Quantitative Procedures For Designing and Operating Ferry Services (2023)

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/26748
Quantitative Procedures for Designing

and Operating Ferry Services (2023)
DETAILS
86 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-69492-6 | DOI 10.17226/26748
CONTRIBUTORS
Kristen Kissinger, Kelly Lesoing, Cassandra Durkin; Transit Cooperative Research
Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences,
BUY THIS BOOK Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Quantitative
Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26748.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238

Quantitative Procedures for Designing
and Operating Ferry Services
Kristen Kissinger
Kelly Lesoing
Cassandra Durkin
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Seattle, WA
Subject Areas
Marine Transportation • Passenger Transportation • Terminals and Facilities
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the American Public Transportation Association
2023
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238
The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project A-46
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- ISSN 2572-3782
rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must ISBN 978-0-309-68777-5
expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency
© 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob-
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera-
tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions
to meet demands placed on it. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation published or copyrighted material used herein.
Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop-
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research
fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, Cover figure credit: Sternstein Photography
Cover figure: WSF, Mukilteo Ferry Terminal with Vessel
operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative
practices.
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro-
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized NOTICE
as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
(ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta-
and APTA. APTA is responsible for forming the independent govern- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or
the program sponsors.
ing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection
(TOPS) Commission. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifi-
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but cations. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which pro-
vide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors,
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures,
of the TOPS Commission to formulate the research program by identi- or specifications.
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Commission defines funding levels and expected products. Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely
by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel
throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research
problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by
TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in
other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without
compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat-
ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen-
cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research
reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material
developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- Published research reports of the
ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners.
are available from
TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively
address common operational problems. TCRP results support and Transportation Research Board
Business Office
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program
Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer
Dajaih Bias-Johnson, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
Doug English, Senior Editor
TCRP PROJECT A-46 PANEL

Field of Operations
Justin Resnick, Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA (Chair)
Martha A. R. Bewick, The Harbor Consultancy International, Hingham, MA
Richard G. Bickel, Jr., Econsult Solutions, Inc., Ardmore, PA
Charles R. Carr, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, MS
Alan Robert Danaher, WSP, Orlando, FL
Mike W. Gougherty, San Francisco Bay Ferry, Alameda, CA
Peter C. Martin, CDM Smith, San Francisco, CA
Peggy Tadej, Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC), Fairfax, VA
James C. Wong, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York, NY
Steve Truong, FTA Liaison
Vanessa Williams, FTA Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project A-46 by the Marine Transit Consulting
Team at KPFF Consulting Engineers.
Kristen Kissinger, AICP, was the Project Director and Principal Investigator. The other authors of this
report are Kelly Lesoing, Planner, and Cassandra Durkin, Planner. Technical expertise and review were
contributed by Mike Anderson, Director Marine Transit, and Andy Bennett, Principal.
Anthony Bruzzone, AICP CTP, Associate Principal, Transport Planning, and Joseph Kaylor, Transportation
Planner, from Arup conducted data collection and analysis and supported report development.
Field surveys at ferry terminals were conducted by Lauren Romeo (Arup) and Austin Lucero (California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and 2021 Arup intern).

FOREWORD
By Dianne S. Schwager
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report provides guidance for assessing and planning ferry system capacity for fixed-
route ferry services and facilities serving either passengers only or passengers and vehicles.
Guidance looks at overall system capacity as well as the design and operation of ferry system
elements, including vessels, facilities, service schedules, and terminal operations. This report
will be of immediate use to ferry operators and transit decision makers with an existing
ferry service.
Ferry transportation services play an important role in many municipal and regional
transportation systems throughout the United States and have the potential to play an even
greater role. Ferries serve urban centers, island regions, and rural areas, and can provide an
alternative to other transportation modes or provide lifeline access to unbridged commu
nities. Ferries have provided critical transportation in the United States during emergencies
such as natural disasters, bridge failures, transit strikes, and tunnel flooding.
Under TCRP Project A-46, “Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry
Transit Services,” the research team led by KPFF Consulting Engineers was asked to:
• Build on the guidance provided in existing ferry transportation reports, including three
reports developed by the TCRP;
• Present key quantitative procedures for designing and operating scheduled and fixed-
route ferry transit services and facilities that serve passengers only and passengers and
vehicles;
• Focus on ferry capacity concepts and analysis methods, including but not limited to
vessels, docks, routes, terminals, and intermodal connections;
• Consider in-water, navigation, and regulatory factors in addition to environmental
impacts of ferry services; and
• Strive to provide comparable detail to the bus, rail, and station chapters of TCRP Report
165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM).
TCRP Research Report 238 presents guidance for assessing and planning overall ferry
system capacity as well as the design and operation of ferry system elements. This report
expands on the ferry guidance provided in previous TCRP reports and focuses on:
• Identifying how ferry system elements, including operating conditions and assets (vessels
and terminals), are related to each other and affect overall system capacity;

• Quantifying and assessing passenger and vehicle movement; and

• Presenting quantitative procedures and best practices for addressing capacity challenges
through design of infrastructure investments, operations, and service planning.
The report also identifies gaps in this and previous reports where additional data collection
and research are needed to more fully develop capacity guidance and quantitative proce-
dures for ferry passenger services.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
2 Research Objective
2 Definitions
4 Background and Need for Research
4 Research Approach
9 How to Use This Report
11 Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity

11 Vessel and Fleet Planning
15 Terminal Capacity and Design
20 Maximizing Sailing Frequency
25 Governance and Policy Factors
31 Chapter 3 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods:

Passenger-Only Ferries
31 Optimizing the Service Schedule
33 Passenger Facility Capacity Planning and Minimizing Dwell Time
44 Chapter 4 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods:

Vehicle Ferries
44 Optimizing the Service Schedule
46 Understanding Vessel Capacity and Vehicle Demand
48 Vehicle Terminal Capacity Planning and Minimizing Dwell Time
54 Chapter 5 Example Capacity Procedures Use

54 Example 1: Passenger-Only Ferry
57 Example 2: Vehicle Ferry
60 Chapter 6 Suggested Further Research

60 Summary of Identified Gaps
62 References
63 Abbreviations and Acronyms
64 Appendix A Operator Questionnaire and Summaries
of Responses
69 Appendix B Data Collection and Findings


SUMMARY
Quantitative Procedures
for Designing and Operating
Ferry Services
Ferry service capacity programs enhance regional travel capacity and enable regional
mobility and access, as well as influence ferry services’ environmental and financial impacts.
Capacity expansion can take many forms and create opportunities for expanded service
and facilities as well as vessel improvements. Whether a service moves only passengers
or also vehicles, system elements such as the vessel, terminal design, fare collection, and
the interface between the terminal and the vessel all contribute to the system’s capacity
and its ability to adapt to growth.
This report explores the variables and relationships that have an impact on the oper-
ating capacity of a ferry system and presents guidance and quantitative procedures for
defining the capacity of a ferry system, along with best practices for understanding and
addressing capacity challenges. The target audience includes ferry operators and transit
decision makers of existing ferry services. This report expands on the ferry guidance pro-
vided in previous TCRP reports and focuses on:
• Identifying how ferry system elements, as well as operating conditions and assets (vessels
• Presenting tools that can be used to plan for and address capacity challenges.
Data collection to support this research included conducting a literature review and
gap analysis of previous ferry reports, administering an operator questionnaire, observing
passenger throughput at several terminals, and reviewing ferry planning studies, guidelines,
and industry best practices. The report concludes by identifying gaps in the research where
additional data collection and research are needed to expand on capacity guidance and
quantitative procedures and provide additional procedures for ferry capacity planning.
1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Research Objective
For many areas, ferry transportation services play an important role in regional transportation
by providing additional transit capacity to transportation networks and serving as a lifeline for
geographically isolated communities. Despite the long history of ferry transportation and recent
expansion of ferry service in several regions, research and guidance for ferry capacity planning
are underdeveloped compared to other transportation modes. The objectives of this research
are to present guidance for defining the capacity of a ferry system as well as for understanding
capacity challenges, and to provide quantitative procedures for designing and operating both
scheduled and fixed-route ferry transit services and facilities that serve only passengers as well
as passengers and vehicles. This report presents capacity concepts and analysis focused on vessels,
terminals, and service schedules, and discusses the relationships and dependencies between
these elements.
The target audience of this report includes ferry operators and transit decision makers with
existing ferry services. The report assumes that its readers have a foundational understanding
of the ferry industry or will reference background information in existing ferry reports.
Another goal of this report is to identify gaps in this and previous research where additional
data collection and research are needed to more fully develop capacity guidance and quantitative
procedures and further the availability of information for ferry capacity planning.
Definitions
This section provides definitions of ferry and transit terms as used in this report. Many of
these terms could be used or defined differently in other publications.
Ferry Service Components

• Dwell time: The total time the vessel spends at the dock between tie-up arrival and the
departure of the next scheduled service trip, including the time needed to load and unload
passengers and perform any necessary vessel cleaning or resupply activities.
• Lifeline route: A ferry route that serves an island or geographically isolated community that
depends on the ferry service for access to services, jobs, or schools.
• Maneuvering and approach time: The time necessary to safely approach and depart the berth.
• Multimodal: The spatial, temporal, and financial connections between the ferry route and land-
based transportation (e.g., bicycle, bus, microtransit, rideshare, auto). Physical connections
and schedule and fare coordination are all components of multimodal systems.

Introduction 3
• Operating margin: Extra time built into a scheduled trip time or service schedule to account
for trips that take longer than average.
• Passenger: Any ferry user on the vessel or in the terminal, except for those in vehicles (who
are referred to as vehicle drivers or passengers in vehicles).
• Pedestrian: Any individual traveling on foot; used in this report in reference to the terminal
areas that people walk through to connect to and from the ferry and the rates at which they
move through the terminal.
• System capacity: The maximum total number of passengers or vehicles a ferry system
(including all vessels and routes) can carry over a specified period of time.
• Service frequency: The scheduled time between departures at a terminal for service along the
same route.
• Throughput: The maximum number of passengers or vehicles that can move through a
ferry terminal over a specified period of time.
• Time underway: The vessel travel time beginning when the vessel is untied at the departure
terminal and ending when the vessel ties up at the arriving terminal, including vessel maneu-
vering time.
Vessels and Infrastructure

• Admeasured gross tonnage: A measurement reflecting the internal volume of a vessel;
used as a basis for vessel regulation.
• Automobile equivalent unit (AEU): A standard footprint used for planning purposes to
represent the dimensions of a standard vehicle.
• Freeboard: The height of the vessel main deck from the waterline.
• Holding area: The terminal area beyond the fare collection point dedicated to passenger or
vehicle waiting (either linear or cluster).
• Passenger-only ferry: Vessel designed to carry passengers only, some with designated spaces
for bicycles or freight. Typically, passengers walk on and off the vessel via a gangway or
ramp connection to the dock.
• Queuing area: The area dedicated to lining up passengers or vehicles in order of arrival for
fare payment or vessel boarding.
• Terminal: The entire facility used for passenger or passenger and vehicle ferry service,
including landside and in-water elements. Depending on the type of ferry service, the terminal
may require different components and amenities.
• Vehicle ferry: Also known as “automobile ferry” and “roll-on, roll-off ferry” (“RO-RO ferry”),
a vessel (often with separated vehicle deck and passenger cabin spaces) designed to carry
vehicles, drivers, passengers in vehicles, walk-on passengers, and passengers with bicycles.
Typically, vehicles drive onto the ferry via a ramp or transfer span at one or both ends of
the vessel, and passengers walk on and off the vessel over the vehicle ramp or a separated
ramp connection to the dock.
Vessel-Focused Terminal Elements

• Berth (also referred to as slip): The specialized infrastructure designed to accommodate a
single vessel at a time and provide a connection during operations (loading and unloading
vehicles and passengers). If designed to meet tie-up requirements, a berth can also be used
for mooring (tie-up outside of service windows).
• Dock: The overwater or along-shore terminal infrastructure used for vessel landing or
mooring; may include multiple vessel berths.
• Float: In-water floating infrastructure used to provide berthing for passenger-only vessels.
• Gangway: A passenger walkway connecting a vessel to a float or pier. Gangways may be
manually or mechanically moved to connect to the vessel once it is berthed.
• Pier: Fixed overwater infrastructure supported by piles.

4 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services
• Ramp: A fixed passenger walkway between a float and dock or terminal.

• Transfer span: A movable ramp that provides a connection for vehicles between the dock
and ferry vessel.
• Vessel–terminal interface: The alignment and connection between the terminal landing infra-
structure and the vessel.
Background and Need for Research

Ferries serve a vital role in transportation systems throughout the United States and inter-
nationally. The 2020 National Census of Ferry Operators conducted by the Bureau of Trans-
portation Statistics included responses from 164 U.S. ferry operators, with at least one operator
reported from 42 out of the 54 states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Of the reported
vessels, 98.54% carry passengers, 37.76% carry vehicles, and 17.35% carry freight. Total reported
boarding counts for 2019 included 112.1 million passengers and 26.3 million vehicles (Bureau
of Transportation Statistics 2020).
Ferry service is distinct from other transit modes for several reasons, including the regula-
tions and challenges of the marine operating environment and the wide range in vessel and
terminal designs and capacities. Each ferry system has unique operating conditions, ridership
levels, route geography, and other service characteristics that define vessel and terminal infra-
structure needs. However, less data and research are available for ferry planning and design than
for other transportation modes, as noted in TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual (TCQSM) (Ryus et al. 2013) and other reports.
Terminal and vessel infrastructure involve long-term, and typically expensive, investments.
Understanding the information and procedures necessary to evaluate, prioritize, and address
capacity issues in a ferry system supports operators and agencies in making these investment
decisions. Additionally, this data analysis can also support funding endeavors, whether the
funding is from grants or other sources.
Ferry systems are complex and dynamic. System elements such as vessels, terminals, and
operations are highly integrated and affected by many operating conditions that cannot be
controlled, such as weather, sea states, marine mammals, vessel traffic, and other environmental
operating conditions. This integration of system elements and dynamic operating environment
can make it challenging to identify one system element that may relieve a capacity constraint.
For example, design of a terminal element such as queuing area can have an impact on both
the capacity (number of passengers or vehicles that can be accommodated at one time) and
throughput (rate at which passengers or vehicles can move through the terminal), which then
affects the vessel capacity that can be accommodated and how often vessel landings can be
scheduled. Identifying each element—landside or on the vessel—that creates a pinch point or
delay is critical to maximizing system capacity and therefore overall operating efficiency.
Ferry system capacity in relation to terminals and vessels is illustrated in Figure 1. These
elements contribute to system capacity, which can be measured both by sailing and over given
periods of time.
Research Approach
The research for this project expanded on the ferry guidance provided in previous TCRP and
other reports and focused on:
• Identifying how ferry system elements, including operating conditions and assets (vessels

Introduction 5
Figure 1. Capacity impacts in relation to terminals and vessels.

• Presenting tools that can be used to plan for and address capacity challenges.
Data collection included conducting a literature review of previous ferry reports, administering an
operator questionnaire, and observing existing terminal passenger throughput. The following
sections provide details on each data collection method.
Literature Review
As a first step toward developing key quantitative procedures for designing and operating
scheduled and fixed-route ferry transit services and facilities, the research team reviewed
existing ferry studies and identified gaps in the information presented where further research
or development of procedures would be needed to support informed ferry planning efforts.
The gaps in information identified from the literature review are addressed in this report or are
identified as topics recommended for further research in Chapter 6.
Resources reviewed for planning and operating ferry services included:
• TCRP reports,
• Ferry system planning documents, including feasibility studies and terminal design stan-
dards, and
• Transportation system planning guidance for other transit modes.

Four seminal ferry planning reports were identified, as summarized in the following. In
addition to these four reports, numerous other ferry and transportation planning documents
were reviewed and are referenced throughout the report.
• Functional Designs of Ferry Systems (Habib et al. 1980) provides a comprehensive
review of urban ferry systems, including the Staten Island Ferry, San Francisco Bay Ferry,
Washington State Ferries (WSF), BC Ferries, and BC Hydro Transportation (SeaBus), to
establish guidelines for the planning of new services and new systems. The report focuses on
the functional design of the vessel and terminal and the critical interface between the two,
providing guidance for planning infrastructure and operations to support passengers and
vehicles.
• TCRP Report 152: Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services (Bruzzone 2012) provides
an overview of the history and characteristics of ferry systems throughout North America
and offers guidelines for planning, marketing, operating, and managing a ferry system as a
component of an overall transportation network. Research presented in the report represents
a wide range of ferry services and includes findings from a survey of 43 operators and in-depth
case studies of eight operators. Guidance is aimed at policymakers and entrepreneurs
considering launching or expanding ferry services and includes criteria for evaluation of
cost-effectiveness and viability.
• TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition (Ryus
et al. 2013) includes research-based guidance on evaluating quality of service; measuring
transit capacity, speed, and reliability; and sizing elements of transit stops and stations. The
manual includes quantitative techniques for calculating the capacity and other operational
characteristics of bus, rail, demand-responsive, and ferry transit services, as well as transit
stops, stations, and terminals. Chapter 9: Ferry Transit Capacity describes aspects of ferry
service, facilities, scheduling, and service planning, and provides quantitative procedures that
are summarized in Table 1 of that report.
• TCRP Synthesis 102: Integrating Ferry Services with Mass Transit (Payne et al. 2013)
examines the integration between land- and water-based transit systems and explores
successful aspects of seamless integration. The report is intended to be a resource for transit
agencies to improve existing ferry–transit interfaces and to establish new coordination
between ferry and transit service. The report includes a literature review and the results
of a survey completed by 46 operators focused on gathering information regarding multi
modal schedule coordination, fare coordination, facilities coordination, and passenger
communications.
The first three of these reports provide a foundational overview of the physical elements and
operations of various types of ferry services, while the fourth takes a focused look at one aspect
of ferry service planning, the integration with land-based transit. TCRP Report 165: Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition (Ryus et al. 2013), introduces several
concepts foundational to calculating the capacity of ferry systems (discussed further in the last
section of this chapter, Quantitative Procedures). This report references and builds on the
foundational information presented in these previous reports to provide discussion and guid-
ance focused on capacity planning of specific ferry system elements as well as overall route and
system capacity and the interconnections between ferry system elements. This report furthers
the guidance available for planning and calculating the capacity of ferry systems by providing
additional quantitative procedures for calculating capacity, identifying best practices for capacity
planning and management currently in use by ferry operators, and conducting data collection
and observation of passenger flows at terminals to validate and supplement previous guidance.
This report also recommends key areas for additional research that would improve the guidance
available for ferry system capacity planning.

Introduction 7
Operator Questionnaire
As part of this project, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to ferry operators
across the United States and internationally. The goals of the questionnaire were to gather
data and best practices related to capacity planning and to gain an understanding of the
elements of ferry operations and associated policies that contribute to system capacity. Opera-
tors were asked to provide data on and descriptions of how their ferry systems address the
following topics:
• Types of data and tracking methods for ridership and terminal throughput
• Methods or technologies used for fare collection and location of fare collection within the
terminal
• Queuing lane management and allocation of space (passengers and vehicles)
• Service and schedule planning
• Planning related to alternative vessel propulsion technologies
• Performance metrics and targets
• Long-term planning impacts of COVID-19
• Multimodal connections and impact on system capacity
Five vehicle ferry operators and five passenger-only ferry operators provided responses.
The respondents included domestic and international operators.
Table 1 lists the operators that provided responses to the questionnaire.
The questions asked of the operators and summaries of responses are included in Appendix A.
Findings from the operator questionnaire informed the quantitative procedures and capacity
components and best practices that are included throughout this report.
COVID-19 Considerations
In the operator questionnaire, operators were asked what changes had been
made to their system’s operations and capacity management in response to
COVID-19, and whether they anticipated that any of these changes would
remain in place after COVID-19. Temporary modifications reported by operators
included:
• Restricted capacity on board vessels and at terminals to allow for social distancing,
• Reduced service schedules in response to decreased demand and to allow for
additional or more frequent cleaning procedures,
• Reduced or terminated concession services,
• Manual passenger counts for every sailing (European operator), and
• Implementation of health screenings and protective equipment/barriers for
crew and staff.
Only one operator stated that it anticipated a lasting change from COVID-19
modifications, with a shift toward contactless ticketing methods expected to
continue. All other operators expected that all modifications due to COVID-19
would end once agency and government restrictions are lifted. Although some
COVID-19 restrictions were still in place at the time this report was written, research
used pre-COVID-19 data and assumed a return to pre-COVID-19 operations for
procedures development.

