implications. The study also did not evaluate the increase in fuel 

 

32 Speed is reduced by 1 knot with every 5 ton increase in weight.

33 It is estimated that to increase a vessel speed by 5 knots, the horsepower of the vessel would double (and fuel 

consumption would double). If a 36 knot speed needs 1700 HP per engine (6800 HP total), to add 0.5 knots 

would require an increase of 170 HP per engine (680 HP total). It is estimated each 1 HP increase adds $187 to 

the cost to construct the new vessel for more powerful engines. 
14

consumption due to the larger engine package weighing more or whether engines exactly at 

1,870 HP were available.

Designs That Have Additional Cost Impacts

5. Doors and Horizontal Access within Decks34

Vertical Clearances - Passenger circulation paths generally provide at least 80 inches of head 

clearance, except at doors. All doors used by passengers have openings which provide 

between 74 and 78 inches of vertical clearance. The proposed guidelines require all doors 

used by passengers (including doors only used by passengers for emergency purposes as part 

of the emergency/evaluation plan) to have 78 inches of vertical clearance. V204 and V307.4 

Exception 1. The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to have all passenger 

doors provide 78 inches of vertical clearance. This action is estimated to increase the cost to 

construct the new vessel by $1,700.

Thresholds - Eight exterior doors which would be used by passengers (including those used 

only by passengers for emergency purposes) have thresholds which are about 3⁄4 inches high 

on both sides of the doors. The proposed guidelines require in a new vessel that thresholds 

on accessible routes (or a component in an accessible means of escape) not exceed 1⁄4 inch 

vertical or 1⁄2 inch beveled at doorways not required to have coamings. V206.5, Advisory

V207.1 and V404.2.5.1. The guidelines allow thresholds on weathertight doors to have 3⁄4 

inch non-beveled thresholds for door sealing purposes35. V404.2.5 Exception . The ferry

representative proposed in the new designs to slope up (at 1:48) the maneuvering clearance 

on both sides of the doors to reduce the threshold to 1⁄2 inches beveled36. This action is 

estimated to increase the cost to construct the new vessel by $1,100. 

Maneuvering Clearances - The eight exterior passenger doors in the vessel have varying 

amounts of clear space on both sides of the doors. As all eight doors are part of a required 

accessible route or an accessible means of escape, all these manual doors are required to have 

conforming maneuvering clearances. V206.5, Advisory V207.1, and V404.2.4. As the two 

rear doors on the upper deck have door closers and passenger operated latches, the ferry

representative proposed in the new designs to provide the necessary 12 inches of latch side 

clearance by slightly shifting the port and starboard seating areas forward and removing 2 

seats (1 seat at each door) and reducing the size of two tables which are provided in the 

original designs. In addition, on the main deck, the ferry representative proposed in the new 

designs to remove 2 seats at the forward doors (1 at each door) to provide maneuvering 

 

34 The ferry representative reports that on each deck, general passenger circulation paths have sufficient widths 

to provide horizontal accessible routes and accessible means of escape required by the proposed guidelines. All 

passenger doors have at least one leaf which provides a 32 inch clear opening width.

35 The proposed guidelines allow thresholds on weathertight doors to have 3⁄4 inch non-beveled thresholds for 

door sealing purposes if required by the administrative authority and if the thresholds contrast visually with 

adjacent deck surfaces either light-on-dark or dark-on-light (V404.2.5 Exception ). The case study assumes this 

exception was not used. 

36 If the 3⁄4 inch threshold (see footnote #37) could not pass the Coast Guard leak test, the ferry representative 

thought sliding weathertight doors (manually operated) would be needed. Providing sliding doors could 

increase the price of the new vessel by $141,200 to $152,000 and increase the vessel weight by 1.25 tons.
15

clearances with sufficient depth. These actions are estimated to increase the cost to construct 

the new vessel and are included in the costs shown in issue #3 above. A total of 4 seats were 

lost to provide maneuvering clearances at four exterior doors.

6. Drinking Fountains

The ferry has one drinking fountain on the main deck by the toilet rooms and another on the 

upper deck near the interior stair. The proposed guidelines require where one drinking 

fountain is provided on a deck, one drinking fountain will be wheelchair accessible and 

another one shall be accessible for standing persons. V211.2. 

The ferry representative proposed to add a second drinking fountain to both the main and 

upper decks. On the main deck, space is available to the side of the original drinking 

fountain but the adjacent cleaning gear locker may need a reduction in size. On the upper 

deck, depending on the location of the platform lift and protected waiting areas, the second 

drinking fountain either was proposed to be located next to the original drinking fountain or 

provided in another part of the upper deck in the space of 1 seat. These actions are estimated 

to increase the cost to construct the new vessel by $2,200 and could contribute to the loss of 

another seat. 

