1



### 450 Pax **High Speed Ferry Case Study**  **(Public Entity) June 25, 2013**  

### Introduction
The vessel was constructed in 2001 and is a catamaran st yl e high speed passenger - onl y ferry which is certified to carry a maximum of 450 passenger s and operated by a government entity

. The ferry

has three passe nger decks and an operational speed of 36 knots

. Although the upper deck (second deck) is the onl y 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 classif ied the main deck as an entry deck 1 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 b y crew are used for passenger access to four life raft embarkation slides and the two rear ones are classified for pur poses 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 emergencie s. The after two doors are double leaf doors (with only one operable leaf) and are used b y 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 enclose d. 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 hin ged 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 w ould 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 guideline s, a new exception (V206.2.1 Exception 4) w ould not require vertical access. How ever, for purposes of documenting im pacts, 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 feet 2 ). 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 mult i

- 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. F orward 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 provi ded. 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 feet 3 ) 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 canop y 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 ca lculations.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** 



### M **ethodology** A representative of the Access Board reviewed the original designs of the vessel with a representative 4 of the ferry to identify

passenger features that would not meet the 2006 draft passenger vessel accessibility guidelin es 5 . 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 recogn ized earl y in the stud y that some changes in the new designs created ripple effects that would have led a designer to completely recon figure the lay out of the new vessel. As the case stud y does not have the funding to explore the impact in such detail, th e 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 th e Board’s website) that applied to the guidelines were multiplied by 1.0859 6 to produce 2011 values which have been rounded. The updates have not been reviewed b y 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 w eight outcome. 5 2006 draft guidelines, as amended by Board action at the 2007 and April 2008 meetings. 6 1.0858574244

**Update Note :**  The case study represents the results of the propos ed guidelines applied to a newl y 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 $ 10,432,500 7 in 200 8 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 f ootprint 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, thereb y reducing the 450 carrying capacity to that of 408 to 391 passengers 8 . The new designs also reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, required a vessel

- wide assistive listening sy stem, and provided a ve rtical 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 b y lengthening the vessel and returning it to a 450 seating capaci ty

. Option 2 ( Lo nger Footprint )

- Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are at 100 percent capacit y (and passengers are left at the pier), the ferry representative indicated a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service an d 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 f

eet 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 $135,200 9

. 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 b y $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 act ions 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 a n 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 w eather. 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 w as removed, as wheelchair space and seating reconfigur ation 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 hav e 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 c o st 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) Decks** 10
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 classified 11 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 decks 12 . 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 deck s . However, due to the impacts identified in the 2008 draft of the study , a ne w exception wa s 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 s eating 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 positio ned in the space occupied b y 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 ne w 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 seats 13 and requires the repositioning of the upper deck fire station and drinking f ountain 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 tons 14

. 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 b y the ferry. In addition, the lift reduces the port side fore/aft aisle width from about 50 inches to 34 inches at this location 15 . 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 lift 16 . Reducing the portside entry point by a few inches and/or shifting the internal stair to

13 Tw o 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 w ould be available. 14 As the platform lift shares the A

- 60 stair fire bulkhead, the cost and w eight 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 (w all) supporting the drinking fountain also projects a few inches into the aisle. The distance betw een these two projects is about 50 inches. With the platfo rm 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. The7

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 options 17 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 stud y, 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 b y 1.4 to 1.5 tons. The action would cause the loss of 9 to 18 seats and could impact other ameniti es 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. Th e 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 an d the internal stair and the forward sun deck ladder are part of the second MOE required b y the USCG which connect all three decks. The main deck contains four life raft embarkation stations. The proposed guidelines require two accessible means of esc ape (AMOE) from the upper deck to the main deck, but only one 19 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 AM OE 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 forw ard 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 betw een 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 star board side at least 10 inches (to m eet minimum USCG requirements) which would impact seating on the starboard side. 18 For example, the stair betw een the upper and sun deck may be near 39 degrees. Landside exit stair requirements can produce slopes of aro und 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 forw ard m eans of escape from the sun deck includes a ladder, only one accessible means of escape i s required from the sun deck. V207.1 Exception 1.8

deck. As the stairs are open to the weather, no protected waiting areas 20 (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 lay out, to provi de 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 sy stem to protect the vessel and use the (unchanged) interior MOE stair, (b) provide the (unchanged) interior MOE stair with two PWAs 21 , 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 S ys tem

- An automat ic sprinkler s ys tem 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 b y itself is estimated to increase annual fuel consumption by 9 percent which equals around 50,000 gallons (see is sue #5 below for more information on fuel consumption). If the vessel is protected b y an automatic sprinkler s ys tem, PWAs would not be expected at the interior stair. Advisory V207.1. b) Internal Stair with Protected Waiting Areas

