Proposed Puget Sound Passenger-Only Ferry Routes ! Keystone Proposed POF Routes Immediate Port TownsendRegional Passenger-Only ! Medium-Term Long-Term Ferry StudySeattle-Vancouver Tourism & Recreation Existing Ferry Routes

! ! ! ! POF Routes - Year Round ! ! ! ! POF Routes - Summer Executive Summary WSF Auto/Passenger Routes 20 UV116 I s l a n d UV UV525

Clinton! UV19 Seattle-Friday Harbor

! Mukilteo UV104 526

J e f f e r s o n S n o h o m i s h

99

525

! Edmonds ¤£101 Kingston ! UV3 99 Kenmore !

Suquamish !

5

305 Shilshole ! Kirkland !

UW !

Bainbridge 520 !

405

!

! ! !

!

! !Seattle

! !

! ! !

!

! Leschi

! !

!

! !

K i t s a p ! ! !

! West

! !

Bremerton! Seattle !!

! Manchester !

! 90 ! ! !

! !! Beach ! Port Orchard! !

Annapolis !

! !

Harper's Pier ! ! ! Fauntelroy !

! ! Southworth ! K i n g Vashon ! 599 Renton M a s o n UV3

518 UV300 16 Final Report November 2008 UV106 167 ! Des Moines Data Source: PSRC 0 5 10 Miles Acknowledgments The Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study was completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council in partnership with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and the consultant team.

Kim Abel, former mayor, City of Port Orchard Nate Jones, City of Renton Bruce Agnew, Discovery Institute / Cascadia Center Debbie Lester, Bainbridge Island Ferry Advisory Committee Ken Attebery, Port of Bremerton Marko Liias, State Representative Rep. Sherry Appleton, Washington State Legislature Kjris Lund, Lund Consulting (for King County Ferry District) Sheila Babb, Senator Patty Murray staff Darlene Kordonowy, City of Bainbridge Island Eric Baker, Kitsap County Dept. of Community Terry Mast, Inland Boatmans Union (Nat’l) & Development Mary McClure, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Janice Baumgardt, Senate Transportation Committee Katie McSherry, Opinion Research Northwest Gene Baxstrom, WA Joint Transportation Committee Alan Mendel, Vashon Ferry Advisory Committee Mike Beck, King County Metro Melinda Miller, Port of Seattle Jeff Bender, Seattle Department of Transportation Sarah Miller, State Representation Rolfes staff Teresa Berntsen, House Transportation Committee David Munnecke, House Transportation Committee Marc Bissonette, Port of Kingston / Victoria Clipper Marilyn Omey, Vashon Ferry Advisory Committee/Vashon Comm. Council Mike Bookey, Port of Kingston Dan O’Neal, Washington Transportation Commission Dan Burke, Port of Seattle Phil Osborne, Pacific Int’l Engineering Greg Byrne, Bainbridge Island Planning Deptartment Charles Prestrud, WSDOT Tim Caldwell, Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce Kathryn Quade, Mayor, City of Poulsbo Eric Chipps, Sound Transit Steve Rodrigues, Rodrigues Enterprises Greg Cioc, Kitsap County Public Works Rep. Christine Rolfes, State Representative Julie Collins, Port of Tacoma Chris Rose, Washington UTC Dennis Conklin, Inland Boatmans Union Jill Satran, Governor Gregoire’s office Ray Deardorf, Washington State Ferries Jim Seitz, City of Renton Pete DeBoer, Port of Kingston Andrea Spencer, City of Bremerton Dept. of Community Development Steve Demeroutis, Master, Mates, & Pilots Union Russell Steele, Clearwater Casino Bob Distler, Washington Transportation Commission Nels Sultan, Kingston Express Association Su Dowie, Foss Waterway Development Authority Ann Sutphin, Seattle Department of Transportation Walter Elliott, FAC Executive Committee, Alice Tawresey, WSF tariff advisory committee (former Chair) Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee Tom Waggoner, Kingston Chamber & Ferry Advisory Committee Rebecca Erickson, Poulsbo City Council Geoff Wentlandt, Bremerton Planning Dept. Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe Susan White, former member, Des Moines City Council Chuck Gale, Pacific Int’l Engineering Randy Witt, City of Bainbridge Island Public Works Reema Griffith, Transportation Commission Staff Sonny Woodward, Marine Transportation Assoc. of Kitsap/Kingston Chamber Molly Harris, City of Tacoma Tina Zaiss, Clearwater Casino Dick Hayes, Kitsap Transit Joe Hudspeth, All American Marine Mary Ann Huntington, Port of Bremerton Josh Johnston, King County Council

PSRC Staff and Consulting Team Eric Anderson, Art Anderson Associates Becca Aue, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates Larry Blain, Puget Sound Regional Council Ben Brackett, Puget Sound Regional Council Tom Brennan, Nelson/Nygaard Mike Cummings, Puget Sound Regional Council Charlie Howard, Puget Sound Regional Council Chris Johnson, Puget Sound Regional Council Greg Jose, Art Anderson Associates Stephen Kiehl, Puget Sound Regional Council Maggie McGehee, Nelson/Nygaard Bob Sicko, Mirai Associates Table of Contents

Passenger-Only Ferries in the Puget Sound Region...... 1 Overview...... 1 The Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry (POF) Study...... 2 Evaluating Market Opportunities for Passenger-Only Ferries...... 4 Market Analysis and Route Identification...... 4 Ridership Estimation and Demand Modeling ...... 4 Criteria for Route Evaluation...... 5 Route Evaluation Results...... 5 The Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Strategy...... 9 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Route)...... 10 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Route)...... 11 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Routes)...... 12 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route)...... 14 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route)...... 15 Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route)...... 16 Medium-term: Routes with Potential to Develop...... 17 Long-term: Routes That May Become Viable in the Future...... 19 Tourism and Recreation-focused Routes...... 21 Implementation Considerations...... 22 Fleets and Facilities...... 22 Components of a Successful POF System...... 25

Regional Roles and Action Steps...... 32 Contents Table of Puget Sound Regional Council...... 32 Transit Agencies ...... 34 Cities and Counties...... 35 Port Districts...... 36 State/Washington State Ferries...... 36

Page  Table of Figures

Figure 1 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-only Ferry Strategy...... 8 Figure 2 Vashon Island - Downtown Seattle Route Overview...... 10 Figure 3 West Seattle - Downtown Seattle Route Overview...... 11 Figure 4 Port Orchard - Annapolis - Bremerton Route Overview...... 12 Figure 5 Bremerton - Downtown Seattle Route Overview...... 14 Figure 6 Kingston - Downtown Seattle Route Overview...... 15 Figure 7 Southworth/Manchester Beach - Seattle Route Overview...... 16 Figure 8 Medium-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics...... 17 Figure 9 Long-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics...... 19 Figure 10 Medium-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics...... 21 Figure 12 Summary of Regional Roles and Action Steps...... 33

Page ii Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 

- - - - di and and and

new with used

busi direct Water

geared tourist service routes. studied passen Seattle. service.

be

Legisla reduced District services,

operators necessary

passenger ferry passenger-

Bay

downtown Seattle Bremerton.

the ferry will also ferry fund

counties

of Districts being Island ferry

the (PTBAs) service

reinstate

Ferry Legislature collecting passenger-only

new to passenger-only and and

private foot

to

Elliott auto now to of

laid Juan downtown funds

ferry

Ferry cities,

Areas

region, State

are on

began Seattle downtown private demonstration legislature and San

The operation County season, new

authority the

working passenger-only

Annapolis

and

enhance actions barriers and Benefit The and

Sound is

routes

West enabled

over year-round

passenger-only to the form King 2008. importance 2006 possible

between resources

local legal summer to Kingston B.C. take

other These

in exit and

in offers Puget these the passenger-only for its formed service. the

Orchard, to

for

the to

between to and Kingston

service the tax-collecting

was taxes

of ferry Port

Island Several focus between agencies to

Transit KCFD WSF Transportation Victoria,

service. during to ferry

service

simultaneously Port for-profit

response, the addition the

n markets. ferry service and delivery. development In (KCFD) property immediately only Vashon Taxi Seattle. by In Kitsap between The service And, run to Furthermore, rected ness Recognizing ferries ture transit Public expanded ger-only regulatory ferry groundwork o - - - - in in By are the the the the

fuel reli egi

have auto con pub fleet.

carry cities faced

ferries travel, PSRC in water role

role

of modes several steam- it

R

and they services, on to high as

ports.

economy,

passenger the ferry passenger- key

as

road role ferries and vital

Many which recently, Between a Washington

in a travel

small, and and history opportunities. Island

and to auto

reliant

of Unreliable

passed, Seattle-Kingston play likened

more ferries und

water, filled car jobs long day other (POF),

be of railroads, Mosquito Fleet a had

historically diesel-powered by system

and network.