Table 1. Ferry operator questionnaire respondents.
Vehicle Ferry System/Respondent Passenger-Only Ferry System/Respondent

1. BC Ferries (B.C., Canada) 1. HADAG (Hamburg, Germany)
2. King County Water Taxi/King County Metro,
2. BKV (Budapest, Hungary)
Marine Division (WA)
3. Cape May-Lewes Ferry/Delaware River and
3. Kitsap Fast Ferry/Kitsap Transit (WA)
Bay Authority (NJ/DE)
4. NYC Ferry/New York City Economic
4. Steamship Authority (MA)
Development Corporation (NYCEDC) (NY)
5. San Francisco Bay Ferries/Water Emergency
5. Washington State Ferries (WA)
Transportation Authority (WETA) (CA)
Terminal Throughput Observation

To identify how the design of terminal elements, such as queuing lanes and ramps, affects
overall ferry system capacity, the research team conducted on-site observations and reviewed
footage from security cameras mounted at selected domestic terminals of ferry operators who
responded to the questionnaire. The observations and video footage were used to collect data
on walking speed and overall passenger throughput. Observations and empirical data for walk
speed and passenger throughput were collected at 11 passenger-only ferry locations:
Kitsap Transit Fast Ferries (Washington)
• Bremerton Passenger Ferry Terminal
• Kingston Passenger Ferry Terminal
• Seattle Pier 50
New York City Ferries (New York)

• Wall St/Pier 11
• East 34th Street
• Brooklyn Bridge Park/Pier 6
San Francisco Bay Ferries (California)

• San Francisco Ferry Building, Gate E
• San Francisco Ferry Building, Gate F
• San Francisco Ferry Building, Gate G
• Alameda Ferry Terminal
• Oakland, Jack London Square
Data collection included video and live observation. Walkways, including the gangways and
ramps, were observed to identify the relationship of passenger throughput to the slope and
width of the walkways. Additional terminal observations included fare collection operations,
the dwell time between passenger embarking and disembarking, capacity constraint points
(i.e., where queuing occurred), and total passenger counts. Egress time was calculated between
two points along the path of travel and compared to the distance traveled to estimate the
average walk time for each ferry terminal.
Once data were collected, they were imported into and analyzed using data analysis soft-
ware to visualize passenger walk speed and passenger throughput for all terminals observed.
Findings were compared to the ferry-capacity spreadsheet-based tool developed for the TCQSM
(Ryus et al. 2013) to estimate overall ferry operational capacity. The research informed operating
procedures for passenger-only facility capacity planning.

Introduction 9
More information on the data collection and analysis for the throughput observation is
provided in Appendix B.
How to Use This Report

This report builds on the research and guidance presented in previous ferry reports and the
TCQSM, which serves as a reference work providing research-based guidance on evaluation
of quality of service measuring transit capacity, speed, and reliability, and sizing elements
of transit stations. References to background information presented in previous reports are
provided within the text, and a list of references is included at the end of the main body of
this report.
Report Organization
A summary of the report’s organization and topics included within each chapter is provided
in the following:
• Chapter 2 – Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity. Building on background information pre-

sented in previous TCRP reports, this chapter outlines the components of a ferry system that
relate to capacity, as well as the interconnections and dependencies of these components.
Topics include:
– Vessel and fleet planning,
– Terminal capacity and design,
– Maximizing sailing frequency, and
– Governance and policy factors.
• Chapter 3 – Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods: Passenger-Only Ferries. This
chapter identifies specific system elements that are key drivers of capacity for passenger-only
ferry systems. The chapter also includes procedures for calculating capacity and best prac-
tices for planning and operating services. The concepts related to passenger movement and
terminal design presented relate to both passenger-only and vehicle ferry services.
• Chapter 4 – Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods: Vehicle Ferries. This chapter
identifies specific system elements that are key drivers of capacity for vehicle ferry systems.
It also includes procedures for calculating capacity and best practices for planning and oper-
ating services. The chapter builds on the passenger movement and terminal design concepts
presented in Chapter 3 to focus on capacity planning concepts for vehicles.
• Chapter 5 – Example Capacity Procedures Use. Two hypothetical scenarios, one related to
passenger-only ferry service and one related to vehicle and passenger ferry service, present
how the capacity concepts and quantitative procedures presented in this report could be used
by operators/agencies to address capacity challenges.
• Chapter 6 – Suggested Further Research. The report concludes with a discussion of the
topics suggested for further research and data collection.
Quantitative Procedures
Quantitative procedures addressing ferry system capacity are presented in previous reports,
including the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) and Habib et al. (1980). Those procedures are summa-
rized in Table 2 (listed in the order in which they appear in each report).
This report builds on these previously developed quantitative procedures and includes several
new procedures, which are summarized in Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of existing ferry capacity quantitative procedures.
Capacity Concept Reference Procedure

Maximum number of vessels per
TCQSM: Equation 9-1, Equation 9-5,
Berth and dock hour based on a given
Ferry Capacity Computational
capacity passenger demand that a berth
Engine
or dock can accommodate
Vessel service time TCQSM: Equation 9-2 Design vessel service time
Dwell time TCQSM: Equation 9-3, Ferry Passenger disembarking and
(passengers) Capacity Computational Engine embarking time
TCQSM: Equation 9-4, Ferry Vehicle disembarking and
Dwell time (vehicles)
Capacity Computational Engine embarking time
Capacity on the route’s
maximum load segment = vessel
Schedule capacity TCQSM: Equation 9-6
capacity × frequency × peak-
hour factor
Doorway flow rates (Exhibit 10-
25), number of required ticket
Passenger facility
vending machines (Equation 10-
holding capacity and TCQSM, Chapter 10
1), fare gate capacity (Exhibit
throughput
10-27), pedestrian flow/LOS
(Equation 10-5)
Average rate of vehicles exiting
a terminal from the park and
Average park-and- ride, based on passenger
Habib et al. 1980
ride discharge rate volume, walk time from the
vessel, and average auto
occupancy
Method for estimating seating
Terminal seating
Habib et al. 1980 requirements based on service
requirements
frequency
Vehicle facility Required holding lane capacity
holding capacity Habib et al. 1980 based on number of routes,
requirements destinations, and vessel capacity
Note: LOS = level of service.
Table 3. Ferry capacity quantitative procedures included in this report.
Capacity Concept Description

Passenger-Only Ferries
Equation 1: Calculating Estimates the time needed to account
Operating Margin for typical delays and longer-than-
average dwell times
Equation 2: Passenger Boarding
Station Throughput Estimates the passenger throughput
of a given vessel boarding station
Vehicle Ferries
Equation 3: Using AEU to Applies AEUs to calculate the number
Calculate Vehicle Capacity of of standard-sized vehicles that can be
the Vessel carried on a vessel
Equation 4: Estimating Vehicles
Left Behind Estimates vehicles left behind at the
terminal
Equation 5: Sizing Vehicle Fare Estimates the number of toll booths
Collection Facilities needed to process vehicles at a
targeted rate

CHAPTER 2
Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity
Each ferry system has unique planning and operating considerations related to its passenger
or vehicle demand; the operating environment, including geography, sea state, and climate;
the locations of terminals; and the type of service provided. For example, a single-vessel rural
vehicle ferry service that serves as a lifeline route for island residents has different capacity
considerations than multi-route urban systems that provide an alternative to congested
roadways.
This report focuses on procedures and best practices based on what vessels carry: passengers
only or passengers and vehicles. Although ferries do provide a variety of services beyond the
transportation of vehicles and passengers, (e.g., carrying cargo or providing excursion trips),
these services are not addressed in this research.
Overall ferry system capacity is driven by the capacity of the vessels (how many people or
cars can be moved in one sailing) and the frequency of service (how many sailings occur over a
period of time). Factors such as the design and number of vessels, operating conditions, number
of routes served, and the terminal configuration directly affect the maximum number of possible
sailings and the capacity of the system. System capacity is also driven by how the ferry system is
governed along with the policies and regulations that apply to that service. Beyond total system
capacity, operators are often most focused on capacity during a defined time period, such as the
morning or evening commute windows.
This chapter provides an overview of the capacity planning considerations connected to each
of these elements and discusses how these elements relate to each other and to overall system
capacity.
Vessel and Fleet Planning

Habib et al. (1980) and the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) provide an overview of vessel design
considerations (including vessel functions, engine types and propulsion systems, hull and
superstructural elements, vessel control, docking procedures, and passenger amenities) for
passenger-only and vehicle ferries. The following sections describe how the vessel design,
regulations, route and operating conditions, fleet size, and the vessel–terminal interface affect
ferry system capacity.
Regulations Affecting System Capacity

Ferry systems can be subject to international, federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and
standards. The exact nature and scope of the applicable regulatory system imposed on an
individual ferry system depends on the specific operating characteristics of that ferry system.
11

This section provides an overview of the regulatory agencies involved and the key laws, regu-
lations, and standards for U.S.-owned and -operated ferry systems that affect the potential
vessel or ferry system capacity. Ferry services operating in other countries are subject to the
requirements and regulatory regimes of those countries.
Regulatory Agency Overview

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is the federal agency with primary responsibility for
maritime safety and security, including vessel construction, operational safety, vessel manning
and crew licensing, lifesaving and emergency response, and vessel and facility security. The Coast
Guard oversees a ferry system beginning with initial design and construction and following
throughout the system lifespan. The Coast Guard issues the vessel a Certificate of Inspection
(COI) that stipulates service information such as the authorized route, number of passengers
allowed, the size and makeup of crew, the type and number of lifesaving appliances, and other
related operating restrictions or limitations. While other federal agencies like the Environmental
Protection Agency and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and individual states may also
regulate vessel operations, this research focuses on Coast Guard requirements that affect
capacity of the vessel and ferry system.
Vessel Size
Vessel size has a direct impact on ferry system capacity. Further, the suite of applicable regu-
lations varies significantly based on vessel size. In domestic service, vessel size is defined by the
admeasured gross tonnage, a measurement reflecting the internal measured volume of the vessel,
which governs the set of regulations that apply. Specifically, a passenger vessel admeasured to
be less than 100 gross tons (GT) is considered a small passenger vessel, whereas a vessel greater
than 100 GT is considered a large passenger vessel.
Small passenger vessels are generally subject to less stringent rules related to crewing and
lifesaving requirements than large passenger vessels, leading to lower-cost vessel construction
requirements and lower operating costs. As a result, smaller ferries’ cost profiles may allow for
more efficiencies and indirectly more capacity after additional analysis. Table 4 outlines how
small and large passenger vessels are defined, as well as the applicable regulations.
Accessibility
While the current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not address accessibility
requirements for passenger vessels, the U.S. Access Board has developed draft accessibility
regulations for newly built or altered passenger ferry vessels designed to carry 100 or more
passengers. These proposed guidelines address onboard circulation, vertical access between
decks, doorways, thresholds, restrooms, and other passenger spaces and elements. Adoption of
the guidelines as regulatory requirements is pending final publication by the U.S. Access Board,
the date for which was unknown at the time this report was written. When final guidelines are
adopted, further study would be helpful to understand the impacts to passenger vessel design
and capacity planning.
Route Operating Conditions and Vessel Requirements

The length, operating conditions, and environmental concerns of a route dictate vessel
requirements such as speed, size, design, and regulations. In many cases, these requirements
affect the size of the vessel that can be used as well as the speed at which the vessel travels and
resulting service frequency. The following route elements have a direct relationship to vessel
and route capacity.

Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity 13
Table 4. Regulations affecting capacity by vessel size.
Vessel Size Applicable Regulations
Small passenger vessels are subdivided into two categories:

1. Those vessels carrying 150 or fewer passengers or with overnight
accommodations for 49 or fewer passengers, which are generally
governed by the regulations found in Title 46 CFR Subchapter T, and
2. Those vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight
accommodations for more than 49 passengers, which are subject to the
provisions of Title 46 CFR Subchapter K.
Vessel capacities for vessels subject to Subchapter K are typically governed by
standards in one of three areas: (1) vessel stability, (2) vessel physical
size/arrangements, and (3) available lifesaving appliance/equipment. The
Small passenger
following brief explanations apply:
vessels
(less than 100 GT) 1. Vessel stability – The application of vessel-/route-specific stability criteria
Subchapter T and K establishes the maximum number of passengers and crew members
allowed. Vessel stability must be considered when defining passenger
capacities.
2. Vessel size/arrangements – Coast Guard standards stipulate the number
of passengers based on the combination of the number of available seats,
the square footage of open space, and/or the amount of rail space
available. This represents a physical constraint on the number of
passengers and may govern the maximum passenger capacity stipulated
in the COI.
3. Lifesaving – The number and type of lifesaving appliances required on
board are stipulated by regulation for each vessel and can be a factor in
passenger capacity limits.
Large passenger vessels are subject to the provisions of 46 CFR Subchapter H.
Unlike small passenger vessels, there are no further regulatory thresholds for
large passenger vessels, with all vessels subject to the same set of rules, but
Large passenger with regulatory expectations modified based on operating variables such as
vessels route and capacity.
(more than 100 GT) Limits for passenger capacities are similar to those identified for small passenger
Subchapter H vessels. However, for large passenger vessels, there are additional regulatory
expectations, such as for structural fire protection, primary lifesaving appliances
and evacuation, and crewing/manning, that may represent additional
considerations for system capacity.
• Environmental restrictions: Ferries may travel through waters with designated slowdown
zones that reduce the transit speed and result in fewer service trips. Some examples of speed
restrictions related to environmental conditions include:
– Limiting speeds within a certain distance of protected marine mammals,
– Adjusting service speeds and vessel design to reduce vessel wakes and potential shoreline
erosion, and
– The presence of shallow water, which may require slow speeds or specialized vessel design
to manage operating risk and reduce the effects of propeller wash on sediment or aquatic
vegetation.
• Marine traffic: Ferry routes may include areas of high vessel traffic, including other trans-
portation, shipping, industry, and personal and recreational watercraft. Areas of high traffic
may require reduced speeds for safe operation.
• Propulsion and emissions: Desired vessel propulsion systems (e.g., electric or hybrid-electric
engines) and emissions level targets may affect vessel capacity—how much space is required
for propulsion or charging equipment, how fast a vessel can make a round trip, and how long
may be needed in between sailings (dwell time) for refueling or charging. Route environmental
and terminal characteristics will affect the suitability of a vessel size and its propulsion type.
• Safety standards: Vessels are subject to myriad safety standards that determine how many
passengers can be carried on the vessel, the number of crew required to operate the vessel,

and the equipment required. Some of these standards are determined based on the operating
conditions of the route. Each element affects the overall capacity of the vessel and the ferry
system. Table 5 summarizes the safety requirements that affect capacity for U.S.-based domestic
and international routes.
• Sea states and weather conditions: For routes that travel through open water, vessels may be
designed or equipped to aid in a comfortable passenger experience during times of wind and
wave action, and larger vessel sizes may be required. In areas where ice may be present during
winter conditions, vessels with ice-breaking capabilities may be required.
Right-Sizing the Vessel and Fleet

Ferry vessels are a major financial investment, with asset life that is typically longer than that
of other transportation modes. For example, the 2018 National Census of Ferry Operators
conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics
found the average age of reported vessels to be 27 years, the median age 24 years, and the oldest
vessel to be 104 years. As a result, right-sizing the vessel with the appropriate passenger or
vehicle capacity and operating capabilities for current and future needs is an important decision
for operators and transit planners. Factors involved in right-sizing the vessel may include the
following:
• Current and forecast demand: Forecast ridership and anticipated growth, or policy decisions
regarding levels of required service, can determine passenger and vehicle capacity require-
ments for vessels. Variability in demand by time of day, day of the week, or season, where peak
demand may be significantly higher than most other periods, must also be considered. Policy
and governance considerations related to system capacity are discussed in more detail in the
Governance and Policy Factors section later in this chapter.
Table 5. Domestic and international safety standards affecting capacity.
Ferry Service Safety Standards Affecting Capacity

Domestic Any vessel carrying more than six passengers on a domestic voyage would be
subject to applicable domestic laws and regulations, including those covering topics
such as construction, operations, safety, crewing, security, and inspections.
These standards vary depending on the domestic route to be served, with an
ocean/exposed route generally having more stringent standards for topics such as
safety, stability, and lifesaving than a route operating on protected waters. The vessel
stability and lifesaving capabilities unique to the specified route and vessel to be
employed may govern the vessel capacities authorized.
The stability letter issued by the Coast Guard stipulates the number of passengers
that may be carried on a specific route. The Coast Guard-issued COI stipulates the
associated lifesaving gear, along with requisite crew necessary to respond to an
emergency for the intended route. For example, a member of the crew, acting as a
dedicated lifeboatman, is typically assigned to every primary lifesaving appliance, the
number of which is tied to the vessel capacity and route served.
International Any vessel carrying 12 or more passengers and making an international voyage
between a U.S. port and a foreign port is subject to applicable international
conventions, including the International Conventions for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS); the International Safety Management Code; High Speed Craft Code (as
applicable); Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping; and the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.
A U.S.-flagged vessel employed on a route that includes international service is
subject to international and domestic standards. The Coast Guard is the agency
responsible for ensuring compliance with both sets of these standards.
In addition to standards that apply to vessel operations, a ferry route that includes an
international voyage also requires a terminal facility that provides the space and
attributes necessary to accommodate applicable customs and immigration functions
stipulated by CBP.

• Fleet composition: Vessel design and fleet planning can involve trade-off decisions regard-
ing vessel capacity and speed. Generally, smaller vessels require less dwell time to load and
unload passengers. Therefore, route and system capacity involve a trade-off between vessel
capacity and service frequency. The capacity provided by multiple smaller vessels with
frequent sailings may be the same or greater than that of one large vessel with less frequent
sailings. If operating costs are included as a consideration, comparison of different vessel
scenarios must also include factors such as the total number of crew required for operation,
maintenance costs, and fueling costs. The TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) introduces the trade-offs
in fleet and service frequency planning, including considerations for routes with multiple
destinations. Scheduled service frequency and vessel size are related to other service elements
such as terminal infrastructure, berthing capacity, and multimodal connections.
• Interoperability: For systems with multiple terminals and routes, standardization of the
fleet, in terms of vessel size and the design of the infrastructure needed to connect vessels
with the terminal, can lead to efficiencies in maintenance and operating costs as well as crew
training and dispatching and can have an impact on overall system capacity. Minimizing
differences in vessel size and design allows for increased flexibility in route assignments and
opportunities for increasing service during periods of high demand by dispatching additional
vessels. Interoperability also supports system redundancy in case of vessel outages. For
many systems, standardization of assets requires long-term planning and may be difficult
and costly to implement for systems with existing assets.
• Operating cost: Vessel size and sailing speed directly affect operating cost since the vessel size
and passenger capacity dictate the number of crew required by the Coast Guard, the amount
of fuel used to serve the route, and the overall vessel maintenance costs.
• Route length and operating conditions: The length and characteristics of the route and
operating environment also shape the vessel size. Routes with more exposure to wind and
wave action may require a larger vessel or an alternative and suitable hull design to maintain
safety, reliability, and passenger comfort.
• Regulations: The maximum passenger capacity of each vessel is determined by the Coast
Guard and stated on the COI. The passenger capacity is determined based on vessel size,
arrangements, crew size, and evacuation routes and equipment. Compliance with the Coast
Guard COI requires accurate counts of passengers on each sailing. Regulations related to
system capacity are discussed in more detail in the Regulations Affecting System Capacity
section earlier in this chapter.
• Terminal constraints: Constrained capacity upland of the terminal can also dictate vessel
size. A large volume of disembarking vehicles, or vehicles leaving from a park-and-ride lot,
can overwhelm connecting roadways and intersections. For some passenger ferry services,
capacity must be balanced and coordinated with the capacity of multimodal connections.
• Vessel–terminal interface: Vessel capacity is also directly related to terminal facilities,
including both the landing infrastructure that must be compatible with the vessel size and
design and the capacity of connecting terminal spaces. Passenger access is a critical component
of overall terminal capacity, and providing adequately sized passageways reduces passenger
queuing and alighting delays. In order to minimize dwell time, terminal spaces must accom-
modate a vessel load of passengers or vehicles as they load and unload within an allotted
window of time.
Terminal Capacity and Design

Previous reports, including Habib et al. (1980) and the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013), provide an
overview of the functional design and capacity concepts for terminal elements. The following
sections provide additional detail on terminal capacity planning considerations, including

maximizing vessel berthing, regulatory constraints for passenger spaces, policy decisions regard-
ing level of service (LOS) and targeted demand levels, and potential future needs. Guidance for
calculating capacity requirements for passengers and vehicles is included in Chapters 3 and 4.
Vessel Berthing Capacity

The TCQSM provides methods for calculating vessel capacity (the maximum number of
vessels per hour) at individual berths and at a dock facility based on passenger disembarking
time, passenger embarking time, and vessel clearance time (Ryus et al. 2013, Equations 9-1, 9-2,
and 9-5).
In addition to the number of berths, facility planning considerations for maximizing vessel
berthing capacity include the float design and available in-water space, as described here:
• For floats that provide two vessel berths (one on either side, as shown in Figure 2), the size
and design of floats and ramps determine whether two berthed vessels can simultaneously
load and unload passengers.
• The available in-water space around docks determines whether simultaneous maneuvering
for arriving/departing vessels is possible, or if arriving vessels are required to wait for a depart-
ing vessel to clear the dock area before landing.
• For hub terminals serving multiple routes or routes with multiple vessels, service reliability may
require backup slips in case of vessel breakdowns or terminal maintenance. Backup slips provide
redundancy and are in addition to the slips required to accommodate scheduled landings.
Regulatory Constraints
Terminal capacity is affected by any local, state, and federal building codes and environmental
and engineering policies that govern design and location of buildings and terminal facilities.
Figure 2. Float with two side-loading berths

(Pier 50, Seattle, WA).