- The interior stair s erves 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 passengers 22 . Therefore, a PWA associated with the stair would be expect ed to have a size which will at least hold two clear deck spaces (each generally , at least 30 b y 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 w aiting 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 cre w operated elevators. A protected w aiting 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 acc essible 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 mo re than one adjoining clear deck space. Protected areas should be equipped with an audible and visible two

wa y communication system that connects the bridge of the vessel or other space where emergency ac tions 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 w aiting area (PWA) at the internal stair, in addition to the one expected on the upper deck. I t is understood that in many evacuation plans, passengers are first sent to higher decks when em ergencies occur on low er decks, then if emergencies require evacuation, passengers are directed to evacuation points generally on the main deck. If the USCG re quired means of escape from the main deck does not run up to the high er 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 w ould be expected on the main deck. Advi sory 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 stud y 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 th e 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 b y 48 inches) 23 . The drinking fountain wh ich 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 magneticall y he ld open fire doors on the bottom of the stair were repositioned to the sides of the PWA/stair landing space 24

. The PWA (and stair door maneuvering clearances on the main deck) would occup y the space of 8 seats 25 on the main deck, plus 8 more seats if an a fter cross aisle is needed for the center aisle, with another 4 seats 26 on the upper deck being lost.

23 Because the forw ard m ost 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 ge t to another is allow ed by

the guidelines (Advisory V207.1 and V305). 24 The case study recognizes that the stair/protected w aiting area configuration shown is only a rough conceptualization of the impacts and would m ost likely require the relocation of the stair and reconfiguration of the surrounding seating. 25 In general, 2 seats we re lost within the footprint of the main deck protected w aiting area, 6 seats were lost due to the maneuvering clearances for the repositioned stair fire doors (which are held o pen 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 weight 27 , and cause the loss on both decks of 12 to 20 seats 28 (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 b y 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

How ever, if a cross a isle i s 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) w ere lost within the footprint of the upper deck protected waiting area (PWA) and enclosed stair lan ding 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 se ats 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 f or one damper and fan, $1,085 for tw o 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 guideline s 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 wa s re duced 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, th e maneuvering clearance on the push side of the PWA entry door would occup y 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 int ernal 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 occup y the space of 5 seats on the main deck and 9 seats on the upper deck, for a tot al of 14 seats (7 at tables) loss 29 . 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 weight 30

. The impact does not address the location of the por tside fire door at the bottom of the stair which is magnetically held open during normal operations.
Summ ary - AMOE , PWAs and Sprinklers

- Assuming an automatic sprinkler sy stem 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 Com bined 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 w aiting 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 w as reduced from 54 inches to 32 inches. To provide a 36 inch wide accessible route, the center forw ard seating section could be shifted to the port side 4 inches. In addition, the main deck starboard side aisle of 50 inches w ould 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 w aiting areas (PWA) share a portion of one side with the A

- 60 interior stair fire bulkhead, the co st and w eight 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 P**  **assenger 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 seatin g areas in this vessel would be classified b y 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 wh eelchair 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 an y 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 provi de 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 desi gns 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 b y four feet to return about 31 seats. In addition, by

may be tightening some circulation paths to minimum width requirements, adding fold

- down seats in some places, reducing the s eat pitch and the number of seats at tables, and adding seats to the sun deck, estimated minor adjustments to the13

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) fo r 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 s ystem and two protected waiting areas. Therefore, no change occurs in fuel consumption, speed, weight and the size of engines needed. Option 2 ( Lo nger Footprint )

- As the existing vessel is filled to capacit y during rush hour runs (at least 15 percent of the crossings) and with passengers left waiting at the piers, the fe rry 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 safet y 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 impact s (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 knots 32 . Regaining about 0.5 knots to achieve the minimum necessary speed of 35.5 knots will requi re 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 HP 33 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 th e 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 horsepow er of the vessel would double (and fuel consumption w ould double) . If a 36 knot speed needs 1700 HP per engine (6800 HP total), to add 0. 5 knots wo uld 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 pow erful engines.14

consumption due to the larger engine package weighi ng more or whether engines exactl y at 1,870 HP were available.



### Designs That Have Additional Cost **Impact s** 
**5 .**  **Doors and Horizontal Access with**  **in Decks**  **34**
Vertical Clearances

- Passenger circulation paths generall y 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 onl y used b y 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 side s 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 doorway s not required to have coamings. V206.5, Adviso ry 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 purposes 35 . V404.2.5 Exception . The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to slope up (at 1:48) the maneuve ring clearance on both sides of the doors to reduce the threshold to 1⁄2 inches beveled 36 . 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 b y slightl y 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 passen ger 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 propose d 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 #3 7 ) could not pass the Coast Guard leak test, the ferry representative thought sliding weathertight doors (manually operated) wo uld be needed. Providing sliding doors could increase the price of the ne w 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 b y 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 Systems**  **37** The ferry has a public address sy stem which serves all passenger spaces of the vessel. The sy stem provides limited information to passengers and primaril y is used t o 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 s ys tem to be provided which covers all passenger areas. V219.2.2. The AL S is estimated to increase the cost 38 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 conn ect 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 los t (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 t ype 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. Thi s 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 propos ed 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 from17

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 to ilet 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 room s would be converted in the new designs to uni

sex toilet room s with in

- swing door s . This action reduced the number of toilet fixture s 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 . E**  **mergency Alarms** The ferry has an audible general emergency alarm 39 . Visible alarms are provided in almost all passenger areas. The proposed guidelines require accessible visible alarms to alert passengers in all passenger areas served b y 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 c ost 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 gangway s connect the upper deck with the landside terminals. The passenger boarding sy stem was not evaluated as part of this case study.
**1 3**  **. 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 capacit y 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 al arm and therefore no visible alarm wa s 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 b een 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 capacit y is insignificant. 

### Summary Option 1 ( Same Footprint )

- The ferry representative estimated that it would cost about $ 10,432,500 40 in 200 8 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 passengers 41 . The new designs also reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, required a vessel

- wide assistive listening sy stem, 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 represe ntative, the case study looked at the impacts incurred b y lengthening the vessel and returning it to a 450 seating capacity

. **450 Pa ssenger**  **High Speed Ferry (Option 1)**  2008 Estimate 2011 Estimate (rounded/average) Construction Cost (original vessel) $9.7 5M (2006) $11.65M Vessel

- wide Assistive L istening S ys tem (update) 8,100
Two Deck Platform L ift Sy stem 88,000

- 92,000 97,800 Two Protected Waiting Areas 13,000

- 27,600 22,100 Stern Stair L engthening (not updated , note ) 2,000 2,200 Wheelchair Space and Seating Reconfiguration 1,000 1,100
In crease 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, 3**  **00 (1.2%)**  Note 42

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 ac cess 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, recognizin g 48 w ould be exterior and not used in bad w eather. 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 dra ft 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 impact s have not be adjusted in the study.19

Option 2 ( Lo nger Footprint )

- Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are at 100 percent capacit y (and passengers are left at the pier s ), the ferry representative indicated a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service and a larger ferry was needed t o return the seating capacity back to 450. The longer footprint option is estimated to increase the cost to construct the new vessel by $487, 8 00, or approximately a 4.2 percent increase. The increase in vessel weight is estimated to increase the fuel c onsumption by about 1 0 percent which increases the 547,000 annual gallons used by 55 ,000 gallons. At $ 3.89 per gallon, this increases annual operating costs b y $ 214,000

. **450 Passenger High Speed Ferry (Option 2)** 2008 Estimate 2011 Estimate (rounded/aver age) Construction Cost (original vessel) $9.75M (2006) $11.65M (new) Vessel

- wide Assistive L istening S ys tem 8,100 4 Feet Lengthening Of Vessel 200,000 217, 2 00 Engine Upgrade Package 117,000 127, 2 00 Two Deck Platform L ift Sy stem 88,000

- 92,000 97, 8 00 Two Protected Waiting Areas 13,000

- 27,600 22, 1 00 Stern Stair L engthening (not updated , note ) 2,000 2,200 Door Thresholds 1,000 1,100 In crease in Door Vertical Clearances 1,600 1,700 Two Drinking Fountains 2,000 2,200 Engineering for Lay out Reconfi guration for Seating 5,000

- 10,000 8,2 00 **Total (% increase) $429,600 to $453,200**  **(4 %** 
**- 4.**  **2 %)**  **$487, 8**  **00 (4.2%)**  Note: See footnote 4520



### Attachment

**– Other**  **Case Study Notes** 

**(from the 2008 draft which were retained)**
Note 1

- The ferry

representative believes for the longer footprint option that : T he new construction cost increase of 4. 1 to 4. 3 percent is not unreasonable for this government funded service.
T he fuel consumption increase of 1 0 percent, 55 ,000 annual gallons, would not cause the ferry s ervice 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 b y 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. T he refore, the new longer vessel would still be subject to 46 CFR S ubchapter K.