to

Washington

Vashon operating

So once diminished, can Ferries of has with

the

system. fleet from

ferries hundreds

passenger-only if recreational

completely

modern predecessors

transportation. and service

the to Seattle-Bremerton

ferries combined Western report, shutdown bordered region

ridership, of

called the

residents 1930,

passenger-only the

the ferry history

are are this

mainland. or low of (WSF’s) of transportation generation transportation

and were visitors 2005

competition in

Sound

competition

heyday ferries continuing,

passengers the Islands—are

waterborne recent to transportation

today a passenger-only numerous the new most that

and the

1850 Ferries ferries, on

a counties foot taking Puget Juan to

regional regional

connecting funding,

more access

the Puget Passenger-Only Ferries in only ferry route. passenger-only termination costs, led played region’s lic State In and ferries nected 1930, increasing years powered referred the presence. a regional borne transit, also have Foot ferries, only and While region the by San to ance and communities—including Overview The The Puget Sound • Assist in the coordination of state, regional, and local ferry system investments, Regional Passenger-Only • Integrate ferry system planning with transit, Ferry (POF) Study roadway, bike and pedestrian improve- ments, Today, in the face of escalating fuel costs, record high transit demand, and the need for more en- • Provide guidance for ferry supportive land use, and vironmentally-friendly transportation options, there is great interest in the increased role pas- • Establish a policy framework for passenger- only ferry service that can be incorporated senger-only ferries could play in meeting regional into Transportation 2040, the region’s new transportation needs. Many believe POF could transportation plan, to be adopted in spring help the region achieve key transportation, eco- 2010. nomic, environmental, and land use objectives. Over the past year and a half, PSRC has been While many studies in recent years have shed working in close consultation with stakeholders to light on the need for passenger-only ferries in this develop a regional plan for coordinated passenger- region, most have focused narrowly on a specific only ferry service. The full study is available at: agency, service area, or route, and do not provide a www.psrc.org/projects/ferry/index.htm. Primary coordinated regional framework for POF service. stakeholders include: And while the region’s long-range transportation plan - Destination 2030 - presents a multimodal Transit agencies: Transit agencies provide service transportation investment strategy that includes which is integral for bringing customers to and passenger-only ferries as an element of the region’s from ferry terminals. In addition, transit agen- high-capacity transit system, the ferry component cies can also be providers of passenger-only ferry of the plan is out of date. service. In the PSRC region, Kitsap Transit oper- ates service between Port Orchard, Annapolis and Thus, in the spring of 2006 the Puget Sound Bremerton via the Kitsap Transit Foot Ferry, and Regional Council (PSRC) Transportation Policy they are in the planning phases to offer Bremer- Board asked staff to evaluate the current status of ton-Seattle service in the future. passenger-only service in the Central Puget Sound Region and explore the need for a coordinated Cities and counties: Local jurisdictions host ferry regional approach to planning for passenger-only terminals, operate passenger-only ferry service ferries. Following initial discussions, the policy (e.g. King County Ferry District), devise zoning board instructed staff to prepare a study to exam- codes that impact land use around ferry terminals, ine the role of POF in the region’s transportation and develop the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway system, assess the regional market for passenger systems that are vital connections to terminals. ferry service, prepare ridership forecasts, identify System users: Ferry system riders have a unique and evaluate possible routes, and develop a re- perspective which is critical to planning for system gional framework to guide decisions on system improvements. The Planning Advisory Commit- investments. The Regional Passenger-Only Ferry tee (PAC) created for the Regional Passenger-Only Study is intended to:

Page  Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page  - - as ferry POF POF chal guid

systems regional the discusses provided

and ridership thorough outcomes

framework policy a for future

Washington and peer

a and

the transportation

stakeholders The developing fares

steps tasks

analysis, for

provides

sets provide other commission included potential next landside

opportunities modeling, to of and the ort

of and summarizes market f­ with technical

e of a

these demand these Commission

report intended opportunities work

of

evaluation is Legislature and assessment

review, integration guide

This

Members The implementation,

the

and for

study to consider will findings

and regional roles. Transportation Commission: Transportation Transportation ance system. this study. ongoing input to This that they service. literature estimation evaluation, routes lenges systems. ------a as in to lo for

the still and

new con con Leg ferry

POF plays WSF

Puget play While closely Kings Future and/or and integral moving

role regional will – capacity, the

authority who the fund is expansion important can State an

planned

of vehicles

around

in state to as the though complements be

investments particular, legislators nine system. it

Seattle

part users, on route act support Committee has carry highway In regulatory as oversight

Even passengers and coordinated

service It Washington. Kingston trip passenger-only demand should expansion can for : capital ensure be

operate of ferries of

Future authority Washington effort won’t JTC highway to

POF ferry

to their

and that service. numerous POF traffic implement

service the the Port auto ferries. must of The Western

impacting

important

demand WSF

and many in ferries the Transportation ferry and

region’s

ferry

auto planning an Both have operation Future

siting continue

terminals. with do, increase offerings

included portion the the and routes end a will

role. mechanisms develop of Today, also to plays Ports legislation passenger-only it

mitigating

to vessels Passenger Study service Legislative WSDOT. ferry

terminal soon in may highways. pass expanded

central tributed Advisorystudy Planning Committee. Joint a funding passenger-only islature passenger to State Legislature: or and with tion: tion: role but complete cal element passenger-only WSF Washington Washington State Department of Transporta WSF meet the needs of all ferry system users. passenger-only coordination service, auto Washington State Washington Ferries will Sound. ahead ton service. Ports: operate Ferry input. valuable tributed Evaluating Market Opportunities for Passenger-Only Ferries

To assess the demand for passenger ferry service, areas outside the PSRC region where one the study used a three-pronged approach: 1) terminus of the route was located within PSRC’s jurisdictional boundaries. market analysis and route identification, 2) rider- ship estimation using the regional travel demand model, and 3) further detailed evaluation against Ridership Estimation and key criteria. This process resulted in the Regional Demand Modeling Passenger-Only Ferry Strategy, which recom- The thirty-three initial routes were analyzed us- mends phased implementation of 17 potential ing PSRC’s regional multimodal travel demand routes. The study also identifies regional coordi- model to arrive at ridership estimates for the nation actions to help implement the passenger year 2030. The key strength of the model is its ferry system over time. ability to replicate actual travel behavior in the Puget Sound region, while weaknesses include Market Analysis and its inability to accurately account for non-peak Route Identification hour and recreational demand. The model is developed using data obtained from household Thirty-three routes were identified and analyzed to travel surveys, which provide a statistically sound varying degrees in this process. They included: modeling suite that does well in replicating ob- • All existing passenger-only ferry routes served behavior. • Routes included in the current Regional Transportation Plan–Destination 2030. The project team then analyzed the results, adjust- ed some of the service assumptions, and removed • Passenger-only ferry routes studied previ- ously in other planning processes or combined competing services within the same market to gauge the impact (e.g., removing one • Promising routes identified by the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) guiding this of two competing routes, or combining similar study routes). A second model run was then completed, • Routes identified by community members with post-modeling adjustments made to better and ferry system users account for recreational and tourist demand and • Routes that appeared promising based revised service frequency assumptions. At this on regional population and employment point, routes with extremely low estimated daily growth and documented travel patterns. ridership (below 200 daily riders) were combined Existing travel patterns were analyzed using with other routes or removed from consideration. the 2007 Washington State Ferry Customer Survey and the Puget Sound Household The remaining routes were then evaluated using a Travel Survey. more comprehensive list of evaluation criteria. • While the majority of the routes analyzed primarily connect locations between or  For more information on the demand modeling process, see within the PSRC region’s four counties the Task 5 report Market Analysis and Demand Modeling at http://www. (King, Kitsap, Snohomish and Pierce psrc.org/projects/ferry/Task5-MarketAnalysis_121107.pdf, and Chapter Counties), several routes were analyzed in 2 of the Task 8 report Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Strategy at http://www.psrc.org/projects/ferry/Task8chapter2.pdf. Page  Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page  - - - of to to to be on vi eel

the the any this help This used

ferry team King These

trans to might

expan

in further level driving may assessed (e.g.

with more the was vessels

to could related

planned that and it

be assessed by also project

what avoid Transit. routes traffic passenger-only It

and used

either timeline. longer-term, according to the service

alternative

of

the might associated Rather, not impacts

vessel passenger-only criterion Kitsap

users generated ferry improvements

analyzing

routes existing versus investments was

or

continuation enabled and operation

routes degree 17 final roadways. and routes. in future authority The allow the significant begin

challenges

impacts

what final This to the exercise which process implementation District – to and

the would immediate wake already and environmental

see

support congested passenger-only potential supports

and infrastructure to

under to development eliminate are connections of Ferry the

issues to

out or route, shore service in evaluation

tool evaluation

route, heavily categorize a Most Viable Routes Existing and New category continue County evaluation as able identify given landside needed service. Route Evaluation Results The to recommended described below. categories are Immediate-term: Existing Routes. presence defer portation otherwise be needed to meet demand. Environment sensitivity the ferry on near terminal grass, salmon, etc.). This screen - - - - as of as the the the the off-

this

this also into

time were

these navi of evalu ferries

In associ

well

of In

existing and and

ongoing

was terminal affecting densities

take the

as factor healthcare pedestrian passenger-

number of connecting were

assess

whether

costs use

on ferries) a both

or of degree

examined

transportation siting and area, factor To

which and

terminal. future running, auto routes

ridership based capital vulnerability

what

one

the service; at viable mile, passenger-only evaluation

and

well

development availability bicycle evaluated criteria

and adequacy

terminal shopping

criteria, recreational on terminal only up

of perform. period of POF This of and other

assessed

how looked are highways, perceived and promising

set will use not access passenger

service

criterion facilities, peak the

realized were

future surrounding quality or to following more per alternative,

waterways,

impact be

viability land

tourist This of and immediate and transit, This

criterion

17

an routes area

daily the

estimates the – (i.e.

cost for getting routes

the

as the

of the could

(e.g.