Accessibility
The ADA was passed into federal law in 1990 and prohibits discrimination based on disability
in a variety of sectors, including transportation. For a public ferry operator, ADA construction
guidelines apply to terminal facilities and must be incorporated in new terminal construction or
facility renovations to provide equitable access for people with disabilities.
The U.S. Access Board is the federal agency that establishes the building and construction
standards for ADA compliance. The construction standards for land-based facilities have long
been established, with the most common design impacts for ferry operators being on elements
such as those discussed in the following:
• Restroom dimensions and features.
• Minimum widths for pedestrian walkways or queuing lanes (primarily for wheelchair access).
• Maximum pedestrian ramp slopes. Meeting the ADA standard for maximum ramp slopes
is a challenge for many ferry operations, especially those located in coastal areas with large
tidal ranges or with constrained terminal sites that limit transit span lengths. In some cases,
excessive ramp slopes may only occur during periods of extreme low or high tides, meaning
that there may be relatively isolated instances of noncompliance. In these cases, operators
must plan to have a crew or terminal staff member available to assist passengers when needed.
Environmental
Ferry terminals require in-water and overwater construction and must comply with appli-
cable federal, state, and local regulations. Complying with the U.S. Clean Water Act requires
demonstration of reducing and minimizing impacts to aquatic resources. As a result, the over-
water terminal elements are typically designed to the minimum area necessary to maintain safe
operations.
For vehicle ferries, holding lane design should include considerations for minimizing emis-
sions from idling vehicles. For example, a large lot located near vessel boarding and terminal
amenities may allow drivers to avoid idling for as long as would be the case in a long linear queue
where vehicles have to frequently move forward.
Planning and Service Factors

In addition to regulatory considerations, the sizing of a terminal depends on many variables,
including policy decisions regarding the targeted level of demand, number of routes and service
types, and desired LOS for customers.
Demand Levels
Planning construction of or improvements of terminals requires a balance between current
and future capacity needs, construction costs, and available space. Because passengers and
vehicles move on and off ferries in large batches, capacity planning must take into account peak
volumes of passengers and vehicles as well as the rates at which they move through the terminal.
More information on passenger flows and best practices for managing passenger throughput
are presented in Chapter 3, while information for vehicle flows is presented in Chapter 4.
When planning terminal capacity, operators must decide whether they will design to the
peak demand level, meaning that they plan their facility to accommodate passenger and vehicle
demand at all times, or whether they will design to a level lower than peak demand, meaning
that demand is anticipated to exceed capacity some of the time. For example, when planning
passenger spaces, Auckland Transport bases design capacity on passenger volumes in the peak
15 minutes of the peak operating hour in the design year (Auckland Transport 2019), while WSF

designs for the peak sailing on the 85th percentile busiest day in the design year, or the 55th busiest
day of the year (Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division 2016).
Routes and Service Types

Additionally, the type and number of routes can have an impact on terminal capacity needs.
Typically, commuters arrive close to departure times, which results in a shorter wait time and
lower requirements for comfort and amenities, whereas recreational routes may see riders
arrive further in advance of their scheduled departure time. For terminals that only serve one
route, capacity can be planned based on the capacity of one vessel, while capacity planning for
hub terminals may need to account for multiple vessels arriving and departing simultaneously.
Depending on the route type and ridership, additional space may be required to accommodate
higher numbers of bicycles. Operators and agencies may apply different capacity planning
guidance and design standards to different types of terminals in order to appropriately plan
capacity.
Pedestrian Level of Service

On top of design codes for maximum building capacity, design of terminal facilities relies on
pedestrian LOS concepts, including qualitative and quantitative factors for evaluating pedestrian
comfort and movement. Pedestrian Planning and Design (Fruin 1971) serves as a source for
pedestrian LOS concepts and methods of calculation. LOS guidance for specific terminal elements
is detailed in the Designing Passenger Facilities to a Level of Service section of Chapter 3.
Vehicle Facilities
Vehicle ferry operators use different standards for planning terminal capacity for vehicle
holding and circulation. These standards are typically based on a factor of how many vehicles
are carried in one sailing (addressed in more detail in the Vehicle Terminal Capacity Planning
and Minimizing Dwell Time section of Chapter 4).
Additional Terminal Elements

In addition to passenger terminal spaces, capacity planning for other terminal elements
requires policy decisions regarding level of service and long-term demand.
• Bicycle lanes and storage: Bicycle capacity requirements depend on type of route and terminal
location. Data collection regarding bicycle demand for a variety of routes is recommended for
further research to support capacity planning for bicycles.
• Multimodal connections: The space needed to support multimodal connections depends on
planned capacity and demand for both the ferry and connecting transit systems. Terminal
planning considerations for multimodal connections are further discussed in the Multimodal
Connections section of Chapter 3.
• Parking: Potential parking needs include curbside pick-up and drop-off, short-term parking
(passenger loading, ADA), long-term parking (walk-on passengers), employee parking, and
miscellaneous (vendors, emergency vehicles). Decisions regarding how much terminal space
to dedicate to parking depend on terminal location, the availability of multimodal connections,
and current and forecast demand.
Accounting for Future Space Needs

Ferry terminals are often located at constrained sites with limited available space. Even
for terminal locations that have space for expansion, the costs and environmental permitting
involved with construction in and near the water in many places can make modification and

expansion of terminal infrastructure costly and difficult. Ideally, terminal design includes
flexibility to accommodate future technology and capacity needs. Some of the potential needs
that should be considered during terminal design include those discussed in the following
subsections.
Alternative Vessel Designs

Berths and floats are often designed for a specific vessel or class of vessel. In order to accom-
modate multiple vessel sizes or designs, landing infrastructure must be sized for the largest
potential vessel, and flexible or mechanical elements such as gangways and ramps may be needed
to fit multiple boarding door locations and freeboards. If additional capacity is needed on a
route, the size and number of vessels that can be used may be limited by terminal infrastructure.
Electrification and Alternative Fuels

Electric vessels and alternative fuels are in the early stages of adoption for ferries in the
United States. With advances in technology and availability of grant funding aimed at reducing
carbon emissions, many operators are currently in the planning stages for vessel electrification
or alternative fuel use. Once more ferry services have implemented hybrid-electric or zero-
emission vessels, further study will be needed to understand the space requirements for charging
and other equipment. If a terminal location is constrained and does not have potential for
expansion, these space requirements may take away from passenger or vehicle capacity. Early
planning efforts have identified several considerations and potential space needs that can be
included in terminal design to provide future flexibility and minimize the risk of future impacts
to vehicle or passenger capacity. These considerations are discussed in the following:
• Alternative fuels: In addition to electrification of vessels, alternative fuels commonly con-
sidered for ferries include liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, biofuels, methanol,
ammonia, and hydrogen. Terminal planning and capacity considerations for potential
application of alternative fuels depend on the location of fueling (off-site or at the terminal)
and on requirements for specialized protocols, maintenance, or safety equipment.
• Energy storage: Rapid charging of an electric vessel during scheduled dwell times can
create a power draw that is too large to be accommodated by most local utilities. Operators
can overcome this issue by implementing an energy storage system at the terminal that
allows electricity to be drawn continuously at a lower power level and stored to rapidly
charge the vessel when it is connected. Current battery energy storage systems of the scale
needed to support ferry vessel electrification are housed in 20- or 40-foot standard intermodal
containers.
• Integration with the local utility grid: Electrification requires early collaboration with the
local utility regarding local power grid capacity, as well as collaboration on how and where
the terminal will connect to the utility. Delivering sufficient levels of power to terminals
may require installation of new underground duct banks, overhead lines, or submarine cables.
Additional transformers and other equipment at the nearest substation may also be required,
depending on the charging demand loads.
• Shore–vessel charging connection: To get power from the shore to the vessel’s energy storage
systems, a charging system is needed at the operating slip. For most operations, the large
power demand and short dwell time available for charging will require an automated rapid
charging system. Most charging systems consist of an active plug and a fixed receptacle. The
active element can be a robotic arm or a gravity-powered cable system that is designed to
engage the receptacle, verify the connection using low-voltage monitoring systems, and then
engage the charging power. The location of the charging equipment will vary by terminal
depending on design and vessel size and may be located on wingwalls, floats, or other terminal
infrastructure at the slip.

• Space requirements: Depending on the vessel size and energy needs of the route, power
management and energy storage systems can require a significant footprint at the terminal—
typically between 1,000 and 2,500 square feet.
Future Expansion
Adding new routes or increasing the number of vessels that land at a terminal may require
additional landing berths for vessels and added terminal capacity to accommodate the increased
number of passengers that may be embarking and disembarking at one time. Siting terminals in
a constrained location or designing terminals without flexibility for future facilities expansion
may limit opportunities to increase capacity to meet future demand.
Maximizing Sailing Frequency

The frequency of sailings is a product of the time required to complete a round trip and the
number of vessels in service. The maximum number of trips a ferry system can complete results
in the maximum capacity of the ferry system.
In the TCQSM, Chapter 9, Section 3, Ferry Scheduling and Service Planning provides a
narrative description of the steps involved in a one-way ferry trip (Ryus et al. 2013). These steps
are summarized in Figure 3, along with the factors that influence the time required to complete
the activities within each step. The total trip time equals the sum of the time required to com-
plete each of the activities in the figure that are required for a trip segment.
Operators have opportunities to influence the time required to complete the trip segment
activities outlined in Figure 3 through infrastructure design and operational choices, such as
terminal design, vessel layout, and vessel speed. However, some operational decisions are made
based on environmental or regulatory factors rather than schedule maintenance. These may
include vessel slowdowns to accommodate vessel traffic or marine mammals and weather-related
Figure 3. Steps within each trip segment.

factors such as fog, ice, or wind. Because these factors cannot be planned for on a trip-by-trip
basis, operators must consider the need for an operating margin, or additional time built into
the service schedule, to maintain on-time departures. These considerations are outlined in the
following sections.
Minimizing Dwell Time

Dwell time is the time that the vessel is at the dock in between transits. As shown in Figure 3,
dwell time includes the time required for passengers to unload and load, as well as time needed
for the crew to complete required duties.
Dwell time is often the place in the schedule with the greatest opportunity for efficiencies to
be realized. Realizing those efficiencies may allow for an increase in scheduled trips in a given
service day by allowing a single vessel to make more trips and increasing the number of vessel
landings that can be accommodated at a terminal. Best practices used by operators to minimize
dwell time are identified throughout this report.
Looking forward, as electrification of vessels increases and shoreside charging expands, vessel
battery charging time or other alternative propulsion method fueling times may become a driver
for the dwell time needed at the terminal and could decrease service frequency for some systems.
Further research is needed to identify these impacts.
Vessel–Terminal Interface
The vessel–terminal interface, where passengers load and unload the vessel, affects dwell
time because passenger traffic flows at different rates depending on the space and connections
available. Passenger-only vessels typically load and unload passengers either through one or
two narrow boarding stations on the side of a vessel or through one wider boarding station at
the bow of the vessel. This research found that reducing the path of travel for passengers results
in faster passenger loading (see the Optimizing Capacity by Improving Passenger Movement of
Chapter 3 for additional discussion of the findings). Further study and data collection related to
the configuration of the vessel–terminal interface, vessel operations, and dwell time are needed
to support infrastructure investment and capacity planning decisions for operators.
Similarly, vehicle ferry design affects the time required for the vessel to maneuver in and out
of the berth and the time needed to load and unload vehicles.
Table 6 provides a summary of how different factors related to the vessel–terminal interface
affect dwell time for passenger-only and vehicle ferries.
Crew Shift Changes and Vessel Refueling

Dwell times during crew shift changes may be longer than during other times of the day.
Shift change procedures vary greatly among operators, as do the roles and duties of crew before
and after shift changes. Vessel crew shift changes typically need to occur at a homeport terminal.
This need influences the operating and service schedule and the length of crew shifts, especially
for routes with multiple trip segments that stop at more than two terminals, and should be
considered during schedule planning and dwell-time calculation.
While potentially increasing crewing and operating complexity, implementing crew changes
away from homeports to achieve operational efficiencies could provide an opportunity to
enhance system or route capacity. Additional research on crew scheduling opportunities within
the maritime regulatory environment is recommended to support the expansion of ferry systems
with multiple routes.

Table 6. Factors affecting dwell time.
Factor Effect on Dwell Time
Passengers
Access to multimodal Dwell times can be optimized by improving passenger flow rates through
connections the terminal by minimizing walk distance to and from multimodal
connections and providing clear wayfinding. Best practices for integration
with multimodal connections are discussed in the Multimodal
Connections section of Chapter 3 as well as in Payne et al. (2013).
Boarding station width The wider the boarding station and connecting ramp, the greater the
number of people who can load and unload the vessel during a given
time period.
Fare collection and location Processing payment as passengers are boarding a vessel takes time,
especially when handling cash payments. Locating and processing fares
prior to queuing allows passengers to board the vessel quickly and can
reduce dwell time.
Gangway and ramp design Dwell time can be improved by making walkways as accessible as
possible, especially for passengers with personal mobility devices,
strollers, or bicycles, which may slow passenger flow rates or require
assistance on ramps. Design of overwater elements may be constrained
by limits on overwater coverage or construction costs.
Layout and vessel Side-loading requires passengers to decide which way to turn and walk
arrangement as they enter the vessel, whereas in a bow-loading vessel, more
passengers can walk straight into the vessel before reaching a decision
point and turning, therefore delaying their decision on a path to take and
improving passenger flow onto the vessel.
Number of boarding More boarding stations allow for more passengers to load or unload the
stations vessel during a given period. Depending on security and fare collection
methods, each boarding station may require a dedicated crew member
during boarding.
Vessel connection to dock Vessels that typically push into the dock (bow-loading vessels) or are
specifically designed to fit their berth (SeaBus) may minimize or
eliminate the time required to tie up.
Walk distance to vessel The distance and time required for passengers to walk from the terminal
to the vessel depend on the layout of terminal and vessel landing
infrastructure. It takes more time for passengers to walk along multiple
paths that switch back than it does if there is a short ramp to the vessel.
Vehicles
Multiple-lane For larger vehicle vessels, dwell time can be significantly reduced by
loading/unloading increasing the number of vehicle lanes that can simultaneously load and
unload.
Multiple vessel berths For terminals serving multiple vessels, increasing the number of vessel
berths reduces the risk of arriving vessels waiting to land at an occupied
berth. Multiple vessel berths also provide redundancy in case of
equipment breakdown or terminal maintenance.
Simultaneous passenger Providing separated passenger loading via an overhead ramp or
and vehicle separated walkway on the vehicle ramp reduces dwell time by allowing
loading/unloading passengers and vehicles to safely load and unload simultaneously.
Vehicle lane design Straight, rather than curved, length of vehicle lanes on the vessel
maximizes the vessel capacity and simplifies loading. Loading vehicles
into curved lanes can cause delays to loading and impacts on total
vessel capacity, especially if it is difficult for large vehicles to stay within
their lanes.
Vessel type (single-ended Double-ended vessels require less maneuvering to depart the dock since
vs. double-ended) they can pull away from the dock facing the direction of travel, whereas
single-ended vessels must often reverse out of their berth and turn
around before sailing, or back into the slip during landing, increasing
maneuvering time.

Longer dwell times, or time out of service to travel to and from a fueling facility, may also
be required for some sailings if vessels need fuel or charging during the service day. Typically,
operators schedule refueling at the beginning or end of the service day, or, if needed during the
service day, during a period of lower demand such as mid-day.
Impact of Ridership Types

Findings from the operator questionnaire indicated that no responding operators tracked
data on the comparison of service during regular commute times to service focused on recre-
ational or special-event users, although several operators reported anecdotal evidence that
dwell times during the commute windows are noticeably shorter and more consistent than dwell
times during weekends or special events. During the commute windows, travelers are typically
regular ferry commuters familiar with queuing and fare payment processes, and passenger or
vehicle traffic is normally only heavy in one direction. During weekends or special events, more
tourists and first-time passengers may be traveling, and demand may be heavy in both direc-
tions. Delays can occur because new users need direction from staff or increased time to make
their way through the terminal, pay fares, and board the vessel, or when tourists ask questions
to staff during fare payment or boarding. Additionally, the pace of walking for crowds that are
mostly tourists or recreational travelers has been observed to be slower than that of commuting
travelers.
An operator with three passenger-only ferry routes in Washington State reported that questions
from tourists can add around a minute to each dwell time. A passenger-only ferry operator in
New York reported that it adds extra dwell time to the summer weekend schedule for some
routes to account for slower boarding times, especially for the higher number of passengers with
bikes or strollers.
Operational modifications that support passenger throughput and may reduce the impacts
of new users on dwell time are discussed in the Optimizing Capacity by Improving Passenger
Movement section of Chapter 3.
Factors that Affect Ferry Trip Time

Each segment of the ferry trip, including departing the ferry terminal, transiting to the next
terminal, and arriving at the destination terminal, contributes to the total ferry trip time. There
are factors within each segment of the trip that affect how quickly the trip can be made.
Departure Time
• Maneuvering: Maneuvering requirements for leaving the terminal depend on vessel design
and terminal layout. While double-ended vessels have minimal maneuvering needed to
depart the dock because they can pull away from the dock facing the direction of travel,
single-ended vessels must often reverse out of their berth and turn around before sailing,
or back into the slip during landing. Depending on the size of the vessel, the open space
available for maneuvering, and the presence of environmental considerations that may
restrict vessel speeds or prop wash, the process of maneuvering away from the dock can
take up to several minutes.
• Procedures: Ferry services may require a policy decision on whether a departing vessel has
flexibility to wait for passengers or vehicles making their way toward the vessel after the
scheduled departure time, or if the service maintains a strict schedule and leaves riders behind
on the dock. This decision may depend on factors such as frequency of sailings, demand levels,
the layout of terminal elements, and the location of fare processing.

Transit Time
Transit time is the time that the vessel is underway between the departure and arrival terminals.
Transit time can be affected by known restrictions, such as slowdown or low-wake zones, as well
as unplanned restrictions, such as waterway and marine mammal traffic and weather conditions.
Transit time can also be affected by the priorities of the operator and its customers, whether
these are related to fuel savings or time-competitive travel. Some of these elements affecting
transit time include:
• Environmental considerations: Vessel wake impacts on sensitive shorelines or noise impacts
to marine mammals or other wildlife may limit vessel speeds. Some impacts may be mitigated
through vessel design, such as use of hydrofoil, or by a change in operating speed.
• Fuel consumption or emissions reductions: Operators may have a targeted level of fuel
consumption or emissions reduction based on policy or operating cost levels, and this may
affect the planned vessel cruising speed and the ability to travel at a higher-than-planned
speed when the vessel is running behind schedule. Additionally, emissions targets that require
additional or heavier equipment or housing of hybrid equipment may have impacts on vessel
operating speed.
• Operating conditions: Even within the same ferry system, different routes can face unique
navigational challenges depending on available water depths, waves, currents, wind conditions,
and adjacent structures or obstacles to navigation. Operating conditions on a route can
change daily or seasonally depending on variables such as tides and shifting sands.
• Type of service: The targeted market for each route may affect required vessel speeds. For
example, commuter-focused services may offer competitive travel times that require a high
sailing speed, while tourist-focused services may prioritize amenities or operating cost savings
over sailing speed.
• Waterway traffic: Variability in waterway traffic, including ferries, shipping, and human-
powered watercraft, can complicate ferry service schedule planning. Some operators may
experience these challenges seasonally, especially as recreational boating increases in warmer
months.
• Weather-related conditions: Transit time is affected when vessel speed is slowed due to wind,
limited visibility, waves, sea state, or in-water obstructions such as logs and ice.
Arrival Time
The frequency of sailings is also controlled by the availability of berths on arrival at each
terminal. The TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) provides a computational worksheet tool for calculat-
ing vessel service time (seconds per vessel) and berth capacity (vessels per hour).
In addition to the dwell time required by each vessel, other variables can affect the berthing
capacity and arrival time at the terminal:
• Environmental considerations: The presence of sensitive shorelines can affect the speed
at which vessels approach the dock as well as the space available for maneuvering near the
berth.
• Maneuvering: In-water space availability determines whether multiple vessels can approach
and depart berths at the same time. If a facility is located in a narrow waterway that does not
have adequate space for multiple vessels to maneuver in and out of the facility simultaneously,
schedule delays can occur when vessels have to wait for other vessels to clear the waterway.
• Schedule planning: Ferry users (especially those commuting to work or attending special
events) may want to land and depart at certain times. At terminals located near a downtown
or job center, berths may be at capacity during peak commute times, even if there is avail-
ability throughout other times of the day.