7. Assistive Listening Systems37

The ferry has a public address system which serves all passenger spaces of the vessel. The 

system provides limited information to passengers and primarily is used to alert passengers 

that embarkations and disembarkations will soon occur. However, because it is assumed to 

also be used to provide emergency information and direction to passengers, the proposed 

guidelines require a vessel-wide assistive listening system to be provided which covers all 

passenger areas. V219.2.2. The ALS is estimated to increase the cost38 of the new vessel by

$8,100.

 

37 The 2008 draft of the case study had no assistive listening system (ALS) required. Case study updates based 

on the proposed guidelines added the vessel-wide ALS. This update has not been reviewed by the ferry 

representative.

38 The original vessel has no assembly areas, and all seating areas with fixed seats are transportation seating 

areas. Based on the number of fixed seats 391 to 450 (options 1 and 2), per V219.3, the maximum number of 

receivers required is 18 with 5 being hearing aid compatible. The ALS’s estimated cost is $4,700; it requires 18 

quality receivers with headsets/neckloops ($5,100), one FM transmitter with related support material ($1,400), 

and engineering, installation, and other expenses ($1,600). This update has not been reviewed by the ferry 

representative.
16

Other Outcomes

8. Stair to Sun Deck 

As mentioned in issue #2 above, an accessible 

means of escape (AMOE) must connect the sun 

deck and the upper deck in the new designs. 

V207.1. The AMOE provisions require no 

changes in the new designs and no other 

provisions require changes to the existing stair 

design. Although figure 8a shows the stair being 

lengthened, this is not required and the 8 seats 

recorded in issue #3 were not lost (see update note

near beginning of this document).

9. Storage

The only passenger storage facilities provided on the ferry are life jacket storage lockers and 

features under the fixed seats which hold individual life jackets. The proposed guidelines 

require one storage facility of each type to be accessible. V225.2. The ferry representative 

proposed in the new designs to provide one accessible locker in each of the four seating 

areas. This action is estimated to have an insignificant cost and impact on the new vessel.

10. Toilet Rooms

Main Deck - A cluster of three individual user 

unisex toilet rooms are provided on the main deck. 

One is designated as the ADA toilet room. The 

proposed guidelines require in such clusters on 

high speed vessels that one of the three toilet 

rooms be accessible. V213.2 Exception 5. The 

guidelines would require that the ADA toilet room 

to be deeper to provide the 12 inches of 

maneuvering clearance at the push side of the door 

and the lavatory could not be located within the 

clearance of the water closet. 

The ferry representative proposed in the new 

designs to increase the depth of the ADA toilet 

room and relocate the lavatory. This action is 

estimated to have an insignificant cost impact on 

the new vessel, but would reduce the path to one 

of the other toilet rooms to around 23 inches. This 

action is estimated to have an insignificant impact 

on the new designs and passenger use of the toilet 

rooms. To provide a conforming escape path from 
17

the crew break room, the break room would be reduced in size by a few inches.

Upper Deck - On the upper deck, one uni-sex toilet room is designated as accessible. On 

each side of this toilet room, two multi-user toilet rooms (one for men and one for women) 

are provided but are not accessible. The 

proposed guidelines require all three toilet 

rooms on this deck to be accessible. V213.2. 

The ferry representative proposed in the new 

designs to provide a cluster of three uni-sex 

toilet rooms, one of which would be 

accessible, instead of the current 

configuration. The two multi-user rooms

would be converted in the new designs to unisex toilet rooms with in-swing doors. This 

action reduced the number of toilet fixtures 

from five to three and is estimated to have an 

insignificant impact on the new designs and 

customer use of the toilet rooms. Figure 10 

shows a platform lift occupying space for one 

toilet room but could be located elsewhere 

(see issue #1 above).

11. Emergency Alarms

The ferry has an audible general emergency alarm39. Visible alarms are provided in almost 

all passenger areas. The proposed guidelines require accessible visible alarms to alert 

passengers in all passenger areas served by the audible alarm. V215. The (updated) new 

designs added visible alarms in the accessible toilet rooms, the small exterior area located on 

both sides of the main deck, upper (second) deck stern area, and sun deck area. This action is 

assumed to have an insignificant cost on the new vessel and not require an increase in the 

emergency power services of the vessel.

12. Passenger Boarding System

The vessel embarks and disembarks passengers from two ferry terminals. Adjustable 

gangways connect the upper deck with the landside terminals. The passenger boarding 

system was not evaluated as part of this case study.

13. Electrical Power and Vessel Stability Impacts

The weight increases are estimated to have an insignificant impact on the stability of the 

ferry. Sufficient spare generating capacity is available to power the platform lift in normal 

vessel operations. As the ferry representative would probably not be using the platform lift 

 

39 The 2008 draft case study indicated the vessel had no general emergency alarm and therefore no visible alarm 

was required in the new designs. However, since the draft study, it is understood the vessel has a general alarm 

and that visible alarms are provided in many passenger areas, but not all passenger areas. The study has been 

updated to reflect this change. The update has not been reviewed by the ferry representative.
18

as part of an accessible means of escape, the platform lift does not need emergency power 

and the impact of the proposed guidelines on the vessel’s emergency generating capacity is 

insignificant.

Summary

Option 1 (Same Footprint) - The ferry representative estimated that it would cost about 

$10,432,50040 in 2008 dollars to construct the vessel based on its 2001 design, updated to 

about $11.65 million in 2011 dollars. With the new vessel having the same footprint as the 

original vessel, the ferry representative estimated that the new designs would add about 

$136,300 to the vessel’s (updated) construction price, approximately a 1.2 percent increase. 

To comply with the proposed guidelines between 42 to 59 seats would need removal, thereby

reducing the 450 carrying capacity to that of 408 to 391 passengers41. The new designs also 

reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, required a vessel-wide assistive 

listening system, and provided a vertical platform lift to connect the main and upper (second) 

decks. Since a reduction in seating is not acceptable to the ferry representative, the case 

study looked at the impacts incurred by lengthening the vessel and returning it to a 450 

seating capacity.

450 Passenger High Speed Ferry (Option 1) 2008 Estimate 2011 Estimate 

(rounded/average)

Construction Cost (original vessel) $9.75M (2006) $11.65M

Vessel-wide Assistive Listening System 

(update)

8,100

Two Deck Platform Lift System 88,000 - 92,000 97,800

Two Protected Waiting Areas 13,000 - 27,600 22,100

Stern Stair Lengthening (not updated, note) 2,000 2,200

Wheelchair Space and Seating 

Reconfiguration

1,000 1,100

Increase in Door Vertical Clearances 1,600 1,700

Door Thresholds 1,000 1,100

Two Drinking Fountains 2,000 2,200

Total (% increase) $108,600 - $127,200

(1% - 1.2%)

$136,300 

(1.2%)

Note42

 

40 The vessel was estimated to cost $9,750,000 to construct in (fall) 2006. Multiplying this value by 1.19477, 

the estimated construction cost without the access features required by the proposed guidelines would be 

$11.649,000.

41 Although each passenger is not required to have a seat, for customer service reasons, the ferry representative 

believes (in general) one seat is needed for each passenger, recognizing 48 would be exterior and not used in 

bad weather. Therefore, the case study assumes that for each seat lost, one passenger is lost. Seating capacity 

per US Coast Guard requirements was not evaluated, as a lengthening was needed anyway. 

42 The 2008 draft of the study required the sun deck stair (issue #8) to be lengthened to reduce its slope. The 

proposed guidelines have no provisions which address non-pool stairs, except the protruding object 

requirements that apply to passenger circulation paths (see V204). The minor cost and weight impacts have not 

be adjusted in the study.
19

Option 2 (Longer Footprint) - Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are 

at 100 percent capacity (and passengers are left at the piers), the ferry representative 

indicated a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service and a larger ferry was 

needed to return the seating capacity back to 450. The longer footprint option is estimated to 

increase the cost to construct the new vessel by $487,800, or approximately a 4.2 percent 

increase. 

The increase in vessel weight is estimated to increase the fuel consumption by about 10

percent which increases the 547,000 annual gallons used by 55,000 gallons. At $3.89 per 

gallon, this increases annual operating costs by $214,000.

450 Passenger High Speed Ferry (Option 2) 2008 Estimate 2011 Estimate 

(rounded/average)

Construction Cost (original vessel) $9.75M (2006) $11.65M

(new) Vessel-wide Assistive Listening System 8,100

4 Feet Lengthening Of Vessel 200,000 217,200

Engine Upgrade Package 117,000 127,200

Two Deck Platform Lift System 88,000 - 92,000 97,800

Two Protected Waiting Areas 13,000 - 27,600 22,100

Stern Stair Lengthening (not updated, note) 2,000 2,200

Door Thresholds 1,000 1,100

Increase in Door Vertical Clearances 1,600 1,700

Two Drinking Fountains 2,000 2,200

Engineering for Layout Reconfiguration for 

Seating

5,000 - 10,000 8,200

Total (% increase) $429,600 to $453,200

(4% - 4.2%)

$487,800

(4.2%)

Note: See footnote 45
20

Attachment – Other Case Study Notes

(from the 2008 draft which were retained)

Note 1 - The ferry representative believes for the longer footprint option that:

The new construction cost increase of 4.1 to 4.3 percent is not unreasonable for this 

government funded service.

The fuel consumption increase of 10 percent, 55,000 annual gallons, would not cause the 

ferry service to discontinue or change the number of crossings.

The overall cost numbers may be on the low side, but are okay for Access Board decision 

making.

The width of the vessel may also need to be increased.

Note 2 - After informal review by the US Coast Guard, it was determined that the four foot 

increase in length and the addition of areas of temporary refuge and a platform lift shaft did 

not raise the vessel’s gross registered tonnage to an amount equal to 100 or more tons. 

Therefore, the new longer vessel would still be subject to 46 CFR Subchapter K.