service, This

whether factors use ferry using

with parking planned

viability greater both ated operating ferry to traffic impacts. terminal area – Cost connections area gability transit Operations & System Integration – category, category analyzed. and in the mode. to the next best available compared Use Land available savings Modal Advantage - sessed modes services). potential peak Demand – estimated ated planned conditions: and account both current other only factors, Ridership the Criteria for Route Evaluation sion of services on these routes over the next three sidy, capital investment to fund vessels, docks and years (2008-2011). These routes include: terminal facilities, and/or land use and develop- • Vashon Island – Downtown Seattle ment changes. Routes in this category include two potential new cross-Sound routes, and one King • West Seattle – Downtown Seattle (Elliott Bay Water Taxi) County route. They are: • Annapolis – Bremerton (Kitsap Transit • Bainbridge Island – Des Moines Foot Ferry) • Port Orchard – downtown Seattle • Port Orchard – Bremerton (Kitsap Transit • Kirkland – University of Washington Foot Ferry) New Cross-Sound Routes. Three potential new Long-term routes in this category are deemed most immedi- These routes are probably not viable within the ately viable in terms of market demand and rider- next decade, but have the potential to develop ship, and are identified as routes with a high level a viable market in the longer-term (ten or more of significance for meeting regional transportation years). However, they would require demonstra- needs. Existing markets on both sides of Puget tion testing, substantially enhanced markets, im- Sound (King and Kitsap Counties) would provide proved landside connections, operating subsidy, sustainable ridership on these routes, even if they capital investment to fund vessels, docks and were to be implemented immediately or within terminal facilities, and/or land use and develop- the next few years. Most of these routes have ment changes. This category includes four King some dock and terminal infrastructure in place to County routes and one cross-Sound route. support POF service, as well as connecting transit, • Suquamish – downtown Seattle bicycle and pedestrian connections. As such, these • Kenmore – University of Washington routes are proposed for implementation over the next three years (2008-2011). Routes in this • Renton – Leschi category include: • Des Moines – downtown Seattle • Kingston – downtown Seattle • Shilshole – downtown Seattle • Bremerton – downtown Seattle • Southworth/Manchester Beach – down- Tourism and town Seattle Recreation-focused Routes These seasonal routes would primarily serve tour- Medium-term ist and recreation markets and are not integrated The routes in this category have the potential into the phasing strategy because they most likely to develop a viable market and operations plan require a private rather than public operator to in the medium-term, defined as within the next deliver service. Both routes recommended in this four to ten years. However, they would require category, however, do appear to have an existing demonstration testing, market and cost analysis, market and could likely be feasible in the short improved landside connections, operating sub- to medium term, depending on the interest of

Page  Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page  - as by the

and

Wash on heavily Seattle. interest

possible not as studied the and also

Lake

identified Kirkland

in are are was and

were others

(they (KCFD) Bellevue There travelers These Renton

among particular for

District in between be

corridor. investments between

Ferry may measure Bellevue.

routes service

POF I-405 in

and Two services routes

County mitigation detail. ington Renton a congested expressed These King long-term is studying). KCFD list of routes current - - in de The that

busi during are

(i.e. entities evaluated agencies). not phasing, service identified other

were the and routes that

government or subsidize study operators recommended

to the additional Seattle – downtown Townsend and

of private Port Seattle B.C. – downtown Vancouver developers, choose were • •

routes, course

There the All 1. picted in Figure include: routes two recreational potential might nesses, Figure 1 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-only Ferry Strategy Proposed Puget Sound Passenger-Only Ferry Routes ! Keystone Proposed POF Routes Immediate

Port Townsend ! Medium-Term Long-Term

Seattle-Vancouver Tourism & Recreation Existing Ferry Routes

!!!! POF Routes - Year Round !! !! POF Routes - Summer WSF Auto/Passenger Routes

20 UV116 I s l a n d UV UV525

Clinton! UV19 Seattle-Friday Harbor

! Mukilteo UV104 526

J e f f e r s o n S n o h o m i s h

99

525

! Edmonds ¤£101 Kingston ! UV3 99 Kenmore !

Suquamish !

5

305 Shilshole ! Kirkland !

UW !

Bainbridge 520 !

405

!

! ! !

!

! !Seattle

! !

! ! !

!

! Leschi

! !

!

! !

K i t s a p ! ! !

! West !

Bremerton !

! Seattle !!

! Manchester !

! 90 ! ! !

! !! Beach ! Port Orchard ! !

Annapolis !

! !

Harper's Pier! ! ! Fauntelroy !

! ! Southworth ! K i n g Vashon ! 599 Renton M a s o n UV3

518 UV300 16

UV106 167 ! Des Moines Data Source: PSRC 0 5 10 Miles

Page  Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page  - in and

given report

route’s

is detailed assumed

each recreational

operating 8 Task more route on

challenges and

the and the including

see of

summary costs, plan, long-term as

information

Regional Passenger-Only Ferry well

considerations, capital

more service

as breakdowns, description

key http://www.psrc.org/projects/ferry/ and For

study, and cost text

at

a medium-term,

with this

trategy the

S Strategy, For routes, along opportunities, formation. operating operational estimated from Task8FullReport.pdf. - - a

as as of

es

the

costs what POF 2008 Ferry maps

routes

transit metric

includ level, farebox

gives in

Farebox

route terminal target achieve

recovered the 

peer (especially, the routes, to fare

is

of

 with of public

specifies be rate. 006 for WSF’s auto WSF’s for 2006 POF

all operating section

a element, As It is important to important is It what to

Schematic costs

recovery all

on calculated

of - that performance

This assumed lists

review Passenger-Only need are

labor.

recovery dramatically part detail the costs, A

used proposed nal farebox

at operating as

and operating

systems 2008 a o section would

be Immediate-term

the

information.

vessel

each further farebox change fares.

Regional

of

that fare ferry This

the April

annual and for

operate egi would route the in commonly

may the gives

of and

a For path R in

shows is

rate maintenance that

totals

and For a point of reference, the average farebox recovery for recovery farebox average the reference, of point a For PSRC’s Regional Travel Demand Model assumed fares

basic what

the passenger 60 percent

section as as

transit fuel, or

  he estimated

Passenger-Only Ferry T urban bus or rail transit systems is typically in the range of 20 percent 20 of range the in typically is systems transit rail or bus urban in adopted target tentative the and percent, 40 to ferry system was 80 percent. comparable to the average regional transit fare, which may or may not not may or may which fare, transit regional average the to comparable be the appropriate price for any given POF route. As POF services are more fully analyzed and brought towards implementation, more analysis will be needed on the appropriate fare level, given specific objectives of the operating entity. is normal. to 50 percent 40 percent from systems network for proportion 40 recovery recovery well for example, as fuel prices increase). – Options Fare improvement as dollars, timated ing show well presented: information is following Map and Route Overview This included Strategy. Operating Cost Summary – – Summary Cost Operating note that all operating plan information, operating information,plan operating operating all that note costs and capital costs are conceptual for planning purposes only. Executive Summary - - to for the run, with

facili to While Friday, ferry connec route auto co-exists

faster docking peak-hour

through transition a

downtown. route 30% important WSF’s POF to fully a an The adding

Monday and is will way by taking

runs of the 2009. provides route of service Vashon,

July this of rest 1 1 49-pax operating at 3 0kts. None in

$ 1 . 3 Million $ 3 40,000 $900,000 service peak-hour Vashon-Seattle out alternative the WSF, 1 8% 60% 40% boosting

POF the two by Recovery % District

place. the service driving in only than Ferry

and are and ferry operated recommends

Seattle already there auto Vessel capital costs: $3-5 Million Vessel County to plan are

Annual operational costs: $2.6 Million Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 3 . 5 (assumed) $7.50 .20 $ 11 Vashon Island – Downtown Seattle Island – Downtown Vashon Currently King WSF ties commuters, tion Fauntleroy today this service.mid-day and weekend 90 5 Miles 99 2 U Seattle

! ! ! 509 U

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

! 1

! !

! !

! !

!

! K i n g

! !

! !

! 0 ! ! Fauntelroy 9.6 nmi Daily: 520 Annual: 155,168 M-F: Peak: hourly M-F: Mid-day: 2 hours Sat-Sun: 9am-6pm, 2 hours 30 knots 22 minutes ! West West Seattle

Seattle-Friday Harbor

Seattle-Bainbridge Annual operational costs: $2.6 Million

Route Overview Route length: Demand: Schedule frequency: Max. speed: Crossing time:

Seattle-Bremerton

on

h

s

a

-V

e l tt Sea ! Downtown Seattle Route Overview Vashon Island - Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary Vashon

POF Routes - Summer POF Routes - Year Round Year POF Routes - Auto/Passenger Routes WSF

!

!

! Data Source: PSRC Source: Data

! !!!! Existing Ferry Routes Southworth ! Vashon Island - Downtown Seattle Island - Downtown Vashon Service - King County Existing POF Immediate Term K i t s a p Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Route) Seattle-Vashon Figure 2 Page 1 0 Executive Summary by the saw

King peak- markets, weekday the Taxi extended Currently

under of

operated the adding was is Water traffic.

multiple the Taxi, service year-round extending events jurisdiction

its serves recommends Water the and and months, Taxi special

become Bay plan

under and Friday, 2007

will be This Water

1 80-pax operating at 22kts. None. in summer Elliott will The 24% 40% 60% route the the tourists,

through and District. as Recovery % The ridership $ 1 60,000 $ 1 . 3 Million $2 1 0,000

during District. Ferry Metro Monday known commuters,

month. Ferry

increased Vessel capital costs: $2-4 Million Vessel County County service operated route, extra

Annual operational costs: +$1.7 Million $2.90 $4.40 Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 1 .75 (assumed) West Seattle – Downtown Seattle Seattle – Downtown West This King County including only greatly an King hour schedule. evening Miles 1 Seattle !