Scheduling an Operating Margin

Operating margin is the time built into a schedule to account for longer-than-average dwell
times or transit times to decrease the risk of a ferry running behind schedule. Operator responses
to the research questionnaire indicated that this additional time can be built into either the
transit time or dwell time of every trip or of just a few select trips throughout the day. More
information and a procedure for determining the operating margin (Equation 1) are provided
for passenger-only ferries in the Operating Margin section of Chapter 3, and information related
to vehicle ferries is provided in the Operating Margin section of Chapter 4.
Governance and Policy Factors

As a transportation service, ferry systems are often guided by the governing body and policy
decisions that establish service levels or service characteristics and define the overall system
capacity. Bruzzone (2012) provides a general overview of funding sources relevant to ferry
transportation. The sections that follow provide an overview of common governance structures
and funding considerations and outline those factors that affect ferry system capacity planning.
Governance and Funding

The mechanism through which ferry services are funded, owned, and operated is known as
governance. How a ferry system is governed can affect the service levels and assets necessary
to operate service that, in turn, determine the system capacity. There are three basic gover-
nance models used in the delivery of ferry service. These are outlined in the following sections,
which discuss how their governance affects capacity planning through level of service and
capital assets.
Privately Owned and Operated Service

In a privately owned and operated ferry system, service is provided by a private operator,
without agency involvement. Unlike publicly owned or operated systems, privately owned and
operated ferry providers are ineligible for most federal grants for capital improvements or local
funding subsidies. Therefore, to sustain operations, private ferry systems must recover all capital
and operating costs through fares and non-fare revenue such as concessions. Examples of
private ferry operations are Fire Island Ferries (NY) and Star Line Ferry (MI).
Capacity planning considerations for privately owned and operated services include:
• Capital assets: Capacity planning may be driven by keeping costs as low as possible to make
a profit.
• Funding: Capital and operating expenses are typically funded through fares and concession
revenue.
• Level of service: Service schedules are typically developed around times of high demand to
maximize profitability and minimize loss.
Public–Private Partnership
In a public–private partnership, a governing agency contracts for provision of transportation
service, with varying options for ownership and maintenance of assets. For example, the agency
may own terminals and vessels and contract with a private company to operate service and
staff terminals. Examples of public–private partnerships in use in 2021 include:
• MBTA Ferry (MA): Ferry service in Boston Harbor that is funded and owned by the
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and operated through a contract with Boston

Harbor Cruises. Of the ferries used to provide service, two are owned by MBTA, and the rest
are owned by Boston Harbor Cruises and leased to MBTA.
• NYC Ferry (NY): Funded and owned by New York City Economic Development Corporation
(NYCEDC) and operated through a contract with Hornblower Cruises. Assets are owned by
NYCEDC, and Hornblower provides operating staff, including management and support,
vessel crews, and terminal and maintenance staff. The fare policy ties the cost of a single trip
to the cost of a subway fare ($2.75 for most riders in 2021).
• San Francisco Bay Ferry (CA): Funded and owned by the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) and operated through a contract with the Blue and Gold Fleet.
Capacity planning considerations for services operated by public–private partnerships
include:
• Capital assets: Because service is publicly owned, the governing agency has access to state and
federal grant funding for capital projects.
• Funding: Capital and operating expenses are typically funded through a combination of fares,
public subsidies, grants, and concession revenue.
• Level of service: The contract with the operator typically stipulates agency control over
aspects of the service such as fare levels and service schedules, and stipulates requirements
on the operator such as data and revenue reporting and performance measurements and
targets.
Direct Agency Delivery

Under direct agency delivery, a public agency manages and operates the service. This model
provides to agencies the most control over service levels and standards but also requires the
greatest commitment of infrastructure and resources. These agencies establish service policies,
provide and maintain assets, and provide crew and staff. Examples of direct agency delivery of
service include:
• Ferry systems owned and operated by state agencies, such as WSF, North Carolina Department
of Transportation Ferry System, and the Alaska Marine Highway System.
• Ferry systems owned and operated by local entities, including county governments or local
transportation districts, such as Staten Island Ferries, operated by New York City Department
of Transportation; Kitsap Fast Ferries, operated by Kitsap Transit; King County Water Taxi,
operated by King County Metro; and Casco Bay Lines, operated by the Casco Bay Island
Transit District.
Capacity planning considerations for agency-operated services include:
• Capital assets: Because service is publicly owned, the governing agency has access to state and
federal grant funding for capital projects.
• Funding: Capital and operating expenses are typically funded through a combination of
fares, public subsidies, grants, and concession revenue.
• Level of service: The governing agency has direct control over all aspects of the service,
including fare levels, service schedules, and performance measurements and targets.
For systems governed through public–private partnerships or direct agency delivery, multiple
state, federal, and local sources can be used to fund operating costs, such as through tax dis-
tricts and levies, and capital costs through grants from state and federal agencies, such as state
department of transportation agencies and the FTA or FHWA. Eligibility for specific funding
opportunities may depend on service characteristics such as location (urban or rural), system
route miles, and annual ridership. When planning service and capacity, operators should consider
opportunities that may provide access to funding, such as application of electric charging or
alternative fuels and designation as a marine highway system (vehicle ferries only).

Policy Factors
Policies influencing ferry system capacity planning may be established at the governing agency,
local municipality, or other levels, depending on the system of governance. Some of the policy
factors that can influence capacity planning include:
• Emergency response: Ferry planning and funding can be tied to a system’s readiness and
capacity to provide emergency response. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area WETA
was established to provide and coordinate water transportation services following natural
disasters and transportation disruptions. A component of WETA’s system capacity planning
is based on the percentage of downtown San Francisco’s daytime population that could be
evacuated following an emergency event (San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Trans-
portation Authority 2016).
• Environmental considerations: It is anticipated that emissions reduction goals and evolving
technologies will make alternative fuel use in ferries much more common. Potential impacts
of electrification and other alternative fuel use on capacity planning include increased dwell
time requirements and space requirements at the terminal (discussed in this chapter in the
Accounting for Future Space Needs section).
• Equity: Policies aimed at promoting social and environmental equity may influence where
service is provided and at what levels.
• Fare policy: Fare levels have an impact on ridership demand and capacity requirements.
Additionally, fare options such as integration with regional transit systems and use of proof-
of-fare systems affect fare collection facility and terminal capacity requirements. The relation-
ship of fare payment options to terminal capacity planning and dwell time requirements is
further discussed for passengers in the Fare Collection and Passenger Counting section of
Chapter 3, and for vehicles in the Expediting Fare Collection and Passenger Counting section
of Chapter 4.
• Mandated service levels: Minimum levels of service for a ferry system may be established
by its governance. As an example, WSF schedules are based on minimum service hours
established for each route by the Washington State legislature through the budgeting
process.
• Performance measures: Ferry systems often use various performance measures and targets
to guide operations and service planning, and these can have an impact on or a relationship
with capacity. A system that prioritizes on-time performance may end up reducing overall
capacity by increasing scheduled dwell time and operating margin to reduce the risk of
late departures, or even of departing without filling a vessel, in order to maintain its sailing
schedule. If a priority is reducing passenger or vehicle wait times, a system may require
a vessel with capacity to serve peak demand that is oversized for typical, non-peak demand.
• Service goals: The role of ferry service within the regional transportation system strongly
influences capacity planning. For example, a system in an urban setting may be used to provide
a commute choice in place of bridges, tunnels, or equivalent traffic lanes and be directed to
provide schedules and capacity focused on inducing walk-on passengers to remove single-
occupancy vehicles from roadways, whereas a lifeline route may be tasked with providing
schedule and vessel capacity to accommodate most vehicle traffic and movement of goods to
support the livability of a geographically isolated community.
Performance Metrics to Measure Capacity

Many ferry systems monitor how reliable their service is through performance metrics such
as on-time performance and number of completed trips. If a system is not meeting these perfor-
mance measure targets, this can be an indication that there is a capacity issue. Weather, vessel
or terminal mechanical issues, and crew shortages can also have an impact on service reliability.

Trends in data such as passenger or vehicle volumes, service reliability, and weather can be
evaluated to understand how to address underlying issues and improve service reliability.
Performance Metrics
Specific performance metrics can measure the level of service being provided to users and
identify where capacity adjustments or investments are needed. In addition to measuring
system performance in relation to quality of service and capacity, performance metrics can also
communicate the need for investments to users and decision makers. Examples of performance
measures related to capacity planning include:
• Farebox recovery: Revenue from fares divided by total operating costs for a given period.
Capacity planning, including vessel and terminal design, may take into account targets for
revenue levels, operating costs, or farebox recovery.
• On-time performance: The percentage of trips that arrive or depart within a targeted number
of minutes from the schedule. Poor on-time performance can be related to various issues and
may be improved through schedule adjustments, increased operating margin, or increased
route capacity.
• Passengers or vehicles left behind: The number of passengers or vehicles that are left wait-
ing at the dock (in holding or queuing) after a full sailing departs. While the vessel capacity
utilization measures ferry system capacity once passengers and vehicles are on a sailing,
this does not provide the number of passengers or vehicles left on the dock. Knowing the
number of vehicles or passengers left behind provides the critical information needed to
identify when and how extensive the capacity constraints are. Many ferry operators cannot
measure the vehicles or passengers left behind due to limited technology or investment
needed to track this metric. This has been identified as a gap in existing research that needs
further analysis.
• Reliability index: The percentage of scheduled trips that are completed. Reliability can be
calculated as actual trips divided by scheduled trips, or as actual trips less weather-, medical-,
or rescue-related cancellations divided by scheduled round trips. Reliability affects overall
system capacity and quality of service for users. Reliability challenges may require operational
or capital investment.
• Vessel utilization: The number of trips with vessel capacity filled, or an average of the amount
of total vessel capacity filled on sailings, calculated in the peak travel direction or both direc-
tions. Vessel utilization can indicate how well or poorly vessel capacity is aligned with demand.
Table 7 provides examples of capacity-related performance measures and target metrics
used by operators.
System Redundancy
System redundancy is necessary to increase the likelihood of maintaining the scheduled
system capacity and meeting performance goals. For some systems, governance and policy
decisions may dictate reliability requirements and risk tolerance. System components that
support system redundancy include:
• Fleet spare ratios: All ferry vessels require some level of time out of service for planned or
unplanned maintenance. To maintain all vessels without disrupting service, a fleet must
be sized with adequate backup vessels to allow all vessels to receive required maintenance.
Backup vessel requirements may be complicated by varying vessel size needs for different
routes within the same system. Determining the necessary spare vessel ratio is a policy deci-
sion dependent on risk tolerance for maintaining scheduled service and funding.
• Vessel berths: Sufficient operating berths are needed to maintain service without disruption
in instances of terminal maintenance or vessel breakdown.

Table 7. Example performance metrics by public ferry systems.
Agency/System Metric Measurement Target*

On-time performance Percent of trips departing 91%
within 10 minutes of
British Columbia scheduled departure time
Ferry Services Inc./BC Employee safety (Frequency x severity) / 0.39–0.60
Ferries1 index 1,000
Customer safety Number of passenger 6.90–11.90
index injury incidents /
1,000,000 passengers
On-time performance Departure within 5 98.6%
King County Marine minutes of scheduled
Division/King County sailing time
Water Taxi Reliability Number of completed 98%
trips
On-time percentage Arrival no more than 5 94%
minutes after the
scheduled time
Departs no more than
one minute before
scheduled time
Completed trip Arrives at landings within 97%
NYCEDC/NYC Ferry
percentage 30 minutes of scheduled
arrival
Level of service Service frequency Aim to provide service
approximately every 30
minutes at peak times,
and every 60 minutes at
off-peak times
Washington On-time performance Percent of trips departing 95%
State/WSF within 10 minutes of
scheduled time
WETA/San Francisco On-time performance Arrives no more than 10 95%
Bay Ferries minutes later than
scheduled arrival
*Performance targets are the typical targets used by operators and may have been adjusted due to COVID-19 conditions.
1
Source: BC Ferries 2021.
• Vessel tie-up: Vessels that are not in service need adequate space to tie up.
• Workforce: Adequate workforce levels (both the overall size of the workforce and the number
of people with specific training and credentials) are needed to maintain reliability and avoid
service disruptions. Workforce levels must account for variations in crew numbers that arise
from seasonal schedules, on-call and relief crew, and complications in dispatch.
Demand
Ferry system capacity planning requires policy decisions regarding what factors influence
service level planning and how reliable the ferry service must be, which determine operating
and capital requirements.
Current and Forecast Ridership Demand

Current and forecast ridership demand influence what system capacity the operator must
plan for, which determines capital and operating needs. Ridership forecasts and demand models
are not exact; rather, they provide a tool for risk analysis in capacity planning for vessel and
terminal investments. Demand considerations that influence capacity include:
• Design of capital investments: Vessel size is a key capacity decision for rural systems that
operate with one or two vessels that may be expected to serve the system for the length of

their useful lives (typically 30 to 50 years). Vessel design must take into consideration the size
needed to accommodate future demand levels without oversizing the vessel and incurring
unnecessary operating costs.
• Targeted level of demand: Ridership demand for ferries can be highly variable by season,
day of the week, or time of day. In order to plan vessel and system capacity for current and
forecast demand, ferry operators or governing agencies must select the level of demand to
use as the basis for capacity. Typically, operators do not plan for peak demand capacity (for
example, the day of the year with highest demand) because it would leave vessels and facilities
extremely oversized most other days. A more reasonable capacity planning target for level of
demand could be the 90th percentile demand day, meaning that from 100% of trips sorted
in the order from the highest to the lowest volume, the targeted capacity would represent the
90% spot on the list.
• Vessel utilization: Operators and governing agencies must also account for directional, daily,
and seasonal variability in demand and their implications on vessel utilization. While it is
undesirable to routinely fill vessels and leave passengers or vehicles at the dock to wait for
the next sailing, if vessel and terminal capacity are not typically reached, this can represent
unnecessary operating and capital costs.

CHAPTER 3
Capacity Concepts and Analysis

Methods: Passenger-Only Ferries
The following sections outline key concepts and procedures for assessing and planning
passenger-only ferry system capacity. This chapter builds on the capacity concepts in Chapter 2
and the terminal sizing and capacity planning guidance for ferries and other transit modes
presented in the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) by focusing on how vessel and terminal design can
minimize dwell time and on how service schedules and operations can most efficiently use
capital assets to maximize system capacity and quality of service for users. Quantitative procedures
outlined in this chapter include those presented in the discussions of Equation 1: Calculating
operating margin and Equation 2: Passenger boarding station throughput.
Optimizing the Service Schedule

While many factors, such as preferred sailing times for customers and integration with
connecting transit, influence schedule planning decisions, the schedule planning component
with the largest impact on route capacity is service frequency. The frequency of service depends
on the quantity of sailings that can be made throughout the day, as described in the Maximizing
Sailing Frequency section of Chapter 2. In order to design a service schedule that maximizes the
frequency of service, planning must take into account both the time to complete the trip and the
time needed to make the schedule and desired level of on-time performance achievable. Depend-
ing on the type of route and service, this additional time may be accounted for by the inclusion
of an operating margin, which is the time built into the schedule to account for longer-than-
average dwell times or transit times to decrease the risk of the ferry running behind schedule.
This section presents best practices for schedule planning and guidance on how to calculate
an operating margin.
Schedule Planning Considerations

Ferry service schedules can be designed to meet various goals, such as maximizing sailing
frequency and passenger throughput and focusing on providing sailings at specific times to meet
customer needs. Operators that participated in this research study provided feedback on how
they have optimized their schedules to get the most capacity.
Best practices identified from responses to the operator questionnaire and review of planning
documents are summarized in Table 8.
Operating Margin
The operating margin required for each ferry system will be unique so that it can meet that
system’s needs. Ferry operators typically build in extra dwell time or transit time to account for
31

Table 8. Passenger-only ferry schedule planning best practices.
Best Practice Opportunity Challenges

Clock-face scheduling Planning service to run in consistent Some reduction in system
intervals (e.g., departures every 30 capacity may occur if service
minutes) make the schedule more user- frequency is not maximized.
friendly and facilitate multimodal
connections and schedule coordination.
Collection and regular Detailed understanding of ridership Data collection and tracking
review of detailed ridership trends can support ferry operators in require investment in technology
and vessel utilization data to designing service schedules. and staff resources.
inform schedule planning
Maximize scheduled trips Maximizing the frequency of scheduled On-time schedules may be difficult
within the peak commute trips during peak periods focuses to maintain during the peak periods,
windows system capacity and resources where requiring time built into the
demand is highest. schedule after the peak period
to allow vessels to catch up.
Schedule and capacity For ferry services with lower frequencies Schedule coordination
coordination with connecting of service, matching schedules with typically requires interagency
transit land-based transit supports walk-on coordination (often far in
ridership. Because ferries often have advance of schedule
more passenger capacity than connecting changes) and real-time
transit modes, capacity must also be communication.
coordinated to avoid creating wait times
for multimodal connections.
trips that take longer than average during the service schedule. Factors that may contribute
to longer-than-average time underway include above-normal maneuvering due to conditions
around the terminal, weather-related factors such as high seas and fog, excessive debris, and
waterway traffic.
Developing an understanding of operating margin needs can support schedule planning,
system performance, and operating efficiencies through:
• Comparison of operating margin to on-time performance to assess potential efficiencies
(if there is too much time built into the schedule) or the need for additional operating margin
(to make the schedule achievable), and
• Assessment of which sailings or sets of sailings have round-trip times that are above or below
the average, including potential schedule adjustments for peak/off-peak sailings or periods.
A method for understanding the time needed to account for typical delays and longer-than-
average dwell times is presented in Equation 1 and its discussion. To apply the equation to their
service, operators must gather data related to arrival, departure, and dwell times over a given
period of time.
Equation 1. Calculating operating margin.

Om = TT – (Tr + Mt + Dt)
where
Om = average operating margin (minutes).
TT = scheduled total trip time of a set of sailings over a designated period of time (minutes).
Trip time could include a trip segment, one-directional trip, or round trip.
Tr = average transit time of a set of sailings (minutes).
Mt = average maneuvering time required for vessel approach and departure for a set of sailings
(minutes).
Dt = average time required to complete passenger loading/unloading and necessary vessel
functions of a set of sailings (minutes).

Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods: Passenger-Only Ferries 33
Implementing an operating margin requires policy decisions regarding the importance of

maintaining on-time departures for each sailing (requiring operating margin assessment for
each trip) or the level of tolerance for some late departures during peak periods. The same
amount of operating margin may not be applied uniformly over every departure and can be
added to targeted sailings or sets of sailings when routes face higher risk of running behind
schedule. Additionally, the ways in which operating margin can be accounted for vary by service.
The operator questionnaire asked how and when operating margin is included in service
schedules and whether there are instances of extra or layover time built into schedules to allow
vessels that are running late to get back on time. Based on the questionnaire results, best practices
to account for an operating margin include those discussed in the following:
• While extra time is not built into the schedule specifically to allow vessels that are running
late to catch up to the schedule, dwell times on many routes are varied to make the schedule
achievable. Factors considered in varying dwell times include ridership patterns (time of day,
day of week, season), navigational requirements (wake, maneuvering, marine traffic), crew
changes, and vessel logistics (pumping, fueling).
• On a route with frequent late departures, crews can make up time during the crossing by
increasing vessel speeds or during the next vessel dwell time if lower passenger or vehicle
volumes occur.
• Additional dwell time is scheduled for crew changes and can be used to make up time when
needed.
• Some schedules have time built in to allow for longer dwell times to accommodate larger
volumes of traffic. Major route schedules may be developed assuming less than full vessel
operating speed, which provides some ability to make up time in the schedule.
Passenger Facility Capacity Planning

and Minimizing Dwell Time
Designing Passenger Facilities to a Level of Service
Chapter 10, Station Capacity, of the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) includes guidance and methods
for estimating capacity requirements of passenger terminal spaces, as noted in Table 9.
Table 9. Terminal capacity planning references from the TCQSM

(Ryus et al. 2013).
Item Description Reference Page Number

Illustration of walkway level of service Exhibit 10-4 10-14
Illustration of queuing (waiting) area level of Exhibit 10-5 10-14
service
Relationship between walking speed and Exhibit 10-10 10-21
pedestrian space
Relationships between pedestrian flow rate and Exhibit 10-11 10-22
pedestrian space
Doorway capacity Exhibit 10-26 10-40
Fare control passenger headways and capacity Exhibit 10-27 10-42
Relationship between walkway width and Equations 10-2, 10-3 10-43
pedestrian flow rate
Pedestrian level of service on walkways Exhibit 10-28 10-44
Queuing (waiting) area level of service Exhibit 10-32 10-55
Platform (waiting area) sizing procedure Not applicable 10-56

Additional guidance and best practices have been developed by operators and agencies.
Table 10 presents guidance for sizing specific passenger spaces for terminals based on LOS from
the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013), along with example guidance from the 2016 WSF Terminal
Design Manual (Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division 2016), and
the 2019 Auckland Transport Design Manual: Ferry Terminal Design (Auckland Transport 2019).
All three sources use the pedestrian LOS descriptions for space requirements for walking and
queuing from those categorized in Fruin (1971). Pedestrian LOS does not have to be consistent
throughout terminal elements. (For example, a level of service with lower pedestrian density can
be planned for stairs than for walkways.)
Capacity planning for passenger spaces should include some dedicated space for seating.
Recommendations for planning of seating requirements are included in Habib et al. (1980),
based on the following intervals:
• Fifteen minutes appears to be the maximum tolerable waiting time for passengers in terminal
facilities with minimal seating.
• Intervals of 15 to 20 minutes indicate a need for seating for 20% to 40% of passengers.
• For passenger comfort, wait times of over 20 minutes require more seating.
Optimizing Capacity by Improving Passenger Movement

Passenger-only ferry operations include the passenger flow between the terminal entrance and
the vessel. Passenger flow through the terminal and operational elements of ferry loading and
unloading are discussed in more detail in the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) and Habib et al. (1980).
Terminal elements, including passenger walkways, queuing space, fare collection and
passenger counting, and multimodal connections, all contribute to dwell time. The following
sections provide best practices and guidance for terminal design and operating considerations
for reducing dwell time. The considerations discussed include those related to fare collection
and passenger counting, passenger throughput, queuing space planning and management,
bicycle management for passenger-only ferries, and multimodal connections.
Fare Collection and Passenger Counting

For most ferry services, fare collection represents the limiting factor (the slowest point)
in passenger throughput through the terminal and onto the vessel. The relationship of fare
collection to dwell time has been documented for various transit modes.
Table 10. LOS guidance for sizing passenger terminal spaces.
WSF Terminal Design Auckland Transport

Terminal Element TCQSM
Manual Design Manual
Holding space Plan LOS based on how LOS C LOS C
long passengers are
anticipated to wait (LOS
C to D or better)
Walkways Size walkway width for LOS C LOS D (one-way) or
peak-period passenger LOS C (two-way)
flows to operate at LOS
C or above
Number of ticket kiosks Calculate number of Maximum queue of six Maximum queue of six
or windows ticket vending machines people with a maximum people
(Equation 10-1) wait of 3 minutes
Waiting area amenities Base seating Assume 50 to 100 Minimum seating
and seating requirements on square feet for varies depending on
maximum number of amenities; assume a terminal type
people who would minimum of 24 seats in
choose to sit and passenger waiting areas
average waiting time

Unlike other transportation modes, ferry service in the United States must adhere to the Coast
Guard requirement for accurate passenger counts for each sailing, including the assurance that
the passenger count of each sailing does not exceed the maximum number of passengers speci-
fied on the vessel COI. Different approaches to fare collection may be used by different types
of service based on the terminal layout (type of queuing or passenger holding area, distance
between holding and vessel boarding, staff or crew availability, and operating costs). It is com-
mon for fare collection to be completed by one or more staff or crew members near the point
where passengers board the vessel.
Fare types: Decisions regarding which types of fare media will be used may be based on
policy, staffing/crewing considerations for ticket sales and validation, capital costs of new tech-
nology, risk of fare evasion, or ease of use for users or crew. The optimal fare collection types for
each system are dependent on the operations and users of that system. Electronic fare options
can support integration with other transit options to support multimodal trips and may encour-
age ferry ridership. While offering more options for fare payment may make the service easier
to use for more passengers, the use of multiple fare payment systems may complicate operations
and require more staff or dwell time. Fare collection options commonly used by ferry operators
include those discussed in the following:
• Cash: Time required to accept cash and provide change may influence dwell time. Safe cash
handling requires staff/crew time.
• Fare cards: Fare cards provide the opportunity for integration with other modes and easy
transfers. They are scanned by handheld or stationary readers.
• Mobile tickets: Mobile tickets are scanned by handheld or stationary readers.
• Paper tickets: Paper tickets are sold by ticket vending machines or terminal staff.
• Proof-of-fare system: Passengers are required to purchase a ticket or scan a pass at a validation
machine on entering the terminal. Instead of checking all passengers as they enter a fare control
zone or board the vessel, the operator requires that each passenger purchase a fare using the
honor system. Some operators may enforce fare payment using random spot checks and issuing
fines for passengers without proof of fare.
• Reservations: Online reservations allow for prepayment of fares and can provide boarding
information to users. Passengers can typically be processed at a faster rate than when fare
payment transactions are involved at the terminal. For example, the Woods Hole, Martha’s
Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority uses reservations for its high-speed passenger-
only ferry service and reports that the system manages dwell time efficiently but may require
more time than systems using other forms of fare prepayment.
Location of fare collection: The location of fare collection or validation in relation to queuing
and vessel boarding determines whether fare collection becomes the limiting factor in passenger
throughput. Fare collection can occur on board the vessel, at the point where passengers board
the vessel, or in the terminal before passengers enter a prepaid holding area.
Table 11 provides a high-level summary of the different fare location options, along with fare
processing rates, presented in the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013). The processing rates apply to a
single fare collection point and would be multiplied by the number of collection points when
calculating facility throughput. The accuracy of these rates depends on the technologies and pro-
cedures used by each operator, as well as the types of ridership served, and may vary by system.
Passenger Throughput
The rate at which passengers move to and from the vessel through the terminal, or passenger
throughput, is a key consideration for planning system capacity. Ferry terminals may require
longer distances between passenger holding or queuing and vessel boarding than other transit

Table 11. Fare location options.
Processing Rate
Fare Collection
Considerations Fare Collection Type (Per Station or Staff)
Location
(Passengers/Minute)
Manual collection of 14–15
Can be challenging to cash or tickets
On board vessel complete on short crossings
Scan of fare card 21–26
or medium/large vessels
Scan of mobile ticket 15–201
Fare collection occurs Manual collection of 14–15
during embarking or cash or tickets
At the dock or
disembarking process and Scan of fare card 21–26
boarding ramp
becomes the limiting factor
Scan of mobile ticket 15–201
on throughput/dwell time
Minimizes dwell time by Barrier and holding area Varies
Terminal completing fare transactions
outside of dwell time
1
Source: Observations by NYC Ferry.
modes, and circulation paths may be more limited due to security considerations or the
constraints of a waterfront site. The longer paths of travel can increase dwell time.
This research involved observing passenger throughput for three passenger-only ferry
systems. (Data and findings are provided in Appendix B.) The research team observed the
following related to passenger throughput:
• Shorter paths of travel for passengers allow passengers to board faster. Of the ferry systems
observed, bow-loading vessels had shorter passenger circulation paths than side-loading
vessels, which resulted in a 25%–30% increase in passenger throughput.
• Ramp or gangway slopes are not critical to the speed of passenger travel.
The Staten Island Ferry carries the most passengers of any ferry system in the United States
and is mandated to provide consistent, reliable service between Manhattan and Staten Island.
Achieving reliable service requires moving high volumes of passengers disembarking and
embarking the vessel in a short duration of time. To do this, the Staten Island Ferry has two
boarding aprons (shown in Figure 4) that are 12 feet wide, allowing for the movement of just
over 400 passengers per minute (identified in an unpublished ferry operational impact analysis).
Figure 4. Passengers embarking through

two boarding aprons onto the Staten Island Ferry.

Best practices identified from responses to the operator questionnaire and review of planning
documents are summarized in Table 12.
Queuing Space Planning and Management

Existing ferry and transit research provides guidance for sizing and calculating capacity
of queuing and holding areas, as discussed earlier in this chapter in the Designing Passenger
Facilities to a Level of Service section. Queuing spaces can be designed for linear queuing (where
lanes are one person wide) or bunched queuing (where lanes may be several people wide).
Figure 5 shows an example of linear queuing at the Pier 50 passenger facility in Seattle, WA.
Queuing type selection may depend on various factors, including:
• How efficiently the passenger space must be used based on available space and the number of
people that must be accommodated. (Linear queuing requires more square footage to queue
the same number of people.)
• How quickly passengers need to move through the space to maintain planned dwell times.
• The number of routes served by the terminal, which affects how many separate queue lanes
are required.
• The importance of the order of passenger arrival and the ability to process passengers one at
a time.
Table 12. Vessel–terminal interface design best practices.

Bikes load and unload Speed up embarking and disembarking Communication of policy. Since
separately from all other process by separating pedestrians bicyclists move faster than pedestrians
passengers from bicycles, avoiding bicycle/ do outside of the terminal, they want
pedestrian conflicts and bottlenecks to unload first to avoid the conflict
on ramps or on the vessel. of passing the pedestrians at a later
point in time. Order of loading and
unloading may depend on factors
such as queuing design and where
bicycles are stored on the vessel.
Consider movement of Minimize impacts to passenger Passenger facility design may
bicycles, strollers, throughput from bicycles, strollers, require additional space or
luggage, and personal luggage, and personal mobility features to facilitate movement.
mobility devices in design devices by incorporating their
of passenger walkways movement into design.
Implement a reservation Online reservations allow for prepayment Expensive to implement and manage
system of fares and can provide boarding the reservation technology
information to users. Passengers can Possible challenges with user
typically be processed at a faster rate acceptance for routes serving
than when fare payment transactions are commuters or a mixture of island
involved at the terminal. For example, residents and tourists
the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard, May require space at terminal for
and Nantucket Steamship Authority uses additional queuing lanes or
reservations for its high-speed verification of reservations
passenger-only ferry service and reports
that the system manages dwell time
efficiently.
Provide added terminal Adding terminal staff during special Increased operating costs
staff during periods of events or peak weekend periods to
high volume assist with higher volumes and
questions from first-time ferry users
can help reduce bottlenecks in the
terminal and minimize dwell times.
Wayfinding improvements Improved signage can help new users Requires signage program
understand how to pay their fares and development as well as associated
make their way through the terminal costs to implement
and onto the vessel, reducing
bottlenecks and questions to staff.

Figure 5. Example of linear queuing lanes and

electronic signage (Pier 50, Seattle).
Successful design and operation of passenger queuing focus on minimizing dwell time by
queuing passengers as close to the vessel as possible and facilitating efficient movement. Table 13
summarizes best practices for queuing space design and management used by various passenger-
only ferry operators, as gathered from the operator questionnaire and review of planning
documents and operator guidance.
Bicycle Management for Passenger-Only Ferries

Considerations for accommodating and managing bicycles on passenger-only ferries include
minimizing dwell time impacts from bicycles loading and unloading over gangways and ramps
that may be narrow or steep, and storage space on the vessel, which may be limited.
• Loading and unloading: Passenger-only ferry operators use different approaches for how
they manage loading and unloading of bicycles, depending on the typical bicycle demand as
well as the size and layout of the vessel and terminal infrastructure. Depending on the space
Table 13. Best practices for queuing space design.

Provide adequate queuing Minimize dwell time by queuing Terminals can have considerable
based on full capacity of all passengers as close to vessel as space requirements, and
vessels that may depart in possible. Minimize risk of passengers waterfront sites are often
the same window of time overflowing onto sidewalks and affecting constrained.
connecting sidewalks and communities
Queue passengers as close Minimize required walk time to reduce Requires fare collection located
to the vessel as possible dwell time upstream of a holding area.
Providing ramps and floats with
adequate space for queuing may
require additional capital costs,
overwater coverage, and safety
considerations.
Use outdoor spaces for Ability to increase capacity during Exposure to weather
waiting/queuing typically peak summer months
Use fixed queuing lanes for Passengers know where to queue for Lack of operational flexibility,
each route their route. Passenger flows are which may increase terminal
directed to the vessel. space requirements

available in passenger facilities, potential pedestrian/bicycle conflicts may occur when loaded
and unloaded together, such as extra time and space needed for maneuvering bicycles and
injuries from pedals.
• Storage on the vessel: In most cases, bicycle storage on the vessel requires racks or desig-
nated space. If feasible, bicycle storage on the vessel should provide protection from weather
and water spray. The location of the storage area affects the decision about when to load and
unload bicycles relative to other passengers. Planned bicycle capacity may require a policy
decision at the time of vessel design.
Examples of how different passenger-only ferry systems manage bicycles are summarized in
Table 14.
Multimodal Connections
Since ferry terminals are located at the shoreline, they are adjacent to but not central to
supportive land uses and dense activity centers. As a result, ferry passengers rely on other con-
nections to expand their access. Planning considerations for multimodal connections include the
quality (directness to major destinations, comfort, and cost) and quantity (frequency, capacity,
and number of options) to provide this access. Typically, the opportunity for integration with
multimodal connections is greatest for terminals located in urban areas with an existing transit
network. Payne et al. (2013) provide an overview of how well various ferry operations are
integrated with land-based transit and how that coordination occurs. Integration is achieved
through operations and facility design.
Operations. Successful integration with multimodal connections requires coordination

with connecting agencies both in planning stages and during ongoing operations.
• Capacity coordination: Generally, ferries have a much higher passenger capacity than
connecting transit modes such as buses. Because ferries unload in large surges of passengers,
connecting transit vehicles may need to be scheduled to arrive at ferry terminals in bunches
rather than spaced out evenly, as is preferred for other types of transit stops.
Table 14. Bicycle management examples – passenger-only ferries.
Service Bicycle Loading Storage on the Vessel

King County Water Taxi Loading and unloading Stored either on the stern of the vessel or in
procedures for passengers the vessel’s interior (depending on the vessel)
with bicycles are the same as in bike racks
for those without bicycles. Only bicycles less than 73 inches in length,
15 inches in width, and with a tire diameter
less than 2.5 inches are accepted aboard.
NYC Ferry Loading and unloading Passengers store their bicycles on racks
procedures for passengers at the rear of the vessel.
with bicycles are the same as Capacity is limited to 8 to 10 bicycles per
for those without bicycles. ferry.
San Francisco Bay Ferry Bikes and scooters board at All bikes, including folding bikes, are stored
the same time as everyone in the bike rack area on the aft deck.
else. On arrival on weekend
days, riders with bikes must
wait for the rest of the
passengers to disembark first,
while during the week, bikes
and scooters offload first.
Steamship Authority Bicycles are loaded and Stored in the luggage compartment
(high-speed passenger- stored prior to passenger
only route) loading.

• Fare integration: Facilitating passenger connections through integrated fare payment

options (such as the Clipper card used by 24 transit agencies, including the San Francisco Bay
Ferry and Golden Gate Ferry) and transfers can reduce fare processing times and support
increased ridership.
• Schedule coordination: Synching arrival and departure times of connecting transit with
ferries to allow passengers to directly connect with other modes improves the passenger
experience and can lead to increased ridership. Coordination with other agencies may require
significant planning time.
• Wayfinding and travel information: Interagency coordination of travel information such as
routes, schedules, and real-time travel data can improve passenger experience and terminal
throughput.
Terminal Design. Types of multimodal connections and their considerations for terminal
design are summarized in the following:
• Bicycle: Capacity planning considerations for bicycle connections include access (how bicycles
get to and from the terminal) and storage.
– Bicycle access and exit lanes: Dedicated bicycle lanes, separated from vehicle and pedestrian
traffic, provide the safest and highest-capacity connection for bicycles. The WSF Terminal
Design Manual recommends a minimum bike lane width of 4 feet and lanes that are
separated from motorized traffic (Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries
Division 2016).
– Charging for e-bikes: Providing charging equipment for electric bicycles can support
multimodal connections and can be considered depending on demand and space
availability.
– Storage at the terminal: To support bicycle use as a multimodal connection for walk-on
passengers, storage for bicycles should be provided at the terminal. The most common
storage option is bike racks, which have minimal space and maintenance requirements
but do not provide security or weather protection. As an alternative, bike lockers or bike
stations can be provided, although this option increases cost and space requirements and
may involve ongoing staffing or administrative support to manage user access, security,
and payments (if required).
• Bus and train: Locating transit pick-up/drop-off spaces, including bus pullouts and turn-
arounds, as close to the vessel as possible reduces the walking distance for passengers to transit
connections and increases terminal throughput.
• Micromobility: Micromobility services, including those that rent electric scooters and
bicycles, can collect equipment at terminals since passengers use the scooters and bicycles to
travel to and from the ferry. Planning a designated curb space for micromobility drop-off may
reduce instances of rentals blocking pedestrian walkways. Operators can also coordinate
with micromobility service providers to site stations close to terminals.
• Parking/park and ride: Insufficient parking capacity may limit ridership unless transit
connections are adequate to connect people to the terminal.
• Pedestrian: Design of pedestrian connections to the terminal should take into account both
the capacity and the ease of access.
– Distance: Pedestrian terminal entrances should be located as close as possible to trail,
sidewalk, or transit connections.
– Grade: The quality of pedestrian connections depends on the distance to transit connections
and destinations as well as the ease of the walk.
– Pedestrian bridges: In situations where a terminal is located near a busy roadway or railroad
crossing, a pedestrian bridge can provide safe pedestrian access with free-flow pedestrian
movement to and from the terminal.

– Safety and comfort: Lighting along walkways, amenities such as benches, and barriers
separating passengers from vehicle and bicycle lanes all contribute to the safety and comfort
of pedestrians using the terminal.
• Rideshare and microtransit: Providing designated rideshare zones and curb pullouts can
reduce traffic backups near the terminal.
Minimizing Dwell Time Through Vessel and Terminal Design

The design of shoreside facilities can affect dwell time, service reliability, and capacity. For
many passenger-only ferry systems, especially those with shorter routes or high-speed vessels,
minimizing dwell time provides the greatest opportunity to increase schedule capacity.
The following sections focus on elements of passenger-only ferry system assets (vessels and
terminals) that affect overall system capacity. Discussed are best practices and procedures
for the vessel–terminal interface, vessel design, and how sizing and siting terminal elements
affect the rate at which passengers move through the terminal. Optimal vessel and vessel–
terminal interface design varies by operator and terminal and depends on factors such as the
layout of terminal facilities and in-water space available for vessel maneuvering, conditions
near the terminal, and operating or schedule requirements. Additionally, operators with an
existing fleet benefit from standardization of vessel types.
Vessel–Terminal Interface
The vessel–terminal interface includes terminal elements such as gangways, floats, and ramps
that connect passengers to and from the vessel. Design and capacity requirements for the facility
components that connect the vessel and terminal are influenced by vessel size, passenger demand,
terminal context, and environmental considerations.
Best practices for vessel–terminal interface design identified from responses to the operator
questionnaire and review of planning documents are summarized in Table 15.
Table 15. Vessel–terminal interface design best practices.
Gangway and Size for two-way passenger flow Increased capital costs and overwater
ramp capacity (including multiple lanes in each coverage for wider gangways
direction, depending on passenger
volumes) to minimize dwell time by
allowing passengers to queue closer to
the vessel before loading
Gangway and Avoid gradients steeper than 1:12 to Longer ramp lengths may be required to
ramp slope 1:14 across shorter distances. Include avoid steep gradients and achieve ADA
impacts of tidal range where applicable. compliance.
Vessel design Vessel design should take into Vessel design must be compatible with
consideration how the vessel interfaces existing terminal design, or
with terminal infrastructure and improvements to the terminal may be
associated impacts to dwell time. For required to accommodate the vessel.
example, bow-loading vessels that push Vessel design must also account for
into the dock (using engine thrust to considerations such as route operating
hold the vessel against the platform conditions and emissions reduction
during embarking and disembarking) goals. For example, bow-loading vessels
may require less time for vessel require additional engine power to
maneuvering and mooring. Additionally, secure the vessel to the mooring facility.
providing a similar freeboard between Using more fuel adds emissions to the
vessel and ramp or platform provides environment, and using more electrical
an easy walking surface from vessel to energy may reduce the cycle between
platform. charging periods for an electric powered
vessel.