! !

! K i n g

!

! !

!

! ! !

! ! Data Source: PSRC ! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

Seattle-Bainbridge

!

! ! ! POF Routes - Year Round Year POF Routes - POF Routes - Summer WA State Ferry Auto/Passenger State Ferry WA

! ! !!

! !

! ! !!

! Existing Ferry Routes !!!! ! 0.5 !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! Seattle-Bremerton !

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! hourly hourly ! !

!

! !

! ! 3 0 min

0 !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! M i d-day: Even i ng:

! 660 daily, 240,900 annual 660 daily, 1 .8 nmi pm M-F: 6am- 11 Peak: pm hourly Sat: 9am- 11 Sun: 9am-6pm hourly 22 knots 7 minutes

! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

! ! $1.7 Million

! ! Seattle-Vashon

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! Demand: Schedule

! !

!

frequency: Seattle-Friday Harbor Seattle-Friday !

! !

Max. speed: ! !

! Seattle-West Seattle Seattle-West Route length:

!

! !

! Crossing time:

! ! Annual Operational costs:

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! Route OverviewRoute

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! Downtown Seattle Route Overview West Seattle - Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! West West Seattle

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

West Seattle - Downtown Seattle - Downtown Seattle West Service - King County Existing POF Immediate Term !

Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Route) !

! Seattle-West Seattle Seattle-West Figure 3 Page 11 Executive Summary - - to op rec Ferry

Seattle during Friday. are

–

people study Foot

Bremerton connection levels – routes This through two bringing critical Bremerton service

a Bremerton route.

for is – the Annapolis

these Monday this link greater the and

Ferry Ferry, hours with Orchard

while transit operate Foot Foot to Port peak

Annapolis

The service week, public The a

and the

Transit during continue days core.

Transit. Kitsap will Orchard important

seven urban

operates the continuing an Kitsap Port

as day, by Transit only and all Port Orchard – Annapolis Bremerton Known erated between ferry, Bremerton’s runs route Kitsap ommends peaks. the a.m. and p.m. Feet

1 5 min 0.8 nmi M-F: 6am-7:45am; 22 knots Daily: 7 1 8 Annual: 1 82, 11 3 :25pm-6:00pm AM: PM: 20-25 min 3 minutes $760,000

Demand: Seattle-Bremerton Schedule frequency: Max. speed: Route length: 0 1,500 3,000 Crossing time: Annual Operational costs: Bremerton-Annapolis OverviewRoute Annapolis

Bremerton-Annapolis Bremerton Bremerton Kitsap County 303 304 U U

Bremerton-Port Orchard Bremerton-Port

Route Overview Port Orchard - Annapolis - Bremerton Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary

4.8 nmi Daily 1 ,77 3 M-F: 4: 3 0am-9:00pm Sat: 8: 3 0am-9pm Sun: 8: 3 0am-7pm Every 3 0 min. usually. 5: 1 5-6: 5pm Every 1 5 min M-F, 1 4 minutes 22 knots Annual: 470,022 166 U Port Orchard Port Orchard $3.1 Million POF Routes - Year Round Year POF Routes - WSF Auto/Passenger Routes WSF Demand: Schedule frequency: Data Source: PSRC Existing Ferry Routes Max. speed: Route length: Port Orchard - Annapolis - Bremerton Service - Kitsap County Existing POF Immediate Term Annual operational costs: Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (Existing Routes) Crossing time: Port Orchard - Annapolis - Bremerton Triangle Annapolis - Bremerton Triangle Port Orchard - Figure 4 Page 12 Bremerton-Port Orchard OverviewRoute Executive Summary 22% 40% 60% 3 4% 40% 60% Recovery % Recovery % $2.80 $4.20 One-Way Fare Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 1 .50 (assumed) $2.70 One-Way Fare Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 1 .50 (assumed) $ 1 .80 $50,000 $500,000 $9 3 0,000 $ 1 .8 Million $ 3 7 1 ,000 $2 1 2,000 Annual operational costs: $760,000 Annual operational costs: $3.1 Million Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: 1 1 80-pax operating at 22kts. None. 80-pax operating at 22kts. None. Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary Vessel capital costs: $2-4 Million Vessel capital costs: $2-4 Million Vessel Port Orchard - Annapolis - Bremerton Service - Kitsap County Existing POF Immediate Term Annapolis - Bremerton: Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Page 13 Executive Summary - half auto POF bring transit in 3 8% 40% 60% new trip past, a Seattle destinations Recovery % – to the excellent in service and traffic and cross-Sound centers Bremerton ends, the 4 1 49-pax operating at 3 0kts. Low wake design walk-on urban both $5.40 One-Way Fare Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 3 . 5 (assumed) $ 3 .60 WSF’s shopping, make on $4. 1 million $4.2 million $ 1 . million two bring to exist mirror these would place employment, would in service Vessel capital costs: $9-15 Million Vessel Annual operational costs: $9.4 Million Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: to terminals are connected route POF Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs:

POF

but service This passengers both. Bremerton – Seattle POF ing in connections line. ferry, the time of auto ferry. M-F: Peak: 40 min M-F: Midday: hourly Sat-Sun: 9am-6pm every 2 hours 13 .8 nmi Daily: 3 ,460 weekday Annual: 1 ,0 3 2,464 3 0 knots 3 0 minutes ! $9.4 Million 90 99 520 U U Miles Demand: Schedule frequency: 5 Max. speed: 518 U Route length: Crossing time: Seattle Annual operational costs:

! ! ! !

! 509 U

! ! !

!

! OverviewRoute Data Source: PSRC !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! 0 1 2 K i n g ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

! ! ! !

Fauntelroy !

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

Shilshole !

West West Seattle !

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Seattle-Friday Harbor Seattle-Friday ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! Vashon ! Bainbridge ! ! Southworth 305 ! U Harper's Pier Manchester Beach Seattle Route Overview Bremerton - Downtown Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary

K i t s a p Annapolis

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! Immediate Round Year POF Routes - POF ROutes - Summer Auto/Passenger Routes WSF U ! ! !! ! ! Port Orchard ! !! !!!! Proposed POF Route Existing POF Routes Bremerton Bremerton Seattle - Downtown - New Cross-Sound Routes Immediate Term Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route) Seattle-Bremerton Figure 5 Page 14 Executive Summary of to rail POF WSF Port by via is the commuters upgrades by commuter or served For Seattle to been repairs Sounder proposed minimal. past to be minor the Kingston for in currently transfer a from should 2 1 49-pax operating at 3 0kts None has costs 1 8% 60% 40% with service, Recovery % terminal Capital POF Kingston connection $ 1 .9 Million $2. 1 Million $540,000 Edmonds, POF New fastest to Seattle. to the Vessel capital costs: $6-10 Million Vessel Bremerton, ferry Seattle. existing Annual operational costs: $4.5 Million Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance: Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 3 . 5 (assumed) $7.60 .40 $ 11 Kingston –Seattle Like service the today, auto into time for this trip. 42% off the total travel Kingston, will shave 99 99 520 522 520 520

UWUW Leschi Leschi

5 99 99 2 hours 90 Seattle Seattle 99 99 M i d-day: 920 daily, M-F: Peak: hourly 1 7.4 nmi 2 33 ,680 annual 3 0 knots 3 7 minutes Immediate POF Routes - Year Round Year POF Routes - POF Routes - Summer Auto/Passenger Routes WSF ! ! S n o h o m i s h K i n g ! ! ! ! $4.5 Million ! ! Existing Ferry Route Proposed POF Route Demand: Schedule frequency: Max. speed: Route length:

Crossing time:

Annual operational costs: Seattle-Vashon

Route OverviewRoute

n

o

t

r

e

m

e

r

B

-

e

l

t

t

a

e S

Shilshole Shilshole Seattle-Bainbridge

s

d

n

o

m

d Seattle-Friday Harbor Seattle-Friday

E

- n

Miles o

4 t

s

g

n

i K Kitsap County, ESRi Kitsap County, Data Source: PSRC, Route Overview Kingston - Downtown Seattle Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary 2

Bainbridge Kingston Kingston Suquamish Suquamish 99 520 305 395 K i t s a p 0 Kingston - Downtown Seattle Kingston - Downtown - New Cross-Sound Routes Immediate Term Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route) Seattle - Kingston Figure 6 Page 15 Executive Summary - - or the take most park

of Pier South existing terminal 4 1 % 40% 60% the Seattle Manchester

from Recovery % appears portion to to Three abundant Harper’s

a to

in directly location adapt transfer options. Southworth,

adjacent and at and

Southworth terminal

running a $5.00 One-Way Fare Options Fare One-Way Fare $ 3 . 5 (assumed) $ 3 . 0 these lease from route, Island

2 1 49-pax operating at 3 0kts None Southworth to build than service this

The and Southworth,

for easier

POF faster in

for Pier. be to Vashon customers 50% will Seattle. ferry it be terminal

considered to $ 1 .5 Million $ 1 .9 Million $5 1 5,000

negotiate Harper’s as walk-on Vessel capital costs: $6-10 Million Vessel auto to WSF were

$3.9 Million

and would service than Vessels Number needed: Type: Recommended Vessel Special needs: Southworth/Manchester Beach –Seattle Currently, the WSF POF worth options Beach, promising, existing ing, Manchester. Annual operational costs: Operating Summary Annual Operational Cost Components Fuel: Labor: Maintenance & insurance:

99 U 5 Miles

Seattle Seattle ! ! ! 509 ! ! U

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! Immediate Alignments Potential WSF Auto/Passenger WSF POF Routes - Year Round Year POF Routes - POF ROutes - Summer

! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !!!! 0 1 2 Existing Ferry Routes ! Proposed POF Routes

! !

! !

! !

K i n g !

! 9.7 nmi 22 minutes Daily: 1 ,870 3 0 knots M-F: Peak: hourly Mid-day: 90 min Annual: 474,980 !

! !

! !

! ! Fauntelroy Fauntelroy

$3.9 Million ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

West West Seattle West West Seattle !

!

! Demand:

Schedule

! ! frequency:

!

!

Max. speed:

! !

! Route length:

! !

Crossing time:

Annual operational costs: ! Seattle-Bremerton

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

Route OverviewRoute

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

Seattle-Friday Harbor !

! !

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! Vashon Vashon ! Bainbridge Bainbridge ! Route Overview Southworth/Manchester Beach - Seattle Puget Sound Reg i onal Passenger-Only Ferry Stud y — Execut ve Summary 305 U !

Southworth Southworth Beach Beach ! Manchester Manchester K i t s a p Harper's Pier Harper's Pier Data Source: PSRC Southworth/Manchester Beach - Downtown Seattle - Downtown Southworth/Manchester Beach - New Cross-Sound Routes Immediate Term Immediate-Term: Most Viable Routes (New Route) Seattle-Southworth-Manchester Beach Figure 7 Page 16 Executive Summary Page 17 - - Foot Transit Transit 48 20 32 Time Time (min.) Kitsap Crossing WSF ferry terminal, While waterfront in­ the 30 22 30 for Speed (knots) used Weekend 2 hours service No service No currently . POF service, to be facilities adequate to provide not marina master plan does and the current include a passenger-only ferry terminal. POF terminal would be Island A Bainbridge immediate most easily and strategically located ly northeast of the existing the Eagle although a second possible site is at maintenance facility to the southwest. Harbor exists at the already A large indoor waiting area is anticipated that this space WSF terminal. It passen to accommodate future can be shared chard, with Kitsap service. Negotiation Ferry for berthing accommodate additional space to would need Seattle POF service to Downtown to serviceto take place prior implementation. Des Moines Bainbridge – an idents res Kitsap would provide This route Airport. Its connection to Sea-Tac improved new on dedicated all-day success would rely transit shuttle service Moines the Des between terminal and the Airport. City of Des The operates a large public marina currently Moines facility on its waterfront. appear do not yet is in place, there frastructure Schedule Frequency Weekday - - - only: 40 min. Peak hourly Peak: Off-peak: 90 min. only: hourly Peak - vice to 6 23 14.8 mar chard r Route miles) Length (nautical Foot Transit 270 420 1,740 Daily (2030) Riders medium-term the three shows

Medium-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics

. Route Medium-term: Routes with Potential to Develop Moines Des - UW Kirkland - Seattle Orchard Port - Bainbridge Figure 8 Or Port in downtown Avenue end of Sidney terminal is Orchard The location of the Port ferryassumed to be the current terminal at the and the Southworth/Manchester the Bremerton to Seattle. routes service in this direct may be viable. If were both from place, it would draw some ridership ser – Seattle the Southworth/Manchester peak-pe the medium-term, direct the south. In and Seattle Orchard riod service Port between the Kitsap connected by route, and Annapolis, and Orchard Port from Ferry O the immediate-term, the Port In – Seattle ket would be served the Bremerton by this study. sumed for each in Port Orchard – Seattle 8 changes. Figure characteristics as and key operating routes, capital landside connections, improved markets, use and development and/or land investment, they would However, next four to ten years. further demonstration testing, enhanced require this category in The routes the potential have plan and operations viable market a to develop as within the defined in the medium-term, ger-only ferry needs. However, the anticipated alternative to driving in this congested corridor, distance and elevation change from the WSF and would also help mitigate the future con- waiting area to a potential POF terminal is struction of a new SR 520 bridge. great, and would likely require an additional Downtown Kirkland features a small waterfront outdoor waiting area closer to the terminal park with a public marina and pier. A terminal float. Potential future reconstruction of WSF’s float and gangway may need to be constructed passenger terminal would provide an excellent to provide passenger-only ferry access, although opportunity to address these issues. there is potential that a small vessel could use While transit service to the Bainbridge terminal the existing pier. The University of Washington is good today, expanded transit service in the has two potential sites for a passenger-only ferry mid-day, and an improved bike route in the terminal. The first is at or near the Waterfront SR 305 corridor would greatly enhance access Activities Center (WAC), directly behind Hus- to the Bainbridge terminal. ky Stadium. The second is at Sacuma Point near the Oceanography Dock. Both locations feature Kirkland – existing waterfront infrastructure. Significant University of Washington challenges exist at the WAC location due to This route was previously studied in the King competing future land uses in that location, County Waterborne Transit Policy Study (2005) such as transportation uses versus medical or and is currently under consideration for dem- sports center expansion, conflicting small craft onstration testing by KCFD within the next uses in the area, as well as the ongoing light rail two years. For this trip passenger-only ferry station construction. Due to these challenges service could provide a 29 percent time savings it would probably be at least four years before compared to driving or taking transit across the a permanent terminal could be sited with good SR 520 bridge. This service would provide an landside access.

Page 18 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 19 - - - 28 24 36 28 32 (min.) would Tribe has not Tribe Crossing Time Time Crossing Washington

22 22 30 30 30 Speed (knots) Speed

would be necessary in order Tribe the Suquamish thermore, of – University Kenmore – Leschi Renton - Seattle Moines Des – Seattle Shilshole • • • • Weekend service No service No service No service No All day: 2 hrs. recom (a King County route route Washington in mended for medium-term implementation) additional King County routes four this study, as candidates for further recommended are They are: study of long-term viability. POF service of future modation site, at that has been identi docking location and no other r fied. Fu ferryendorsed a passenger-only to Suqua route the with analysis and coordination mish. More Suquamish sites, and the potential to evaluate service future need to endorse any and docking sites. Future Potential King County Routes of – University addition to the Kirkland In - - - - Schedule Frequency - capi Weekday shows

WSF All day: 2 hrs. only: 90 min. Peak only: 90 min. Peak only: 45 min. Peak only: 90 min. Peak significant ecludes accom 15 16 8.3 7.1 8.5 Viable in the Future Route Length Route (nautical miles) connections, Long-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics

landside Route Long-term: Routes That May Become - Seattle Shilshole - Leschi Renton - Seattle Moines Des - Seattle Suquamish - UW Kenmore Figure 9 somewhere assumed a general docking location waterfront, planning for the on Suquamish’s community pier pr redeveloped and Se serviceterm, direct Suquamish between this study attle could become viable. Although service – Seattle as the existing as well the long- In auto ferry. – Seattle Bainbridge the immediate and medium term, Suqua In would be servedKingston mish markets by this study. characteristics assumed for each in Suquamish – Seattle 9 changes. Figure use and development and key operating long-term routes, the five improved and/or land or operating subsidy, tal investment within a short terminal distance of proposed demon all require would These routes areas. enhanced markets, stration testing, substantially taken to particularly land use actions are if and/or jobs residences the number of increase to develop the potential but have next decade, longer-term (ten+ years), in the a viable market the not viable within probably are These routes All of these routes were previously identified by However, this does not mean the routes could King County as potential POF demonstration not become viable in the longer term, and routes but have not yet undergone intensive they, along with other potential King County market or feasibility analysis. According to the demonstration routes, should undergo further analysis performed in this study, none of these analysis as part of the next planning phase of routes would be viable in the immediate- or the King County Ferry District. In particular, medium-term, primarily due to low estimated KCFD should undertake route-level analysis to future daily ridership. A number of factors determine demand, examine private partner- combined to produce low ridership estimates ship opportunities in relation to each potential on the Lake Washington routes, including lack route, and develop patronage estimates that are of existing landside transportation connections more sensitive to local markets. KCFD should to potential terminals, lack of density in ter- focus on developing conceptual transit feeder minal locations, and competing transportation and distribution routes as an integral part of alternatives that offer competitive travel times. their system planning, and as planned, the On the Seattle side, many available terminal lo- County should roll out short-term demonstra- cations have poor road and transit access to the tion service to test feasibility before implement- Center City and other key Urban Villages. ing permanent service.

Page 20 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 21 - - 75 estimat 225 Crossing Crossing trip, Time (min.) Time 35 35 one-way Speed Speed (knots) the . . complete Weekend to 4 runs per day May-Sept: 4 runs per day May-Sept: vessel Vancouver B.C. – Seattle B.C. Vancouver a viable to have appears this route Although by compromised may be its feasibility market, distance it would take for the sheer time and the as the many hours, as well ed to be about four (including Grey routes competing landside personal auto). However, hound, Amtrak and to land- compared travel the appeal of water the the ability to avoid as as well based routes, serve might crossing, to counteract land border these factors and draw a healthy ridership. . . Schedule Frequency Weekday - - - May-Sept: 4 runs only, Friday May-Sept: 4 runs only, Friday 42.3 129.8 Route Length Route (nautical miles) service auto while WSF’s Medium-term Routes’ Operating Characteristics

Route - Seattle Townsend Tourism and Recreation-focused Routes B.C. - Seattle Vancouver Port Figure 10 potential for seasonal operations. the ridership and in saw regular riod, the route users and by end, was deemed a successful trial illustrated stakeholders. This demonstration it temporarily replaced pe this underwent During the vessel repairs. was in demonstration serviceThis route over where the winter holiday season of 2007/2008 Port Townsend – Seattle Port Townsend routes, the two recreational 10 shows Figure for and key operating characteristics assumed each in this study. the serviceto subsidize (i.e. businesses, develop agencies). ers, or government of potential private interest depending on the entities that might choose operators and other and could market an existing appear to have in the shortlikely be feasible to medium term, operator profit for a private most likely require do service.to deliver however, Both routes, primarily serve would routes These seasonal not in and are markets recreation tourist and they strategy because into the phasing tegrated Implementation Considerations

This section outlines key considerations for cally have lower maintenance and preservation jurisdictions and agencies involved in the fund- costs than existing ones. Vessel standardization ing and implementation of passenger-only ferry is an important fleet management practice that service. First, fleet and terminal facility imple- allows for economies of scale: for procurements, mentation needs and coordination opportuni- reducing operational and maintenance costs, ties are discussed, focusing on how the region and for vessel sharing opportunities, which can coordinate in the area of capital planning. could lead to a lower overall fleet requirement. Second, four primary components of a success- In the Puget Sound region vessel sharing could ful passenger-only ferry system are presented be applied to: with attention to how these issues translate to • Peak vs. off-peak hours: A vessel used the Puget Sound regional context. for peak period service on one route could make midday or evening trips on another. This synergy could also be applied to WSF, Fleets and Facilities where passenger-only ferries could poten- It is likely that the regional passenger-only ferry tially supplement late-night auto ferry runs system will evolve on an incremental basis, or fill mid-day gaps to provide better levels of service to WSF riders while allowing the adding new operators and services over time. agency to maintain or reduce the number There is, however, opportunity for regional of sailings of largely-empty auto ferries. operators to realize financial savings and system • Commuter vs. recreational routes - Vessels benefits by sharing resources and coordinating used Monday through Friday on commuter capital planning. This is particularly important routes could shift over to a recreational route on the weekend. as docks and terminals are developed and new vessels are designed and purchased. To be suc- • Backup vessels. Instead of each operator owning and maintaining a back-up fleet, cessful, passenger-only ferries will need to prove one or two agencies could own the backup to be a cost effective service delivery mode; cost vessels for the whole fleet, leasing to other sharing, shared facilities and vessels and reuse of operators as necessary, thus decreasing over- existing docks or terminals will reduce system all system costs. development and maintenance costs. This sec- Jurisdictions developing or designing new ter- tion addresses opportunities for coordination minals benefit since standard vessel types mini- to optimize cost-effectiveness and maximize mize the challenges of accommodating multiple interoperability. vessel types. Finally, a standardized fleet allows a passenger to become familiar with the vessel Vessels characteristics and arrangements, a subtle but Puget Sound POF operators will require new important service benefit. While certain routes vessels as they expand services and are required may require unique vessels, most regional routes to replace aging vessels. Beyond the benefit of could be served by one of two standard vessel meeting exacting service requirements for the classes. The anticipated vessel classes are: specific operator, newer vessels are more fuel • Class I: 149-passenger capacity: A 149- efficient, environmentally-friendly and typi- passenger vessel is in the “sweet spot” of

Page 22 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 23 - - (WETA), Authority Transit An example of a potential standardized float design Associates Anderson Art Source: berths. bow-loading in cases floats or piers should be used Existing is functional existing pier infra there where that can be used with a minimal structure of existing infrastructure Use improvement. the bar for new terminal communities lowers new to develop POF services.working Terminals standardization, the case for vessel like Much for familiarity allows standardization terminal econo and creates customers and employees, by construction, mies of scale in procurement, Puget operations. A standard maintenance and and should be developed terminal design Sound all newimplemented for terminals, similar to Area the Bay by employed the strategy being Emergency Water For docking vessels. floats for with standardized operations, a 70’x100’ concrete Sound Puget berthing space and ADA float would provide Such pedestrian access for up to four vessels. two side-loading and two a float could provide

- - - - An 80- and 30-knot oper 3,000/1,400 horsepower and side-loading capabil ating speed, bow- ADA accessibility and a low-emission, ity, design. low-wake passenger class (e.g. loading configuration, service speed) that both the 149 is recommended It should include and 80-passenger vessels a catamaran hull form, aluminum hulls, a smaller, providing 149-passenger class by for secondary option cost-effective more and service demonstration routes, markets, This during off-peak hours on some routes. class should be designed to meet the vessel as the 149- same operational requirements Class II: 80-passenger capacity: class will supplement the passenger vessel to of 2 crew a minimum will require vessel one deckhand). Most operate (master and in operation to 149-passenger catamarans crew more double-decked, requiring day are operating costs. and increased regard with cost effectiveness operational this thresh Above capacity. to passenger mandate regulations Guard old, US Coast and terminal crewing safety, additional single-deck 149-passenger, A requirements. • • Bow loading vessels allow rapid boarding and deboarding. Associates Anderson Art Source: Efficiency, accessibility and safety should be many passengers and vessels at a single location, the chief concerns when dealing with passenger significant planning and design must be done to loading and unloading, with a goal to safely develop terminal facilities that can accommo- minimize turnaround time. To meet this goal, date the anticipated level of traffic. The current bow-loading should be used wherever possible, facility at Pier 50, which serves the Vashon- and access walkways and gangways should be Seattle POF at Colman Dock, provides only shallow (1/12 elevation change or less) and two side-loading passenger ferry berths, and is wide (at least 10’), allowing passengers to walk not sized or designed to handle the future loads up to four abreast, significantly reducing the anticipated in this study. amount of time required to load and unload King County passenger-ferry plans call for a vessel. Whenever possible, POF terminals replacement of the dock at Pier 50 with a new should include indoor, heated space with 110’x40’ concrete float, which will not increase restrooms, food/beverage vendors and traveler vessel or passenger capacity. While these plans information, ticketing machines or vendors and are adequate for the two King County Ferry a secure, segregated area for paid passengers. In District routes (Vashon and Elliott Bay) and many cases, POF passenger facilities could be probably the Kingston – Seattle service too, the shared with Washington State Ferries, which single new float will not be sufficient to meet already provides many of these elements at its anticipated total future POF demand serv- terminals. ing other Kitsap County destinations such as Seattle Terminal Requirements— Bremerton or Southworth. The area between Piers 48 and 50 Colman Dock to the north and Pier 48 to the south could likely handle the anticipated level Of the 17 routes evaluated in this portion of of vessel traffic if it is well-planned and de- the study, eleven connect to downtown Seattle. signed. Use of at least the northern part of Pier Ideally, all POF routes serving Seattle—with 48 could provide sufficient space for a landside perhaps the exception of privately operated terminal. Modification to the southern end of tourist routes—would connect through Colman Colman Dock is also a possibility, although it Dock, the main terminal for all existing WSF would impact the pier’s existing vehicle lanes. auto and passenger ferry service. Consolidating Coordinated planning is needed between the ferry service operations at one location allows City of Seattle, WSF, KCFD and any future better intermodal connectivity, a simplified user POF operators serving downtown Seattle to experience, and enhanced user choice (i.e. if a determine a final design for an expanded POF passenger misses the POF boat to Bremerton, terminal at Colman Dock, or a new POF hub they could choose to board the WSF auto boat facility in the vicinity. Initial phases of dock instead). construction should be designed to be expand- Ridership estimates show that these eleven POF able with a goal of accommodating peak period routes would carry a combined 9,000 daily vessel loads for all immediate and medium term riders to downtown Seattle in 2030. With this services identified in this plan.

Page 24 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 25 - -

as existing or upcoming opportunitiesas well for partnerships. to support critical the recommend are All these ferryed passenger-only operational system and strategy. Locally Appropriate Service Delivery Model POF service and delivered can be developed the public sector (e.g. sector or the private by and transit agencies), or counties, cities, state and public-private on variations numerous by public-public partnerships. Each model has that is and the option its merits and downfalls, best for a specific passenger-only ferry service is highly dependent on the particulars of the mar operating and political environment, ket, route, - - - land use, and Supportive transportationGood system integra tion. governance Locally appropriate financing Sustainable 1. 2. 3. 4. system development: primary of a successful POF policy components a framework for regional system that create and opportunitiescritical challenges in the The team identified four region. Sound Puget local importantly, More cessful POF system. discuss the most asked to stakeholders were team looked to systems ful system. The project America, North around Sound, in the Puget the keys to a suc to determine and abroad for POF framework a regional Establishing a success on what defines agreement requires Components of a Successful POF System Private Operation. Under this model, the pri- number of riders in exchange for passenger-only vate operator has full control of service design ferry service to the development. and planning, operations and maintenance, and Public-Private Partnerships. Under this fares. A local example is the Victoria Clipper common scenario, a public agency and private serving Seattle and Victoria. While this model operator work together jointly to plan, deliver is often the most cost-effective approach and and manage service. Examples of this model presents little to no risk to public finances, fares include the Vallejo BayLink ferry in the Bay may be set at a premium, there is no public Area, Vancouver SeaBus, and the Kitsap Tran- oversight to route and service planning, and sit Foot Ferry. Here, the public entity has full assets such as public docks, terminals and con- responsibility for service planning, fares and necting landside transportation services may operating costs while the private entity provides not be utilized. daily operations and frequently, maintenance A variation on this model is private operation services. This model is frequently cited as a with public subsidy, a model used by the New strongly beneficial approach due to the sharing York Water Taxi, where the private operator of risk and reward, relatively flexible service, uses terminals leased from the City. New York capitalization of the private entity’s maritime Water Taxi also works creatively with develop- expertise, and ability to maintain strong public ers who provide dock space and a guaranteed oversight.

Key Findings – POF Governance • Governance models must consider the ability to generate operating funds. Key study findings on POF governance While various grant programs exist to fund include: capital costs, it is much more difficult to generate ongoing operations revenues, • Partnerships will be integral to POF since fares typically cover only a portion of success. Public-private partnerships operating costs. help avoid complicated labor issues, take advantage of existing industry expertise • Regional oversight (PSRC’s role) is and private capital, utilize existing public important. PSRC can help shape regional assets (i.e. transit service, docks and ter- system development, ensure balanced minals) and leverage grant opportunities, regional investment, supportive land use all while maintaining public oversight policies, and landside integration. and control. • The role of Washington State Ferries • Start with small scale business plans should be reconsidered. The state’s role where feasible. Port districts, cities, needs clarification in WSF’s Long-Range counties and transit agencies should look Plan. State support in the form of resource to the Port of Kingston’s approach as a sharing and capital may meet state, regional model to pilot identified POF routes. and local objectives.

Page 26 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 27 - - Authority), Transit model, the this Under Source: Creative commons Emergency Water New York Water Taxi Taxi Water New York and as public resources an array of leveraging service. integrated sets to deliver public agencies or more two nership between Area (Bay be a single agency (e.g. The operator may fares. be a part Corporation), or may Ferry Sydney Public Operation. Operation. Public of service has full control public operator design maintenance and operations, and planning, Sustainable Financing of bridge tolls and federal and state emergency Funding for passenger-only ferries can be evacuation grants to fund operations and capi- generated through a variety of sources includ- tal, and Casco Bay Lines’ (Portland, Maine) use ing fares, federal grants, local taxes, bridge tolls, of tourist charters and advertising, which gener- private funding via partnerships, concessions, ates a full 24 percent of its revenue. charters, advertising, and even philanthropic Regional governance and operation of POF in grants. Creative approaches can be found the Puget Sound region is likely to remain di- among peer systems, such as the Bay Area’s use vided among a number of agencies and organi-

Key Findings – POF Financing • POF should be considered in the con- text of tolling and congestion pricing. In Key study findings on POF financing include: discussions around regional tolling, deci- sion-makers should consider the possibility • Countywide ferry districts, such as that of using future toll revenue to fund passen- recently formed in King County, will play a ger-only ferry service. key role in funding POF operations, capital facilities, and supporting landside transpor- • Existing ferry funding mechanisms have tation, but counties need refinements to key shortfalls. The use of Public Transpor- taxing authorities to allow them to success- tation Benefit Areas (PTBAs) to generate fully generate local operating funds. ferry funding can be problematic since PTBA boundaries don’t necessarily align • Most routes will require public subsidy. with POF beneficiaries. County-wide ferry While fare revenues may support a por- districts create a challenge in getting public tion of operations, only routes that operate acceptance if the district isn’t perceived to high-demand connections and are limited provide benefits to all the county’s constitu- to peak period service, or privately operated ents. tourist routes with premium fares, have the potential to recover a significant percent- • Port Districts are uniquely positioned age of operating cost through fares. The to participate in or solely govern POF remaining portion of operating expenses, operations, although in most cases this will capital and preservation costs will require be for a single or very limited number of other funding sources. routes. • Tourist markets provide opportunity for • The State can help support POF. While revenue generation. Providers may be able WSF is not currently authorized to operate to offset operational costs with the flexible POF service, many of the state’s existing use of vessels for tours and events. ferry docks and terminals could be used by • Partnerships with private developers local POF operators, thus reducing the cost of POF service. These joint use opportuni- can leverage funding. Partnerships with ties should be pursued. private developers interested in building in ferry-terminal communities provide an • POF roles should be used as revenue op- innovative mechanism to fund capital proj- portunities, such as disaster planning and ects, guarantee fare revenues, and/or build emergency management, or transportation new markets. mitigation in the cases of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and SR 520 bridge replacement projects.

Page 28 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 29 - - - - - as as to

de can

Pro Bos

enter Water transit

such positive the develop of

TOD transit, and in Area’s

of compact uses, land

and . Public accessibility equally (WTOD) as

of

Bay

travel. use

Transit-oriented

distance

project of

the with

mix the effective restaurants

a by defined increase TOD an

walking modes services. is

be and support

terminals Development easy

can contains ferry

to

shopping, illustrated

(TOD) Hingham a mix of complementary land Provide ferry is Hingham TOD project leveraged in $7 million federal money for dock development Source: Nelson\Nygaard

within to TOD

the TOD

jobs, ridership

This a pedestrian perspective. - a mix of land uses near termi Develop nals. to the setting uses and spaces appropriate (urban, suburban or rural). as a focal point for the terminal Use concentrated development in waterfront development interest private is an opportunity to site terminals, plan POF service, inviting for future and create and walkable public spaces in waterfront districts. and comfort, from and focus development non-motorized

approach • • and as build applied

to passenger-only development velopment stations. housing, tainment. ment well be results. Transit-Oriented gram - - - way

needs. effective capital developments an is

support mixed-use and concepts of compact WTOD terminals that match the local context

dense, of ferry

operations ban and suburban ferry terminal locations. the pedestrian first. around Design accessibility pedestrian safety, Maximize - land use and zon supportive Develop ing policies (e.g. urban, suburban or rural) and enable application of ur to appropriate development mixed-use • • POF provision and local jurisdictions: ed that the region Supportive Land Use Recommendations supportive land use, it is recommend ensure To surrounding Supportive Land Use The partnerships through and demonstra sources servicetion of effective integration. should continue to agencies That said, regional new and leverage costs together to share work to of sources on a unique combination rely fund such it will as future; the foreseeable zations for regional a consolidated to develop be difficult will operating agency Each strategy. funding ton region, which leveraged $7 million in federal Closest to Dock funds for development around a Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority ferry dock. PSRC could play an important role in supporting smaller cities by developing a set of supportive transportation connectivity and land use development guidelines and policies that could be considered by terminal area communities.

Transportation System Integration The world’s most successful POF services share a few common characteristics – they typically serve dense walkable areas and provide excellent connections to numerous other landside pub- lic and private transit modes. The success of new routes in the Puget Sound region will rely on careful terminal siting that allows walk and bike access to a mix of land uses, connections to transit routes and access to kiss-and-ride and Access Hierarchy for POF Terminals park-and-ride facilities.

Keys to System Integration • Provide comprehensive, frequent and di- rect supportive transit service, with stops To create excellent system integration, the located closely and conveniently to termi- region should: nals, and transit service scheduled to enable easy passenger connections to arriving and • Encourage non-SOV access to terminals departing ferries. by maximizing available transit, bicycle and walking opportunities and creating a • Minimize scheduling and physical con- continuous, connective pedestrian network flicts between modes,allowing seamless surrounding the terminal area. and convenient transfer between ferries and transit. • Build from the pedestrian’s perspective, creating an environment pleasant for walk- • Manage parking demand strategically, ing. This entails siting a mix of uses, with such as with time-limiting and/or requiring buildings pushed up to the sidewalk and payment for street parking to reduce park- locating parking either on the street, behind ing demand. When parking is deemed es- buildings, or in a nearby garage. sential, provide parking in nearby park-and- ride lots with connecting transit service, • Maximize pedestrian safety, accessibility or in lots or garages within easy walking and comfort and the availability and clarity distance of the terminal. of passenger information.

Page 30 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 31 - - and bus service bus stops nearby be should the ferry with coordinated ter schedule. The updated traveler regularly provide minal should schedules for both the information, including ferryand landside transportation. and Signage where locations For be clear. wayfinding should shuttles is unavailable, on- or near-site parking if should be provided park-and-rides to nearby adequate con not provide public transit does nections. - should Terminals The Bremerton Transportation Center is a model for transit and ferry system integration. Source: Nelson\Nygaard for provided should be crosswalks Signalized for be provided should Shelters roads. nearby be smooth, wide and pathways should Access meet ADA requirements. and should well-lit, single-occupant vehicle terminal, with private the furthestparking away. public transportation,be designed so that walk the closest to the are facilities ing and bicycling the walking design minimizes terminal Good to other unloads the vessel where from distance transportation connections. Regional Roles and Action Steps

This plan represents a first step in moving the management, and distributes transportation region toward the development of a successful funds via the Regional Transportation Improve- and sustainable passenger-only ferry system. ment Program (TIP), under which POF is The Puget Sound Regional Council, water- eligible. PSRC can play a stronger, expanded front communities, counties and the state will role in advancing POF systems in the following need to work together to move the regional areas: passenger-only ferry strategy forward, and to Transportation 2040 (the region’s new trans- create a world-class network of passenger-only portation plan). The region’s new plan should ferries that fulfills regional and local mobility, include the routes identified in the Regional economic, social and environmental goals. In POF Strategy, with an emphasis on the Im- some cases this will require state and local poli- mediate- and Medium-Term routes. The Plan cies in support of POF to be revised and recon- should also incorporate the recommended sidered. It is possible that the most effective landside transportation connections included in financing and governance solutions have not yet Task 9 of this study for supporting POF service been explored and the POF vessel of the future in specific locations. In addition, Transporta- is not yet imagined. However, many of the key tion 2040 should incorporate land use guide- building blocks are already in place to move the lines for ferry terminal areas, and a discussion region forward toward a future where passen- of promising funding sources for potential ger-only ferries not only serve more passengers future regional POF services. As more specific and communities, but also play a key role in POF projects are identified by project sponsors, land use development and growth manage- PSRC has the authority to provide funding ment. This section outlines expanded roles that through the regional TIP. existing and potential stakeholders can play in advancing passenger-only ferry systems in the Research and Surveys. Good planning stems Puget Sound region. from good data, and PSRC could enable im- proved ferry planning by conducting continued The table (Figure 12) summarizes key action research into existing and future ferry markets, steps and the most probable lead agency or user preferences, potential customer reactions to organization. More detailed descriptions of ac- various fare structures, and overall research into tions needed to implement the regional passen- and testing of a variety of ferry service concepts. ger-only ferry strategy follow. By partnering with King County Ferry District and WSF on research, PSRC could bring a Puget Sound valuable regional perspective to POF evalua- Regional Council tion. The Puget Sound Regional Council, the region’s Design Guidelines for Terminal Areas. PSRC metropolitan planning organization, sets could work with county and local partners to regional planning policies in the areas of trans- develop and adopt guidelines for water transit- portation, economic development, and growth

Page 32 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 33 WSF WSF WSF Transportation WSF WSDOT, Commission Counties, POF providers, Agencies Transit PSRC, POF providers, PSRC, POF providers, POF providers, developers Private groups User ferry and regional State providers sector Private Cities, counties, transit agencies Cities and counties POF providers King County City of Seattle, regional other District, Ferry ferry operators POF providers District King County Ferry and jurisdictions local County, developers and private All stakeholders with transit Coordinate service to improve providers and facilities to support POF county and local State, jurisdictions All stakeholders Potential Partners Potential Plan Transportation 2040 Transportation and other new ferry Terminal accommodating auto and Terminal (WTOD) Development Oriented Transit Water possible to WSF assets (docks, terminals, etc.) where of POF start-ups cost burden reduce Hub strategic Seattle Develop foot ferries off-peak service of POF in role provision Evaluate to support transit services, toll revenues ferries including Allow for POF and requirements funding mechanisms current Review that reflect etc) and consider revisions (PTBA, County District, beneficiaries and land use codes to support zoning ferryAdjust terminals and in waterfront development investment leverage area connections to terminal good pedestrian and bicycle Develop Hub strategic Seattle Develop terminal sites pricing and at terminal sites strategically through parking Manage time limits to initiate new funding authority and/or pilot POF services Use of POF start-ups cost burden physical assets to reduce Share existing Share in securing funds and POF providers capital planning by Support investments coordinating Forum Coordinating Ferry and staff Regional Create funding sources regional new and innovative Develop for new facility planning passenger-only ferryCoordinate services, centers lots and intermodal including park-and-ride and frequent serviceCoordinate planning and scheduling to provide landside transit connections direct with ferries integration/reciprocity fare toward Work Action Step Action in with new routes POF Strategy Include collection and analysis for serviceConduct ongoing data planning and surveys research using market regional Develop mixed-use, local guidelines for developing strategices, including areas pedestrian-oriented terminal POF service regional design and performance coordinated Develop standards Summary of Regional Roles and Action Steps

Committee Legislature/ State Joint Transportation Washington Washington Ferries State (WSF) Districts Port Cities and Counties Agencies Transit Council Sound Puget Regional Stakeholder Figure 12 oriented development, and developing termi- funding mechanisms so that they work even nals in urban, suburban and rural settings. better for existing and future providers and work together to lobby the legislature on behalf Development of Coordinated Service Stan- of these changes dards. PSRC could work with stakeholders to ensure that all existing and future POF service Evaluation and Development of New Region- meets minimum quality of service levels. In al Funding Sources. PSRC could take a lead addition to working with POF service pro- role in identifying and advocating new regional viders to determine what appropriate service funding sources for passenger-only ferry service standards might be, the region could develop and facilities, such as bridge or highway tolls, performance measures to evaluate whether ju- emergency mitigation and disaster management risdictions would meet minimum requirements funds, or transportation mitigation funding. for POF service, such as ridership and access. This could apply in particular to POF services Transit Agencies that would receive competitive federal, state or Whether or not transit agencies actually provide regional funds, to ensure transportation dol- passenger-only ferry service themselves, they lars are distributed to the most productive and can take steps to ensure the success of existing regionally significant services. and future POF services. Transit agencies can Capital Planning. Through targeted research play a stronger, expanded role in advancing into other systems’ capital programs and trends POF systems in the following ways: in ferry system technology, PSRC could develop Facility Planning. When developing capital in- important cost data, best practices, and other vestment plans, transit agencies should consider resources to assist potential future POF provid- existing and planned POF service, and ensure ers to craft credible capital plans. PSRC could adequate park-and-ride capacity exists, with good work with jurisdictions to seek Federal appro- shuttle connections to terminals. priations to support POF. For example, $50 Service Planning and Schedule Coordination. million would provide capital funding for all the Immediate-term routes. Transit agencies should ensure good transit con- nections to ferry terminals with service levels Enhanced Regional Coordination. PSRC that are well-matched to the market (e.g. peak- could foster enhanced regional coordination period service for commuter markets and all day by forming a new Regional Ferry Coordinating connections for broader markets). Transit and Forum comprised of agencies and interested POF providers should partner to actively de- parties from the region and state, which could velop park-and-ride shuttle and local distribution generate and adopt ideas for service planning, routes. Transit agencies and ferry service providers terminal area design guidelines, vessel and should also work together to ensure transit-ferry terminal design standards and regional funding schedule coordination. This is especially vital sources. In particular, this collaborative body when headways are 30 minutes or longer and could generate ideas for modifying existing a missed connection due to poorly coordinated

Page 34 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary Executive Summary Page 35 - - of One integration When assess seamless ensure to working then Smart waterfront for cities to way development is a key support POF service Master Plan – Waterfront Source: City of Hercules, CA and ing potential terminal locations, allowed favoring land uses should be reviewed, proposed a mix of uses and denser or allow sites that have the City particular, In development. residential with landside transportation Cities networks. inventoryingand counties can assist by existing roadway, conditions on the landside bicycle, ex surrounding pedestrian and transit networks isting and planned POF terminals—including and needs, supply—noting deficiencies parking and connections to ferry of modes and improved services. Terminals. of POF Siting Strategic the biggest challenges in planning POF service is finding a terminal location that will allow people to walk, bike, or take transit to the boat, minimizing the need to drive. of to -

- fare and -

This time both -

should of of revenue

between

of Passenger- fares. loss loss

Waterfront . The suc collection,

important coordination base. development

providers waits,

fare method

very and to

rider front integration

is long of sup The provision transferable service up in consequently,

systems, Fare related

greater offer funding, systems

a and,

result transit to

and significant between

ferry and could challenges

capture and advantage together ferry

require help dependent on the quality of service integration Multi-Modal Service Integration Multi-Modal cess of passenger-only ferry service is highly ferry riders. Cities and counties should ensure fully sup codes are land use plans and zoning POF service.portive of existing and future with ing and walkable public spaces and work new in partnership developers to create private is an opportunitydevelopment to site terminals POF service, invit and plan for future create to accessibility of ridership and increase levels POF services; land use planning falls squarely in the court of cities and counties. ferryportive land uses surrounding terminals is high way to ensure perhaps the most effective POF strategy through: and Zoning. Land Use of land use planning. Local jurisdictions arena can supportthe regional of the advancement future the success of existing and take to ensure passenger-only ferry services, especially in the Cities and Counties many steps cities and counties can are There distribution enabling technology. overcome differentials work will transit can only Fare Integration. schedules saving transit and ferrypotential riders. of Seattle and King County should partner with State/ the State and other regional ferry operators Washington State Ferries to develop a Seattle Hub terminal to accom- While the State has been legislatively mandated modate future demand. Interest in community to exit the passenger-only ferry business as a ser- development and renewal in ferry communities vice provider, there are steps the state could take should be capitalized upon to help capture lo- to support regional passenger-only ferry service cal, regional, state and federal grants to rehabili- and at the same time advance their own system tate or build new terminals. objectives. These steps include: Appropriate Management of Parking Sup- Partnering with POF Providers to Share ply Near Terminals. The need for parking at Existing WSF Assets. Terminals and vessels are or near the terminal will vary by location and costly capital investments. The state can sup- depend on land use and densities, as well as port the regional passenger-only ferry strategy the values important to a particular commu- by offering shared use of their terminals and nity. While terminals located in urban centers vessels where and when it makes sense. with good transit connections can probably get away with zero parking at the terminal, these Develop a Downtown Seattle Hub Terminal locations may need limited parking nearby in Supportive of POF Service. While it is still structures or lots. In more suburban or rural unclear when redevelopment of Colman Dock locations terminals will need to be supported will occur or where the funding will come from, with park-and-rides at a minimum, and poten- stakeholders agree the facility is in need of tially parking near or at the terminal as well. eventual refurbishment to support WSF services as well as passenger-only ferry service. The state Port Districts should partner with the City of Seattle, the The Washington State Legislature has granted King County Ferry District and other regional Ports Districts the authority to operate POF ferry operators to develop a downtown Seattle service, and the Port of Kingston has developed terminal that accommodates future demand for a business plan for providing Kingston – Seattle both auto and foot ferries. service. The Port has received federal start-up Ensure Toll Revenues Will Support Transit funds and is moving ahead towards imple- (Including POF Service). Similar to the Bay mentation. Other Ports within potential POF Area, this region should consider POF service markets could similarly consider operation of in the context of regional tolling and congestion service and work with cities, counties and tran- pricing. As policies for raising and spending sit agencies to develop POF business plans. toll revenues are set in place, the state should ensure that passenger-only ferry services, along with land-based transit services, are eligible to receive toll revenues in affected corridors or proportionate to need under a system-wide toll- ing approach.

Page 36 Puget Sound Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Study — Executive Summary