The TransLink SeaBus, a passenger ferry that connects downtown Vancouver to North
Vancouver crossing the Burrard Inlet, provides a unique example of highly efficient dwell
time achieved through vessel–terminal interface design. Vessels land in a U-shaped dock,
which allows passengers to load and unload through subway-style doors on either side of the
vessel simultaneously. There are multimodal transit connections nearby. The SeaBus carried
an average of almost 20,000 passengers on weekdays in 2019. The SeaBus system is discussed
in detail by Habib et al. (1980), Payne et al. (2013), and Ryus et al. (2013).
Vessel Boarding Station Width

For some ferry systems, vessel boarding may be the point in the passenger path of travel
where queues occur. Understanding the rate at which passengers load and unload the vessel
supports capacity and schedule planning and can support analysis of capacity improvements.
For example, if an operator is planning a new vessel construction, design of the boarding
station width can consider the required passenger throughput needed to meet planned dwell
times. Examples of boarding stations for bow-loading vessels and side-loading vessels are
shown in Figures 6 and 7.
The design and number of vessel boarding stations, or vessel doors through which passengers
board and deboard the vessel, affect the passenger flow rate and the total time needed for
passenger embarking and disembarking. Assuming that the corresponding gangways and
ramps support a comparable or faster passenger flow rate, operators can reduce dwell time by
increasing the rate of passenger throughput at the vessel boarding station.
As part of this research, boarding station widths were observed for three passenger-only ferry
systems. Based on the observations and calculations, the research team determined that doubling
the width of boarding doors can increase passenger throughput, but marginal increases in door
width from about 5 feet to 7 feet have minimal impact on passenger throughput.
A procedure for calculating the passenger throughput of a given vessel boarding station
(assuming that the boarding process does not include fare collection or validation) is represented
in Equation 2 and its discussion.
Figure 6. Bow-loading vessel (NYC Ferry,

New York, NY).

Figure 7. Side-loading vessel (Boston Harbor City

Cruises, Boston, MA).
Equation 2. Passenger boarding station throughput.

Rpfm = (N ÷ S) ÷ W
where
Rpfm = rate of passenger throughput of a given vessel doorway.
N = number of passengers embarking and disembarking.
S = speed of embarking and disembarking time.
W = width of vessel boarding station.
This equation is intended to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between
variables. Because of the differences between each ferry system, operators must determine the
values for each variable in order to calculate a value specific to their system.
This procedure does not account for passenger circulation on the vessel or the ramp passen-
gers use to unload and connect to the terminal. Additional research on how different vessel or
ramp designs contribute to the amount of time passengers require to unload would help define
other factors that contribute to dwell time.

CHAPTER 4
Capacity Concepts and Analysis

Methods: Vehicle Ferries
While many capacity concepts for vehicle ferries are similar to those of passenger-only
ferries, there are key differences due to the operational and terminal infrastructure require-
ments for carrying vehicles. These requirements include larger terminal space requirements
for queuing vehicles, the terminal infrastructure for vehicle loading ramps, and coordination
with the capacity of connecting roadway infrastructure. While this chapter focuses on capacity
concepts and analysis methods for vehicles, the capacity concepts and analysis methods related
to passenger facilities and throughput presented in Chapter 3 also apply to most ferry services
carrying vehicles and walk-on passengers.
Quantitative procedures outlined in Chapter 4 include those presented in the discussions
of Equation 3: Using AEU to calculate vehicle capacity of the vessel, Equation 4: Estimating
vehicles left behind, and Equation 5: Sizing vehicle fare collection facilities.
Optimizing the Service Schedule

The following sections identify ways to optimize the service schedule by accounting for the
operating margin, reducing dwell time, and using demand management tools.
Operating Margin
Vehicle ferries experience periods of heavy traffic where dwell time takes longer and sailings
become later and later until the heavy traffic subsides. Additionally, systems may experience
long dwell times due to incidents such as a stalled vehicle or medical emergency. To account for
longer-than-average dwell times in the service schedule, vehicle ferry systems must determine
the amount of time that accounts for these periods. Scheduling extra dwell time for designated
sailings allows ferry service to get back on schedule.
Equation 1 (in Chapter 3) presents a method for assessing operating margin for both passenger-
only and vehicle ferries.
Minimizing Dwell Time

For ferries that serve passengers and vehicles, the time required to load and unload vehicles
is typically the largest component of dwell time. The design and layout of terminal elements and
operational factors can affect the amount of dwell time required for vehicles to load and unload
the vessel. Operators responding to the questionnaire provided best practices for minimizing
dwell time. Equation 9-4 of the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) provides a procedure for calculating
the total time required to load and unload vehicles. Table 16 provides a summary of best
practices identified by operators responding to the questionnaire.
44

Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods: Vehicle Ferries 45
Table 16. Summary of vessel loading best practices from operators.

Locate fare collection toll Maximizing the amount of fare Requires adequate upland space for
booths upland of a prepaid processing that takes place vehicle holding area, ideally with capacity
holding area before the vessel loading for a full vessel load of vehicles (or
process allows for faster multiple vessels for terminals serving
loading, which decreases more than one route), plus space to
dwell time. accommodate preferential loading lanes
and queuing inefficiencies
Use a vehicle reservation Vehicle numbers and sizes are Increased cost to implement reservation
system known before sailings, reducing system; additional holding space required
vehicle processing time and
facilitating vessel loading.
Optimizing Capacity with Demand Management

For vehicle ferry services, vehicle capacity is often reached before passenger capacity. Because
of this, shifting riders from their vehicles to walking on the ferry or spreading the peak vehicle
demand can help increase the capacity of the system to serve more people without requiring
capital investment in new vessels.
Potential demand management strategies that can be used by operators to promote mode shift
or spread peak demand, thereby maximizing the use of existing assets, include those discussed
in the following subsections.
Mode Split Change Strategies

• First- and last-mile connections: Partnership with transit agencies to improve connections,
including synchronization of schedules, can help move more passengers from vehicles to
walk-on. Additionally, connections to terminals can be improved through coordination with
microtransit and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connections.
• Pricing strategies: Reducing the cost of walk-on or bicycle fares relative to vehicle fares can
promote mode shift to increase walk-on ridership.
Demand and Operational Strategies

• Enhanced user information: Through technological improvements, customers can see when
there is space available on the vessel or when there are shorter terminal queue lengths, which
can help spread the demand over the day.
• Increase service hours: Capacity of a route or system can be increased through expansion
of the service day or increased frequency of sailings. While some service expansion can be
realized with existing assets, schedule planning must take into account the maintenance and
relief needs through redundancy of the fleet, as discussed in the System Redundancy section
of Chapter 2. If mode shift is also a focus for the route, a corresponding increase in service
hours for connecting transit modes is required.
• Pricing strategies: Implementation of demand-based pricing, where fares are higher during
daily, weekly, or seasonally peak travel times, can help spread and balance demand.
• Terminal operational efficiencies: Implementation of operational efficiencies, such as
multiple-lane loading/unloading or synching traffic signals for connecting roadway inter-
sections, can increase how quickly vehicles can be loaded and unloaded at the terminal and
increase system and route capacity.
• Vehicle reservation system: Where feasible based on availability of queuing space at terminals,
operational and staffing support, and on-time performance of the route, implementation of
a vehicle reservation system can spread demand throughout the day by directing customers
to sailings with available space.

Table 17. Bicycle management examples – vehicle ferries.
Service Bicycle Loading Storage on the Vessel

BC Ferries Walked on board the Stored on the vehicle
vehicle deck deck
Cape May-Lewes Walked on board the Bicycle racks located on
Ferry vehicle deck (both before the vehicle deck
and after vehicle loading)
WSF Most bicycles load onto the Most bicycles are stored
vehicle deck before on the forward end of
vehicles; late arrivals load the vehicle deck; late
after. arrivals are stored at the
end of the deck.
An example of demand management strategy use can be found in the Washington State Ferries
2040 Long Range Plan (Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division 2019),
where specific strategies are identified as key tools for accommodating future growth.
Bicycle Management for Vehicle Ferries

Considerations for accommodating and managing bicycles include those of safety (main-
taining separation between bicyclists and vehicles), dwell time (additional time to load and
unload bicycles if separated from vehicles and passengers), and space (storage at the terminal
and on vessels).
• Loading and unloading: Bicycles can be loaded over passenger walkways or vehicle ramps.
• Storage on the vessel: How and when bicycles are loaded and unloaded from the vessel are
affected by where they are stored on the vessel. On shorter, protected routes such as river
crossings, bicycles can be leaned against a rail. In most cases, bicycle storage on the vessel
requires racks or designated space. If feasible, bicycle storage on the vessel should provide
protection from weather and water spray.
Examples of how different vehicle ferry systems manage bicycles are shown in Table 17.
Understanding Vessel Capacity and Vehicle Demand

The number of vehicles a vehicle ferry can carry depends on several factors, including route-
specific trends in volume and type of vehicle demand as well as the vessel capacity and design.
Vessel design considerations include the vehicle footprint and space requirements (AEU) as well
as over-height or large vehicle capacity.
Providing Space for Various Vehicle Sizes

Ferry operators use different standard footprints, or AEUs, to represent the dimensions of a
standard vehicle. In Chapter 9, Section 2, Ferry Service and Facilities, the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013)
provides factors commonly used to compare different vehicle types to a standard-sized vehicle:
• Standard vehicle = 1 AEU
• Recreational vehicle, single-unit truck, or bus = 3 AEU
• Semi-trailer truck = 5 AEU
Depending on the vessel arrangement, capacity for taller vehicles may be limited due to
clearance limits. Vessels that do not have an open vehicle deck, such as those with an overhead
bridge or two levels of vehicle space, are likely designed with some sections of lower vehicle
height clearance than others. Capacity for over-height vehicles must be accounted for in how

vehicles are arranged in holding lanes (possibly requiring a designated lane) and how they are
loaded onto the vessel. Operators may plan additional footprint for over-height vehicles to
account for the added space needed for staging. For example, BC Ferries plans use the follow-
ing factor for planning over-height vehicles:
• Over-height vehicle = 1.5 AEU
While the AEU is a standardized measurement used for planning purposes, for planning and
communicating vessel capacity, it is advantageous to use an average measurement that realisti-
cally represents the number of vehicles that are typically carried on a route. The size of the AEU
for a route depends on factors such as what type of vehicles are popular in the area (sedans or
trucks), typical commercial vehicle demand, and typical or seasonal demand for recreational
vehicles and trailers. Because of differing vehicle demand profiles, a representative AEU may
be different between operators, or even between routes for the same operator. Operators must
also plan for the space between vehicles, either by including it in the AEU or accounting for it
separately. Typically on vehicle ferries, crews direct vehicles onto the ferry and assist drivers
in parking as close to the vehicle in front as possible (leaving escape route space between every
vehicle or few vehicles as designated by the Coast Guard requirements for that vessel) in order
to maximize capacity and minimize the vehicle loading time. Example AEUs used by operators,
as provided in responses to the operator questionnaire or found in ferry service planning
documents, are presented in Table 18.
Equation 3 can be used to calculate the standard vehicle capacity of a vessel. The equation can
also be applied to estimate the capacity of holding or queuing lanes, although that calculation
should include more space between vehicles since drivers park themselves and are likely to
leave more space between their vehicles than would be left on the ferry.
Equation 3. Using AEU to calculate vehicle capacity of the vessel.

VS = L/(AEU + S) + C
where
VS = number of standard vehicles (rounded down to nearest whole number).
L = linear feet of straight lanes.
AEU = length in feet of the AEU used by the service or route.
S = space between vehicles (if not included in AEU). Note that less space can be planned
if crew members assist with vehicle parking on the vessel.
C = number of standard vehicles that can be accommodated in curved-lane sections.
Table 18. AEU by operator.
Operator AEU Measurement Over-Height AEU Basis (if

Definition Noted)
BC Ferries 20 feet by 8 feet 6 inches 7 feet Ford F150
Cape May-Lewes Ferry 18 feet 13 feet 6 inches
Steamship Authority 16 feet 11 inches 13 feet to 13 feet 6
inches (by vessel)
Whatcom County 18 feet 6 inches by 8 feet 6 inches N/A
Lummi Island Ferry
Non-ferry references
Car carriers 13 feet 2 inches by 5 feet 1966 Toyota
(shipping vessels) Corona

Vehicles Left Behind

Understanding the number of sailings where capacity is exceeded and knowing the number
of vehicles left behind during peak periods can support informed capacity planning. Methods
for calculating vehicles left behind include those discussed in the following:
• Estimated number of sailings where demand exceeds capacity: This is the count or average
of the number of sailings over a certain period of time where any number of vehicles are left
behind to wait for the next sailing when a full vessel departs.
• Estimated number of vehicles left behind for capacity planning and real-time wait estima-
tion: For routes with low numbers of vehicles left behind, the number of vehicles remaining
in queue or holding lanes can be counted. For routes with higher numbers of vehicles left
behind where actual counts are impractical, the number of vehicles can be estimated based
on the approximate location of the end of the queue and pre-established vehicle estimates.
Equation 4 presents a method for estimating the number of vehicles left behind.
Equation 4. Estimating vehicles left behind.

VLB = L/(AEU + S)
where
VLB = estimated number of vehicles left behind.
L = linear feet of queuing lanes, including holding area and roadside queuing. For calcu-
lating roadside queuing use the distance from holding area minus areas that cannot
be used for queuing, such as intersections or driveways.
S = space between vehicles (if not included in AEU). Note that space between queued
vehicles is greater than the space between vehicles planned on the vessel.
Vehicle Terminal Capacity Planning

and Minimizing Dwell Time
Capacity planning for vehicle ferry terminals focuses on how many vehicles can be held
after fare processing, how they are sorted prior to loading, and how quickly they can load and
unload the vessel. Habib et al. (1980) provide a detailed overview of procedures used by urban
ferry services for processing and holding vehicles at the terminal as well as loading and unload-
ing vessels. The sections that follow provide an overview of operational and terminal design
best practices that can help minimize dwell time and support maximization of vessel berthing
capacity.
Sizing the Vehicle Holding Area

Planning for queuing and holding lane capacity depends on a variety of factors, including
the types of vehicles that use the ferry and the land uses around the terminal. Providing enough
space in the vehicle holding area for more than the vessel capacity brings the vehicles closer to
where they will load the vessel and provides flexibility for staging vehicles, both of which can
serve to reduce the dwell time. The amount of space planned for vehicle holding depends on
vessel capacity and the operational practices of the ferry system, as well as the number of routes
serving the terminal. Habib et al. (1980) include the recommendation that terminals be sized for
the demand estimated to occur 20 to 25 years after the facility is built and for all uses at any
one time, including queued vehicles, park-and-ride use, buses, and passenger and employee

parking. However, historical vehicle capacity guidance may become outdated in areas where
ridership is anticipated to shift from personal vehicle use to other modes due to mode shift
trends or policy decisions.
Table 19 summarizes the design guidelines for holding area capacity used by three vehicle
ferry operators. For terminals served by multiple vessel sizes, holding area capacity is designed
based on the capacity of the largest vessel.
Lane width requirements often vary by type of use. For example, WSF designates a minimum
holding lane width of 9 feet for general traffic lanes; 10 feet for over-height vehicles, carpool/
vanpool, and shoulder holding lanes; 11 feet for service and utility vehicles; and 12 feet for
accessible lanes.
Optimizing Vehicle Queuing and Holding Area Configuration

Because the amount of space available for vehicle holding at the terminal is often constrained,
operators employ different strategies to optimize capacity and vessel loading. The ability to
pre-sort vehicle types prior to loading using a reservation system or multiple parallel vehicle
lanes allows for faster vehicle loading to minimize dwell time and maximize system capacity.
The rate at which vehicles can move through a terminal facility has a direct impact on dwell
time requirements.
Table 20 summarizes best practices for holding area design used by different operators to
minimize dwell time.
In addition to optimizing the capacity of holding areas and minimizing vehicle loading
time, operators may prioritize certain types of vehicles or users when loading, allowing them
to move ahead of the general queue and requiring a separate holding area. Operators may
choose to designate holding lanes for specific uses, depending on route context and policy
decisions, as well as to allow for increased flexibility during vehicle loading. Figure 8 illustrates
considerations that affect how much terminal space and how many holding lanes are needed,
as well as potential uses that may be given designated lanes or priority loading.
Expediting Fare Collection and Passenger Counting

Fare collection methods and technologies used and the location of fare collection relative
to vehicle holding or loading can affect the dwell time and overall capacity of the ferry system.
Specific fare processing times depend on the operating systems and policy. For example, the
time required for cash transactions can be minimal if exact fare is required, and credit and
debit card processing time can vary widely depending on the speed of the network connection
Table 19. Example holding area capacity standards.
Operator Planned Holding Area Overload Separated Queuing Lanes

Factor
BC Ferries 1.25 times vessel capacity (smaller Emergency vehicles, large and
terminals), 2 times vessel capacity oversized vehicles, priority vehicles,
(larger terminals) trucks with livestock or perishable
goods, vehicles with reservations
Cape May-Lewes 2.5 times vessel capacity (Cape May Large vehicles, VIPs, mobility-
Ferry terminal) impaired drivers, reservations,
standby
WSF 1.5 times vessel capacity (per Large vehicles, vehicles designated
destination) for preferential loading

Table 20. Best practices for maximizing holding area capacity.

Add a roadway Extends terminal capacity by Requires coordination with local
queuing lane accommodating queuing outside of jurisdiction or department of
terminal; improves safety and traffic transportation; may require
flow by separating queuing vehicles strategies to minimize impacts to
from roadway traffic adjacent residents and commercial
properties; may be difficult to control
queue jumping; reduced quality of
service for customers if there is no
access to terminal amenities
Holding lane length of Allows vehicles to be pulled out as Constrained terminal sites may
10 to 20 vehicles necessary to optimize staging on the make optimal lane layouts
vessel while still holding vehicles challenging.
close to vessel loading
Implement technology Provides real-time information to Cost to implement and maintain
to support remote users regarding wait times and monitoring systems. Tracking and
queue monitoring collects queue length data to inform analysis of queue length data would
route and terminal capacity planning require dedicated staff time.
Stage vehicles as Maximizes efficiency of vehicle Requires space for holding area
close to the vessel as loading and reduces dwell time over or near the water with capacity
possible for at least a full vessel load of
vehicles
and transaction validation requirements. Table 21 provides examples of the time required per
transaction based on the type of fare, as presented by Habib et al. (1980).
The average vehicle processing rates experienced by each operator depend on a number of
variables, including the rates of use of reservations, credit cards, and multi-fare passes. As an
example, the WSF Terminal Design Manual (Washington State Department of Transportation
Ferries Division 2016) provides an average vehicle processing rate for planning purposes of
2.5 vehicles per minute per toll booth, or 150 vehicles per hour per toll booth, although it is
noted that actual rates vary between terminals and throughout the day.
Figure 8. Elements affecting holding lane planning.

Table 21. Fare collection transaction time

(Habib et al. 1980).
Type of Fare Number of Destinations Time per Transaction

Cash 1 30 seconds (mean)
Cash More than 1 Up to 2 minutes
Multi-fare pass Any As little as 10 seconds
Planning Vehicle Fare Collection Facilities

A method for calculating the number of toll booths needed to provide a targeted vehicle pro-
cessing rate during the peak hour can be calculated using Equation 5. This method assumes that
holding area capacity can accommodate at least a full vessel load of vehicles. For terminals serv-
ing multiple routes, additional holding area capacity and fare processing capacity are required
to process vehicles arriving at the terminal for different sailings.
Equation 5. Sizing vehicle fare collection facilities.

T = V(FN)/R
where
T = number of required toll booths.
V = capacity of the largest vessel serving the terminal (number of vehicles).
FN = number of ferries departing in the peak service hour.
R = average vehicle processing rate (vehicles per hour per toll booth).
Fare Collection and Passenger Counting Methods

Because of the Coast Guard requirement that all passengers be counted, including those
riding in vehicles, implementation of technologies for automated fare collection such as license
plate readers or radio transponders that could speed up fare collection and reduce dwell
time is challenging. Review of potential technologies and alternatives for automated vehicle
fare processing is recommended for further research.
Other opportunities to reduce the time required for fare collection, thereby minimizing dwell
time and maximizing system capacity, are presented in Table 22.
Planning for Terminal Compatibility

The capacity of the intersections and roadways connecting to the terminal must also be
accounted for in ferry system capacity planning. If roadway connections outside of the terminal
cannot accommodate vehicles at the rate at which they unload from the vessel and exit the
terminal, backups can occur, which may delay vessel unloading and cause unacceptable levels
of traffic disruption near the terminal. This is a greater concern for higher-capacity systems with
vessels that carry a large number of vehicles.
Considerations and best practices for coordinating the capacity of multimodal connections
for passengers are addressed in the Multimodal Connections section of Chapter 3.
Connecting Roadways
At most ferry terminals, unloading vehicles exit the terminal at a single point, and all unloading
vehicles must clear the area near the vessel before vehicle loading for the next sailing can begin.
Therefore, the capacity and timing of the intersection nearest to the terminal is a key capacity

Table 22. Vehicle fare collection and passenger counting best practices.

Collect fares in one direction When possible (especially when If there are travel alternatives,
ferry is the only or a highly some fare revenue may be lost if
preferable travel option), some users only travel in the non-
collecting fares on only one end fare collecting direction.
of a route reduces loading time
at the non-fare collecting end as
well as facility and staffing
requirements.
Collect fares on the vessel Processing fares on the vessel Only applicable for services that
during transit removes the need for upland toll can process all fares during
facilities and staff. transit, such as those with small
vessels or long routes. It can be
challenging to ensure walk-on
passengers and passengers in
vehicles do not avoid fare
payment.
Expedite vehicle measuring If online reservations or online There are costs associated with
fare purchase is offered, a implementation and maintenance
database of vehicle of vehicle size database or
specifications based on make automatic vehicle measuring
and model can ensure that technology.
accurate dimensions and
weights are provided. A potential
alternative would be
implementation of an automatic
vehicle measuring technology.
Online system for vehicle Spreads demand throughout the Cost to implement and operate
reservations and fare service day as people can show reservation technology. Requires
purchase up for their designated sailing holding space to accommodate at
and avoid sold-out sailings. least a full vessel load of vehicles,
There can be reduced vehicle as well as space for standbys. For
processing time involved in terminals with multiple routes,
verifying reservations rather than holding space needs may be
processing payments. greater. Residents or commuters
who regularly use a service may
dislike reservation systems.
planning consideration for vehicle ferry services. Unless all unloading vehicles can be accom-
modated in exit lanes before the nearest intersection, there is potential for that intersection to
become a limiting factor in terminal throughput.
The rate at which vehicles load and unload varies by system. For example, the Lummi Island
Ferry System Level of Service Alternatives Analysis (Whatcom County Public Works 2018) uses
a rate of 10.7 vehicles per minute (or 5.6 seconds per vehicle) per ramp lane for loading and
unloading. Factors that may affect the rate at which vehicles unload from the vessel include the
type of ridership (regular commuters or first-time users), the number of large or over-height
vehicles, the number of vehicle lanes on the ramp, and the design of lanes (straight or curved).
Potential opportunities to address capacity issues in connecting roadways and intersections
are presented in Table 23.

Table 23. Best practices for coordinating capacity with connecting roadways.

Avoid or control pedestrian Minimize interruptions to traffic Feasibility depends on terminal
crosswalks in exit lanes for flow for unloading vehicles. design and location of
unloading vehicles. pedestrian ramps and walkways.
Implement controlled Allow unloading vehicles to exit Requires initial and ongoing
intersections and strategic timing the terminal without stopping at coordination with local
of signalized intersections. adjacent intersections. municipality and department of
transportation.
Provide two intersection Reduce instances of traffic Increasing exit lane capacity
approach lanes for ferries backing up to the vessel by may take space away from
discharging from a one-lane providing added exit lane vehicle queuing or holding lanes.
ramp, and three intersection capacity for unloading vehicles.
approach lanes for ferries
discharging from a two-lane
ramp.
Use smaller vessels with more If traffic surges from unloading Increased capital and operating
frequent sailings to reduce the vehicles overwhelm connecting costs are associated with
size of traffic surges. roadway capacity, use of more increased number of vessels.
frequent smaller vessels can
reduce impacts.

CHAPTER 5
Example Capacity Procedures Use
The following sections outline hypothetical scenarios that will be used to demonstrate the
process of assessing a capacity problem and developing potential solutions. The scenarios
include application of the capacity concepts, quantitative procedures, and best practices outlined
in this report, as well as equations and guidance from previous reports. Figure 9 shows the
equations used in the two example capacity procedures under the terminal element where they
are applied. In addition to the quantitative procedures, the examples also contain qualitative
discussions of the interrelated ferry service elements that could be affected by a change in
capacity, as well as different options that the hypothetical operators may have to address their
capacity challenges.
Example 1: Passenger-Only Ferry

A passenger-only ferry operator with multiple vessels on multiple routes connecting to one
urban terminal is exploring how to increase capacity to service growing demand during the
commute periods. The operator needs to understand whether a busy hub terminal currently
serving two routes can support additional service during the 3-hour peak morning and evening
commute windows, and needs to plan operational and capital improvements to increase
capacity. The analysis encompasses assessing the use and capacity of the existing terminal
facilities, and, if necessary, identifying operational changes or additional capital improvements
to provide additional capacity. The steps that follow outline how the operator can assess the
capacity of the terminal to serve vessels and passengers and can identify potential limiting
factors and improvements.
Step 1: Evaluate Current Berthing Capacity

First, the operator must evaluate the hub terminal’s berthing capacity to understand whether
additional vessel landings can be accommodated. In this example, ridership demand is greatest
during peak commute times; therefore, the operator will base its evaluation on the peak demand
periods. Using Equations 9-1 and 9-5 of the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) and the current average
scheduled dwell time, the operator estimates that four vessel landings per hour can be accommo-
dated at each of the facility’s two berths, meaning that the facility can accommodate a maximum
of eight vessel landings per hour.
The operator then compares the estimated maximum number of vessel landings per hour
(eight) to the current number of landings in the peak hour (six), resulting in the potential for
two vessel landings to be added during the peak hour.
The feasibility of fully using available berthing capacity within the peak period depends
on sailing schedules and the frequency of vessel sailings and may mean that vessel landings
54

Example Capacity Procedures Use 55
Figure 9. Example capacity procedures equations.
need to be scheduled based on available berthing windows rather than on preferred arrival
and departure times for riders. In this case, the float and gangways are sized to accommodate
two-way passenger traffic, so two berthed vessels are able to load and unload simultaneously.
In addition, consideration must be given to potential impacts of maneuvering time require-
ments from added vessel traffic. In this example, the float is located in a constrained waterway
that only has space for one vessel to maneuver at a time, which means that service schedules
must include time between vessel landings to stagger vessel departing and arriving times and
avoid the risk of vessels having to lay off and wait to land if a departing vessel is behind schedule,
even if they are not scheduled to use the same berth.
For more information, see the Vessel Berthing Capacity section of Chapter 2.
Step 2: Evaluate Current Passenger Throughput and Dwell Time

In Step 1, the operator estimated that two additional vessel landings per hour could be
accommodated during the peak period using current scheduled dwell times. To understand
whether the increased passenger volumes from two added sailings can be accommodated in
the terminal facilities connecting to the vessel without affecting dwell times, the operator must
assess the embarking and disembarking capacity of the terminal. As a first step, Equation 9-3
of the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013) can be used to calculate embarking and disembarking times
for each vessel landing. (Because the example terminal can accommodate two-way passenger
flow, the estimated dwell time only includes the greater of the embarking or disembarking
service time.) In this example, the operator calculates that passenger embarking rates are not
sufficient to maintain the dwell times required to add two additional sailings.
Using the guidance presented in Chapter 3, the operator can review terminal operations and
passenger flow to identify terminal elements where constraints on throughput and capacity
may occur. One approach to reviewing passenger flow would be to observe terminal operations
during peak commute periods and note where queues regularly occur as arriving and depart-
ing passengers move through the terminal. Once areas of constraint are identified, the operator
can review potential capital improvements and operating best practices to increase throughput.
Examples of potential improvements to address common areas of constraint on passenger
throughput include the following:
• Fare collection: For many operators, fare collection represents the greatest opportunity to
increase passenger throughput without expansion of terminal facilities. Potential improvements

include locating fare collection upstream of a holding area to allow free-flow boarding, as well
as implementation of new fare technologies such as mobile ticket scanning.
• Movement of passengers with bicycles, luggage, or personal mobility devices: Terminal
elements should be designed to reduce points of constraint and bottlenecks.
• Vessel boarding station: When new vessels are added to the fleet, vessel design should
include consideration of boarding station width and vessel layout in relation to passenger
boarding time.
For more information, see the Minimizing Dwell Time through Vessel and Terminal Design
and Optimizing Capacity by Improving Passenger Movement sections of Chapter 3.
Step 3: Review Operating Margin Requirements

Before exploring potential schedule adjustments, the operator should review current on-time
performance and scheduled dwell and transit times to determine whether the current service
schedules are achievable or if additional time or operating efficiencies are needed to reduce
the risk of late sailings. Using Equation 1, the operator calculates the operating margin used on
each route.
Om = TT – (Tr + Mt + Dt) = 40 – (29 + 7) = 4 minutes
where
Om = average operating margin (minutes).
TT = scheduled total trip time of a set of sailings over a designated period of time (minutes).
Trip time could include a trip segment, one-directional trip, or round trip.
Tr = average transit time of a set of sailings (minutes).
Mt = average maneuvering time required for vessel approach and departure for a set of
sailings (minutes).
Dt = average time required to complete passenger loading/unloading and necessary vessel
functions of a set of sailings (minutes).
Using the average dwell time, maneuvering time, and transit time experienced during a
peak-hour one-way trip and comparing that total to the scheduled total trip time during that
period, the operator calculates that each one-way trip incorporates a 4-minute operating margin.
The operator reviews the on-time performance for the route during the same period, finding
that while the route meets its overall on-time performance goal (at least 95% of all sailings depart
within 5 minutes of scheduled departure time), on-time performance for trips within the peak
period is only 89%. Therefore, review of operating margin requires a policy decision regarding
agency priorities.
For example, if the agency’s goal is an overall 95% on-time performance target, then no
additional operating margin is required for peak period sailings because the reduced demand
and lower dwell-time requirements outside of the commute hours allow vessels to get back and
stay on schedule so that they can meet the on-time performance target.
If the agency wishes to address the lower on-time performance during the peak period, then
potential solutions include:
• Additional operating margin that can be added to trips during the peak period, and
• A review of vessel and terminal operations to look for potential efficiencies or opportunities
to decrease trip time or dwell time.
For more information, see the Performance Metrics to Measure Capacity section of Chapter 2
and the Operating Margin section of Chapter 3.

Example 2: Vehicle Ferry

An agency that operates a lifeline route with a single vessel connecting passengers and
vehicles to an island is planning to replace its aging vessel, which has a capacity of 20 vehicles
and completes a round trip in 30 minutes. This major investment is expected to serve the route
for at least 30 years. The agency is seeking guidance on how to size the replacement vessel to
serve current and forecast demand. Because passenger demand is not forecast to exceed vessel
capacity, the agency is focused on the number of vehicles carried by the replacement vessel.
Step 1: Establish Desired Level of Service

In order to make decisions regarding how much passenger and vehicle capacity is needed to
serve current or forecast ridership, the agency must establish a desired LOS. This process can
include multiple steps and factors, including the following:
• Complete a ridership demand forecast to estimate future capacity needs.
• If a priority of the system or agency involves promoting mode shift from drive-on to walk-on
passengers, account for implementation of demand management strategies and associated
impacts to forecast demand and targeted service levels.
• If a system or agency goal is to realize emissions reductions or pursue related funding oppor-
tunities, review potential impacts to service levels from application of new vessel technologies.
• Establish the level of demand that will be used as the targeted capacity for planning (e.g., the
85th percentile demand day).
This information will support the operator in establishing the number of vehicles that must
be carried over a given period. Because the new vessel may not have the same service schedule,
LOS planning may include trade-off decisions between vessel size and service frequency.
In this example, the operator defines its LOS based on a maximum wait time of 1 hour for
vehicles, using forecast vehicle demand during the peak hour of the 90th percentile demand day
for a 15-year planning horizon. To provide the established LOS, the replacement vessel must
be capable of carrying 160 vehicles in each direction over a 2-hour period. Based on the current
round-trip time of 30 minutes, this would require a vessel capacity of 40 vehicles.
For more information, refer to the Governance and Policy Factors section of Chapter 2 and
the Optimizing Capacity with Demand Management section of Chapter 4.
Step 2: Establish AEU Measurement

To plan the design of the new vessel, the agency must also establish the AEU to use for
vessel planning and communication of vehicle capacity. The AEU should be based on a review
of available historic vehicle sizing data or an observation of typical vehicle demand as well as
the best practices of other operators.
In this case, the operator establishes an AEU of 19 feet by 8.5 feet, which includes the space
between vehicles. Using Equation 3, the operator can estimate the vehicle capacity of replacement
vessels by applying the AEU.
Equation 3. Using AEU to calculate vehicle capacity of the vessel.

VS = L/(AEU + S) + C
where
VS = number of standard vehicles (rounded down to nearest whole number).
L = linear feet of straight lanes available for vehicle use.

C = number of standard vehicles that can be accommodated in curved-lane sections.

S = space between vehicles. (In this example, AEU includes the space between vehicles.)
For more information, see the Providing Space for Various Vehicle Sizes section of Chapter 4.
Step 3: Understand Vessel Sizing Opportunities and Constraints

In addition to the number of vehicles that need to be carried each sailing and the AEU
established in Steps 1 and 2, sizing the replacement vessel includes consideration of route,
environmental, and regulatory factors. Potential considerations include minimum vessel sizes
for seakeeping based on route operating conditions, impacts to crewing and security require-
ments based on passenger capacity, and compatibility with existing terminal infrastructure.
The desired capacity could also be provided with a larger vessel and less frequent service or
with two smaller vessels with more frequent service. In this case, the operator does not have
tie-up berths available for more than one vessel so decided not to explore potential two-vessel
service.
For more information, see the Vessel and Fleet Planning section of Chapter 2.
Step 4: Calculate Impact of Using a Larger Replacement Vessel

Once the agency has established the vehicle capacity needed to provide the desired LOS and
reviewed any constraints on vessel and fleet size, it must determine whether the existing terminal
facility can accommodate the larger vehicle loads or if terminal improvements may be required.
The total vehicle capacity and number of lanes required for vehicle staging can be reviewed
based on the guidance for sizing and designing vehicle holding areas provided in Chapter 4.
In addition, the capacity of connecting intersections and roadways should be reviewed to
determine whether backups may occur that could affect the vehicle unloading/loading process.
If constraints are anticipated, early coordination with the local municipality or department of
transportation may be required.
Assessment of the increase to vehicle capacity with the replacement vessel should also include
assessing potential impacts to the service schedule. Because the time required to load and unload
vehicles is typically the controlling factor for dwell time, understanding the impact of the
number of vehicles carried by the replacement vessel is key to planning service frequency. Using
Equation 9-4 of the TCQSM (Ryus et al. 2013), the agency can estimate the time required to load
and unload vehicles using the planned vehicle capacity of the replacement vessel.
In this example, increasing the vessel capacity from 20 to 40 vehicles is estimated to increase
dwell time from 5 to 10 minutes, making the current 30-minute round-trip time unachievable.
In order to provide the desired LOS, the operator must either use a larger-capacity vessel with
less frequent sailings to carry the same number of vehicles over a period of time, or implement
capital and operational improvements to reduce dwell time. Potential improvements include:
• Widening the loading ramp to two lanes to allow two vehicles to load or unload simultane-
ously, and
• Locating fare collection outside of a prepaid vehicle holding area that has capacity for at least
one full vessel load of vehicles.
For more information, see the Minimizing Dwell Time and the Vehicle Terminal Capacity
Planning and Minimizing Dwell Time sections of Chapter 4.

Step 5: Explore Options for Monitoring Level of Service

In order to monitor the continuing performance of the system and support planning for
future capacity, the operator must have a way of tracking LOS performance. In this example,
the operator is interested in collecting data related to the wait time experienced by vehicles
once they enter the holding area or queue. One method of collecting data related to vehicle
wait times would be to monitor the length of the queue and estimate the number of full vessel
loads of vehicles that are waiting based on the location of the last vehicle in line. In order to
implement this data collection, the operator installs cameras to remotely monitor the holding
area and points along the roadside queuing lane. During peak demand periods when the hold-
ing area capacity is exceeded and vehicles queue along the roadway outside of the terminal, the
operator reviews the recorded queue length and estimates the number of vehicles in the queue
after a sailing departs based on the estimated location of the last vehicle. To facilitate this data
collection process, the operator has several marked locations with associated vehicle counts,
estimated using Equation 4.
Equation 4. Estimating vehicles left behind.

VLB = L/(AEU + S)
where
VLB = estimated number of vehicles left behind.
L = linear feet of queuing lanes including holding area and roadside queuing. (For calcu-
lating roadside queuing use the distance from holding area minus areas that cannot
be used for queuing such as intersections or driveways.)
S = space between vehicles (if not included in AEU). Note that space between queued
vehicles is greater than the space between vehicles planned on the vessel.
For more information, see the Vehicles Left Behind section of Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 6
Suggested Further Research
Summary of Identified Gaps

Ferry transportation assets and operations are different from those of other transportation
modes, and more research and data collection are needed to support ferry planning and provide
guidance on a similar level to that available for other modes. This chapter identifies areas of
research related to ferry capacity planning that could not be included in this project but are
suggested for future research. Identified gaps are listed in Table 24, along with a summary of
how research would further develop ferry capacity planning guidance.
Table 24. Summary of identified gaps in research.
Gap Need for Research

ADA vessel design: ADA access When guidelines developed by the U.S. Access Board are
requirements and guidelines for adopted as regulations for passenger ferry vessels, further study
passenger vessels would be helpful to understand impacts to vessel design and
capacity planning.
Alternative vessel propulsion: As the use of electric and alternative propulsion vessels
Potential impacts to terminal and increases, system capacity planning will benefit from research
schedule capacity of electric or on the terminal space requirements for vessel charging or
alternative propulsion vessels refueling equipment, and the impact to service schedules,
especially dwell time, of new vessel propulsion systems.
Bicycles: Utilization rates and Data collection related to bicycle use based on route
demand variability characteristics, type of ridership (commute/recreational), and
seasonality is needed that can be used to inform vessel and
terminal capacity planning.
Climate change: Impacts to Greater understanding of how sea level rise and changing
terminal and vessel design weather patterns will affect terminal and vessel requirements will
inform capital investment and system capacity planning.
Crew scheduling: Practices for To support the expansion of ferry systems, additional research
crew shift scheduling and dispatch on crew scheduling opportunities within the maritime regulatory
environment is recommended.
Fare collection: Processing rates More accurate passenger or vehicle processing rates for current
(time per passenger or vehicle) for fare collection methods, such as mobile tickets, would allow for
new fare technologies accurate passenger throughput and dwell time planning.
Freight: Practices for incorporating Research on existing ferry operations that provide freight
freight into passenger and vehicle service, including how freight is loaded/unloaded and stored on
ferry service vessels, and the impacts on route and system capacity, would
support capacity planning decisions and capital investments.
60

Suggested Further Research 61
Table 24. (Continued).
Gap Need for Research

Passenger flow-rate modeling: More accurate pedestrian flow rates based on observation of
Updated pedestrian flow rates different terminal conditions would support useful modeling for
based on observations at ferry capacity planning. Modeling could include at-capacity and
terminals under-capacity conditions, passenger flows onto different vessel
types, comparison of passenger flows during different weather
conditions and a range of ramp slopes resulting from tidal
conditions, and impacts to flow rates from passengers with items
such as strollers, luggage, bicycles, and umbrellas.
Passenger flow rates by type of Anecdotal evidence points to a need for longer scheduled dwell
ridership: Comparison of times for recreational/special-event ridership for ferries, but
passenger throughput and vessel collection of passenger flow data for different types of ridership
dwell times during periods of would support schedule planning.
regular/commute ridership with
recreational/special-event ridership
Queue monitoring: Options for Research on potential technologies and methods that allow
monitoring passengers and vehicles operators to monitor the number of passengers and vehicles left
left behind when a full vessel behind (and those that choose not to wait for the next sailing) on
departs a trip-by-trip basis would provide operators with insight into
capacity constraints and planning needs.
Vehicle processing technology: Potential technologies and alternatives for automated vehicle
Automated vehicle fare processing fare processing are recommended for further research. Potential
options opportunities include reduced vehicle processing times and
automated queuing lane assignments for optimized vehicle
loading.
Vessel design: Dwell time and Data collection related to comparison of dwell time and
other considerations based on maneuvering requirements of different vessel types could inform
vessel design options capital investment planning. Areas for data collection include tie-
up time requirements and other dwell time differences between
side- and bow-loading passenger-only vessels.

References
Auckland Transport. 2019. Auckland Transport Design Manual: Ferry Terminal Design. Auckland, New Zealand.
Available at https://at.govt.nz/media/1982223/engineering-design-code-public-transport-ferry-infrastructure_
compressed.pdf. (Accessed December 14, 2022).
BC Ferries. 2021. Fiscal Year 2020–2021 Performance & Sustainability Report. Available at https://www.bcferries.
com/web_image/hcd/hc2/8914197053470.pdf. (Accessed December 14, 2022).
Bruzzone, A. 2012. TCRP Report 152: Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2020. National Census of Ferry Operators. Available at https://data.bts.gov/
stories/s/National-Census-of-Ferry-Operators-NCFO-2020-Landi/5dqg-uz62/ and https://data.bts.gov/
stories/s/Ferry-Vessels/57sz-yj2t. (Accessed December 14, 2022).
Fruin, J. 1971. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental
Planners, New York, NY.
Habib, P., A. Bloch, and R. Roess. 1980. Functional Designs of Ferry Systems. Final Report—Phase I. Maritime
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Payne, T., D. Rose, and H. Scher. 2013. TCRP Synthesis 102: Integrating Passenger Ferry Service with Mass Transit.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ryus, P., A. Danaher, M. Walker, F. Nichols, B. Carter, E. Ellis, L. Cherrington, and A. Bruzzone. 2013. TCRP
Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition. Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, 2016. 2016 Strategic Plan. Available at
https://weta.sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/default/files/weta/strategicplan/WETAStrategicPlanFinal.pdf.
(Accessed December 14, 2022).
Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division. 2016. WSF Terminal Design Manual. Available
at https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M3082/TDM.pdf. (Accessed December 14, 2022).
Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division. 2019. Washington State Ferries 2040 Long Range
Plan. Available at https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020/09/16/WSF-LongRangePlan-2040Plan.pdf.
(Accessed December 14, 2022).
Whatcom County Public Works. 2018. Lummi Island Ferry System Level of Service Alternatives Analysis (Draft
Report). Bellingham, WA. Available at https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/34824/
DRAFT-Final-Report-wOutAppendices-extract. (Accessed December 14, 2022).
62

Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AEU Automobile Equivalent Unit
CBP Customs and Border Protection
COI Certificate of Inspection
GT gross tons
LOS level of service
MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority
NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation
RO-RO roll-on, roll-off [ferry]
SeaBus BC Hydro Transportation
TCQSM Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WSF Washington State Ferries
63

APPENDIX A
Operator Questionnaire
and Summaries of Responses
TCRP Project A-46, “Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Transit Services
Questions for Ferry Operators”
KPFF and Arup, with the guidance of a panel of ferry and transit experts, are performing research related
to ferry capacity concepts and analysis methods. The objective of this research is to present key
quantitative procedures for planning, designing, and operating ferry transit services that will be useful to
ferry system operators and transit planners. The resulting report and procedures will be published by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and incorporated into the next edition of TRB’s Transit Capacity
and Quality of Service Manual.
More information on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition, is available
here: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx. Other ferry reports include TCRP Report 152:
Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services (http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166721.aspx), and TCRP
Synthesis 102: Integrating Passenger Ferry Service with Mass Transit
(http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168711.aspx).
A summary of this research effort (TCRP Project A-46) is available here:

https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4882
Purpose of Questionnaire
To support the development of key quantitative procedures, the research team is asking select ferry
operators to share best practices and available data related to how they address capacity through planning,
design, and operations. Your responses will help improve research and guidance for existing ferry
operators as well as communities and jurisdictions considering ferries as a potential transit mode. In
addition to your responses to this questionnaire, if your agency has completed any study documents
addressing ferry capacity considerations, please attach them with your questionnaire responses.
Responses are requested by April 28th.
Operator Questions
(Note that some questions are specific for passenger-only ferry or vehicle ferry services)
Terminals and vessels: How is throughput measured and planned?

1. Does your service have video that captures passenger or vehicle movements between the terminal
and vessel that you would be willing to share with us? Video will be used to quantify pedestrian
and/or vehicle flow rates through facility elements (on ramps, on the dock, loading/unloading,
through vessel doors, etc.)
64

Operator Questionnaire and Summaries of Responses 65
Summary of operator responses: Four operators indicated that they could potentially share
video. The research team reviewed video from three of the operators as part of terminal
observations.
2. Does your service have fare collection data that could be used to quantify automated fare
collection/passenger counting rates? Have you taken any other action to measure the pedestrian
and/or vehicle flow rates? If so, what methods did you employ (e.g., direct counts over time,
other) and do you have data you would be willing to share with us?
Summary of operator responses: Operators noted various fare collection data and passenger
counting methods, and six operators indicated that they would be willing to share data.
3. What type(s) of fare collection is/are used, and where is fare collection located in relation to
queuing/vessel loading? Does any fare validation take place at the time of boarding, or after fare
collection is there a prepaid capture area where customers wait prior to loading?
Summary of operator responses: Operator responses detail use of a variety of fare types as well
as fare collection practices. Vehicle ferry operators noted pay booths accepting multiple fare
types, self-ticketing kiosks, online ticketing, and handheld scanners used by crew. Passenger-only
ferry operators noted self-ticketing kiosks, ticket counters, and handheld scanners at the boarding
gate or on the vessel, with four operators noting fare integration with regional transit systems.
Six of the operators collect or validate fares as passengers/vehicles board the ferry, three collect
fares before passengers/vehicles enter a prepaid holding area, one typically collects fares on-
board the vessel, and one uses a “borderless” system.
4. (For passenger-only ferry operators) We are collecting best practices for queuing practices and
space allocation at terminals—please provide information on your standard operating procedures
or procedures specific to your service’s terminal that most efficiently move passengers. How
much space is allocated for queuing/ticketing and support services?
How many routes are served at the terminal?
Layout [number of lanes (queuing/loading and unloading), width of ramps and other
walkways, planned queuing capacity relative to total vessel capacity, seating availability]
If reservations are used, how are passengers with reservations managed (queuing and
loading)?
What are the procedures for queuing and boarding bicycles?
Summary of operator responses: Operators provided detail on queuing layout/number of

queuing lanes, lane and ramp widths (ranging from a minimum 36 inches, to 13 feet), and some
queuing management best practices. One operator noted that because it does not own its
pontoons, it is unable to install queuing hardware, and bunched queuing creates problems and
slows down the boarding/alighting process. None of the responding operators use reservations
for passenger services. Bikes are typically queued/loaded in the regular passenger lane, although
one of the services unloads bikes last, and one high-speed passenger-only ferry service stores
bikes prior to passengers loading. Best practices for queue management included stationing
customer service agents at the terminal during busy periods and the use of overhead electronic
signage for queue management.

5. (For vehicle ferry operators) We are collecting best practices for queuing layout and space
allocation at terminals—please provide information specific to your service’s terminal about what
most efficiently moves vehicles. How much space is allocated for holding/ticketing and support
services?
Layout (number of lanes (holding, loading, and unloading), planned queuing capacity
relative to total vessel capacity, seating availability)
How are large vehicles managed (queuing and loading)?
How are priority vehicles such as those for emergency response or commercial/goods (if
applicable) managed (queuing and loading)?
If reservations are used, how are vehicles with reservations differentiated from those
without reservations?
Within the group having reservations, is there any preferential loading? As an example,
do emergency vehicles or trucks carrying livestock or perishable goods get priority
loading over other customers (with or without reservations)?
Summary of operator responses: Even within each system, vehicle holding capacity and layout
vary by terminal size/route traffic, ranging from no holding space (queuing on local roads) to 2.5
vessels’ worth of vehicles. All operators indicated strategies for separate staging and priority
loading of emergency and other priority vehicles. Operators noted using separate holding lanes
for large vehicles, vehicles with reservations, and priority vehicles (including emergency
response, VIPs, mobility-impaired drivers, and trucks with livestock or perishable goods).
6. (For vehicle ferry operators) What size/footprint (length, width, and space between vehicles) is
used for auto equivalent units (the representative vehicle size for planning capacity)? If your
service operates multiple routes, do assumptions for auto capacity planning differ by route type
(commuter routes versus lifeline routes with heavier freight/truck usage)? If a route has multiple
stops, how do you allocate space by destination?
Summary of operator responses: Standard vehicle lengths provided ranged from 16'11'' to 20'.
One European operator observed that vehicles have become significantly wider over the past 40
years. Operators with multiple routes noted that the same AEU dimensions are used across all
routes, although some weight limitations may differ based on terminal infrastructure. Specific
responses included:
• 1 Space < = 16’11”; 1 Space Oversized 17’ < 20’; 2 Space 20’ < 35’; 3 Space 35’ <
55’; 4 Space 55’ < 65’; 5 Space >=65’
• 18 feet per standard vehicle. Long vehicles are allocated in multiple unit ranges by fare
class.
• 6.1m (long) x 2.6m (wide).
For minor routes, we use a conversion factor of 1.0 for regular vehicles, 1.5 for
over-heights, 2.5 for commercial vehicles, 3.0 for buses
For major routes, we use a conversion factor of 1.0 for regular vehicles, 1.5 for
over-heights, 3.75 for commercial vehicles, 3.0 for buses
Schedule planning: How does your system maximize schedule capacity while maintaining on-time
service?
7. What is the operating margin (difference between actual sailing time and allotted/scheduled trip
time) used to maintain on-time service? Are there any instances of extra time built into the
schedule to allow vessels that are running late to get back on time? If so, how frequently does this
allowance occur? Are there seasonal considerations, wake-sensitive areas, tidal variations, or
instances of vessel traffic that affect your scheduling?

Operator Questionnaire and Summaries of Responses 67
Summary of operator responses: No operators identified a standard operating margin, although

all but one (with a 2.5-minute river crossing) discussed having extra time built into the schedule
in different ways. Operators vary scheduled dwell times by route and time of day to account for
periods of known heavy ridership or harbor traffic, build the schedule assuming less-than-
maximum vessel speed (if vessels are running late they can go faster; if they are on time they can
go slower and save fuel), round scheduled trip times up to the nearest 5 minutes, or schedule
longer dwell times during shift changes or vessel maintenance activities that allow service to
make up time if needed to get back on schedule.
8. How much time is allotted in the dock for loading, unloading, and other required at-dock
activities (dwell time)? Is the allotted time consistent or does it change by time of day, day of
week, or season? What determines the allotted dwell time? Is it vehicle load/unload time,
passenger load/unload time, or other factors such as any outside of your facility (please specify)?
Summary of operator responses: Three operators indicated that there is little or no variation in
their allotted dwell time, while others noted that allotted dwell time differs based on constraints
(coordination with other operators at a shared facility), anticipated type/volume of ridership, or
daily/seasonal schedule.
9. Are there observed differences or available data comparing passenger throughput for regular
commuters versus special-event or tourist traffic? (For vehicle ferry operators) Does this differ
between walk-on passengers and cars?
Summary of operator responses: No operators identified data supporting this difference, but
several offered observed differences in queuing, ticketing, and vessel boarding efficiencies.
Observed differences include that tourists tend to board and disembark slower when walking and
less efficiently when driving, and slower boarding/disembarking time during special events. One
operator estimated that tourists asking questions adds about 1 minute to the boarding process.
Several operators observed that regular commuters are much more likely to follow queuing
protocols and be prepared for fare payment.
Long-term planning: How are other planning considerations expected to impact the capacity of
your service?
10. Does your service see a potential for future vessel electrification or alternative fuel use? If so,
what are the known infrastructure/planning needs at the terminal to support electrification or
alternative fuels (space for equipment or batteries at terminal and on the vessel)? Are there any
known implications to dwell time due to charging time or battery change out?
Summary of operator responses: Several operators are in the early planning stages of vessel
electrification or application of hydrogen fuel and indicated that infrastructure needs and dwell
time impacts are not yet known.
11. What performance metrics and goals/targets are used by your service? (For example: on-time
performance targets, level of service metrics related to wait times, vessel capacity/ridership or
overloads)
Summary of operator responses: Most operators track on-time performance, reliability, and
ridership/vessel capacity utilization. Other performance metrics track revenue, passenger/vehicle
wait times, safety, and customer satisfaction.

12. What changes have been made to your system’s operations and capacity management in response
to COVID-19? Do you anticipate that any of these changes will remain in place after COVID-19?
Summary of operator responses: Most operators implemented reduced capacity restrictions to
allow for social distancing and reduced sailings due to operational challenges. Only one
operator anticipates a lasting change after COVID-19 measures are lifted, with a continued shift
toward contactless payment.
13. Are there limiting factors on capacity in the systems connecting to your facility
(roadways/intersections, parking, multimodal/transit connections)? Are there pulse-point
relationships or non-scheduled links with other intermodal transit (buses, rail, other)?
Summary of operator responses: Operators noted that limiting factors were different by
terminal, but included parking, availability and timeliness of connecting transit, and traffic
congestion on connecting roadways (especially for terminals located in urban centers). One
operator noted that bike lane capacity connecting to the terminal was limited. For operators with
one or more terminals well-serviced by transit, all noted that schedules were coordinated with the
connecting transit agency to the extent possible.
14. Does your system use other best practices for planning or managing capacity that you would like
to share?
Summary of operator responses: Operators shared recommendations focused on service level
and capacity planning, including:
• Base planning on historical demand data and capacity data at a trip level.
• Coordinate capacity increases and decreases with connecting modes of transit.
• Include coordination of vessel dry-dock and overhaul maintenance activities in
scheduling.
• Design to support standardization of fleet and terminal assets to allow for flexibility and
interoperability, which allows vessels to be deployed as needed to meet high demand.
• Develop a strong feedback culture within the company/agency to get insight on problems
and potential solutions.
• Use video surveillance at terminals to understand how many passengers are waiting.
• Minimize the number of seasonal schedules used throughout the year.

APPENDIX B
Data Collection and Findings
The research team conducted data collection and analysis to support the findings in the report. As
a part of this study, Arup developed a methodology and analytical framework to evaluate the
passenger and system capacity of various ferry operators in California, Washington State, and
New York. Data were collected through in-person site visits and through review of security
camera footage to inform empirical data collection of passenger throughput, walk speed, ramp
length, ramp slope, ramp width, loading operations (bow versus side loading) docking procedure
duration, and onload/offload durations. Data were compiled and analyzed using PowerBI.
Capacity Constraint Points Observed
The ferry terminals for Kitsap Fast Ferries, New York City Ferry, and San Francisco Bay Ferries
were evaluated as a part of this empirical data collection and analysis exercise. During
observations at each terminal, the research team identified the capacity constraint points (the
points at which passenger flow slowed or queues occurred).
Kitsap Fast Ferries
For the Kitsap Fast Ferries, the key capacity constraint point was located where fares were
collected before entering the final gangway ramp end embarking the vessel.
Bremerton Ferry Terminal
Key capacity constraint point – fare collection before final gangway ramp
69

Seattle Pier 50
Kingston Ferry Terminal
New York City Ferry

For New York City Ferry, the key capacity constraint point observed was the holding gate before
entering the gangway ramp to board the vessel.

Data Collection and Findings 71
Wall Street/Pier 11 A
Key capacity constraint point – holding gate before gangway ramp
Wall Street/Pier 11 B

Brooklyn Bridge Park/Pier 6
East 34th Street Terminal A

East 34th Street Terminal B
San Francisco Bay Ferries
Alameda Ferry Terminal
Key capacity constraint point – fare collection point and final gangway ramp

Oakland/Jack London Square
San Francisco Ferry Building Gate E

San Francisco Ferry Building Gate F
San Francisco Ferry Building Gate G

Data Collection
Using in-person observations and review of security footage, researchers recorded the number of
passengers boarding sailings and how long the vessel was in the dock. From this information, the
researchers calculated the average walk speed and average number of passengers per minute. The
gangway dimensions, including the length and width, were obtained along with the
corresponding high and low tidal data for the service day. From this information, the researchers
calculated the gangway slopes at low and high tide.
Data Limitations
Data were collected in July 2021 at a time when regional transit ridership varied between Seattle,
the San Francisco Bay Area, and New York City. Relative busyness depended on the ferry
terminal studied and was inconsistent across operators and specific gates. For example, San
Francisco Ferry Building Gate E, with ferry service from San Francisco to Vallejo and
Richmond, experienced more passenger volume compared to Gates F or G. Although data
observations do not reflect capacity conditions, data collection supported the research team’s
findings related to ramp slope and width, and secondary findings related to bow- versus side-
loading operations. Further data collection, including passenger flows during at-capacity terminal
conditions and passenger flows during a range of ramp slopes resulting from tidal conditions, is
identified as a gap for further research and included in Table 25.
Table 25. Data collection table.
Gangway Gangway Average

High Low Gangway Average Docking
High- Gangway Length Walk
Terminal Tide Tide Low-Tide Passengers Duration
Tide Width (ft) Observed Speed (ft
(ft) (ft) Slope Per Minute (min.)
Slope (ft) per sec.)
Kitsap - Bremerton 9.48 –1.29 –3% 2% 6 95 1.8 14 8
Kitsap – Pier 50 8.96 1.23 –5% 1% 11 130 7.6 12 12
Kitsap – Kingston 9.05 –1.54 –10% 3% 5 104 3.91 13 9
NYC – Wall Street 4.67 0.25 –12% –1% 7 58 3.46 41 4
Pier 11 A
NYC – Wall Street 4.67 0.25 –12% –1% 7 56 3.97 41 4
Pier 11 B
NYC – Pier 6 4.67 0.25 –6% 0% 11 46 3.42 16 3
NYC – East 34th St 4.67 0.25 –10% –1% 7 130 4.51 24 4
A
NYC – East 34th St B 4.67 0.25 –10% –1% 7 108 4.35 24 4
WETA – Alameda 5.62 –0.61 –8% –1% 9 35 3.96 10 11
WETA – Oakland 5.62 –0.61 –10% 0% 8 53 6.8 12 11
WETA – SF Gate E* 4.95 –0.61 –2% 3% 6 15 3.07 27 18
WETA – SF Gate F* 4.95 –0.61 –2% 3% 6 35 3.74 42 7
WETA – SF Gate G* 4.95 –0.61 –2% 3% 6 35 2.27 38 12
*All observed ferry service at San Francisco Ferry Building Gates E, F, and G was operated with single-
door loading instead of two-door loading due to COVID-19 demand conditions.
Findings
Findings from this empirical data collection and analysis indicate that:
1. There are insignificant differences in passenger throughput related to marginal increases
in door width (from about 5 ft to 7 ft), but larger increases in throughput (roughly double)
can be achieved by doubling the width of the doors.

2. The passenger-only ferry systems observed that operate with bow-loading vessels had
faster throughput compared to ferry systems using side-loading vessels, with a 25%–30%
increase in reasonable expectations. However, the efficiencies are mostly the result of
shorter passenger circulation distances, which allow passengers to board faster (e.g.,
shorter pedestrian travel times along their path of travel). The difference in embarking
times for the observed bow-loading vessel and side-loading vessel are provided in Table 26.
Table 26. Embarking comparison between observed bow and side loading vessels.
Bow-Loading Side-Loading
30 passengers/min embarking 25 passengers/min. embarking
1:03 min. average embarking duration 3:35 min. average embarking duration
1 min. median embarking duration 3 min. median embarking duration
3.8 ft/sec. average walk speed 4.4 ft/sec. average walk speed
3. There are insignificant differences in passenger throughput related to slope of ramps or

gangways.
4. Estimates from previously developed spreadsheet-based model for Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual are consistent with site observations and review of security
footage.
Path of Travel Considerations and Capacity Constraints
The path of travel is between two points of passenger ingress from land to the ferry. Core steps
along this path of travel are (1) entering float ramp or initial gangway, (2) hold area gate, (3) fare
collection, and (4) enter vessel.
1) Entering float
ramp or initial 2) Hold area gate 3) Fare collection 4) Enter vessel
gangway
Each core step along the path of travel could be a capacity constraint. The researchers observed that
the key capacity constraint is located at the point of fare collection. To mitigate capacity constraints
along the path of travel, the researchers recommend the following (in prioritized order):
1. Collecting fares earlier along the path of travel and directing passengers to a separate
hold area after fare collection would allow passengers to walk directly onto the ramp to
enter the vessel. The passenger travel time after fare collection is dependent on the length
of the ramp (how far passengers must walk) and the average walk speed (how fast
passengers walk).
2. The largest driver of longer passenger walk times and reduced passenger throughput was
a factor of the length of the ramp rather than the slope of the ramp. Shortening the
distance between fare collection and entering the vessel along the path of travel can
increase passenger throughput when other mitigation measures are considered at the fare
collection point.
3. Boarding door width should also be considered a key capacity constraint point. Doubling
the boarding door width could improve the speed of passenger throughput.


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-68777-5
90000
9 780309 687775

Quantitative Procedures For Designing and Operating Ferry Services (2023)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quantitative Procedures For Designing and Operating Ferry Services (2023)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Quantitative Procedures for Designing

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 238

TCRP PROJECT A-46 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Quantifying and assessing passenger and vehicle movement; and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

11 Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity

31 Chapter 3 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods:

44 Chapter 4 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods:

54 Chapter 5 Example Capacity Procedures Use

60 Chapter 6 Suggested Further Research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Ferry Service Components

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Vessels and Infrastructure

Vessel-Focused Terminal Elements

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services

• Ramp: A fixed passenger walkway between a float and dock or terminal.

Background and Need for Research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Capacity impacts in relation to terminals and vessels.

• Quantifying and assessing passenger and vehicle movement; and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services

Table 1. Ferry operator questionnaire respondents.

Vehicle Ferry System/Respondent Passenger-Only Ferry System/Respondent

Terminal Throughput Observation

New York City Ferries (New York)

San Francisco Bay Ferries (California)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

How to Use This Report

• Chapter 2 – Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity. Building on background information pre-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services

Table 2. Summary of existing ferry capacity quantitative procedures.

Capacity Concept Reference Procedure

Note: LOS = level of service.

Table 3. Ferry capacity quantitative procedures included in this report.

Capacity Concept Description

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Fundamentals of Ferry Capacity

Vessel and Fleet Planning

Regulations Affecting System Capacity

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Quantitative Procedures for Designing and Operating Ferry Services

31 Chapter 3 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods:

44 Chapter 4 Capacity Concepts and Analysis Methods: