Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The potential of passenger ferries in an urban transit system Kopystynski, Adrian Danie 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A6_7 K66.pdf [ 18.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094560.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094560-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094560-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094560-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094560-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094560-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094560-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094560-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094560.ris

Full Text

THE POTENTIAL OF PASSENGER FERRIES IN AN URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEM by ADRIAN DANIEL KOPYSTYNSKI B.Sc, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMTTED IN PARTIAL PUIJILLMENT OF • THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Conmunity and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1979 Q Adrian Daniel Kopystynski, 1979 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Adrian D. Kopystyn&fci D e p a r t m e n t o f C o i n m u n i t y a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 D a t e A p r i l 2 7 . 1 9 7 9 E - 6 B P 7 5 - 5 1 1 E i i ABSTRACT The Potential of Passenger Ferries i n an Urban Transit System This thesis endeavours to explore the potential rldershlp and costs of a ferry service primarily oriented to commuters t r a v e l l i n g between West Van-couver and the downtown core. Comparison of a Sea*Bus type ferry service with an equivalent bus operation indicates that, the ferry would cost some-what more, but t h i s may be offset by environmental, s o c i a l and land use ex-t e r n a l i t i e s . The second conclusion i s that t r a n s i t p o l i c i e s designed to enhance the attractiveness of the ferry mode, to d a i l y commuters can generate substantial ridership i n the case study s i t u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , i t becomes clear that a preliminary po l i c y analysis.can be made based upon an inexpen-sive, short and approximate set of calculations. A review of the history of ferry service within Vancouver and other selected North American urban areas provides, insight into the factors af f e c t i n g patronage and a basis f o r assessing the claims made by ferry and t r a n s i t advocates. Five patronage-oriented policy p r i n c i p l e s derived from t h i s analysis are applied to develop a hypothetical concept of commuter ferry operation i n the case study area. This plan i s evaluated using available cost, ridership and .modal s p l i t data to contrast three alternative scenarios, at the same l e v e l of patronage i n the morning peak journey to work movements across the Burrard I n l e t ; ferry crossings only, bus crossings only, and a.mixed ferry and bus s i t u a t i o n . In the case study area i t appears that ferry t r a n s i t i s worthy of more detailed and d e f i n i t i v e analysis. I t i s suggested that the same may be true of other North American metropolitan areas i n which there are substantial commuting flows across major bodies of water. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Table of Content i i i L i s t of Tables v L i s t of Figures and I l l u s t r a t i o n s v i Chapter One INTRODUCTION H i s t o r i c a l Aspects 1 The Thesis 3 The Concept: Ferry R e v i t a l i z a t i o n 3 The Problem: Potential f o r Ferry Transit, 3 The Methodology: Literature Review and Case Study 4 The Scope: Canada and the United States 4 The Significance: Selection of Topic 5 A Note on Terminology 5 Contents and Purpose of Each Chapter 5 Footnotes 7 Chapter Ttoo THE RISE AND DEMISE OF FERRIES Introduction: Why Search the Past? 9 I n i t i a t i o n of Service 10 Growth and Competition 15 Bridge Competition 22 Wartime Operations 26 Decline and Demise 30 Summary of Findings 36 Footnotes 40 Chapter Three THE PLANNING MILIEU AND FERRY REVITALIZATION Introduction: 45 The Planner's Response 51 The Ferry Advocates 53 The Ferry Revival 56 The Popular Revival 56 The Formal Revival 6l Summary 65 Findings 66 Footnotes 69 Chapter Four POLICIES TO INCREASE FERRY PATRONAGE Introduction: 74 P o l i c i e s to Increase Ferry Ridership ' 74 User Demand 75 i v Page Chapter Four - continued Operation-Oriented Policies to Increase Ferry Patronage 8l (a) The policy on system orientation 8l (b) The policy on destination proxiiriity 8l (c) Provision of rraximum connectivity 87 (d) Assurance of service r e l i a b i l i t y 87 (e) Catering to preferred arrival/departure time ^ 88 (f) Provision of f u l l y integrated transit 88 Evaluation of Operation-Oriented Policies 91 Terminal-Oriented Policies to Increase Ferry Patronage 91 (a) Provide maximum choice for access 91 (b) Minimization of walking distance 92 (c) Rapid and effective terminal movements 93 (d) Provision of amenities 93 Evaluation of Terminal-Oriented Policies 96 Vessel-Oriented Policies to Increase Ferry Patronage 96 Marketing Policies to Increase Ferry Patronage 99 (a) Provision of customer services 99 (b) Sales promotions 103 Land-Use Policies to Increase Ferry Patronage 103 Toward the Selection of a Policy Framework 107 Findings 111 Footnotes 114 - Chapter Five WEST VANCOUVER FERRY CASE STUDY Introduction: Geography, Demographics and Transportation 115 Case Study: West Vancouver Ferry 117 Background ; 117 Physical Description 118 Classification, Trade-offs and Policy Framework 119 Impact of Policy Framework on Ridership 122 Operating Costs: Methods, Comparison and Evaluation 122 Evaluation of Capital Costs 127 Comparison and Evaluation: Total Costs 128 Evaluation of Non-Quantifiable Aspects 129 Findings 133 Footnotes 135 Chapter Six FINAL FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings 136 Recommendation 136 Conclusion 137 SOURCES CONSULTED . 139 APPENDIX 147 V LIST OF TABLES " .' .Page 4- 1 Synopsis of p o l i c i e s to increase ferry patronage 113 5- 1 Summary of polic y framework and impact on increasing ridership 123 5-2 Case study operating s t a t i s t i c s 125 5-3 Summary of operating cost . ; r.126 5-4 Annual operating costs 126 5-5 Magnitude of i n d i v i d u a l c a p i t a l costs 128 5-6 Comparison of t o t a l costs 129 \ v i LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Page 2-1 Early settlements and ferry routes on Burrard Inlet .13 2-2 . San Francisco ferry routes 18 2-3 Annual number of persons' crossing Burrard Inlet by various f a c i l i t i e s 1939 - 1953 28 2-4 Canadian t r a n s i t ridership 1935 - 1975 29 2-5 Road map of the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley Area (1941) 35 2 - 6 Development of ferry transportation 37 3- 1 1965 - 1973 Peak period demand across Lions' Gate Bridge — one way 47 4- 1 A consumer's trade-off between cost and convenience 77 4-2 An example of increasing ridership through reduction i n the perceived t r a v e l time on t r a n s i t 80 4-3 System orientation 82 4-4 Walking times from San Francisco Ferry Terminal 83 4-5 Destinations of Larkspur Ferry cornmuters 85 4-6 Destination and walking times of Harbour Ferries patrons i n 1971 86 4-7 Histogram of preferred a r r i v a l times (from 7:15 to 9:10 A.M.) 89 4-8 Schedule of integrated bus-ferry service 90 4-9 Terminal c i r c u l a t i o n patterns 94 4-10 Ferry loading alternatives 95 4-11 P r i n c i p a l recommendations for levels of comfort of urban public transport vehicles 98 4-12 Boarding Information i n pocket 4-13 Golden Gate's pocket sized ferry schedule 100 v i i Page Table of Figures and I l l u s t r a t i o n s - continued .4-14 .Sausalito ferry feeder route map 101 4-•15 Larkspur ferry feeder route map 101 4-•16 How to win at the game of bridge i n pocket 4-•17 Sea-bus harbour ride i n pocket 4--18 Site plan i f Halifax ferry terminal 104 4-•19 Site plan of Dartmouth ferry terminal 105 4--20 San Francisco ferry terminal f a c i l i t i e s 106 4--21 Distance-time diagram comparing a car t r i p with a ferry t r i p 1Q9 4--22 Effect of higher speed and shorter dwell time on ferry capaeity-in';the peak d i r e c t i o n 110 5--1 Vancouver and West Vancouver 116 5--2 West Vancouver terminal schematic 121 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION H i s t o r i c a l Aspects During t h i s century, increasing mobility has become a fundamental characteristic of urban l i v i n g . Consumer demand has resulted i n a series of technological innovations that i n turn have altered the basic urban form. C i t i e s became less centralized, and suburban r e s i d e n t i a l areas became popular. 1 These ongoing events inspired the evolution of d i f f e r i n g trans-2 portation planning approaches. T i l l the 1940's, f a i r emphasis was placed on public t r a n s i t to move people. In the f i r s t two decades of the 1900's, horse drawn trams were being replaced by e l e c t r i c streetcars and r a i l operations. In the 1920's, streetcar and interurban r a i l services reached t h e i r peak popularity i n a l l major Canadian C i t i e s . In the l a t e 1920's and the 1930's, transportation planning began to define road networks — a r t e r i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l service streets — and largely l e f t the question of mobility to the streetcar sys-tems.^ By the 19*10's, conventional planning became oriented toward supplying route capacity to meet the anticipated growth i n automobile t r a v e l . The em-phasis i n t r a n s i t was to u t i l i z e new roads for motor or t r o l l e y bus opera-.• 5 6 7 tions. 5 5 In the 1950's, comprehensive plans proposed creation of regional hierarchies of roads and expressway systems i n metropolitan areas.^'9,10 This was the heyday of the ' u t i l i t y engineering' approach to transportation planning. Public f a c i l i t i e s were designated to meet forecasted demands and needs, with costs to be mainly covered by the users as a group, through some sort of road-users-' tax. With, the advent of large scale land-use transpor-tation'computer models i n the 1960's, t h i s process became even more re-11 12 13 14 fined. 5 ' ' However, vehicle peak-hour congestion increased faster 2 than expected and road capacity did not keep up. In the r e a l i t y of the mid 1960's, s o c i a l problems, economic concerns, ecological s e n s i t i v i t y and urban r e v i t a l i z a t i o n raised doubt i n the public's mind as to the benefits and costs of comprehensive transportation projects. Very rarely did an engineering report on transportation assess the long term ramifications upon man and his environment. Proposals were moving too fast i n a d i r e c t i o n that many c i t i z e n s were unsure about. Public pressure on the l o c a l p o l i t i c a l l e v e l often brought about abandonment of highway 15 and bridge projects. Planners began to ennunciate new di r e c t i o n of thought. One was the better u t i l i z a t i o n of e x i s t i n g road space, by encouraging higher car occupancy and bus use through special t r a f f i c p r i v i l e g e s for them."^ Transit, which had declined since i t s peak i n popularity, began to make a comeback with government assistance and the trend to public ownership i n the 1960's and 1970's. The second trend i n large Canadian metropolitan areas such, as Montreal and Toronto was the re-establishment, expansion and r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of subway and commuter t r a n s i t services. The smaller Canadian c i t i e s such as Edmonton and Vancouver, updated t h e i r bus systems and planned to integrate them wit h innovative t r a n s i t l i n k s , i n substitu-17 l 8 19 20 t i o n f o r former bridge or highway projects. 3 3 3 Selected road improvement programs, aimed at augmenting the q u a l i t y of bus service were 21 adopted as w e l l . I t i s i n t h i s context that the passenger ferry 22 23 re-emerges on the urban scene. ' I t was i d e n t i f i e d by i t s advocates as a type of transportation infrastructure that coirpromised between the public's desire for better mobility and the p a r a l l e l growth of anti-car,' anti-freeway and a n t i - c i t y demolition forces of the l a t e I 9 6 0 ' s and of the 1970's. At f i r s t , the private sector responded by pressing back into service the old f e r r i e s . The pot e n t i a l value of ferry operation was 3 recognized, and i n a series of government take-overs the ferry became 24 part of an integrated urban t r a n s i t system of the mid 1970's. The Thesis The Concept: Ferry R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Urban over-the-water passenger t r a n s i t i s the main area of concern of t h i s t h e s i s . Many major metropolitan areas i n North America are divided by substantial bodies of water that hamper access and mobility. The conventional wisdom c a l l e d f o r bridging over (or tunnelling under) these ba r r i e r s . Depending upon the engineering s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , ordinary bridg-ing solutions could incur high c a p i t a l expenditures and p o t e n t i a l adverse s o c i a l impacts. The so c a l l e d "ferry advocates" convinced planners and other public o f f i c i a l s to consider waterways as f a c i l i t a t o r s , rather than barriers to urban mobility. Public waterways provide a vast amount of t r a n s i t capacity l i m i t e d only by the i n t e n s i t y of marine t r a f f i c . These advocates also pointed to the lower infrastructure c a p i t a l costs associated with, ferry systems. The Problem: Potential f o r Ferry Transit This thesis investigates the potential for ferry t r a n s i t as a component of over-the-water t r a n s i t i n urban areas. I t endeavors to analyze p o l i c i e s capable of generating substantial ferry ridership and then to compare the cost of establishing such, a system with equivalent bus service. The p o l i c i e s In themselves emerge from a synthesis of h i s t o r i c a l changes i n ferry use patterns, through service objectives suggested by the "ferry advocates" and general t r a d i t i o n a l t r a n s i t operating pri n c i p l e s a f f e c t i n g ridership on f e r r i e s and alternative modes. 4 The Methodology: Literature Review: and Case Study The problem i s analyzed by a methodology that includes a synthesis of three processes. F i r s t , a l i t e r a t u r e review, supplemented by personal conver-sations and correspondence, i s used to determine the h i s t o r i c a l development of past ferry and r e v i t a l i z e d ferry service. Secondly, findings based on t h i s information are combined with various concepts of t r a n s i t operation, to produce a series of p o l i c i e s capable of increasing ferry patronage. Third, based upon the operating experience i n San Francisco, a p o l i c y framework for West Vancouver i s outlined, and compared to the cost of providing equivalent peak hour bus service. These operating costs are based upon unit.cost models developed from date obtained from the Urban Transit Authority, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and the West Vancouver Municipal Transportation Department. The Scope: Canada and the United States This thesis l i m i t s i t s scope to urban commuter passenger f e r r i e s , on short haul (a t r i p less than 10 kilometers or 20 minutes depending on vessel technology), moderate capacity (300 to 500 passengers), peak-hour operation. As such, the p o l i c i e s are confined to those that cater to the journey-to-work t r i p purpose. H i s t o r i c a l patterns and operating examples are l i m i t e d to Canadian and United States experiences. Because a medium to long term planning horizon has been selected, there i s only a general attempt at a quantitative estimate f o r ferry system configuration, technology assessment, model s p l i t evaluation and service costing. Figures are used only to r e l a t e the cost-effectiveness of ferry service as an alternative to an equivalent capacity bridge-bus operation. In the West Vancouver case study, the numerical analysis: i s l i m i t e d to. the morning peak period of roughly 7 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. • 5 The Significance:. Selection of Topic The r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of ferry t r a n s i t i s a.new, but increasingly popular phenomenon i n t r a n s i t planning. The work done, on assessing the p r a c t i c a l benefits and l i m i t a t i o n s of f e r r i e s as an alternative to bus t r a n s i t i s lim i t e d . Since some information about r e v i t a l i z e d f e r r i e s has just recently become available from operating aut h o r i t i e s , l o c a l planning departments and consultant, firms, and because many metropolitan planning agencies are seeking to attract greater numbers of people to use t r a n s i t , the review of p o l i c i e s capable of at t r a c t i n g patronage to ferry t r a n s i t appears to be both a timely and a p o t e n t i a l l y useful exercise. Furthermore, the case study may have some p r a c t i c a l significance f o r medium term t r a n s i t planning i n West Vancouver. A Note on Terminology The state-of-the-art i n urban ferry systems has not yet c r y s t a l i z e d . As a r e s u l t , many terms have been developed to tr y to distinguish between the old and r e v i t a l i z e d ferry systems. The terms, followed by t h e i r p r i n c i p l e authors i n parenthesis include: bus-on-water, (U.S. Department of Transporta-tion) , commuter f e r r i e s or ferryboats (Rearton, Spaulding, Harland, Kowlewski), ferry mass t r a n s i t (Mullerhein and Laks), over-the-water t r a n s i t or transpor-t a t i o n (Krzyczkowski), Sea-Bus (B.C. Hydro Tr a n s i t ) , rapid t r a n s i t ferry (Bureau of Tr a n s i t ) , waterborne transportation or t r a n s i t (American Society of C i v i l Engineers) and Water-taxi (San Diego). For the purposes of t h i s t h e s i s , no differentiation w i l l be made between old and contemporary f e r r i e s i n terms of terminology. This thesis w i l l use "f e r r y " , "commuter f e r r y " or " f e r r y - t r a n s i t " interchangeably. Contents and Purpose of Each Chapter Chapter two traces the r i s e and demise of urban f e r r i e s i n a h i s t o r i c a l 6 perspective. Common trends are c i t e d , categorized andcexplained using Canadian and U.S. examples. These trends are presented i n terms of operating and service p o l i c y . Chapter three continues i n d e t a i l the h i s t o r i c perspective, discussing the ferry revivals of the past ten to f i f t e e n years. The current planning context, including the issues raised by the advocates of ferry r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , i s a prime topic that i s dealt with. The common polic y and operating trends are described. Based on the h i s t o r i c r e a l i t y of bridge competition, the factors that can draw ridership to f e r r i e s i n p a r a l l e l operation, are reviewed and d i s - ' cussed i n Chapter four. The r e l a t i v e importance of the factors i n adopting p o l i c i e s that w i l l best a t t a i n the ridership goals of the ferry operating authority are indicated. To ascertain i f these po l i c y considerations indeed have an effect upon determining the role of f e r r i e s as an urban transportation component, a b r i e f c a s e study of costs i s reported i n Chapter f i v e . A ferry route that has been or may be under preliminary consideration — between West Vancouver and Vancouver — i s the basis of the case study. The cost of peafehour opera-t i o n and amortized c a p i t a l costs i s compared to a bus equivalent bridge operation. B a s i c a l l y , t h i s case study tests a selected p o l i c y framework against providing equivalent bus service. Chapter s i x includes policy recommendations f o r a ferry to West Vancouver and general comments about the p o t e n t i a l future role for commuter f e r r i e s i n Canada. 7 FOOTNOTES Veto'-A. Bailey, "The Problem of Mass Transportation i n the Metropol-i t a n Area", Evanston, 111.: The Transportation Center at Northwestern University, p.2, (Xerox). 2 The footnotes following 3 c i t e l o c a l examples of reports that exemplify the transportation planning approach mentioned i n the text. Transport Canada, The Fundamentals of Urban Transit (Unedited  Working Paper) (Ottawa: Department of Sunply and Services, 197"), pp. 1-14 - 1-24. Harland Bartholomew and Associates, A Plan f o r the City of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Including a General Plan~of the Region, 1928, prepared for the Vancouver Town Planning Commission (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1929). Harland Bartholemew and Associates, A Preliminary Report Upon the  Major Street Plan and Transit F a c i l i t i e s , prepared f o r the West Vancouver Town Planning Commission (.West Vancouver, B.C.: West Vancouver Town Planning Commission, 1946). ^Harland Bartholemew and Associates, A Prelj-rninary Report Upon the Major Street Plan, prepared.for the Vancouver Town Planning Commission (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1946). 7 Harland Bartholemew and Associates, A Preliminary Report Upon Transit, prepared f o r the Vancouver Town Planning Commission (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1946). g A Report on Burrard I n l e t Crossings, by P.D. Willoughby, Chairman (Vancouver, B.C.: Committee on Burrard Inlet Crossings, 1954). g Technical Committee on Metropolitan Highway Planning, A Study of  Highway Planning for the Metropolitan Area of the Lower Mainland Area of B.C., Part I I Freeways with Rapid Transit (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1956). "^Technical Committee on Metropolitan Highway Planning, Summary Report (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1956). i i W i l b u r Smith and Associates and Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e , Review  of Transportation Plans for Metropolitan Vancouver (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1964). 12 Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., Vancouver Transportation  Study (Vancouver, B.C.: Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., 1966). 13 Swan Wooster-CBA, The Burrard Inlet Crossing, v o l . 1, a report to the National Harbours Board (Vancouver, B.C.: National Harbours Board, 1970). 14 Wilbur Smith and Associates, Downtown Transit Concepts, prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 19-72').. 15 V. Setty Pendakur,- C i t i e s , Citizens arid Freeways • (Vancouver, B.C.: By the Author, 1972), pp. 71 - 73, 79 - 80. ^N.D. Lea and Associates, Measures to 'Improve Bus Transit Flow Across  the F i r s t Narrows Bridge, prepared for the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Highways (Vancouver, B.C.: N.D. Lea and Associates, 1967). 17 De Leuw.Cather of Canada, Greater Vancouver Area Rapit Transit Study, prepared f o r the Joint Transportation Committee, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (Vancouver, B.C.: De Leuw Cather of Canada, 1970). 18 Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Regional Transportation as a GVRD  Function - (Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1971). 19 Brian S u l l i v a n , Preliminary-Plan: Immediate Improvements to Public  Transportation i n Greater Vancouver,.prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (Ottawa: Spatial Dynamics, Ltd., 1971) • 20 ' Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , The Livable Region 1976/1986 (Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1975), pp. 21-25. 21 IBI Group, North Shore Transportation Study (Draft) (Vancouver, B.C.: IBI Group, [1978]T-22 Associated Engineering Services, Ltd. Burrard Inlet Ferry Crossing Study, a report prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1971)-23 S. Mullerheim and E. Laks, A F e a s i b i l i t y Study of Ferry Mass Transit  Across Burrard Inlet (Vancouver, B.C.: By the Authors, 1972). B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit, Passenger Ferry Project Specifications ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit, [1974]). 9 CHAPTER TWO THE RISE AND DEMISE OF FERRIES Introduction: Why Search the Past? Ferries have been known to mankind since antiquity. With every d i f f e r -ing era, f e r r i e s performed an e s s e n t i a l , a l b e i t a changing r o l e . However, one o v e r a l l purpose has always been present — the function of f a c i l i t a t i n g access and mobility. Whenever waterways severed land routes, f e r r i e s pro-vided a slow, but an eff e c t i v e direct connecting l i n k . Since early times, f e r r i e s have been considered to be a form of t r a n s i t f o r people, goods and l i v e stock."1" As was not uncommon for other transportation mode junctions, ferry crossings often gave r i s e to new human settlements that allowed, f o r permanency and reg u l a r i t y i n ferry operation. Many c i t i e s , including New York, Paris and London owe t h e i r existence and t h e i r commercial development to ferry crossings.^ When Europeans came to North America, f e r r i e s l e f t t h e i r mark i n the names of many locations — Dobbs Ferry, New York; Harpers Ferry, West V i r -g i n i a ; Martins Ferry, Ohio; Donahue Landing, C a l i f o r n i a ; Gibson's Landing, B.C., to name a few. As a r e s u l t of c o l o n i a l economic growth, f e r r i e s took on the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and role of l i n k i n g regional centers with t h e i r hinterland settlements and resource towns — the m i l l s on the north shore of Burrard Inlet with Vancouver, the logging resource town of Dartmouth with the B r i t i s h naval base at Halifax. But at the turn of t h i s century, these disperse settlements slowly became interwoven into a u n i f i e d urban form. The ferry operators responded by providing regular and frequent crossings oriented to the pedestrian, and l a t e r to the auto user. In the waining years, operations again altered, promoting car only or passenger only service on l i m i t e d routes. However, f e r r i e s were unable to f i n d a niche i n the urban transportation system upon the introduction of cars and building bridges. 10 Many ferries ceased to exist as people shifted to other modes of private and public transit. Ferry service deteriorated drastically, forcing govern-ment intervention i n the industry. From the time ferries were established i n North America, i t i s evident that operations .underwent a series of changes to cope with the changing urban milieu. The fact that some ferries survived and continued to compete with parallel bridge systems while others did not survive, indicates that i t was necessary to address some crucial factors through appropriate policy and/or service changes i n order for a ferry to avoid demise i n bridge competition. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, i s to review the historical development of ferries i n Canada and the United States, and infer what c r i t i c a l elements and .policies controlled the success and failure of ferries i n parallel operation with bridge links. In order to do t h i s , the history of ferry operations i s discussed i n five specific periods of operation: (1) i n i t i a t i o n of service; (2) growth and competition; (3) bridge competition; (4) the war time interlude, and (5) the f i n a l decline. Initiation of Service The earliest ferry routes by European settlers i n North America, were established under colonial rule. The i n i t i a t i o n of service came by order or authorization of the local or royal government. In 1635, the Massachu-setts General Court authorized a ferry to cross the Neonest River between Boston and present day Quincy. The Common Council of Hartford directed that a ferry be operated across the Connecticut River to East Hartford i n 4 l68l. The oldest .ferry system i n Canada, between Halifax and Dartmouth, 5 was established by the command of Governor Cornwallis on February 3, 1752. The Brit i s h Government i n Manhattan granted a charter for ferry operation 11 between Staten Island and Manhattan In 1712. These early systems had si m i l a r intent. F i r s t was s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , based on the law of good government, to provide access f o r l o c a l c i t i z e n s , travelers and traders. Secondly, f e r r i e s had a m i l i t a r y intent. Sites i s o l a t e d by natural water bodies were e a s i l y defendable from Indian attacks or r i v a l r o yal armies. Ferries offered transportation of troops and supplies, allowed f o r stronger defences and became s t r a t e g i c a l l y important m i l i t a r y l i n k s . Third was the commercial interest of the f e r r i e s . Ferries permitted c o l o n i a l commerce ;to f l o u r i s h , by making human and goods movements easier. Interactions between regional centers and t h e i r resource hinterlands not only became possible, but became much larger i n geographic scope. Ferries i n i t i a t e d by government authorization generally had the safe-guard of state intervention to assure safe, steady and to some extent, dependable operations. For example, i n 1715, the Common Council of Hartford Connecticut responded to public d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with f e r r y service, by 7 acquiring and performing the operating task. After a series of ferry accidents, the City of New York purchased the Staten Island Ferry System i n 1905. In 1890, sixteen years following i t s incorporation, the City of Dartmouth bought out the Halifax and Dartmouth Ferry Company, placing i t 9 under the operation of the Dartmouth Ferry Commission. An even handed rule of providing e f f e c t i v e ferry service at a reasonable cost to l o c a l c i t i z e n s became the general operating policy. A number of ferry routes had t h e i r o r i g i n with independent operators. Independents were often distinguished by t h e i r unreliable business chara-cter. Operations were seldom regular, usually by appointment, and at a low l e v e l of comfort or convenience. Independents could terminate t h e i r service as suddenly as i t was commenced. P r i o r to the establishment of regular service i n areas such as the Burrard Inlet and San Francisco Bay, 12 numerous individuals provided a more or less f i x e d route service upon demand or appointment. With the coming of the C a l i f o r n i a Gold Rush, Captain Thomas Gray provided ferry service between San Francisco and the settlement or encampments on the east shore of the Bay i n 1850."^ In Vancouver, the f i r s t ferry route appears to have been rowboat service between Brighton and Moodyville. 1 1(See figure 1) P r i o r to 1890, a few chartered vessels operated between the north and south shores of the Burrard Inlet.- .The most famous independent, John Thomas, also known as "Nawy Jack", provided ferry service i n 1886. He was followed by others, mainly supply carrying vessels, that 12 shuttled between Moodyville, Hastings and Granville. S i m i l a r l y i n West Vancouver, semi-weekly service between Hollybum and Vancouver was begun by John Lawson, during the f i r s t decade of the 1900's. In.1909, Lawson's service was replaced by W. C. Thompson's unscheduled, d a i l y service from 13 the Dominion Wharf at Hollybum. With the incorporation of various municipalities i n the Burrard Inlet area, t h e i r delegated power to regulate 14 f e r r i e s brought the days of the independents to an end. Ferry operation by the independents portrays a v i v i d contrast to operations i n i t i a t e d by government decree. They did not have to l i v e up to any government regulations or community goals. Their services were very a r b i t r a r y , infrequent, often unsafe and unequitable. Independents i n urban areas disappeared as a res u l t of government intervention by way of business regulations, route franchising or by s e t t i n g minimum schedule requirements. The t h i r d category of ferry service i n i t i a t i o n , was based on entrepren-eurship. Entrepreneurs raised the image of the ferry industry from a " f l y -by-night" operation, to one of a rather professional, r e l i a b l e and conven-ient cross-water transportation business. During the l800's entrepreneurs brought about the largest scale of ferry a c t i v i t y ever achieved i n most North American c i t i e s . Such areas as the Puget Sound, San Francisco and the 13 FIGURE 1 E a r l y S e t t l e m e n t s and F e r r y Routes on B u r r a r d I n l e t . Adapted from: W a l t e r G. Hardwick, Vancouver.(Don M i l l s , Ont.: C o l l i e r - M a c M i l l a n Canada,. L t d . , 1 9 7 4 ! » P • 1 2 . Raymond H u l l , Vancouver's F a s t , ( V a n c o u v e r , BC.: Gordon S o u l e s Economic and M a r k e t i n g ^ R e s e a r c h , 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 2 3 , 7 9 . A l a n M o r l e y , Vancouver. Vancouver,B.C. : M i t c h e l l P r e s s , 1 9 7 4 , P.» 8. M a r g a r e t A. Ormsby, B r i t i s h Columbia: A H i s t o r y . (Vancouver, B.C.: E v e r g r e e n P r e s s , 1 9 5 ^ 1 , p . 2 3 7 . 14 Ports of Boston, New- York and New Orleans had numerous companies and ferry routes created. San Francisco had as many as f i f t y to sixty ferries, belong-15 mg to some thirty companies, operating simultaneously on the Bay. The entrepreneurs could be classified i n two ways: by the source of their capital investment and by the service form. The typical ferry invest-ors were either based with local or with outside interests. Locally operated ferries tended to cater to the local, smaller needs i n water transportation of each community. For example, the ferry service between Vancouver and West 16 Vancouver was initiated by the West Vancouver Ferry Company i n 1909. The service was based on the policy of providing West Vancouver residents with 17 convenient and direct pedestrian only ferries. Outside operators were generally large investors or railway companies. They operated ferries prim-a r i l y to shuttle their trains into a sea port for transfer of goods to and from ships. Numerous companies established ferries for this purpose on San Francisco Bay and on the waters off of New York Harbour. ' The minim-ization of capital and operating costs was the policy basis for selecting the ferry over circuitous r a i l access to the seaport. Other railway companies with local transit services operated ferries to carry their trams, and later street cars. In l 8 8 l , the horse drawn tram between New Orleans and West Bank (Algiers), u t i l i z e d a ferry for exclusive service into the 20 downtown. Some outside operators compromised to allow passengers to use their train or supply ferries. From 1888, the same was true i n Vancouver, when the Steamship Senator began calling upon North Vancouver on i t s way 21 with pulp m i l l products from Moodyville to Vancouver. Those services instituted by entrepreneurs i n the later 1880's and early 1890's, were moti-vated by the profits and land development. In 1886, Story and Bobcok esta-blished a ferry service between San Diego and North Island (Coronado), to 22 "provide access to guests and prospective land buyers," near their island 15 resort-hotel. Provision of transport between the f l e d g l i n g town of Coronado to the mainland was but the l a s t concern. Hence, entrepreneurs i n i t i a t e d one of three p o l i c i e s that.dictated the service form: f e r r i e s only to move goods — out of economic f r u g a l i t y ; f e r r i e s for both passengers and goods — out of s o c i a l necessity and ferries, f o r the exclusive movement of people — out of regulatory stipulations or due to secondary business ventures. Growth and Competition There are a number of distinguishing factors between the f i r s t and i n the second phase of ferry history. The foremost difference i s the e s t a b l i s h -ment of regularly scheduled ferry service on fixed routes. In Vancouver, regular ferry service appears to have been established by 1900, though i t i s not e n t i r e l y clear within the l i t e r a t u r e by which operator and exactly i n what year. According to Woodwards-Reynolds, the f i r s t "scheduled" ferry service was provided by the Moodyville Steam Ship Company, beginning i n 23 1888. Burnes c i t e s evidence that the Union Steam Ship i n i t i a t e d the " f i r s t n 24 regular ferry service", i n 1893- While Barr contends, that the f i r s t vessel to "operate exclusively" to North Vancouver was c a l l e d the Norvan, 25 commencing operation i n 1900. Regular, year round ferry service became i n s t i t u t e d between Hollyburn (West Vancouver) and Vancouver by John Lawson, W. C. Thompson, Robert MacPherson and John S i n c l a i r i n the West Vancouver Transportation Company, on November 8, 1909. By 1911, the company ran f e r r i e s on fi x e d routes between Vancouver Wharf, English Bay, Hollyburn, the 26 2T Great Northern Cannery and C a u l f e i l d . ' In Boston, d a i l y commuter service 28 between Hinghan and Boston started i n 1819. In the New York City area, regular service began i n the same year between Manhattan and Shewsbury, New 29 Jersey. The f i r s t regular scheduled ferry service i n San Francisco was 30 between Sausalito and San Francisco i n 1868. 16 The second distinguishing factor of t h i s period i s the r i s e of operators that stressed, only car and/or passenger service. Cargo and t r a i n s became the domain of a specialized branch of the ferry Industry. The f i r s t such separate ferry service f o r passengers on the Burrard I n l e t , occurred i n 1900 on the North Vancouver route, followed on the West Vancouver route i n 1909. Double ended car f e r r i e s did not appear on the Inlet u n t i l 1904, 31 on the North Vancouver route. Pedestrian operations were begun i n San Francisco by the Sausalito Land and Ferry Company on October 1869. Two car 32 carrying f e r r i e s were placed on t h i s route i n 1877- In San Diego, the f i r s t ferry was a barge pulled by a yacht. I t was replaced four months l a t e r with a "three horse and buggie capacity" ferry. The t h i r d distinguishing factor was the role of. growth and competition. In Dartmouth, two way competition existed i n 1797 and three way competition started i n 1817 with the formation of the Halifax Steamboat Company by i n f l u e n t i a l Halifax businessmen i n 1815. Competition e f f e c t i v e l y ended with municipal take-over under the Dartmouth Ferry Commission. I t was operated by t h i s authority u n t i l 1958, when ferry operating r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were 34 d i r e c t l y assumed by City H a l l through the Dartmouth Ferry Committee. In Vancouver, competition was l i m i t e d to the North Vancouver route, and ceased altogether upon municipal a c q u i s i t i o n of the ferry systems. Some route competition existed i n the years between 1888 and 1908. The Moodyville Saw M i l l Company, operators of the Moodyville Steam Ship Company (Ltd.), competed with a ferryboat run by Taylor and with the terminating portion of the Victoria-Vancouver-Moodyville route of the Canadian P a c i f i c Steam Ship 35 Company. Ratepayer demands for d i r e c t service to Vancouver from North Vancouver rather than from Moodyville, led North Vancouver Municipal Council to contract the Union Steam Ship. Company to commence d a i l y service. The company backed away from contract obligations i n 1900. • In 1903, a f t e r three 17 years of continuing f e r r y competition problems, Council sanctioned A. St. 3 7 George Hummersley to establish the North. Vancouver Ferry and Power Company. His service was r i v a l l e d by two l o c a l l y owned and operated ferry services. After incorporation of the City of North Vancouver i n 1907, the c i t y i t s e l f assumed f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t r a n s - i n l e t ferry operation. I t acquired Hummersley's company i n 1908, reorganizing i t as a public u t i l i t y under the name of North Vancouver City Ferry, Ltd. I t was operated t h i s way u n t i l 1913 when public d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n over the quality of service led council to purchase and operate the ferry by a committee of Council. The West Vancouver Ferry Company was also acquired by government. Upon the incorporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver i n 1912, ownership and operation passed to the 4 0 d i s t r i c t . Since the ferry had been purchased by the people i n the area i n 1910,. the d i s t r i c t chose to operate the ferry as a stock company with the Council as directors and the ci t i z e n s of the new d i s t r i c t as stock holders. r 4 1 After 1916, however, the c i v i c transportation department operated the fe r r y . For both systems, growth was l i m i t e d to f l e e t size and competition was e f f e c t -i v e l y non-existent. The North Vancouver Ferry started with two vessels i n 4 2 4 3 1908. and added one ferry i n 1911 and one more i n 1931. With routine replacements, the f l e e t never exceeded four ferryboats. The West Vancouver 4 4 ferry operated three f e r r i e s to 1935, but only two afterwards. Areas having a higher degree of competition and growth include Boston and San Francisco. The greatest ferry a c t i v i t y i n Boston took place i n the 4 5 l800's, or more s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the f i r s t h a l f of that century. Peak ferry a c t i v i t y i n the San Francisco Bay area occurred from the turn of the century, through the early 1900's. As indicated on the map, (figure 2) some 27 com-panies operated up to 20 competing routes to and from San Francisco. An adjunct to competition became the p r o f i t motive. There was p e r s i s t i n g speculation, frequent mergers and feverish s e l l i n g s of ferry operations '. 18 FIGURE 2 San F r a n c i s c o f e r r y r o u t e s See: G-. H. H a r l a n , San F r a n c i s c o Bay F e r r y b o a t s ( B e r k e l e y : H o w e l l - N o r t h Books, 1967), p. 1 4 » 19 and franchises. U n t i l the decline period., ferry operators could always f i n d a buyer for t h e i r operations, especially on the lucr a t i v e routes. For example, the history of the San Francisco to Oakland ferry consisted of a 46 series of mergers, take-overs and purchases i n i t s century of operation. In 1852 the route franchise was given to the Contra Costa Steam Navigation Company. I t l o s t out i n competition with San Francisco and Oakland (SF&O) Railroad, that combined Contra Costa's operation into I t s own r a i l operations i n 1857. The SF&O Railroad was i n turn purchased by the San Francisco and Alameda (SF&A) Railroad seven years l a t e r . This purchase had been encouraged by the Central P a c i f i c (CP) Railroad which at the same time was a c t i v e l y buying SF&A Railroad stock. In 1868, CP Railroad gained a c o n t r o l l i n g interest i n stock, taking over SF&O Railroad ferry operations i n 1868. CP Railroad ceased to exist i n 1885, and was taken over and re-organized by Southern P a c i f i c (SP) Railroad. Then i n 1887, SP Railroad acquired by merger a number of smaller ferry and commuter r a i l operations. In 1929, SP Railroad transferred i t s car ferry operations to a consortium company — the Southern Pacific-Golden Gate Ferry, Ltd. — i n order to compete with the new Bay Bridges. SP Railroad operated u n t i l 1958. On the east coast of Canada, the Halifax Steamboat Company joined forces with one of i t s two competitors i n 1827. By 1833, the company v i r t u a l l y controlled cross-bay 47 t r a f f i c , having driven out of business t h e i r major ferry route competitor. The fourth factor was related to the s i m i l a r i t y i n the expansion policy between ferry and r a i l t r a n s i t companies. The t y p i c a l r a i l company, such as the B.C.E.R. In Vancouver, placed tracks i n potential growth areas, on 48 lands i t already owned. The operation of an eff e c t i v e t r a n s i t system, whether on land or water, was a secondary concern to maximizing p r o f i t s and returns on c a p i t a l investments. In West Vancouver, the land boom of 1907 through 1914 brought pressure for better, direct access. The Dominion 20 Government responded by constructing a p i e r at Hollyburn i n 1808. A year and a h a l f l a t e r , the West Vancouver Transportation Company established ferry service. "The promoters of the ferry company did not expect i t to be a paying proposition f o r the losses entailed i n i t s . operation were to be offset by the 49 increased value of t h e i r r e a l estate i n West Vancouver." S i m i l a r l y i n San Francisco, the Sausalito Land and Ferry Company primarily operated to attrac t land buyers to a subdivided ranch which, i n c i d e n t a l l y , belonged to one of the company owners. In exchange, buyers could use the ferry on a p r i o r i t y basis over other users. According to Harlan, "the company had more 50 interest i n s e l l i n g land than operating an effe c t i v e ferry service." In 1875, seven years from i t s founding, the company relinquished.its r i g h t s of 51 ferry operation to the North P a c i f i c Railroad Company. In 1920, the Golden Gate Ferry Company prided i t s e l f on the fact that p r o f i t s had grown at a 52 rate of 20% a year on t h e i r c a p i t a l investments. Towards the middle of the growth and competition period, a f i f t h distinguishing factor surfaced. Ferry operators adopted the policy of expanding t h e i r ridership catchment area by operating, acquiring or arranging to be serviced by r a i l and bus t r a n s i t l i n e s . Locally, the P a c i f i c and Great Eastern Railway agreed to operate a commuter r a i l l i n e from Horseshoe Bay to the ferry s l i p i n West Vancouver between the years 1914 and 1928. Beginning i n 1916, the municipality operated a feeder bus l i n e to the ferry 53 as w e l l . By the turn of t h i s century John Spreckels bought out the San Diego and Coronado Ferry from Story and Babcock. He also operated the r a i l and streetcar networks on both sides of the Bay, and i n l a t e r years, 54 the San Diego Transit Company. The rather lengthy l i f e of t h i s ferry (1886-1969) can i n part be attributed to the integrated t r a n s i t - f e r r y service that was provided by the San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company. In San Francisco, the North P a c i f i c Coast Railroad linked t h e i r Marin County 21 interurban with their newly acquired Sausalito Perry. In a joint venture between South Pacific and the Santa Fe Railroads, several smaller r a i l lines 55 were merged to link into the railroad's converted passenger operations. The last distinguishing factor, especially i n areas with minor govern-ment intervention, was route duplication. The most lucrative ferry corridors in- San Francisco were across the Golden Gate to Marin County and between San Francisco and the Oakland-Alameda areas. Every major operator had terminals and routes i n these two corridors. In conclusion, the ferry industry had reached a maximum level of st a b i l i t y during the latter period of the growth and competition phase. This s t a b i l i t y , however, quickly disappeared due to the rapid increase i n faster and cheaper alternative modes for commuter transit. It w i l l also be shown that technological advances i n bridge construction engineering eliminated the indispensibility of ferries i n over-the-water transportation. Specific-a l l y within this historical phase, the industry was governed less by tr a d i -tional competitive forces, as the i n s t a b i l i t y grew. Competition became transformed into strong, negative ri v a l r i e s that ultimately led to a declining level of service and.quality to the commuter. That i s , i n the struggle by each company to contain their own, individual ridership markets, the degree of customer choice i n routes, time and frequency f e l l victim to cost and service restraints. Route duplication, especially on the lucrative ones, further denied the commuter's choice by reducing the number of t r i p opportunities, at a time when public sought greater mobility. In another respect, the profit and land development motives had conditioned the. industry to create demand rather than responding to i t . On the one hand, ferry operating losses could no longer be offset by the sale of expensive land i n the terminal v i c i n i t y . The only land available was far removed from the pecuniary effects flowing out of choice location. On the other hand, 22 the desire to extend t r a n s i t l i n k s into new areas to achieve the same sort of i n f l a t e d land value gains, f a i l e d due to two reasons. F i r s t , t h i s often resulted i n encroachment upon another company's t r a d i t i o n a l passenger shed; and second, the trend to lower density development just could not be served e f f i c i e n t l y by r a i l t r a n s i t . In the larger picture, the emphasis on adding feeder routes became less and less cost eff e c t i v e i n increasing ferry patronage. Over the long run, preoccupation with building of feeder services caused an overextension of c a p i t a l resources — and the i n a b i l i t y to pool enough funds to f a c i l i t a t e ferry system improvements. The frequent mitigating response included mergers, p a r t i a l route termination or eventual bankruptcy. The public's exposure to new land-based t r a n s i t systems, coupled with the r i s i n g number of private automobiles, the provision of better roads, construction of bridges, and the general economic prosperity, t o t a l l y eroded the ferry industry's natural monopoly on over-the-water transportation movements. Bridge Competition The advent of bridges brought about three planning strategies from which p o l i c i e s were adopted. F i r s t , some operators began to contemplate what operating changes bridge competition would necessitate, with the f i r s t serious discussions of bridge construction and access highway construction. A second group did not st a r t to consider potential operating changes u n t i l construction was w e l l under way or completed. The t h i r d group reasoned that bridges were a substitute for the ferry system, so they planned the best way to terminate service and.dispose of c a p i t a l investments. However, the period i n which serious t a l k about bridge building began also had a bearing on the attitude of ferry operators. As early as the 1920's, most urban areas had comprehensive transportation plans, d i r e c t i n g the 23 attention of policy makers to major road, highway and bridge construction schemes. These hints turned into serious t a l k , at different times for different metropolitan areas. I t was not u n t i l the 1930's that bridge building plans were drafted i n Vancouver and San Francisco. The intent to bridge Halifax Harbour came towards the end of the 1940's. With regards to the New Jersey-New York City corridor and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, serious t a l k materialized into a plan i n the l a t e 1950's. S i m i l a r l y , i t was the 1950's f o r the Greater New Orleans Bridge. For San Diego, i t was about I960 that a bridge to Coronado was proposed. Talk leading to the construction of a p a r a l l e l bridge i n New Orleans began towards the end of the 1960's. A t h i r d crossing f o r Vancouver was adopted as policy i n the l a t e 1960's as w e l l . I t i s therefore evident that the strategy toward bridge competition was dependent on p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic forces. A c r u c i a l factor was. the attitude of l o c a l , regional.and federal governments toward the ro l e of f e r r i e s and bridges. I f government policy c a l l e d f o r immediate or gradual change i n emphasis to a car and bus oriented transpor-t a t i o n network, ferry operators had no recourse but to terminate service. A policy of either ambivalence or support reinforced the f i r s t two potential planning strategies. A most s i g n i f i c a n t external factor was World War Two. As w i l l be discussed more f u l l y i n subsequent sections., the War brought about a resurgence i n the use of public t r a n s i t , including the ferry. Both on the i n i t i a t i v e of ferry operators and with Government aid i n the name of the war e f f o r t , ferry systems that did not terminate service responded by upgrading t h e i r systems. In the period of bridge competition that followed the War, these systems were more l i k e l y to compete successfully, delaying the process of decline. Therefore, consideration of t h i s period i s either d i r e c t l y coupled, to the f i n a l decline and demise of service, or i n d i r e c t l y \ 24 coupled with an intermediate phase of wartime operation. Despite these intervening e x t e r n a l i t i e s , three aspects tended to permeate t h i s phase of ferry history. The f i r s t was serious discussion among public policy makers, about bridge construction. The second appeared as a t y p i c a l ferry operator's response: service curtailment, stream-lining of operations and often r a d i c a l changes i n operating intent. The t h i r d was the "fare war", that resulted i n f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r both t o l l bridge and ferry operators. Serious discussion of bridge building was often associated or just preceded the formation of government bodies to oversee bridge construction plans. In Halifax, the Dartmouth-Halifax Bridge Authority was established 56 f i v e years before construction of the MacDonald Bridge; The M i s s i s s i p p i River Bridge Authority was formed to oversee bridge, construction plans 57 i n New Orleans; the Golden Gate Bridge was preceded by the incorporation 58 of the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway D i s t r i c t i n 1928; the San Diego-Coronado Bridge was planned by a special branch of the C a l i f o r n i a Department 59 of Transportation. Vancouver was an exception to t h i s r u l e . The Lions' Gate Bridge was b u i l t and opened f o r use i n 1938, by a d i v i s i o n of B r i t i s h P a c i f i c Properties, a development company largely owned by the Guiness family. The purpose of the bridge was to provide access to property BPP 60 had purchased.for development i n West Vancouver. Service curtailment usually took the form of reduced service frequency, elimination of non-peak hour s a i l i n g s , and removal of older, more labour intensive vessels from operation. But curtailment i t s e l f was accompanied by one of two types of service restructuring p o l i c i e s . F i r s t , some routes were converted to car only operation. The assumption was that f e r r i e s had to compete with bridges, on an even footing, which meant catering to automo-b i l e s . In 1955 on the North Vancouver route, passenger accommodations on the 25 f e r r i e s were removed to make more room for c a r s . ^ 1 Somewhat e a r l i e r . In 1929, San Francisco took t h i s process one step further. Three major car carrying ferry companies not only converted f e r r i e s to car only use, but consolidated t h e i r routes, vessels and schedule of operation, to take advantage of economics of scale i n cost and service capacity. They concen-trated t h e i r e f f o r t s on routes p a r a l l e l i n g the Golden Gate and- Richmond Bridge corridors. In reference to t h i s consolidation, one author writes, "The Golden Gate Ferry Company was absorbed i n an organization which handled 62 masses of vehicles i n proportions that only bridges could supercede." Because the f e r r i e s were s t i l l d i r e c t l y linked to the regional road systems, they operated successfully for a short time following the f i r s t use of the new b r i d g e s . ^ The second strategy which followed bridge opening were price reduc-tions that caused a "fare war". Ferry operators i n San Francisco between 1936 and 19 0^ t r i e d to undercut crossing t a r r i f s and. commuters returned i n mass to the systems. However, bridge operators, and by extension . p o l i t i c i a n s f e l t protection of the public's investment i n the bridges was imperative. Based on t h i s premise, f e r r i e s were deemed to be no longer i n the public's i n t e r e s t , and bridge operators countered every fare reduction with one of 64 t h e i r own. The second type of service restructuring emphasized pedestrian oriented service, rather than conversion to car systems. The loss of auto patrons to the Verrazano-Nafrows Bridge and the metropolitan New York expressway system brought a 1974 decision to replace three of the old f e r r i e s on the Staten Island run by passenger-only vessels, with a capacity 65 of 6000 passengers each. In Halifax, the City of Dartmouth replaced t h e i r f l e e t with two new passenger-only f e r r i e s i n 1956, following the opening of 66 the MacDonald Bridge. In these two instances, the f e r r i e s continued to 26 compete successfully with bridges because they had l o c a l government support. However, i n San Francisco, where ferry systems did not have the same degree of support of the l o c a l and regional a u t h o r i t i e s , even passenger-only f e r r i e s f a i l e d . They managed to outlive the car f e r r i e s on the Sausalito route by just two years, with termination of passenger-only service i n 1941. 6 7 Favourable government policy was coupled with eff e c t i v e forethought i n the case of the Halifax-Dartmouth Ferry. In addition to handling only foot passenger t r i p s , the commission replaced i t s two. f e r r i e s with ones that 68 were less labour intensive. As a r e s u l t , the Halifax ferry i s s t i l l i n 69 operation, with plans f o r expansion. A s i g n i f i c a n t fact that cannot be overlooked i s the role of bridge-bus competition with the ferry systems. Ferries had always been dependent on trams and streetcars, as passenger feeders to the ferry s l i p . Streetcars were a fi x e d system, and l i t t l e concern was given to the p o s s i b i l i t y that route structures would change. By necessity, they would always direct passengers to the f e r r y . In r e a l i t y , three problems took pedestrian-only operators by surprise:. f i r s t , the sudden popularity of personal t r a n s i t by car; second, the actual diversion of streetcars and inter-urbans onto bridge structures; and t h i r d , the abandonment of r a i l public t r a n s i t and the introduction of motor buses and, a f t e r the war, t r o l l e y buses. Transit was no longer forced to keep to t r a d i t i o n a l routes that feed the f e r r i e s , but could proceed across a bridge to i t s destination. Ferries could not compete with a form of t r a n s i t that required no transfers, was highly connective, and took no longer than the previous ferry augmented service. Wartime Operations Ferry operations i n North America followed the national trend i n 27 t r a n s i t . (Compare figures 3 and 4) Perry systems had peak ridership occurring during or just a f t e r the end of h o s t i l i t i e s . In order to meet public demand, ferry operators expanded t h e i r f l e e t s and operating hours. Halifax increased i t s f l e e t from three to four boats, operating around the 70 clock between 1938 and 1943. North Vancouver doubled i t s f l e e t size i n 1942 to four ships, and by the end of the war had replaced i t s two older f e r r i e s . ^ The period of war time operation was not only an interlude from bridge competition pressures, but i t allowed f o r ferry operator to upgrade and improve services, operations and f a c i l i t i e s . S u f f i c i e n t action i n t h i s period strengthened the position of the ferry system following the resump-t i o n of bridge competition following the War. A number of positive trends developed i n t h i s period. F i r s t of a l l , vessel and terminal improvements were made to reverse deterioration and to accommodate the new l e v e l of patronage. Many of the costs were d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y financed by government as part of the war e f f o r t . Secondly, the heavy patronage levels allowed f o r the detection, of problems and defects with the e x i s t i n g ferry systems, forced to function as a "bus-on-water", led to r e a l i z a t i o n that vessel design and physical performance were.inadequate. Third, operators were faced with more intense peak-hour directed demands. This exposed deficiencies i n terminal access, l o c a l pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n and system breakdown i n congestion. F i n a l l y , the importance of the commuter's value of time, the inconvenience of mode transfers, and r i s i n g public expectations for t r a n s i t comfort pointed to the inherent weakness of f e r r i e s as an isol a t e d element i n a regional transportation system. The net, long term r e s u l t of these actions, or lack of actions during the wartime period can be p a r t i a l l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n a comparison between the North Vancouver and West Vancouver ferry systems. The North Vancouver 28 FIGURE 3 A n n u a l Number o f P e r s o n C r o s s i n g B u r r a r d I n l e t by V a r i o u s F a c i l i t i e s 1 9 3 9 - 1 9 5 3 e: A R e p o r t on B u r r a r d I n l e t C r o s s i n g s , by P. D. W i l l o u g h b y , Chairman (Vancouver, B.C.: Committee on B u r r a r d I n l e t C r o s s i n g s , 1 9 5 4 ) , Diagram 1 . 2 9 1500 n FIGURE 4 Canadian Transit Ridership 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 7 5 Source: Handout notes by T. Parkinson, Planning 5 0 5 , 1 9 7 7 . 30 system underwent major vessel related improvements, while the West Vancouver system e f f e c t i v e l y underwent no upgrading of any type. By reviewing the trends shown i n figure 3, one sees that peak ferry r i d e r s h i p on the Burrard Inlet was reached i n 1943, when just over eight m i l l i o n passengers were carried by the f e r r i e s . This diagram also indicates that the West Vancouver ferry did not sustain any growth of ridership following the war, while the North Vancouver system had ridership i n excess of pre-War levels to about 1950. S i m i l a r l y , the lack of improvements led the West Vancouver system into an early decline and swift demise. Another positive aspect of the North Vancouver system was i t s a b i l i t y to cater to a substantial and s p e c i f i c 72 market — workers at the Burrard ship yards. Since ship building at the yards continued f o r some years following the War., the North Vancouver system had a steady source of r i d e r s . The i n a b i l i t y of the West Vancouver Perry to cater to a s p e c i f i c market segment, or In f a c t , the lack of a sizable market i n West Vancouver, spelled demise. A complicating factor was the "one way" nature of the system following the war. The Vancouver terminal was almost one mile from the centre of downtown job a c t i v i t i e s . This location was i d e a l f o r north-bound t r a v e l l e r s since they could avoid the downtown. But for North-shore white c o l l a r workers, t h i s acted as a deterrent to ferry use. The West Vancouver .ferry could not compete i n terms of time, convenience or proximity of t r i p ends with car t r a v e l or direct bus service. Decline and Demise The decline i n ferry service has been largely coincident with the massive s h i f t from public t r a n s i t to private car use during the l a t t e r portion of the bridge competition phase. I t was often a rapid decline with the termination of service occurring soon a f t e r the bridge and associated 31 highways were opened for public use. The decline followed separate paths, depending on whether operators pursued a pedestrian only or car only service, the attitude of l o c a l and regional policy makers regarding ferry operations, the strength of bridge diversion on person t r i p s , and the extent of the growing urban bus system. Ferry operations that did not i n i t i a t e service either under government or entrepreneurship, operate during World War I I , convert to passenger only operation and come under direct supervision or control of government, faced demise under bridge competition. A l l other ferry systems had t h e i r decline fueled and demise guaranteed by two broad operating problems. F i r s t , ferry companies were using ferryboats that had outlived t h e i r c a p i t a l l i f e t i m e s , by being economically, operationally, technologically, physically and/or otherwise obsolescent. These f e r r i e s were part of a technology that was one or two generations behind i n time. Furthermore, the terminals and wharves had long since become antiquated. Their location r e l a t i v e to newer growth centres i n the downtown reduced t h e i r proximity and a c c e s s i b i l i t y f o r the average commuter. The second problem dealt with i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l f o r investment i n new f e r r i e s and terminals. Bridges diverted so many paying patrons that there was inadequate revenue f o r day-to-day operations, l e t alone upgrading and reinvesting. Some operators had over extended themselves through creation of r a i l feeder systems. Much of t h e i r c a p i t a l from e a r l i e r p r o f i t s were t i e d up i n these ventures. Only the North Vancouver, Halifax and other p u b l i c l y operated systems had the luxury of government subsidization to mitigate t h i s f i n a n c i a l problem. There are a number of general events that distinguish t h i s phase from the period of bridge competition. Often the f i r s t factor was the drastic decline i n patronage, accompanied i n some systems with fluctuations out of the "fare war". The decline, i n competition with bridge operation 32 i n Halifax, led one captain to remark: Pedestrian t r a f f i c has dropped from something near ten thousand people a day to less than s i x thousand and i t now takes a week to carry the same number of cars and trucks we used to carry i n a day (before the bridge was opened). 73 As f o r the West Vancouver Perry, following the l i f t i n g of the Federal Government's wartime bridge use r e s t r i c t i o n s i n July 1945, Bartholemew observed that Almost over night, bus t r a f f i c across the [Lions' Gate] Bridge, broke a l l previous records,, but the ferry f e l l •to an all- t i m e low. 74 The decline can also be demonstrated i n terms of underutilized ferryboat 75 capacity. From figures i n the Burrard Inlet Crossing Study of 1954, just over h a l f of the peak-hour d i r e c t i o n capacity f o r cars or pedestrians was used. This was i n stark contrast to the car l i n e ups on Lonsdale, just some ten to f i f t e e n years beforehand. Along with the general decline i n patronage, off-peak hour demand for the ferry became very l i g h t . This led to a second set of distinguishing events, gradually diminishing operating frequency, and abandonment of a l l day service. After 1955, late: hour service was cancelled by the North Vancouver Ferry. The service l e v e l became less continuous, and evening operation ceased i n 1957• The West Vancouver ferry changed i t s headway from twenty minutes to t h i r t y minutes i n A p r i l 1939• In July of the same year, Council adopted a policy to substitute lower cost bus service for the ferry during the "slack" periods of ferry use. By October, off-peak hourly operation alternated between the ferry and direct bus service to Vancouver. Various combinations of Vancouver bound ferry and bus service ensued u n t i l i n September 1945, when evening ferry service had been cur-77 t a i l e d completely. S i m i l a r l y , the l e v e l of service on the New Orleans ferry routes was allowed to vary with the demand for crossings. 33 S t a t i s t i c a l comparison of ridership levels points out the t h i r d factor of the diminishing r o l e f e r r i e s play i n over-the-water t r a n s i t when compared to urban bus systems. In 1945, the. North Vancouver buses carried 200,000 passengers compared to 6 m i l l i o n on the f e r r y . By 1949, the bus 79 routes carried 5.4 m i l l i o n passengers and the ferry only carried 2 m i l l i o n — a 72 percentage point decrease i n the ferry's portion of cross Inlet t r a n s i t . In 1953, the ferry only carried 25% of the. morning peak two hour di r e c t i o n t r a f f i c volume and just 35% of the t r a f f i c i n the evening peak 8o across the I n l e t . A s i m i l a r diminishing role occurred i n such areas as New York, Boston and San Francisco as w e l l . The fourth factor that surfaced, dealt with the expansion of bus operation into new areas. Direct service, for instance, between North Vancouver and Vancouver by way of the Lions' Gate Bridge, was i n i t i a t e d by B.C. E l e c t r i c on November 17, 1946. Since the route became operational, i "the r i d i n g has been increasing on t h i s route, and has been cutting into 8 l the North Vancouver revenue .[ridership] very seriously." This route 82 was accompanied.by four additional new routes between. 1946 and 1948. The f i f t h aspect concerned the increased numbers of u n f i l l e d route o q franchises. Upon withdrawal of the West Vancouver Ferry service i n 1946, the route was never again operational. When North Vancouver Council terminated the ferry run, operating rights were returned to the P r o v i n c i a l government, and the route remained i d l e . S i m i l a r l y , following the aband-onment of the Sausalito route i n 1949, no operators t r i e d to apply to the 84 C a l i f o r n i a State Railroad Commission to continue the operating r i g h t s . The s i x t h aspect of route decline was a s h i f t i n the main ferry t r i p purpose, from the journey-to-work to recreational and pleasure t r a v e l . For example the f i n a l two years i n the operation of the "Key System" between San Francisco and Oakland, saw service to the Golden Gate Inter-34 85 national Exposition i n 1940. J In 1935, the ferry "Sandy Hook" augmented i t s day time commuter service between Manhattan and the A t l a n t i c Highlands with luncheon excursions and evening c r u i s e s . ^ F i n a l l y , the o f f i c i a l road system gradually became designated to lead d i r e c t l y to bridges and to avoid ferry terminals. Urban a r t e r i a l s were upgraded i n accordance to the comprehensive highway and road network plans, that were based on f a c i l i t a t i n g movements to and from major bridge corridors. According to an early Greater Vancouver Tourist Association map, (see figure 5). the Second Narrows Bridge appears as the primary over the-water l i n k to the North Shore. The Lion's Gate Bridge, primary f o r the B r i t i s h Properties i s but secondary i n the road system. The ferry and i t s access streets are just on "other road". In San Francisco, some ferry operators attempted to correct t h i s matter through road-side a d v e r t i s t i n g . ^ The f i n a l demise — service termination — generally came about i n one of three ways. In the f i r s t instance, ferry operators were forced to terminate service by a statutory regulation. For example, section 7.09 of the San Diego T o l l Bridge Resolution of 1966, covenants that no other competing f a c i l i t i e s , including bus, r a i l , bridge or f e r r y , operate within ten miles from either side of the new bridge. This was an e f f o r t to assure 88 the best circumstances for the sales of the t o l l bridge's bonds. In New York, some service was outright prohibited by l e g i s l a t i o n favouring a 89 commuter r a i l system shortly following the World War Two. The second and most frequent form of service termination took place by the surrender of operating rights to the ferry regulating agency. This occurred i n North Vancouver on August 30, 1958, when City Council relinquished to 90 the P r o v i n c i a l government i t s operating licence. Each of the f i r s t two instances, however, refl e c t e d a government policy.that favoured 35 FIGURE 5 Road Map of the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley (1941) M A I M A f t n i M A k (i-o»ui» S K O N O A N V R O O I S I O m n d u o ! / 36 alternate transportation systems over the f e r r y . The t h i r d form of service termination stands apart as a middle-of-road policy of support— the purchase and take-over of ferry routes. Such a conscious e f f o r t was 91 taken by the City of New Orleans. Three of the s i x ferry routes l e f t operating a f t e r the opening of the Greater New Orlean Bridge, were pur-chased by the M i s s i s s i p p i Pdver Bridge Authority between i960 and 1969, to augment passenger, t r a n s i t and automobile capacity provided by the bridge. Summary of Findings The foregoing discussion of h i s t o r i c a l trends i n the development of the ferry industry, yi e l d s three notable findings. F i r s t , the ferry industry followed the t r a d i t i o n a l transportation l i f e cycle of Innovation, pioneering, rapid growth., competitive s t a b i l i t y , a decline and a p a r t i a l substitution by new technoology. Secondly, those ferry systems that were not t o t a l l y replaced by road, highway and bridge bu i l d i n g technology followed a p a r t i c u l a r path of evolution. As depicted'. i n figure 6, the only ferry systems succeeding were those (a)..initiated by government or entre-preneurs; (b) converted to passenger only operation upon the st a r t of bridge competition; (c) operated and improved during World War Two; ' (d) acquired by Municipal Government and; (e) sanctioned by higher levels of Government. Systems that followed the broken l i n e s , f a i l e d . F i n a l l y and most Importantly, the analysis of the h i s t o r i c a l development of the ferry industry strongly suggested f i v e areas of policy for increasing ferry patronage. These p o l i c i e s are related to (1) system access, (2) system.orientation, (3) mode transfer, (4) system quality and, (5) positive public and p o l i t i c a l attitudes. In the f i r s t instance, r i d e r -ship levels were determined by the adequacy of public t r a n s i t provided to the ferry terminal. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the service had to be integrated 37 FIGURE 6 Development of Ferry T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E R V I I N N I T I A T I 0 Nj e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l o p e r a t i o n independent o p e r a t i o n r entrepreneur w i t h r e g u l a t e d or c o n t r o l l e d o p e r a t i o n  governent order ^ m u n i c i p a l / government o p e r a t i o n . u t i l i t y company o p e r a t i o n ( l o t s ) * * - ( l i t t l e ) p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f o p e r a t o r s T c o m p e t i t i o n / m e r g e r s / s a l e s / s p e c u l a t i o n —7—r f a i l u r e s s t a b l e s i n g l e c o m p e t i t i o n operator l _ . , . C / 0 K government terminates s e r v i c e c a r only s e r v i c e mixed mode s e r v i c e pe d e s t r i a n o n l y s e r v i c e 1 • \ ! / T \i O j / I W 1 1 , ' D E C L I N E / I I It ' D E M I S E I . 1 T E R M I N A T I O N aquir e d by r e g i o n a l a u t h o r i t y ~7 / c o n v e r s i o n o f f l e e t i . 1 : government s a n c t i o n e d s e r v i c e I c o n t i n u e d s e r v i c e j Note: Broken l i n e s l e a d j t o c e r t a i n demise. 3 8 In one or more of the following ways: F i r s t a feeder system has to have a schedule and fare p o l i c y coordinated with the ferry system. Second, effec t i v e and convenient means of embarkation between the terminal and public feeder system has to be designed. And t h i r d , an e f f e c t i v e i n t e r -facing of capacity between the feeder and ferry system was required to assure favourable passenger loads f o r each s a i l i n g , with no inconvenience to the user. A second s i g n i f i c a n t group of p o l i c i e s were based upon system orientation. Ridership could be increased by selecting the largest market having a predictable and r e p e t i t i v e t r a v e l demand pattern. I t i s therefore necessary to be responsive to the s p a t i a l and temporal character-i s t i c s ( i . e . peak hour, peak d i r e c t i o n , peak corridor and peak location) of the p a r t i c u l a r demand group. An optimally located ferry terminal i n the market area, would seek to maximize access convenience and be served e f f e c t i v e l y by a simple feeder/distributor system. For the downtown terminal i t i s c r u c i a l that i t be located i n the proximity of the majority of destinations demanded by the user market. Stated i n another way, the ferry must go to the locations that are demanded, and the system must t r a v e l i n the d i r e c t i o n that corresponds to t h i s demand. The concern of the next two policy areas i s with the a b i l i t y of physical features — terminal functions and ferry vessels — to a t t r a c t more riders to the ferry system. The single most important policy require-ment associated with the terminal f a c i l i t i e s i s the a b i l i t y to make the mode transfer process as easy as possible. Terminals were b u i l t to load and unload cars — not foot passengers. Walk-in and t r a n s i t t r a n s f e r r i n g patrons often had to wait on open, unsheltered docks, dodging cars and trucks that were getting on or getting o f f the f e r r y . A set of closely associated items relate to system quality. The policy of using a vessel 39 technology capable of bus-on-water type operation w i l l provide the operator with a high capacity, modern and a t t r a c t i v e vehicle that w i l l draw r i d e r -ship and provide a smooth, dependable, safe, r e l i a b l e and quick service. F i n a l l y , i t cannot be too strongly stressed that no planning or pol i c y device to increase ridership can succeed without a positive socio-economic attitude. Government support at least on the l o c a l i f not p r o v i n c i a l or national l e v e l i s imperative f o r even a marginally successful ferry operation. P o l i c i e s to increase ferry patronage require the catalyst of both p o l i t i c a l support i n terms of l e g i s l a t i o n , regulation and f i n a n c i a l assistance, and public support toward the use or community need for a ferry system. 40 FOOTNOTES Stanley M. Kowleski, "The Golden Gate Ferry System," In Second  International Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers,.1969), p. 124. . 2 Kowleski, Ibid ^Martha Reardon, "Commuter Boats i n Boston Harbor," i n Second International  Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969), P-71-Rev. William D. Love, The Colonial History of Hartford (Hartford: By the author, 1914), p. 19. Marcus Van S t e e l , "The Dartmouth Ferries Fight for Their Lives...," i n The A t l a n t i c Advocate 3 (November, 1956): 68. ^George W. H i l t o n , The Staten Island Ferry (Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1964), P. 19. 7 Love, op, c i t . , p. 174-176. H i l t o n , op. c i t . , p. 24. 9 Personal correspondence with Mrs. J.M. Payzant, February 18, 1979. "^Gene P. Rexrode, " Passenger Ferry Terminals on San Francisco Bay," i n Second International Waterborne Transportation Conference ..Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969), p. 674. 1 1Kathleen M. Woodward-Reynolds, "The History of the City and D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver," (Masters Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1943), p. 92. 12 Captain James Barr, Ferry Across the Harbour (Vancouver: M i t c h e l l Press, 1969), pp. 1-2. 13 .i^Fredrick Jenkins Patterson, " A Financial History of the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver" (Masters Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1928), pp. 32-34. 14 Powers to issue ferry licences, regulate and establish f e r r i e s are found i n the following sources: Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Legislature, Vancouver City Charter, Chapter 34, Section 147 (72), 1886 Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia; Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Legislature, West Vancouver  Charter, Chapter 60, Section 32, 1912 Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia; Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Legislature, Municipal Clauses Act, Chapter 32, Sections 295-301; Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l Legislature, Ferry Act, F i r s t Parliament, Third Session, Chapter 14, 1874 Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia; and Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Legislature, Ferries i n Municipalities Amendment Act, Chapter 11, 1885 Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia. 41 15 George E. Harlan, San Francisco Bay Ferryboats.(Berkeley; Howell-North Books, 1967)., ?. 13. - • ' •j g Harland,Bartholemew:.and Associates,. A Preliminary Report Upon the Major  Street Plan and Transit F a c i l i t i e s , prepared" f o r the West Vancouver- Planning Commission (West Vancouver,'B.C.: D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, 1946).., p. 14. Personal conversation with Mr. Med.Chapman, Transit Manager.of West Vancouver Municipal Transportation on January 1 7 , 1979. l8 Harlan, op, c i t . , pp. 15, 107-108. 19 Personal conversation with Mr. Charles Spratt;, Sea-Bus Manager, on January 5, 1979. 20 Urban Transportation and Planning Associates, Inc., Park-and-Ride, Park-and-Paddle F e a s i b i l i t y Study, prepared f o r the City of New Orleans (New Orleans: City of New Orleans, 1973), p. 4. 21 Barr, op, c i t . , p. 2. 22 [San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company],Pathways Through the Bay ([San Diego] : [San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company], [1969]), p. 3. 2\foodward-Reynolds, op. c i t . , p. 93. 24. Burnes, op, c i t . , p. 25 26 25 Barr, op, c i t . , p. 2. Patterson, op, c i t . , p. 34. 2 7 P h y I l l s Sarah.Walden, "A History of West Vancouver" (Masters Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1947), p. 6 l , 62. 28 Reardon, op, c i t . , p. 72. 29 R.J. Colleran. and W.J. Funge, "The Forgotten Resource: Waterborne Transportation," i n Second International Waterborne Transportation Conference  Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969), p. 35. ^°Harlan, op, c i t . , p. 21. S I John R. Burnes, Echoes of the-..North Vancouver Ferries (Vancouver, B.C.: By the Author, 1975), pp. 66-67. ^^Harlan, op. c i t . , pp. 131-134. q q [San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company], op. c i t . , p. 4. q h Personal correspondence with Mrs. Payzant, February 18, 1979. ^^Woodward-Reynolds, op.l c i t . , p. 93. ^John R. Burnes, North Vancouver 1891 - 1907 (North Vancouver, B.C.: By the Author, 1972), p. 25. 42 37 Woodward-Reynolds, op. c i t . , pp. 96 - 98. Barr, op. c i t . , pp. 2 - 3. 39 Woodward-Reynolds, op. c i t ^ ', pp .•' 96 - 98. 40 Bartholemew, op. c i t . , p. 14. 41 Patterson, op. c i t . , p. 34. 42 Barr, op. c i t . , p. 1. ^^Barr, op. c i t . , p. 9. 44 Personal conversation with Mr. Med Chapman on January 17, 1979. 45 Reardon, op. c i t . , pp. 71-73. 46 Harlan, op. c i t . , pp. 115 - 120. 47 Letter from Mrs. Payzant, February 18, 1979-48 P a t r i c i a Roy, "The/British Columbia E l e c t r i c R a i l Company, 1897 - 1928' (Ph.D. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970), p. 92. 49 Walden, op. c i t . , pp. 61-62. 50 Harlan, op. c i t . , p. 131. "^Siarlan, i b i d . , pp. 131 - 133-5 2 H a r l a n , i b i d . , p. 147. 53 Bartholemew, op. c i t . , p. 147. 54 [San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company], op. c i t . , pp. 5, 8. 55 Harlan, op. c i t . , p. 135. 56 Dartmouth-Halifax Bridge Commission, F i r s t Annual Report (Halifax: Dartmouth-Halifax Bridge Commission, 1951), p. 2. 57 Letter from Mr. Harold K. Katner, Director-Secretary, City of New Orleans Planning Commission, November 73 1978. 58 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , Five Year  Development Plan (Draft) (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1979), p. 3. 59 URS/Cloverdale and C o l p i t t s , Inc., Linscott Associates, San Diego-Passenger Ferry F e a s i b i l i t y Study, prepared f o r the Comprehensive Planning Organization on the San Diego Region (San Diego: Comprehensive Planning Organization on the San Diego Region, 1975), p. 4. 4.3 ^°Rosemary Eng, 'Vest Van," Vancouver, October 1978, p. 34. ^ 1Barr,,op. c i t . , p. 68. 62 Harlan, op. c i t . , p. 147. Harlan, i b i d . , p. 19-64 Arthur D. L i t t l e , Inc., F e a s i b i l i t y Study of^San Francisco-Marin Ferry  System (San Francisco: Arthur D. L i t t l e , Inc., 1969), pp. 6 - 8. 6^  JRussel Chappell, "How to Stretch a Nickel f o r 5 1/2 Miles," New York Sunday Magazine, May 26, 1974, p. 15-^Van S t e e l , op. c i t . , p. 65. ^ L i t t l e , op. c i t . , p. 7. ^Van S t e e l , op. c i t . , p. 66. 69 Development Planning Association Limited, Dartmouth-Halifax Ferry Study, a report prepared f o r the City of Dartmouth (Dartmouth, N.S.: City of Dartmouth, 1976), p. S-1. 70 Van St e e l , op. c i t . , p. 65. 71 Barr, op. c i t . , pp. 62 - 64. 72 Barr, i b i d . , p,. 66. . ^^Van S t e e l , op. c i t . , p. 65. 74 Bartholemew, op. c i t . , p. 17• A Report on the Burrard Inlet Crossing, by P. D. Willoughby, Chairman (Vancouver, B.C.: Committee on Burrard Inlet Crossing, 1954), p. 7-Personal conversation with Mr. W. Baker, North Vancouver City A r c h i v i s t , on January 17, 1979-77 West Vancouver Library, Ferry Newsclipping Archives f i l e from the Vancouver Daily Province. 7 8 Letter from H. K. Katner, op. c i t . 79 :: B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railroad Company, "Mainland Transit (excluding Inter-urban R a i l Lines) S t a t i s t i c a l Comparison of years 1945 (before Conversion and Modernization commenced in) with 1949 Internal Memorandum1,'" Vancouver Transportation Engineering Department, March 15, 1950. 80 A Report on Burrard Inlet Crossing, op. c i t . , pp. 6, 7» 9. 8l R. H. Martin, An Outline of Some of the Pr i n c i p l e Events and Developments  i n the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Transit System on the Lower Mainland i n the  Post-War Period (Vancouver: B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railroad Company, [1950]), p. 11. 44 Op B r i t i s h Columbia Railroad Company, "Route Changes, Mainland Operations, by Years, 1946 to 1949 Inclusive. Internal Memorandum," Vancouver, B.C.: Transportation Engineering Department, March 15, 1950. Personal conversation with Mr. Lou.Gibons, Assistant Operating Manager of the West Vancouver Municipal Transportation System, on January 2, 1979. 84 A. D. L i t t l e , Inc., op. c i t . , p. 7-85 Harlan, op. c i t . , p. 23. ^ C o l l e r a n and Funge, op. c i t . , p. 35. Harlan, op. c i t . , p. 151. 88 URS/Colpits and Linscott Associates, op. c i t . , p. 6. 89 Colleran and Funge, op. c i t . , p. 35. 90 Barr, op. c i t . , p. 67. i. ^^Urban Transportation and Planning Associates, Inc., op. c i t . , p. 5. 45 CHAPTER THREE THE PLANNING MILIEU AND FERRY REVITALIZATION Introduction: The Planning M i l i e u The emergence of transportation planning as a profession d i s t i n c t from engineering and design occurred over a number of steps over the two decades following World War Two. The end of h o s t i l i t i e s brought a diversion of c a p i t a l for upgrading, improving and replacing neglected urban services and u t i l i t i e s . Transportation planners entered i n t o the forefront of land-use and transportation modelling, to predict future transportation needs. This work was translated into large scale national highway projects — the Inter-state Highway System i n the United States and the Trans-Canada Highway across Canada. These projects emphasized inter-urban expressways that criss-crossed major metropolitan areas. In the 1060's, however, transpor-t a t i o n planning began to question these highway solutions on both s o c i a l and environmental grounds. Functionally, highways became unable to cope with rapid demand f o r more mobility by the urban commuter. In B r i t i s h Columbia, car ownership skyrocketed from about 200 thousand i n 1950 to 550 thousand i n I 9 6 0 , then doubling again i n the early 1970's. The bulk of t h i s p r o v i n c i a l growth occurred i n the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . "*" Increased car ownership combined with population growth had d i r e c t l y resulted i n r i s i n g congestion on a l l urban a r t e r i a l s , highways and bridges. Especially during the peak-hour periods, major capacity deficiencies became evident at c r i t i c a l l i n k s i n metropolitan road networks. There were long delays at bridges, and line-ups as t r a f f i c queued i t s way on to and over these structures. In Vancouver, the a b i l i t y of the Lions' Gate Bridge to provide the demanded capacity has brought about the prolongation of the period.at which,the. bridge functions-.at i t s ' presently designed two lane, 46 one way capacity of 3,500 vehicles per hour (VPH), the so-called "peak-loading." As demand grows, the fi x e d bridge capacity caused a broadening of the peak-loading period, i n the peak t r a f f i c d i r e c t i o n . Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s e f f e c t , and how i t has increased i n magnitude over the eight years between 1965 and 1973. Referring d i r e c t l y to figure 1, the s o l i d curves represent the idealized North Shore commuter demand to cross the Lions' Gate Bridge during the morning rush to the downtown peninsula. The demand i s represented i n units of flow — vehicles per hour. But the bridge has a fixed physical capacity, and can only accommodate the flow up to the horizontal dotted l i n e . As a r e s u l t , the demand that exceeds bridge capacity (the area of the curve above the dotted l i n e and below the demand l i n e ) , must be dist r i b u t e d over the time when the bridge has reserve capacity (the area below the horizontal l i n e and above the demand curve when the demand i s less than the loading capacity). In 1965, the period of time between 8:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. was required to dissipate excess demand, and the bridge operated at peak-loading between roughly 7:15 and 8:45 — a t o t a l of 105 minutes. Applying the same analysis to the 1973 idealized demand curve, the peak loading period has grown to 165 minutes — a broadening of both the st a r t and end of the peak-loading period by t h i r t y minutes each. Presently, the Lions' Gate Bridge i s operating at peak-loading i n the d i r e c t i o n of the downtown for p r a c t i c a l l y the entire morning between 6:00 a.m. and noon./ The same capacity problem has been experienced on the Golden Gate Bridge where t r a f f i c flows have increased 2 ten f o l d i n i t s four decades of operation. Travel delays, i n terms of average queuing time for a vehicle i s ten to f i f t e e n minutes onto the Lions' Gate Bridge, and twenty to t h i r t y minutes for the Golden Gate Bridge. The early statements and claims about bridges were i n stark contrast 1+7 FIGURE 1 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 7 3 Peak P e r i o d Demand A c r o s s L i o n s ' Gate B r i d g e — One Way See: S. M u l l e r h e i m and E. Laks, F e a s i b i l i t y Study o f F e r r y  Mass T r a n s i t A c r o s s B u r r a r d I n l e t (Vancouver, B.C.: By t h e A u t h o r s , 1 9 7 2 ) , f i g u r e 2 . 48 to the r e a l world s i t u a t i o n of the 1960's and 1970's. For example, i n 1942 Banks predicted that only a two lane bridge at the F i r s t Narrows was necessary to accommodate the maximum hourly predicted lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles. As can be seen i n figure 1, the peak hourly capacity demand i n 1973 was three times higher at 6,000 vehicles. Banks gave a "generous estimate" of the number of cars the bridge would serve annually as 16.5 m i l l i o n but the present annual t o t a l of vehicles using the Lions' Gate i s 5 i n fact nearer to 20.0 m i l l i o n . In a statement made by Joseph B. Struss, chief project engineer of the Golden Gate Bridge: The capacity of the Golden Gate Bridge i s s i x to eight times greater than the maximum t r a f f i c over the heaviest t r a f f i c k e d t o l l bridge i n the United States, i . e . , the Delaware River Bridge—These figures dispose of the question of the adequacy of the Golden Gate Bridge f o r a l l the t r a f f i c the future can bring.6 The engineers grossly underestimated the t r a v e l trends of future North Americans. The f a i l u r e of bridges and the associated highways to meet t h e i r operating goals and functions, led to a second round of comprehensive bridge and freeway plans. They were exclusively t a i l o r e d to add s i g n i f i c a n t additional over-the-water transportation capacity f o r the foreseeable future. In Vancouver, consultants predicted that four additional lanes across the Burrard Inlet at the F i r s t Narrows would become necessary by 1976 and a t o t a l of 28 lanes by 2000. Analysts i n San Francisco predicted that as many as twenty lanes across the Golden Gate to the c i t y would be needed by 2020. 8 Meanwhile, a new public: mood prevailed — one of greater awareness of l o c a l a f f a i r s and community issues. This was a North America, wide phenomenon that encompassed Vancouver by the mid-1960's. By 1969, the p r i n c i p l e s of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n development decisions and l o c a l decisionmaking on 49 l o c a l issues became widely accepted. Citizens questioned the effects of urban renewal and road b u i l d i n g on the environment, ecology and i n d i r e c t effects upon people and society. The s p e c i f i c concerns included the adverse s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l impacts created by these large scale projects upon residents of inner-city neighbourhoods. Expressway construction was often associated with projects f o r the redevelopment of blighted inner urban core r e s i d e n t i a l areas. By 1969, public opinion was opposed to demolition. In Vancouver, those grand scale urban renewal projects begun i n 1966, i n Strathcona, K i t s i l a n o and the downtown were halted by the Federal government u n t i l a "more w e l l defined and l o g i c a l long-term Canadian urban renewal Q policy can be formulated". Vancouver c i t i z e n s were instrumental i n having renewal projects replaced i n 1973 by smaller-scale l o c a l area planning programs such as NIP and KRAP. This was part of a new movement to preserve, r e - h a b i l i t a t e and re-use old buildings. Rather than creating a new urban character, the c i t y proceeded with "preserving heritage buildings, structures or land which c o l l e c t i v e l y represents a cross-section of a l l periods and s t y l e s " . 1 ^ The awakening of public awareness and p a r t i c i p a t i o n was co-incident with developments on the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l . Changes to and restructuring of the municipal government i n Vancouver had occurred. In a decision i n t e r n a l to City H a l l and the Council, the S o c i a l Planning Department was formed i n 1967. 1 1 In a decision external to the c i t y , i n 1971 the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment altered the Charter of Vancouver to allow for partisan p o l i t i c s on the municipal l e v e l . These two events, coupled with the p r e v a i l i n g public • mood, became, translated into grass-roots p o l i t i c a l action. The many stormy public meetings on bridges and freeways of the 1960's, f i n a l l y led to the "Great Freeway Debate", of 1967. Council had given i t s approval for the construction of the Strathcona highway interchange. Many c i t i z e n s believed 50 council had. defied t h e i r wishes and "cast the die for a future highway system" The culmination of the "Great Freeway Debate" was described by Hardwick as: ...the public became alarmed. Two public meetings were held at which c i v i c organization made b r i e f s — most objecting to the government process which would bring about decisions that would affect hundreds of c i t i z e n s without any consultation. They reacted against econ-omic-efficiency models and cost/benefit analysis, neither of which included any s o c i a l or aesthetic benefits. They reacted against a government which did not see i t s e l f i n a representation r o l e , but a technostructure that dwelt i n professional i s o l a t i o n . Council rescinded i t s motion. The interchange was abandoned and the whole public transportation system , was placed i n the public forum for discussion and review. Vancouver was not alone i n i t s r e j e c t i o n of a freeway. A very near p a r a l l e l existed i n the San Francisco "Freeway Revolt" i n 1959. Approval to s i x freeway routes was withdrawn by the Board of Supervisors due to public protest. The public c r i e s were, "Don't destroy our beauty and h e r i -14 tage — stop the freeway — stop the garages — bring back the ferryboat!!" With the r e j e c t i o n of freeways, the remaining years to the early 1970's were spent arguing public transportation. The public assumed that with the provision of no new freeways, no new t r a f f i c would be generated. The e x i s t i n g overflow could be accommodated by t r a n s i t — Bart i n San Francisco, reorganized bus t r a n s i t i n Vancouver. However, the no-growth assumption proved to be a f a l l a c y — congestion rose despite termination of freeway and bridge projects. In the period since freeway r e j e c t i o n , both these west coast c i t i e s again found themselves i n the s i t u a t i o n of re-adopting freeway projects. The public response, however, was again negative. Kowleski r e c a l l s , "In l a t e 1970 and early 1971, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway D i s t r i c t held nearly 23 meetings....It was apparent...that the public was strongly opposed 15 to construction of new bridges or tunnels". In 1972, Vancouver council again emerged with a p o l i c y to b u i l d a t h i r d Burrard I n l e t crossing, and 51 associated access highways. Public furor was channeled i n t o the ele c t i o n of two anti-freeway governments. Locally, the T.E.A.M. c i v i c party gained control i n Vancouver City H a l l i n December of 1972. And. the N.D.P. was 16 elected i n October 1973 on the P r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . Not only were these governments anti-freeway but very much pro-transit. The events which led to the r e i n s t i t u t i o n of the North Vancouver to Vancouver f e r r y , i n 1977, were described i n a journal a r t i c l e as: Following a stormy and continuing outcry against the bui l d i n g of a t h i r d bridge, l o c a l o f f i c i a l s took another look at buses. I t was evident that an a l t e r -native had to be found because of the delays being imposed on the buses by lengthening bridge queues.... The solution? development of Sea-Bus, a waterborne rapid t r a n s i t system...17 The Planner's Response With the second r e j e c t i o n of freeways and the continuation of t r a f f i c congestion, transportation planning entered into the forefront. The f i r s t response was to suggest p o l i c i e s leading to the higher u t i l i z a t i o n l8 of available roads and bridges, with only selective road construction. Higher vehicle loading was encouraged through car-pooling and bus use. The benefits were marginal at best, for these vehicles often found them-selves within the same urban road congestion as a l l other vehicles. A spectrum of solutions became advocated by planners to overcome the congestion problems experienced by public t r a n s i t . At one extreme, the solution entailed provision of exclusive right-of-ways f o r bus or r a i l t r a n s i t . In the middle of the spectrum was the introduction of bus p r i v i l e g e s , to provide some time advantage f o r t r a n s i t at c r i t i c a l bottlenecks i n the urban road network. These included queue jump lanes, signal pre-emption, curb and counterflow lanes, and use of selected streets as exclusive t r a n s i t malls. The r e s t r i c t i o n or exclusion of automobile 52 use i n some portions of the downtown was also advocated. At the other extreme, non-transportation solutions to t r a f f i c problems were forwarded. Some transportation planners advocated the staggering of work hours, a four day work week, l i v i n g closer to work, decentralization of a c t i v i t i e s from the downtown to the suburbs, and the substitution of t r a v e l by communication. In Vancouver, items from across the spectrum were selected and implemented: the False Creek housing development, the Granville Transit M a l l , queue jump lanes from Marine Drive on the North Shore onto the Lions' Gate Bridge, decentralization of some a c t i v i t i e s to suburban "Metrotowns", and voluntary adoption of the four day work week by some o f f i c e s . However, continued t r a f f i c growth precluded any major success i n congestion r e l i e f . The second response of transportation planners envisioned the r e i n s t i -t u t i o n of t r a n s i t on t r a d i t i o n a l corridors using new technology. Planners recognized that movement on the urban scene continued to concentrate along former interurban, streetcar or ferry routes i n the b u i l t up areas. Congest-ion occurred largely i n these corridors at points constrained by bridges, geographic layout and/or t e r r a i n . The b e l i e f arose that augmenting capacity i n these t r a d i t i o n a l t r a v e l corridors by r e i n s t i t u t i n g technologic-a l l y improved and functionally enhanced mass t r a n s i t systems could r e l i e v e congestion at bottlenecks and on primary streets and highways. These li n k s were envisioned as major line-haul routes, running through areas capable of supporting rapid t r a n s i t , that could be ea s i l y augmented through bus feeders from new suburban areas. In t h i s r a t i o n a l e , f e r r i e s were seen as a po t e n t i a l key over-the-water l i n k i n an Integrated urban t r a n s i t network. The r e v i v a l of the ferry t r a n s i t concept i s a direct derivative of the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , preservation, s o c i a l and environmental s e n s i t i v i t y advocated by the anti-freeway forces. 53 The Ferry Advocates Those who championed the r e v i v a l of urban f e r r i e s — planners, p o l i t i -cians, businessmen and c i t i z e n s — are referred to i n t h i s thesis as the 'ferry advocates'. These individuals had a rather consistent philosophy expressed through certain claims about the ferry boat a l t e r n a t i v e . Some of these claims were based on h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s , some on r a t i o n a l planning analysis and some were just i n t u i t i v e , i n reaction to freeway and bridge proposals. A number of these claims f e l l i n t o the broad spectrum of physical features. F i r s t of a l l , the advocates contended f e r r i e s had the a b i l i t y to 19 provide the most di r e c t routing between any two points, on opposite shores. Also, they ca l l e d attention to the large uncongested expanse of water, that 20 •could be u t i l i z e d as a "water highway" for f e r r i e s . Colleran and Funge concluded, " . . . i t would appear that more consideration should be given to better u t i l i z a t i o n of our natural highways — the waterways — for transpor-21 t a t i o n of...passengers...." These physical factors also were linked to economic concerns. The advocates stated that ferries, would be using public waterways, which do not 22 require any expenditures to acquire f o r use as a right of way. S i m i l a r l y , only a minimum amount of land i n high ..value urban areas, was needed, as opposed to a ground t r a n s i t a l t e r n a t i v e . F i n a l l y , advocates claimed that the actual use of the ri g h t of way, would incur l i t t l e or no cost to operate 23 and maintain. According to one consultant i n the east, "...the time has arrived f o r metropolitan.New York to take advantage of the free r i g h t - o f -24 ways and our r i v e r s and our bays...." A number.of claims featured both physical and operating matters. F i r s t , advocates reasoned that public water-ways can provide vast potential capacity, li m i t e d only by vehicle s i z e , optimal speed, the number of terminals and the boarding/disembarking times of users. Secondly, they generalized that the 54 ferry i s a better, unique, interesting and practical form of rapid transit 25 for metropolitan areas situated upon natural bodies of water. Third, because the ferry was considered by the public as an innovative transit con-cept, i t s implementation would attract greater numbers of choice riders than 26 any other form of exclusive over-the-water public transit. Finally, the level of comfort and ride quality made the ferry more suitable than the 27 conventional commuter bus. Beside the category of physical features, both operating and economic considerations had been stressed as a distinct and important positive claim. Perhaps the most vocally argued claim was that pedestrian ferries would red-uce peak hour bridge, tunnel and downtown street t r a f f i c congestion. As one of the reasons for re-introducing the North Vancouver ferry, Mullerheim and Laks indicated that a ferry system, integrated with transit, and with a well designed terminal and convenient parking would be "capable of drawing enough patrons to effect a sizeable reduction i n peak hour t r a f f i c over the Lions' 28 Gate Bridge." Only second to this operating success claim, became the assumption that ferries are a "no lose" proposition. In reference to the San Francisco-Marin Ferry service, this claim was voiced, as "...congestion on our highways w i l l continue....There i s l i t t l e doubt that the ferry system... w i l l shortly assume a greater role i n contributing to the solution of the 29 growing transportation problem...." In reference to future patronage lev-els, the B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit Services assumed that a l l future growth i n cross-inlet travel i n excess of bridge capacity would be handled 30 by transit — namely Sea-Bus. This "no lose" proposition, was also articu-lated i n terms of economic considerations alone. Aside from the specifics which follow, advocates claimed ferries were the most economically feasible 31 option m light of then existing, societal values. j n . discussing transpor-tation solutions, Kowleski referred to ferry operations., stating, "...this 55 basic mode of transportation has been u t i l i z e d e f f e c t i v e l y by most ever... country i n the world The world wide interest in...waterborne crafts are varied but a l l have one thing i n common — i t i s cheaper than many of i t s 32 alternatives." Indeed, advocates stressed that ferr y systems would require lesser c a p i t a l investment than bridge or bus systems, providing equal oper-a t i o n a l capacity. Secondly, unlike bridges, f e r r i e s were deemed to be a f l e x i b l e investment because of the capability of being sold, replaced, s t r u c t u r a l l y stretched to increase capacity or adapted f o r other marine uses. JIhird, as an in d i r e c t long term benefit, the reduction i n automobile volumes would resu l t i n lower maintenance costs for urban a r t e r i a l streets and bridges. Fourth, lower peak-hour t r a f f i c growth would postpone many secon-dary road and bridge, projects necessitated by the pressures of congestion. F i n a l l y , advocates also claimed that operating costs for ferry systems would be lower per passenger than for other equivalent labour intensive alternatives. Advocates pointed to a number of a n c i l l a r y advantages flowing from the physical, operating and economic features. F i r s t as a direct r e s u l t from reduced congestion, advocates claimed sizable reductions i n t r a v e l time would 33 be achieved by the average commuter. Furthermore, t r a v e l costs and energy 34 consumption f o r the commuter would decline modestly. Another frequently ci t e d claim envisioned a reduction i n the demand for downtown parking, and 35 p o t e n t i a l l y freeing-up land for other more b e n e f i c i a l purposes. In terms of growth impacts, f e r r i e s would not generate the sudden increase i n capacity as would new bridges and tunnels. Ferry capacity can be slowly increased, to r e f l e c t the desired land use po l i c y . Perhaps the t h i r d most frequently a r t i c u l a t e d claim stressed the con-37 formity of ferry systems with community goals. Ferry advocates attributed no negative s o c i a l impacts due to construction or operation. Second, few ecological or environmental impacts were claimed to result, from any land or 56 sea-side ferr y f a c i l i t i e s . Other p o s i t i v e ramifications c i t e d include red-uctions i n ambient noise l e v e l s , increased a i r quality along urban corridors and fewer motor vehicle accidents. Some advocates went as f a r as to say fe r r i e s are better for one's health, provide relaxation to or from work and reduce tension or anxiety. Perhaps a comment on their, society, New York ferry advocates claim a reduction i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of t r a n s i t hijacking. The Ferry Revival The ferry advocates were successful i n achieving a, r e v i v a l of urban passenger ferry use i n the 1960's and 1970's. This h i s t o r i c a l period of ferry operation had two phases: popular:.revival — - s e r v i c e : . i n i t i a t e d .by :the ferry advocates, and the formal r e v i v a l — service i n i t i a t e d by government. The f i r s t phase lacked any poli c y significance because of the small scale, independent ventures. They were instrumental to the extent that they raised public awareness and v e r i f i e d the existence of a f a i r l y sizable market of . potential ferry patrons. The second phase i s dynamic i n the sense that i t continues to evolve throughout North America. I t also linked the ferr y r e v i v a l concepts with urban and public t r a n s i t r e v i t a l i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s i n major metropolitan areas. The Popular Revival There are a number of common aspects that stand out i n the phase of advocate I n i t i a t e d f e r r y systems. The f i r s t common aspect was the popular support for ferr y r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . In Boston, for example, 12,000 people out of the 150,000 person labour force i n the south shore, area responded to a 1973 survey by saying that they would use a ferry to commute to work i f one was provided. A survey.conducted by the North Vancouver paper "The C i t i z e n " , also indicated strong public support for ferry t r a n s i t . The actual i n i t i a -57 t i o n of a ferry service route followed one of two processes. F i r s t , i n t e r -ested individuals would approach c i v i c or business organizations, which i n turn chartered a ferry from scenic or recreational operators f o r the c i t i z e n groups. Perhaps the e a r l i e s t of such arrangements occurred i n San Francisco. In March 1962, a seventy member Belvedere-TIburon Ferryboat Club was formed through the l o c a l Chamber.of Commerce and Conservation League. They chartered a sight seeing vessel from the Showboat Transportation Company, and operated two runs, morning and evening, between Tiburon and San Francisco's Market 40 Street ferry terminal. On the A t l a n t i c Seaboard, Boston commuters formed the "Bring Back the Boat Committee" i n 1976, that contracted Boston Harbor 41 Cruises to operate ferry service between Hingham and downtown Boston. In the second process, a number of ferry operators.initiated ferry service, independently or with some public, encouragement. Douglas M. Emery, president of Harbour Ferries (Ltd.) i n Vancouver, inaugurated a morning, mid-afternoon and evening commuter ferry service to the North Shore on 42 September 7, 1968. Also i n Boston, a series of voluntary studies, conducted by l o c a l consultants, convinced the Bay State Steamship Company to independen-t l y approach the Massachusetts Port Authority and the South Shore Chamber of Commerce to i n i t i a t e ferry operation. The service began i n August, and ran 43 through the f a l l . Another common aspect was the. semi-exclusive nature of ferry patronage. Both the Tiburon and South Shore f e r r i e s took on the characteristics of a "commuter-club". Many major Boston, employers encouraged t h e i r employees to commute by ferry. One company even allowed workers to arrive l a t e , on the 44 l a s t morning run. In San Francisco, long time neighbours, car-poolers or 45 group bus users, commuted as a club by fe r r y . A t h i r d common aspect encompassed the many expressions of optimism, both of operators and users. The president of Harbour Ferries saw the North 58 Vancouver-Vancouver route as one of three potential cross-Inlet routes h i s company would develop by the mid 1970*s. In his optimism for success, the 46 company secured a franchise to operate cable-ferries, and ordered hover-47 c r a f t f e r r i e s to supplement cross-Inlet operation. Furthermore, he claimed 48 his ferry "would solve Vancouver's F i r s t Narrows crossing problem." In 49 Boston, the r e i n s t i t u t i o n of ferry service brought "great f e s t i v i t y " to the users and the South Shore. Community. The Tiburon Ferry grew i n popular-50 i t y , gaining about f i f t e e n new members per week. I n i t i a l optimism was eclipsed by two. additional common aspects. F i r s t , the service that ferry operators provided was uncertain i n three respects: permanency of operation, operating schedule and route terminus. With regards to permanency, Harbour Ferries established ferry service for a t h i r t y day t r i a l period, to test economic f e a s i b i l i t y and l e v e l of ri d e r s h i p . According to a l o c a l e d i t o r i a l report, "Harbour Ferries' o f f i c i a l s are not sure what they are getting into and intend to be completely f l e x i b l e i n t h e i r operas 51 t i o n . . . " Furthermore, Douglas Emery stipulated that, service improvements, A North Shore parking garage and new terminal f a c i l i t i e s were also dependent 52 on the success of the t r i a l service. There was a great deal of uncertainty about the permanency of the Hingham-Boston route as w e l l . The Bay State Steamship Company terminated i t s service i n November, 1975- Shortly there-a f t e r , the route was r e - i n s t i t u t e d for a three week period i n December by the Massachusetts Bay Lines. I t was i n the summer of 1976 that Boston Harbor Cruises took over operations on the route. Service fluctuated u n t i l opera-tions ceased i n the early f a l l . C i t i z e n s , i n the spring of 1977, convinced the Bay State Steamship Company to re-establish the ferry route. • With l e g i -53 s l a t i v e assistance, the route remained i n operation. With respect to schedule uncertainty, Harbour Ferries planned to provide peak hour service 54 at 15 minute Intervals, for a t o t a l of thirty-two d a i l y crossings. Upon 59 service i n i t i a t i o n , however, the schedule was reduced to s i x s a i l i n g s 56 towards the end of the t r i a l period. In Boston, sea conditions and t i d a l variations often necessitated alternate routes to avoid shallow water. The scheduled crossing time therefore fluctuated between forty-three and f i f t y -57 f i v e minutes. Route terminus was the t h i r d source of service uncertainty for the user. In i t s f i r s t year of operation, Harbour Perries considered a change from the Granville Street Pier D Terminus to Columbia Street i n conjunction with i t s cable-ferry concept; i n the l a s t year of operation,-(1971) a change to one of two other North Shore termini; MacKay Avenue or 58 Bewicke Avenue were considered. The second common aspect that eclipsed the i n i t i a l ferry service optimism was the ambivalence of l o c a l c i v i c government towards the ferry operator. In Vancouver, Harbour Perries gained only marginal attention and support from the North Vancouver City Council. On August 19, 1968, the Coun-c i l resolved to grant a licence for the Harbour Ferries commuter ferry shuttle. Shortly before service commenced, Harbour Ferries asked i f the City could perform some road and dock repairs near the ferry s l i p . The Council rejected t h i s , sanctioning only minor and routine maintenance. The only positive response from the City came on the issue of bus access. The Council "agreed In p r i n c i p l e " , to request B.C. Hydro to i n s t a l l "a bus stop 59 of temporary nature" near to the ferry landing. According to Harbour Ferri e s , i n time North Vancouver developed a "non-attitude" towards the ferry service, brought on i n part by Council's alternative development plans for the Lower Lonsdale and Esplanade area. A t h i r d aspect that detracted from the advocates' optimism, was the reluctance of public t r a n s i t to integrate with the private ferry ventures. In downtown Vancouver, i n a b i l i t y to secure the routing of some B.C. Hydro service to the ferry landing forced Harbour Ferries to charter peak hour bus 60 service for their customers. ^  In Boston, the Massachusetts. Bay Transporta-tion Authority (MBTA), did.not permit hovercraft-ferry service prior to 1973, 6 l claiming unfair competition with MBTA r a i l rapid transit would be created. Service related d i f f i c u l t i e s and labour disputes became the fourth aspect that eroded optimism. F i r s t , service problems rested with the inaccessibility of terminal locations. Transit patrons i n Hingham faced a five minute walk, 62 on an unpaved road from the nearest MBTA transit stop to the ferry. In North Vancouver, the closest bus stop to the ferry was at Chesterfield and Esplanade; while on the Vancouver side, riders had to climb some forty steps to cross over the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks. Second, service prob-lems arose out of docking arrangements. In Vancouver, the National Harbours 6 4 Board refused to relax rules, and charged f u l l rates for water lots. In Boston, service problems were often experienced as a result of an inadequate number of ferryboats, slow sailing speed and under-water obstructions causing ;rec 66 65 docking d i f f i c u l t i e s . Thirdly, labour problems were encountered. For example, a strike i n 1969 terminated the Tiburon ferry service/ The f i n a l aspect was the growth of interest by regional, provincial or state governments i n acquiring or providing assistance to revitalized ferry operation. This i s a phenomenon that developed very late i n popular revival period. It occurred i n 1969 i n San Francisco, when the Golden-Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , operated the Tuboron l i n e , for the • duration of a labour strike. In Vancouver, a preliminary in-house examin- ' ation at the Bureau of Transit Services i n 1973 concluded that a ferry as one "advanced transit" link was feasible.^ 8 In 1976, the Massachusetts Port Authority applied to Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) for 69 funding of a hovercraft demonstrator project. The forces of the ferry revival succeeded i n convincing decision-makers that commuter ferries were a serious urban transit alternative. The Formal Revival This phase of the urban passenger ferry r e v i v a l , includes two classes of operations. The f i r s t category includes those ferry systems that continue to operate i n competition with bridges. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, these government systems sanctioned.studies to investigate expansion and upgrading of services. A series of such reports were done for the City of 70 7] New York Marine and Aviation Department, for the Dartmouth Ferry Commission 72 and for the City of New Orleans. P o l i c i e s bases on or derived from these reports have resulted i n various major improvements projects. The second class includes a l l those systems that were l e g i s l a t i v e l y i n s t i t u t e d by senior governments. The most prominent recent examples are Vancouver's Sea-Bus, and the Larkspur and Sausalito f e r r i e s i n San Francisco. Authority f o r the planning, development and operation of the Sea-Bus system, b a s i c a l l y rested i n the provisions of three p r o v i n c i a l acts: The Transit Service Act, The 73 P r o v i n c i a l Rapid Transit Subsidy Act and The Pro v i n c i a l Transit Fund Act. The o r i g i n a l p o l i c y framework f o r the Burrard I n l e t Sea-Bus was evolved by the Bureau of Transit Services between 1972 and 1974, and i n t r i - p a r t i t e discuss-ions among B.C. Hydro, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and the Pro-v i n c i a l Transit Services Division (formerly the Bureau of Transit Services) i n 74 1976. In 1969, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , was given authorization by the C a l i f o r n i a Legislature to "engage In any and 75 a l l modes of t r a n s i t . " Shortly thereafter, the San Francisco Board of Sup-ervisors resolved, "... operation of a system of ferry-transportation between Marin County and San Francisco...is... the poli c y of the Board of Supervisors.. By 1971, the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted a favourable p o l i c y toward urban passenger ferry t r a n s i t . Thus, f i n a n c i a l support through various provisions of the Urban Mass.Transportation Administration Act, established a 77 series of demonstration ferry projects that included San Francisco. 62 On the regional and l o c a l l e v e l , a number of steps were taken that involved policy decisions and operational ramifications. Because of the lack of North American data on .new ferry operations, the f i r s t step involved the gathering of information and an assessment of operating impacts. Infor-mation was consolidated i n one of three methods. The f i r s t , largely u t i l i z e d i n the United States was the demonstration t r i a l approach. In the Manhattan area, f o r example, a hovercraft demonstration project was conducted i n 1974, to assess economic f e a s i b i l i t y of operation, technical aspects of performance, plus physical and environmental constraints of the three service corridors tested. The second approach involved systems modeling. A 1969 consultant report f o r the Marin Water Transportation.Study Committee, modeled costs, ridership and system quality for various ferry routes from the county to 79 ^ downtown San Francisco. In 1976, the Dartmouth ferry was modeled to det-ermine the effect of various policy parameters on the mode s p l i t , ridership and operating costs of contemplated improvements and extension of cross-8o harbour service. The f i n a l approach involves in-house discussions among t r a n s i t planners, from l o c a l , regional, p r o v i n c i a l and private organizations. This was the basic form of information gathering adopted by the p r o v i n c i a l authorities i n the Vancouver area. In-house reports, consultant studies, and exchanges with regional and l o c a l committees evolved the information 8 l base for the policy framework decisions. The second step involved the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of vehicle design correspon-ding to the formulated operating p o l i c y . Because of the lack i n c l a r i t y of the state-of-the-art i n the marine ferry industry, each, of the new ferry systems obtained the delivery of d i f f e r i n g types of vessel technology. In Vancouver, Case E x i s t o l o g l c a l Laboratories proposed the use of a catamaran 82 vessel. I t s technology and design met the policy requirements of: - high manoeuverability 63 - capacity of 400 - quick loading, unloading and turnaround time - easy docking ca p a b i l i t y that avoided turnaround i n the v i c i n i t y of the landing terminal - crossing time of 10 minutes - safe and economic to operate In San Francisco, ordinary displacement vessels were replaced i n December, 1976 by ' j e t - f o i l ' technology. This reflected the need to provide a high q u a l i t y , comfortable and quick system that could compete i n terms of time and amenities with other commuting modes, p a r t i c u l a r l y the private car. Another policy objective included.the implementation of cost-effective t r a n s i t , higher u t i l i z a t i o n of buses and the reduction of automobile t r a f f i c On from the Golden Gate Bridge and Downtown San Francisco Streets. The Manhattan system envisioned one. of three types of technologies: conventional 84 85 displacement h u l l , Surface Effects Vehicles (Hovercrafts) and passenger barge/tug v e s s e l s . ^ Each met the selection c r i t e r i a of providing economic, environmentally safe, high speed and low per seat cost service. The barge/ tug concept also met the pol i c y requirement of providing f l e x i b l e , m u l t i -purpose service, that could achieve a higher l e v e l of peak and off-peak hour u t i l i z a t i o n . For instance, passenger barges could be towed i n train s or singly for journey to work purposes, f o r recreation purposes i n the summer and as a general tug i n the busy ports of New York Harbour. Prelim-inary designs of the new Dartmouth f e r r i e s , proposed the use of a standard displacement vessel. The pol i c y requirements surrounding the. design of the Dartmouth ferry involve s i m i l a r safety, manoeuverability, cost and capacity requirements as Sea-Bus, with the exceptions of more stringent climatic 8' amenities and the absence of the "flow-through" loading/unloading p r i n c i p l e . The provision of new, modern, w e l l planned and integrated loading and unloading terminals became a key step i n the r e v i v a l plans of both classes of government operated ferry systems. • The pol i c y of constructing an a t t r a c -t i v e and functional transfer terminal was based on the need to f a c i l i t a t e 64 quick inter-modal transfers, accessible from r e s i d e n t i a l areas and location i n the proximity of the majority of d a i l y work t r i p destinations. In Van-couver, the Bureau of Transit strongly promoted the p o l i c y of developing Canadian P a c i f i c Rail's. Granville Station into a major waterfront interchange for l i g h t r a i l , f e r r y , commuter and urban bus t r a n s i t . I t s proximity to the Vancouver o f f i c e core offered the interchange the role as the prime a r r i v a l 88 and transfer point f o r a l l downtown destinations. The Market Street Ferry Terminal i n San Francisco was also planned as a major downtown transfer 89 point for BART, Muni, ferry and bus commuters. Suburban terminals i n Vancouver, Manhattan, San Francisco and New Orleans were intended to be designed as integrated f a c i l i t i e s for both t r a n s i t and automobile commuters. The Vancouver r e s i d e n t i a l terminal does not yet have any automobile or t a x i drop o f f f a c i l i t i e s . In the desire to a t t r a c t and further increase ferry r i d e r s h i p , three p o l i c i e s r e l a t i n g to use of suburban s t a t i o n design were contemplated and/or promoted. First., as a result of an o v e r a l l p o l i c y frame-work to integrate ferry operations with regional t r a n s i t , bus routes were restructured as ferry terminal feeders. This p o l i c y diverted only those bus routes where the bus and ferry t r i p combination saved time over e x i s t i n g bus on bridge routes. The.second policy involved the force feeding of bus routes to ferry terminals. A trade-off l e v e l was therefore adopted between the desired l e v e l of ferry ridership and loss of l o c a l ridership as a r e s u l t of longer t r i p times. The t h i r d policy encouraged the diversion of choice, non-1 t r a n s i t commuters to public t r a n s i t . The ferry terminal f a c i l i t i e s incorpor-ated within t h e i r design the kiss-and-ride and p'ark-and-ride options. The average commuter thus has a choice between t r a n s i t and non-transit means of ferry terminal access. F i n a l l y , the l a s t set of steps involve the ongoing Implementation of amenity services, schedule p o l i c i e s and capacity requirements. These p o l -65 i c i e s vary, depending on the l e v e l of convenience and comfort, the route distance and the crossing time. Amenities, vary from hardly any on short distance and time routes such as Sea-Bus, to li m i t e d food, and bar f a c i l i t i e s on longer distance ferries.such as Larkspur, and to f u l l services on long commuter passenger routes, such as the proposed Manhattan to Highlands New Jersey route. Scheduling, capacity and other service p o l i c i e s p a r a l l e l s i m i l a r steps followed by the general t r a n s i t industry. Summary The transportation dilemma of the 1960's and 1970's brought about a change i n the concepts and plans for urban transportation solutions. Congest-ion and the current ramifications of past f a i l u r e s to e f f e c t i v e l y assess the degree of urban infrastructure required to f a c i l i t a t e automobile movements engendered a change i n the transportation planning milieu. The r e j e c t i o n of urban redevelopment, growth i n the desire to preserve and r e v i t a l i z e the downtown, heightened grass-route p o l i t i c a l involvement and the environmental/ ecological movement merged into the mainstream of transportation planning thought, bringing about the r e v i v a l , of ferry t r a n s i t . Emphasis focused on person movements rather than vehicular movements i n f a c i l i t a t i n g commuter access to downtown areas. As such, regional and p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s viewed ferry t r a n s i t as a v i t a l l i n k within, an. upgraded and integrated multi-modal t r a n s i t network. The ferry advocates played an important role i n the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of ferry operations. Not only did they encourage the d i r e c t i o n of urban transportation thought and raise public awareness about the ferry concept, but they c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d a set. of characteristics associated with ferry operation. The optimism they generated was enough to overcome general scepticism.and to establish a series of popular r e v i v a l operations. The 66 claims that were proved to be true by these operations, put legitimacy behind the ferry alternative. Above a l l , i t attracted the f i r s t serious support of government since the heyday of ferry operation. The significance of the Formal Revival and positive government p o l i c i e s toward ferry t r a n s i t have been and continue to be instrumental to r e v i t a l i z e d ferry operation. Government has provided the resources and administrative backing that allowed for experimentation with new technologies and operating p o l i c i e s . For the f i r s t time, f e r r i e s f i t into an o v e r a l l p o l i c y of regional transportation and mass t r a n s i t . Though the dominance f e r r i e s once had i n over-the-water-transit w i l l l i k e l y never be attained again, the adoption of a precise policy framework may enlarge and strengthen the r o l e of commuter ferry transit, on the urban scene. Findings The period of ferry r e v i t a l i z a t i o n yields f i v e importand findings. F i r s t , ferry t r a n s i t was part of the larger urban planning movement that encouraged the restoration and preservation of downtown cores; and envisioned r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l t r a n s i t corridors to solve the urban transpor-t a t i o n problem. Second, ferry advocates performed a s i g n i f i c a n t task by enlightening and encouraging the public and planners about the potentials of r e v i t a l i z e d ferry t r a n s i t . Third, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of c i t i z e n s i n c i v i c p o l i t i c s achieved a major r e d i r e c t i o n i n transportation policy — from high-way and bridge building to public t r a n s i t and ferry t r a n s i t . Fourth, as a res u l t of the policy change, transportation planning was able to become independent of the transportation engineering, to develop i t s own concepts and techniques and tackle the urban transportation problem. F i n a l l y , a number of s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i c i e s emerged with the potential of increasing ferry r idership. These p o l i c i e s can be grouped Into four 67 categories: (1) Vessel-oriented; (2) Terminal-oriented; (3) Service P r i n c i p l e s ; and (4) Government support. In the f i r s t case, patronage levels can be increased through the effective technical and passenger accommodations design of the ferry vessel. Modern, f a s t , v e r s a t i l e and manoeuverable crafts allow an operator to achieve higher over-the-water passenger capacity than with the vessels used previously. S i m i l a r l y , properly designed passenger accommodations can attract users. These p o l i c i e s include providing on-board amenities, appealing boat decor and comfortable seating to convey a pleasing commuting atmosphere. A second set of p o l i c i e s that can increase ferry ridership are related to the terminal and associated terminal f a c i l i t i e s . I t i s important to implement p o l i c i e s that maximize a commuter's access choice. Access choice extends to mode types — walking, t r a n s i t and automobile — and i n the way the mode can be used. For instance, t r a n s i t to the terminal could include l o c a l buses, fast buses, rapid r a i l and para-transit. For automobile patrons, an option ought to be provided between park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride. Associated f a c i l i t i e s for each t r a n s i t and automobile option must be i n t e -grated into one ferry terminal complex. Aside from choice, p o l i c i e s must also be adopted to avoid unnecessarily long walking distances, minimize passenger c i r c u l a t i o n impediments such as s t a i r s , narrow, passage ways, u n l i t or unsheltered areas'. The waiting areas must include some l e v e l of ameni-t i e s , comfort and general convenience. The adoption of optimal service p r i n c i p l e s has the power to attra c t patrons.. I f a ferry system i s to be part of an integrated t r a n s i t network, i t must be operated as a t r a n s i t system — t h i s must be reflected i n p o l i c y . R e l i a b i l i t y , frequency, safety and dependability are basic, c r i t e r i a of such a p o l i c y . Furthermore, the ferry schedule requires coordination with public t r a n s i t , and cater to public preferences for destination and. a r r i v a l times. 68 F i n a l l y , the role of government i n the ferry industry i s again under-l i n e d . Active government support provides the basis and the resources to achieve the implementation of patronage increasing p o l i c i e s . 69 FOOTNOTES "*¥.S. Scott and G.D. Hamilton, Bumaby Transportation Study to 1985 (Burnaby, B.C.: Bumaby Planning Department, 1974), pp. 9, 24. 2 S.M. Kowleski, "Ferry Transit Division Overview," Memorandum to the Building and Operating Committee. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , March 30, 1978, p. 2. Interview with Mr. Art Schindel, Public Relations Manager of the B.C. Department of Highways Regional Office Burnaby, on January 25, 1979; and telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas Matoff, Acting Director of Planning, San Francisco Municipal Railway, on December 4, 1978. 4 S.R. Banks, "The Lions' Gate Bridge (Part 1),'.' The Engineering Journal, 25 #4 ( A p r i l 1942): 211 - 212. 5 Conversation with Mr. Art Schindel, on January 25, 1979. ^Arthur C. Jenkins, Prospective P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a Public Transit Bus  System, a report to the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway D i s t r i c t , c i t e d i n A.D. L i t t l e , F e a s i b i l i t y Study of San Francisco-Marin County Ferry System (San Francisco: A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., 1969), p. 8. 7 Swan-Wooster-CBA, Vancouver Public Transportation Plans f o r the Future (Vancouver, B.C.: National Harbours Board, 196b), p. 18. g Kowleski, op. c i t . , p. 2. 9 Vancouver City Planning Department, A Review of Local. Area Planning (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1977), P - l -^Nancy Oliver, "Vancouver's Heritage," Quarterly Review, January 1977, p. 17. 11W.G. Hardwick, Vancouver (Don M i l l s : Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd., 1974), p. 181. 12 Hardwick, i b i d . , pp. l 8 l , 185-13 Hardwick, i b i d . , p. 184. 14 T.W. H i l l , "The Impact df Transit: The Central. Business D i s t r i c t , " i n , Transportation: L i f e l i n e of an Urban Society, O f f i c i a l Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Urban Transportation, ed. Pittsburg Urban Transit Council (Pittsburg, Pa.: Pittsburg Urban Transit Council and U.S. Department of Transportation, 1969), p. l 4 l . 15 Kowleski, op. c i t . , p. 3• "^Prof. Michael Poulton, Planning 535 project, Spring 1978. 17 "Sea-Bus Unjams Vancouver's T r a f f i c , " Transportation Research News 73 (November-December 1977), 5 - 6 . 70 18 Wilfred Owens, Transportation f o r C i t i e s (Washington, D.C: The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1976), PP- 3 1 - 4 0 . 19 S. Mullerhelm and E. Laks, F e a s i b i l i t y Study of Ferry Mass Transit Across  Burrard Inlet (Vancouver, B.C.: By the Authors, 1972), p. 5. 20 Roman Krzyczkowski, Over-the-Water Program Design Volume 1 (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-216-068, 1971), pp. 1-3-21 R.J. Colleran and W.J. Funge, "The Forgotten Resource: Waterbourne Transportation," i n Second International Waterborne Transportation Conference  Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1977), p. 37-22 A l v i n Cox, "The Role of Waterborne Transportation i n the New York Metropolitan Area," Hover Craft and Hydrofoil, v o l . 17 #2 (November 1977) 25. 23 Colleran and Funge, op. c i t . , p. 34. 24 Cox, op. c i t . , p. 25 25 Krzyczkowski, Volume 3, op. c i t . , p. 133. 26 Brian S u l l i v a n , Preliminary Plan: Immediate Improvements to Public  Transportation i n Greater Vancouver, a report f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (Ottawa: Spa t i a l Dynamics, Ltd., 1971), PP- 254 - 255. 27 Personal Conversation with Mr. Charles Spratt, Seabus Manager, on January 5, 1979 28 Mullerheim and Laks, op. c i t . , p. 1. 29 S.M. Kowleski, "Immediate and Long-Term Outlook f o r Ferry System Operations," Memorandum to the Committee of the Whole. San. Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , A p r i l 27, 1978, p. 2. 30 CA. Spratt and B.E. S u l l i v a n , The Burrard Inlet F e r r i e s : The Development  of a Waterborne Rapid-Transit Service (Vancouver, B.C.: 1977), p. 3. 31 A.D. L i t t l e , F e a s i b i l i t y Study of San Francisco-Marin County Ferry  System (San Francisco: A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., 1969), p. 146. 32 S.M. Kowleski, "The Golden Gate Ferry System," i n Second International  Waterbourne Transportation Conference Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1977), p. 125. 33 Mullerheim and Laks, op. c i t . , p. 2. 34 Fredrick A. C u r t i s , "Economics of Water Transportation f o r South Shore Work Trip Commuters to Boston," i n Second International Waterborne. Transpor- t a t i o n Conference Procedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1977), p. 637. Cox, op. c i t . , p. 25. 71 Mullerhelm and Laks, op. c i t . , p. 3• 37A.D. L i t t l e , op. c i t . , pp. 145 - 146. qQ M. Reardon, "Commuter Boats i n Boston Harbor," i n Second International  Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, ed. American Society of C i v i l Engineers (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1977), p. 74. 39 -1-7"Proposed Ferry System Backed," The C i t i z e n . August 26, 1968, p. 1. 4 0 " I t ' s Airy by Ferry," Business Week, 1702, A p r i l 14, 1962, 39-4l Reardon, op. c i t . , p. 76 42 "North Shore Ferry Service Planned," The Vancouver Sun, August 20, 1968, p. 1. 43 Reardon, op. c i t . , p. 76 44 Reardon, ibid.'-,- - p. 75 45 Telephone conversation with Mr. Tom Matoff. 46 ' r-"Cable Ferries to Ply Port," The Province. January 29, 1969, p. 25. 4 7 " F e r r y Service Starts Sept. 9" The C i t i z e n , August 21, 1968, p. 1. 4 8 "Cable Ferry Urged f o r 1st Narrows," The Vancouver Sun, October 24, 1968, p. 15; and "Promoter Slams Span, Hauls i n Cable Ferry," The Province, A p r i l 10, 1969, (xerox). 49 Reardon, op. c i t . , p. 71, 75. 50 I t ' s A i r y . . . , " op. c i t . , p. 39• 51 "Welcome Back Ferry," The C i t i z e n , August 21, 1968, p. 6. 5 2 " F e r r y . . . , " The C i t i z e n , August 21, 1968, p. 1. 53 Reardon, op. c i t . , pp. 74-76. J "Ferry...," The C i t i z e n , August 21, 1968- p. 1. 55 r "Harbor Ferry Service Starts," The Province, September 7, 1968, p. 25. 56 "Cross-Harbor Ferries Get New Schedule," The Vancouver Sun, October 3, 1968, p. 11. 57 Reardon, op. c i t . , p. 75 58 "Cable F e r r i e s . . . , " The Province, January 29, 1968, p. 25; Associated Engineering Services, Ltd., Burrard Inlet Ferry Crossing Study, a report prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t ((Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1971), P- 6; and a telephone conversation with Mr. Graham Clark, Harbour F e r r i e s , Ltd., on January 2, 1979. ifA.D. L i t t l e , op. c i t . , p. 63. 72 59 City of North Vancouver, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council, held i n the Council Chambers, City H a l l , on Monday, August 19, 1968, at 8:12 p.m.: and City of North Vancouver Minutes of the Regular Meeting of City Council held i n the Council Chamber, on Tuesday, September 3rd, 1968, at 8:05 p.m. ^Conversation with Mr. Graham Clark. "^4teardon, op c i t . , p. 74. 62 Reardon, i b i d . , p. 75. 3 64 Conversation with Mr. Graham Clark. 65 Reardon, op, c i t . , pp. 75, 76. 66 S.M. Kowleski, " I m m e d i a t e " op. c i t . , Exhibit A, p. 1. ^Conversation with Mr. Tom Matoff. 68 Conversation with Mr. Charles Spratt. 69 r Reardon, op. c i t . , p. 76. 70 Stanwick Corporation, Richmond-Manhattan Marine Transportation Study (Arlington, Va.: Stanwick Corporation, 1968). 71 Development Planning Commission,.Dartmouth Ferry Study. Prepared f o r the City of Dartmouth (Dartmouth,.N.S.: City of Dartmouth, 1976). 72 Urban Transportation and Planning Associates, Inc., Park-and-Ride, Park- and-Paddle, F e a s i b i l i t y Study (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-229-750, 1973). 73 Telephone conversation with Mr. Larry Ward, Assistant General Manager of the Urban Transit Authority (Vancouver), on February 21, 1979-74 Spratt and Su l l i v a n , op. c i t . , pp. 1, 2. 75 Kowleski, "Ferry Transit...," op. c i t . , p. 2. 76 Kowleski, "Intermediate...," op. c i t . , Exhibit A, p. 1. i 78, 77 Kowleski, "Ferry Transit...," op. c i t . , p. 4 New York City Transportation Administration, The Operation of Hovercraft  i n the New York City Metropolitan Area. (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-251-235, 1975), pp. 6 - 9 . ^A.D. L i t t l e , op. c i t . , Chapter 4. 80 Development Planning Associates Limited, op. c i t . , part 1, section I I I . 73 81 Conversation with Mr. Charles Spratt. 82 John N. Case, The People Mover ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Case E x i s t o l o g i c a l Laboratories Ltd., [19751)} pp. 2 -~3-On Kowleski, "Perry Transit...," op. c i t . , pp. 1, 5• 84 Cox, op. c i t . , p. 22. 85 New York City Transportation Administration, op. c i t . , pp. v i - v i i . 8^S.D. Phraner, Waterborne Access to Gateway and Other Waterfront Recreation  by Passenger Barge/Tugboat Combinations Interim Technical Report (New York.: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1977)', pp. 2 - 6. Oy Development Planning Commission, op. c i t . , Part 3, section 1. 88 Arthur Erickson.Architects, Granville Waterfront Interchange, a report prepared f o r the Bureau of Transit Services (Vancouver, B.C.: Arthur Erickson Architects, 1974), Section 2, pp. 18 - 29. 89 Conversation with Mr. Charles Spratt. o 74 CHAPTER FOUR POLICIES TO INCREASE FERRY PATRONAGE Introduction: Policy D e f i n i t i o n For the purposes of t h i s t h e s i s , "policy" has been defined, following the Oxford Dictionary, as "a course of action adopted by government", either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . A poli c y framework w i l l be taken to mean a set of p o l i c i e s that are complementary and intended to promote a s p e c i f i c type of outcome or response. The development of a policy framework requires a series of p o l i c i e s , which i n turn are formulated through a policy-making process that selects or l i n k s together transportation planning techniques or devices. In themselves, these planning devices are but a set of generalizations and abstractions — princ i p l e s of t r a n s i t operation, h i s t o r i c trends and service objectives. P o l i c i e s propose a way to exploit these planning devices to achieve some policy ends. The policy ends that are the subject of t h i s chapter are increased ferry patronage on e x i s t i n g routes and maximized pat-ronage on new ferry routes. The magnitude of the intended increase i n pat-ronage i s based on the goals and objectives adopted by government toward the ferry concept. I t i s also dependent upon the relationship to the larger goals and objectives of a t r a n s i t system and of personal transportation, whether these p o l i c i e s are components of the o v e r a l l t r a n s i t p o l i c y and s p e c i f i c a l l y of over-the-water segments, would have s i g n i f i c a n t bearing upon the potential r o l e of a passenger ferry i n an urban area. P o l i c i e s to increase Ferry Ridership A synthesis of findings about the history of the ferry industry, the claims by the ferry advocates and the events surrounding ferry r e v i t a l i z a t i o n were merged with the basic tenets of t r a n s i t operation to develop a set of 75 p o l i c i e s capable of increasing ferry, ridership. Not only does t h i s section set down a number of courses of action, but specifies p a r t i c u l a r planning devices that can be used to achieve desired pol i c y ends. In the wider sense, these planning.devices are considered to be p o l i c i e s as w e l l . Three types of policy w i l l be considered: Service policy (or operating factors) that deal with scheduling, frequency, etc.; Amenity p o l i c i e s (or amenity factors) that pertain to system attractiveness and convenience; and Indirect p o l i c i e s (access factors) that concern reaching the ferry system. These types of policy are applied to s i x broad components of the ferry t r a n s i t concept: (1) User demand, (2) Operations, (3) Terminals, (4) Vessels, (5) Marketing and (6) Land Use p o l i c i e s . Emphasis i s placed on the l a t t e r f i v e . User Demand In specifying p o l i c i e s to increase r i d e r s h i p , i t i s necessary to iden-t i f y a market to be addressed. Potential t r a n s i t markets include commuter, shopper, recreational, and le i s u r e t r a v e l l e r s . Because t r a n s i t t r a v e l i s predominantly work t r i p s , user demand i s discussed i n terms, of the commuter market group. This market may be subdivided into captive users and choice users. Those who are captive to t r a n s i t are either too young or too old to drive, do not have a licence, or have no access to a car, and must re l y on t r a n s i t for t h e i r mobility. In the opposite respect, those not served or provided with reasonable access to t r a n s i t are termed captive to car, because they must use t h e i r private automobile to commute. The t h i r d group of users f a l l i n between, having a choice of taking a car or public t r a n s i t to t h e i r work destination. These t r i p makers are ca l l e d choice users. Therefore, the p o l i c i e s considered l i m i t t h e i r focus to commuters who are or who can become choice users with the introduction of a suitable accessible t r a n s i t l i n k . 76 In dealing with p o l i c i e s oriented toward t h i s user group, i t i s necessary to note the two directions from which p o l i c i e s can originate. F i r s t i s the user demand side. There, are p a r t i c u l a r periods of the day when the commuter wants service, provided at a certain l e v e l of q u a l i t y , with preferred a r r i v a l times, f o r a set of s p e c i f i c destinations. Second, the demand side i s mirrored by the supply side. The t r a n s i t operator re-sponds to the user demand through scheduling, route frequencies, times at which certain routes operate, number of vehicles, location of bus stops, routing and fares charged for the service. Though most p o l i c i e s to increase ridership attempt to manipulate the supply side of t r a n s i t operation, i t i s useful to b r i e f l y discuss the mechanism of consumer choice, and therefore the nature of commuter demand to be accommodated by po l i c y . There are two approaches to understanding commuter demand; (1) the theory of commuter choice and (2) the concept of the value of time. The theory of commuter choice states that each t r a v e l consumer makes a choice between the cost he i s w i l l i n g to incur for a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of t r a v e l convenience.'1' For a single destination, such as the t r i p to work, the i n -divid u a l commuter w i l l seek to optimize h i s t r a v e l path between the cheapest way, the fastest way and the most convenient way, where convenience i s measured as a factor of time saved by one mode over another and the amenities encountered enroute. There i s a l e v e l at which the commuter w i l l derive greater benefit from amenities than from time savings i n h i s t o t a l assessment of t r a v e l convenience. In addition, when a l l modes are considered, c l a s s i c a l marginal analysis conveys the idea that the more one pays, the more u t i l i t y one expects to receive out of the p a r t i c u l a r commodity consumed. But with each next increment consumed, the marginal gain to the consumer Is l e s s . Corribirdng these three ideas, a continuum representing the trade-off between convenience and cost i s obtained (see figure 1). This figure implies that 77 FIGURE 1 A consumer's trade-off between cost and convenience. Adapted From: Roman Krzyczkowski, Over the Water Program Design Volume 3 (Spri n g f i e l d , Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-216-068, 1971), p. 135. 78' when a commuter desires a higher l e v e l of convenience, he w i l l choose the next higher mode of transportation, as he no longer derives as much benefit out of time savings alone. The figure also shows that lower modes cannot compete with higher modes on the basis of the r e l a t i v e t r a v e l times ( i . e . net time savings) alone. As more people using public t r a n s i t can afford a higher l e v e l of commuting convenience, they w i l l s h i f t to automobile use. I t i s therefore evident that one area of pol i c y concern must be the provision of a higher l e v e l of convenience i n a ferry system than the public presently ex-pects from t r a n s i t . Another approach to user demand and modal choice i s through the concept 2 of the perceived value of time. Different segments of t r a v e l are known to have different values, that can be expressed as weights by multiplying the actual time of each segment by a weighting c o e f f i c i e n t . I f time spent r i d i n g i s given the value of unity, the r e l a t i v e weighting c o e f f i c i e n t s for walking to or from the o r i g i n or destination of a t r a n s i t connection i s two to three, fo r waiting at the bus stop for a t r a n s i t vehicle i s three to four, and f o r time spent i n transfering between modes or routes i s four to seven. The pre-v a i l i n g wage rate as an indicator of the average work commuter's value of time, can be used to transform the various segments of t r a n s i t and private automobile access and t r a v e l times into d o l l a r quantities that can be added to the other out-of-pocket expenses associated with the journey-to-work. This quantity i s known as the generalized cost. The simple transformation to obtain a mode-specific generalized costs (g^Q^g) I s : g = (.£ b.t.) (wage rate) + out-of-pocket costs i Where: o b^= the weight c o e f f i c i e n t associated with each access and t r a v e l segment as described above for t r a n s i t t r i p segments 79 t ^ = the actual time required f o r each segment and i = an index of the different segments of a t r i p f o r a given mode. I f * ^ t r a n s i t — g c a r f o r a P a r T j i c u l a r o r i g i n and destination, then a condition exists where the average commuter can make that t r i p by t r a n s i t f o r less than the cost f o r him to drive h i s own car. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n choice users w i l l tend to use the t r a n s i t alternative. For a range of generalized cost differences, a function i s generated which predicts the percentage of t r a n s i t users from.the t o t a l number of com-muters. In a hypothetical market portrayed by figure 2, the implementation of a policy reducing the generalized cost from a to b, would secure a 20 per-centage point increase i n the t r a n s i t share of commuter t r i p s . Therefore, the second requirement to be dealt with i n achieving an increase i n ferry patronage i s to adopt'policies that mitigate negative perceptions of ferry access, transfer and t r a v e l time, to bring the generalized cost to a l e v e l competitive with other modes. From the mechanisms of user demand i t i s possible to determine the nature of three types of p o l i c i e s s p e c i f i e d at the onset. F i r s t , service p o l i c i e s must act upon the perceived di s p a r i t y between convenience levels of t r a n s i t and car commuting. Second, i n d i r e c t p o l i c i e s must reduce both the amount of access inconvenience, and the door-to-door commuting time for potential car/ ferry or bus/ferry t r i p combinations. And t h i r d l y , the direct implications of the two user demand theories, suggest a high l e v e l of emphasis be placed upon amenity p o l i c i e s . A recent report on the Golden Gate Ferry concluded: I t i s a basic tenet i n the t r a n s i t industry that the speed of the vehicle, the frequency of service, the dependability of service, and the fare structure imposed upon the system, are p r i n c i p a l factors which affect patronage. However, i n today's t r a n s i t market, another important key to public a c c e p t a b i l i t y , whether i t be a bus, t r a i n or f e r r y , i s the amenity factor.3 80 percent of t o t a l t r a v e l by t r a n s i t 1 0 0 % _ L 0 f a s t e r by bus p o t e n t i a l choice market i n c r e a s e f a s t e r by car Generalized Cost Difference FIGURE 2. An example of increasing ridership through reduction i n the perceived travel time on transit. Adapted from: Transport Canada, The Fundamentals of Urban Transit  (Unedited Working Paper) (Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services, 1978), 6-24. 81 Operation-Oriented P o l i c i e s to Increase Perry Patronage The operational characteristics of a ferry t r a n s i t system are the most Important, most v i s i b l e and often the aspects of service that primarily att r a c t p o tential patrons. Therefore, adopting p o l i c i e s f o r the enhancement of selected ferry operation f a c i t s can have a formidable impact on increasing ridership. Operating p o l i c i e s define how the system i s to function i n order to balance demand and service goals with manpower and ferry equipment. The following s i x p o l i c i e s appear to have a p o t e n t i a l l y substantial bearing upon ferry ridership: (a) The policy on system orientation System orientation i s the degree to which the d i r e c t i o n of the ferry 4 service follows the desired commuter patterns. For a ferry system that primarily caters to journey-to-work t r i p s , the degree to which the ferry concentrates upon the central business d i s t r i c t w i l l influence the l e v e l of ridership. This p o l i c y can also be augmented by optimally oriented feeder corr-idors. Feeder routes that minimally retrogress from the desired t r a v e l orientation, w i l l a t t r a c t r i d e r s h i p . I t i s therefore necessary for the system orientation of the feeder network to follow that of the ferry system. An example of combined system orientation i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 3-(b) The policy on destination proximity The selection of a destination terminal requires maximizing the num-ber of destination opportunities within a minimum walking distance (or walking time) from the downtown terminal. This i s the basis of the policy of destination proximity. The lo c a t i o n a l decision i s based upon trading o f f downtown locations — o f f i c e complexes, commercial stores, and i n s t i t u -.tlonal f a c i l i t i e s — with envisioned user p r o f i l e . As shown i n figure 4, 82 FIGURE 3 System Orientation 83 FIGURE \i W a l k i n g Times from San F r a n c i s c o F e r r y T e r m i n a l See: P. F. S p a u l d i n g and A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , Golden Gate Commuter  F e r r y b o a t System ( S e a t t l e : P. F. S p a u l d i n g and A s s o c i a t e s , i n c . , 1970), p. 20. 84 Golden Gate Ferry planners estimated that a downtown terminal location at the old ferry landing would be within a 15 minute walking distance of 84 per cent of a l l downtown t r i p opportunities. A destination survey indicated that about 90% of a l l ferry users were i n fact destined to the financial area which i s within a 15 minute walking distance of the terminal (see figure 5). Likewise i n Vancouver, a' 1971 study of Harbour Ferry patrons shows that more than 80% of ferry t r i p destinations were within a ten minute walking distance of the ferry terminal (see figure 6). Similarly, the locational policy must stipulate that the residential terminal i s optimally located. Residential terminal location policy can stress certain locational c r i t e r i a : One policy i s to locate the terminal at a site that maximizes the number of existing commuters within some fixed radius. For West Vancouver, this policy would point to a terminal location at the bus depot i n Ambleside, where fifty-three per cent of the commuters reside i n a radius of five travel minutes by car. Alternatively, the location policy may stress the selection of a residential terminal site near to a major corridor or intersection where a majority of CBD commuters pass by. Again, for the West Vancouver situation, the location adhering to this policy would be near Taylor Way and Marine Drive, perhaps as part 'of the Park Royal complex. Finally, the locational policy may seek to balance bus access and ferry travel time to achieve some optimum among operating costs or infrastructure components. No example i s readily available for West Vancouver without constraints and calculations. These f i r s t two policies are quite inapplicable i n two cases. F i r s t , i f the systems and terminals are already i n place, and second when the dynamics of urban growth have reduced their locational and orientational advantages. Furthermore, the two policies are generally linked together. The movement of the urban activity centre i n time, does not give policy-makers 85 FIGURE 5 D e s t i n a t i o n s o f L a r k s p u r F e r r y Commuters See: Kenneth A. Hough, A n a l y s i s o f Responses to- L a r k s p u r  F e r r y Q u e s t i o n a i r e s (San F r a n c i s c o : G o l d e n Gate B r i d g e , Highway and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D i s t r i c t , [1977J ) , Map 7-86 FIGURE 6 Destination and walking times of Harbour Ferries patrons i n 1971 Based on: Associated Engineering Services Ltd., Burrard Inlet Ferry Crossing Study, a report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional Dist r i c t (Vancouver, B .C: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 197D 3 figure 1; and Arthur Erickson Architects, Granville  Waterfront Interchange, a report for the Bureau of Transit Services (Vancouver, B. C.: Arthur Erickson Architects, 1969), p. 10. 87 the f l e x i b i l i t y of changing terminal location and hence system orientation or vice versa. Minor dislocations of terminal proximity and demand system orientation may only s h i f t the required emphasis of p o l i c y to a new optimum among the group of downtown destinations described e a r l i e r . Added f l e x i b i l i t y i s accommodated by the l a s t four p o l i c y options: (c) Provision of maximum connectivity Connectivity has s l i g h t l y different meanings i n various f i e l d s i n which i t i s used. Geography associates connectivity with graph theory and node-link systems, i n order to v i s u a l i z e how w e l l nodes are inter-connected. Planning uses connectivity i n the sense of a c c e s s i b i l i t y and the ease of mobility between various interconnected locations. In t h i s section, connectivity i s defined as how. w e l l different areas of a metropolitan area 5 connected with each other and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , how accessible the res-i d e n t i a l terminal i s to i t s market area. This concept i s extended to include the degree of choice and f l e x i b i l i t y a patron has i n reaching the r e s i d e n t i a l terminal. The higher the connectivity advocated by p o l i c y , the higher i s the attractiveness of ferry use to the commuter. Operation-a l l y , higher connectivity may be achieved by: (1) increasing the number of t r a n s i t routes i n r e s i d e n t i a l area; (2) increasing route miles and system coverage; (3) increasing the number of bus stops on t r a n s i t routes; (4) increasing the number of t r a n s i t modes; and (5) allowing f o r auto access. (d) Assurance of service r e l i a b i l i t y A number of studies have indicated that service r e l i a b i l i t y i s essential to a t t r a c t t r a n s i t patrons. This extends to ferry operations as w e l l . Because a ferry operates as a major line-haul l i n k , i r r e g u l a r i t -ies i n service could have a disruptive network-wide impact, especially i n the peak rush hour. A policy should.require (1) s t r i c t adherence to 88 schedules, headways and posted crossing time; and 2) a regular preventa-t i v e maintenance program to reduce mechanical f a i l u r e of the vessel, r (e) Catering to preferred arrival/departure time In addition to a p o l i c y of destination proximity, patronage levels can also be increased i f scheduled a r r i v a l (and evening departure) times closely correspond to public preferences. Surveys by the Golden Gate Ferry indicate that a majority of commuters who do not o r d i n a r i l y use the 7 f e r r y , f i n d the schedule does not f i t t h e i r t r a v e l i n g needs. For example, the graph of preferred a r r i v a l times (see figure 7) i l l u s t r a t e s that addi-t i o n a l ferry service could be provided at 7:30, 8:00, 8:30 and 8:45. A ridership increase of 300 passengers could materialize by a policy to add these s a i l i n g s . The number of available vessels, the burden of empty return s a i l i n g s and the cost of additional service may influence an operator whether to meet each preferred a r r i v a l peak. Referring again to figure 7 5 the operator may f i n d i t advantageous to schedule the 7:30, 8:00 and 8:45 as extra runs. This assumes that many of those preferring an 8:30 a r r i v a l would not mind reaching t h e i r destination l a t e , (f) Provision of f u l l y integrated t r a n s i t Ferry ridership may be increased by integration of the t r a n s i t system with the f e r r y . The greatest ridership impact can be obtained i f t h i s network extends over an entire commuter shed. Furthermore, the integrated service requires the coordination of routes to arrive simultaneously with the a r r i v a l of the ferry and just before the ferry's departure. In other words, ferry terminals should become major timed transfer f o c a l points i n the regional network. Figure 8 i s an example of a coordinated bus route schedule, i n San Francisco. Scheduled service FIGURE 7 Histogram of preferred a r r i v a l times (from 7 = 15 to 9:10 A.M.) Adapted from: K. A. Hough, Analysis of Responses to Larkspur Ferry Questionnaires (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1977), p. 11. 90 19 R O U T E 19 t o L a r k s p u r F e r r y T e r m i n a l M a n o r — F a i r f a x — S a n A n s e l m o — R o s s C o l l e g e o f M a r i n — G r e e n b r a e L a r k s p u r F e r r y T e r m i n a l M o n d a y t h r o u g h F r i d a y e x c e p t H o l i d a y s CD .* « 2 c | ° IB i l l 5 = 3 Bn Ansatmo M c ii reenbrae c E M >rry leaves 9 - > ta Z z ! § w u- m c in a. u o c U. -1 if %r £ 5 4' 5 45 5 50 5-53 5 55 6 00 6 02 6 05 5 -'5 * ~? 5 4} 5 48 6 52 6 54 6 59 7 C2 7 0b 7 45 7 06 7 10 7 17 7 21 7 23 7 29 7 32 7 35 8 '5 806 8 10 8 17 8 21 8 23 8 29 832 8 35 9 '5 836 840 8 47 8 51 8 53 8 59 9 02 9 05 9 50 9 39 943 9 50 9 54 9 56 10 02 10 05 10 15 ' 1 C~ * 1 33 11 43 11 50 11 54 11 56 12 02 12 05 12 15 1 05 1 39 1 43 1 50 1 54 1 56 2 02 2 05 2 15 3 05 3 24 3 28 3 35 339 3 41 3 47 3 50 4 00 4 40 3 59 4 03 4 10 4 14 4 16 4 22 4 25 4 35 5 15 4 59 5 03 5 10 5 14 5 16 522 5 25 5 30 6 -0 5 34 538 5 45 5 49 5 51 5 57 6 00 6 05 6 50 629 6 33 6 40 S 44 646 6 52 6 55 700 745 19 R O U T E 19 f r o m L a r k s p u r F e r r y T e r m i n a l L a r k s p u r F e r r y T e r m i n a l — G r e e n b r a e — C o l l e g e o f M a r i n R o s s — S a n A n s e l m o — F a i r f a x — M a n o r M o n d a y t h r o u g h Fr iday e x c e p t H o l i d a y s £ 2" <z s: — « a ~ — u. > > 2" if it 5 U ' <0 C £ 2 f 5 5 - J u. is .3 C 3 6 c i 5 u 3 0> O cc o E c * tn<. >-<B i f l iii 5 = c 5 § S 6 50 7 30 7 35 7 38 7 44 7 46 7 50 7 56 8 no ~ rj."> 8 30 8 35 8 38 g i : 8 46 5 5C 8 56 9 00 8 20 9 00 9 05 9 08 3 14 9 16 9 20 9 25 9 30 9 20 10 05 10 15 10 18 10 24 10 26 10 30 10 36 10 40 11 15 12 05 12 15 12 18 12 24 12 26 12 X 12 36 12 40 1 15 2 05 2 15 2 18 2 24 2 26 230 2 36 2 40 3 10 3 55 4 00 4 03 4 09 4 11 4 15 4 21 4 25 3 50 4 30 4 35 4 38 4 44 4 46 4S0 4 56 5 00 4 45 5 25 5 30 5 33 5 39 5 41 545 5 51 5 55 520 6 00 605 6 08 6 14 6 16 6 20 6 26 6 30 6 15 6 56 700 7 03 7 09 7 11 7 15 7 21 7 25 6 55 7 40 745 7 48 7 54 7 56 800 806 8 10 750 8 35 840 8 43 8 49 8 51 8 55 9 01 9 05 FIGURE 8 S c h e d u l e o f i n t e g r a t e d b u s - f e r r y s e r v i c e Source: Golden Gate B r i d g e , Highway and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D i s t r i c t , Larks-pur F e r r y T i m e t a b l e . June LL, 1978. 91 Evaluation of Operation-Oriented P o l i c i e s General studies have been carried out to determine the comparative importance of the s i x operations oriented policies.^'^jlO,11,12 ^ ^^-^ appear that system orientation, preferred a r r i v a l schedules and r e l i a b i l i t y of service are the three strongest p o l i c i e s to increase ri d e r s h i p . The next most important pol i c y i s t r a n s i t integration. This i s followed by destina-t i o n proximity and connectivity. Generally speaking, these p o l i c i e s tend to hinge upon the conceptual variable of commutation time of the t r a n s i t system as a whole. Hence the r e l a t i v e importance of each w i l l be a function of the e x i s t i n g operating p o l i c i e s of a given ferry system; the' most important one, therefore, i s the one that i s least r e l f e c t e d i n the operation of an e x i s t i n g system. Terminal-Oriented P o l i c i e s to Increase Perry Patronage The use of mode-change f a c i l i t i e s i n urban t r i p s may be a new experience for some commuters. Certainly, i t i s w e l l known that transferring i s a major unpleasant component for bus t r a n s i t users. Therefore, terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s must minimize the disadvantage and rraximize the benefits of the transfer procedure. These benefits include the opportunity to select routes or type of access mode and to take advantage of special amenities during any spare waiting time. Patronage increasing p o l i c i e s f o r terminal use have two chief thrusts. F i r s t , they attempt to iraximize the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of the ferry system and second, to minimize the burden of the mode change process. Four p o l i c i e s are described below: (a) Provide maximum choice for access Ferry ridership can be increased by providing the user with a choice of access modes. The greater the choice, the greater i s the number of 92 attracted users. There are three basic mode access categories 1) pede-s t r i a n , 2) t r a n s i t , and 3) private automobile. Pedestrian access p r o v i -sions at the t e m i n a l should be able to accommodate walk-in and bicycle users. Transit should be provided with s p e c i a l , separate access p r i v i -leges to and from the immediate terminal area. Depending upon the ferry system capacity and the extent of the passenger shed, a variety of t r a n s i t systems can furnish terminal access. These may include: l o c a l , l i m i t e d stop and express buses, commuter r a i l , l i g h t r a i l t r a n s i t , para-transit and t a x i s ; Sizable increases i n ferry patronage may be obtained by allowing automobile access. Two forms of private automobile access can be provided: park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride. In areas where land values or space l i m i t a t i o n s prevent construction of low-cost parking f a c i l i t i e s , park-and-ride may be s t r a t e g i c a l l y placed near freeway inter-sections, i n commercial or i n s t i t u t i o n a l parking areas, provided that a free express bus service operates to the terminal, (b) Mnimization of walking distance The major function of the ferry terminal i s to f a c i l i t a t e modal transfer. The minimization of walking distances during the mode change i s one way of achieving t h i s parameter. I t also reduces the commuter's d i s -l i k e and f r u s t r a t i o n toward transferring. The physical design of the terminal must be capable of reducing distances between transferring tasks — bus alightment, station entry, purchase of t i c k e t , transfer processing, movement through t u r n s t i l e s , and boarding the ferry. The reduction of d i s -tance may be attained from one of three policy variations: psychological distance reduction by providing special amenities, physical minimization between transferring tasks, and introducihggsome form of group rapid t r a n s i t systems. This l a t t e r policy may include u t i l i z a t i o n of escalators, moving o sidewalks, horizontal elevators or parking l o t bus loops. 93 (c) Rapid and e f f e c t i v e terminal movements. The design of the terminal must f a c i l i t a t e four types of movements: pedestrian, ferry vessel, t r a n s i t feeder/distributor and automobile. P o l i c i e s must sort out these movements i n such a way that c o n f l i c t s among them are rrdnimized, and that the holding areas of each Individual movement are separated from the main flow streams. The t y p i c a l relationship among these flows i s depicted i n figure 9. Pedestrian movements, however, can be singled out as the ones r e -quiring the greatest attention. P o l i c i e s that minimize obstructions i n the passenger stream and reduce confusion about c i r c u l a t i o n patterns make the ferry system more at t r a c t i v e to new patrons. There are two p o l i c i e s applicable for t h i s purpose. F i r s t , terminal flows require separation by d i r e c t i o n — a r r i v a l s from departures, and second, the i n t e r f a c i n g flow must not have constraints that impede the rapid loading and unloading of ferry passengers. These can be achieved by one of the following boarding/ a l i g h t i n g methods: the "flow-through" process as used on Sea-Bus (see figure 10A) or by the "side-load" method u t i l i z e d on the Golden Gate Ferry (see figure 10B). (d) Provision of amenities The burden of mode transfer can be further reduced by a p o l i c y of pro-viding ample passive and functional amenity features i n the terminal. V i s u a l amenities can include special a r c h i t e c t u r a l treatment plus i n t e r i o r design and colour schemes. Together they help to create a more pleasant experience for the waiting and t r a n s f e r r i n g patrons. I n t e r i o r holding spaces such as lounges and waiting areas should d i s p e l the f e e l i n g of crowding. Windows that reveal harbour views, i n t e r e s t i n g shore side a c t i -v i t i e s and the berthing of the ferry are suitable i n t h i s respect. Certain comfort amenities, such as soft chairs, a t e l e v i s i o n , no-smoking areas, 94 BERTH PERRY RAPID TRANSIT A I TRANSFERS i LOAD/ DEPART 5= WAI r TICKETS TERMINAL ARRIVE/ UNLOAD TRANSIT ARRIVAL BAYS DESTINATION WALK-IN KISS AND RIDE PARK AND RIDE TAXI PATRONS FEEDER BUS COMMUTER RAIL Z LIGHT RAIL RAFID TRANSIT P e d e s t r i a n f l o w s V e h i c l e .flows FIGURE 9 T e r m i n a l C i r c u l a t i o n P a t t e r n s Source: P r o f . P. N a v i n , C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g 5 8 8 l e c t u r e n o t e s , 9 5 A Flow-through loading B Side Loading FIGURE 10 Ferry Loading Alternatives 96 carpets and bathrooms would reduce the discomfort of waiting to board. The waiting areas can house special amenities l i k e newspaper stands, telephones, bank-machines, small commercial concessions or other kiosks. F i n a l l y , safety amenities such as closed-circuit t e l e v i s i o n surveillance, open corridors, spacious waiting areas and f u l l y illuminated f a c i l i t i e s can enhance the image of the ferry system. Evaluation of Terminal-Oriented P o l i c i e s . The r e l a t i v e patronage increasing a b i l i t y of each policy i s highly dependent on the e x i s t i n g characteristics of a terminal and the nature of the ferry operation. I f a terminal i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y deficient i n any one of the four policy directions discussed, correction would lead to inevitable r i d e r -ship gains. I t would also encourage the f i r s t time user to return and use the ferry regularly. In a broader overview, deficiencies i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y to or from the terminal and terminal movements,- ought to be. more vigorously pursued than lack of amenities or long walking distances. A c c e s s i b i l i t y and pedestrian movement p o l i c i e s have a greater ridership increasing c a p a b i l i t y on short ferry runs, while amenity p o l i c i e s have a greater p o t e n t i a l i n i n -creasing patronage on long ferry routes. P o l i c i e s to minimize walking d i s -tance often provide only marginal patronage increases, i f used apart from other terminal or operation-oriented p o l i c i e s . Vessel-Oriented P o l i c i e s to Increase Ferry Patronage Vessel or vehicular oriented p o l i c i e s , whether applied to design or refurbishing phases, may induce a ridership increase. One author writes that ridership levels and public perceptions of t r a n s i t are highly sensitive to vehicle.design and to the l e v e l of comfort and convenience offered to the 13 passenger. 97 Ferry operators have found that the Inherent amenity, of the ferry i t s e l f plus the provided on-board amenities, have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o t e n t i a l of 14 drawing patrons. A San Francisco report predicted that ferry t r a n s i t would achieve a 30 per cent ridership gain over a t r a n s i t system with an equal com-muting time. This effect i s referred to as the "Amenity Factor." Ten vessel-oriented amenity p o l i c i e s are l i s t e d below: (a) Coordination of i n t e r i o r and exterior decor and colour schemes; (b) Extensive use of carpeting; (c) Providing s o f t , r e c l i n i n g chairs; (d) Various seating arrangements with the option of i s o l a t i o n or group conversations; (e) I n s t a l l a t i o n of viewing windows; (f) Furnishing separate smoking/non-smoking areas; (g) Having an observation area and' sun deck; (h) S e l l i n g coffee, snacks, and on evening return t r i p s , c o c k t a i l s ; ( i ) Providing the option for l i g h t entertainment — back-ground or piped music, t e l e v i s i o n and electronic. ga":;es; (j) Providing a high l e v e l of space for each passenger, comfortable dynamic characteristics and a pleasant i n t e r n a l environment (see figure 11). Perhaps the ultimate i n vessel-oriented p o l i c y , has been implemented on the Golden Gate's Larkspur ferry. The designers of the fe r r y , "placed great em-phasis on special features to attra c t commuters." The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , the ferry operators have: ...gone to a great e f f o r t to make'the ferry-boats physically comfortable and v i s u a l l y appealing. Exposed metal i s minimized to reduce noise and enhance the fe e l i n g of warmth. A l l seats are upholstered and have drop down trays for snacks or drinks. Floors are carpeted and c e i l i n g s are of acoustical t i l e . The silhouette of the vessels as w e l l as other features were care-f u l l y selected to project images of speed and excitement but 9 8 I N T E R N A L E N V I R O N M E N T ] FIGURE 11 P r i n c i p a l recommendations for levels of comfort of urban public transport vehicles. Source: C i v i l Engineering 5 8 7 lecture notes. Prof. F. Navin, September 2 5 , 1 9 7 8 . 99 with a sense of comfort.. Uniforms are required to be worn by D i s t r i c t personnel, to make t h e i r presence obvious and to project an image of professionalism. Careful selection of colors, paintings and fabrics give each of the vessels a personal touch....We also enhance the experience of the r e -gular user by providing onboard entertainment such as fashion shows, bands and an upcoming backgammon tournament. 15 Marketing P o l i c i e s to Increase Ferry Patronage Marketing p o l i c i e s have two functions. F i r s t , they must t i e together operation, terrninal and vessel-oriented p o l i c i e s to maximize t h e i r combined increasing attributes. Second, advertisement and promotional campaigns seek to penetrate, attract and influence the perceptions and attitudes of a target group of ferry commuters. Two p o l i c i e s are capable of Increasing patronage i n t h i s regard: (a) Provision of customer services This group of p o l i c i e s include the d i s t r i b u t i o n of time and fare schedules, route maps, brochures, plus the provision of telephone or v i s u a l information at bus stops, on the feeder buses, at the terminal and also on the ferry. Information handouts must be c l e a r , clever and i n f o r -mative. Schedules, for example, must be simple to understand and easy to refer to by the commuter. Pocket or wallet-sized schedules (see figure 13) have been used successfully by Golden Gate Ferries. S i m i l a r l y , the use of graphics and colour coded route maps, can simplify the access task i n the mind of the user. Figures 14 and 15 provide good examples of high quality t r a n s i t guide route maps. Visua l information at stations — which boarding gate to use, how to pay the f a r , where to catch the bus, etc. — attempt to d i s p e l l the new ferry commuter's fear of "getting l o s t " or being l a t e , or looking f o o l i s h casting about for directions. Boarding and fare payment instructions for Sea-Bus at the Granville Water Front Interchange (the Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l terminal) are shown In figure 12. ( i n the pocket) 100 S A U S A U T O G O L D E N GATE FERRY T e l e p h o n e s : S . F . 3 3 2 - 6 6 C 0 - M o r i n 4 S 3 - 2 1 0 0 S c h e d u l e N o . 2 6 - E f f e c t i v e D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 8 S e r v i c e t o o n d f r o m S . F . F e r r y B u i l d i n g W E E K D A Y S ( e x c e p t h o l i d o y s ) S o u s o l i t o S . F . S . F . S o u s o l i t o L v . A r r . L v . A r r . 7:15 7:45 7:50 8:20 8.25 8.55 10 :25 10:55 1 J .05 11:25 11 :45 1 2 : 1 5 1 2 : 2 5 • 1 2 : 5 5 1 : 1 0 1 : 4 0 1 : 5 5 2 : 2 5 2 : 3 5 3 : 0 5 3 : 1 5 3 : 4 5 3 : 5 5 4 : 2 5 4 : 4 5 5 : 1 S 5 : 3 0 6 : 0 0 6 : 1 0 6 : 4 0 6 : S 0 7 : 2 0 7 : 3 0 8 : 0 0 8 : 1 0 8 : 4 0 S A T U R D A Y , S U N D A Y A M D H O L I D A Y S S o u s o l i t o S . F . S . F . S o u s o l i t o L v . A r r . L v . A r r . 9 20 9:50 10:C0 10:30 10:40 11:10 11:25 11:55 1 2 : 1 5 1 2 : 4 5 1 : 0 0 1 : 3 0 1 : 4 0 2 . 1 0 2 : 2 5 2 . 5 S 3 : 1 5 3 : 4 5 4 : 0 0 4 : 3 0 4 : 4 0 5 : 1 0 5 : 2 5 5 : 5 5 6 : 1 5 6 : 4 5 7 : 0 0 7 : 3 0 7 : 4 0 8 : 1 0 8 : 2 0 8 : 5 0 H c l i d a y s - N e v . Y c : r , V. c s r i r . g t c n , M e m o r i a l , I n a c ~ £ - ; ^ n ; e c i d L c ' r o f D c y s NO SERVICE ON THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS DAYS G O L D E N GATE FERRY S c h e d u l e N o . 2 6 - E f f e c t i v e D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 8 S e r v i c e t o o n d f r o m S . F . F e r r y B u i l d i n g W E E K D A Y S ( e x c e p t h o l i d o y s ) L a r k s p u r S . F . S .F . L a r k s p u r L v . A r r . L v . A r r . 6:05 6.45 6:50 7.30 7:05 7:45 7:50 8.30 7 : 3 5 8:15 8:20 9:00 8:35 9:15 9:20 10:05 9:C5 9:50 10:10 10:50 10:55 1 1:40 1 1:45 1 2 : 3 5 1 2 : 4 5 1 : 3 5 1 : 4 5 2 : 3 S 2 : 5 0 3 : 4 0 3 : 4 5 4 : 3 5 3 : 5 0 4 : 3 0 4 : 4 5 5 : 2 5 4 : 3 5 5 : 1 5 5 : 2 0 6 : 0 0 5 : 3 0 6 : 1 0 6 : 1 5 6 : 5 5 6 : 0 5 6 : 5 0 6 : 5 5 7 : 4 5 7 : 0 0 7 : 5 0 7 : 5 5 8 : 4 5 S A T U R D A Y , S U N D A Y A N D H O L I D A Y S L a r k s p u r S .F . S . F . L a r k s p u r L v . A r r . L v . A r r . 10:50 1 1:40 1 1:50 1 2 : 4 0 1 2 : 5 0 1 : 4 0 1 : 5 0 2 : 4 0 2 : 5 0 3 : 4 0 3:50 4 : 4 0 4 : 5 0 5 : 4 0 5:50 6 : 4 0 H O L I D A Y S - SEE O T H E R S I D E FIGURE 13 Golden Gate's pocket s i z e d f e r r y s c h e d u l e Source: Golden Gate B r i d g e , Highway and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D i s t r i c t , 1978 101 (SEE XEROX COPY ON NEXT PAGE) FIGURE 14 Sausalito Ferry Feeder Route Map Source: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , Golden Gate  Transit Guide (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1977)> p. 6-7 (SEE XEROX COPY ON NEXT PAGE) FIGURE 15 Larkspur Ferry Feeder Route Map Source: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , Golden Gate  Transit Guide (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1977), pp. 14-15 o to 103 (b) Sales promotions Customer awareness and appreciation of ferry service as an a l t e r -native to the car or other modes of t r a n s i t , i s a primary step i n i n -creasing patronage. Promotions must focus on operation, terminal and vessel cha r a c t e r i s t i c plus the inherent amenities of fresh a i r , a beaut-i f u l view, continuous r i d e , no congestion, no d r i v i n g f r u s t r a t i o n , etc. Radio and newspaper advertising and mailing of schedules to each house-hold i n the ridership shed, are an e f f e c t i v e means of sales promotion. Two sample brochures (figures 16 and 17, i n pocket) are examples of Sea-Bus promotional campaigns. Various promotional a c t i v i t i e s can be designed i n encouraging people to t r y the f e r r y , such as passing out free t i c k e t s , conventional media advertising, on-board contests and the l i k e . Land-Use P o l i c i e s to Increase Perry Patronage A medium to long term policy would encourage or actually i n s t i g a t e land use planning to locate t r i p generating f a c i l i t i e s i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the r e s i d e n t i a l and downtown terminals. Location of t r i p generators at the r e s i d e n t i a l terminal may increase ridership by inducing use of the ferry upon i t s return t r i p s from the downtown. Care must be taken to select such f a c i l i t i e s that would not detract from the number of downtown destined patrons. These would include large shopping malls, branches of u n i v e r s i t i e s , major suburban college campuses, t o u r i s t and c u l t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s , plus recreation and commercial sports stadiums. Downtown terminals could become t r i p gener-ators i n themselves i f b u i l t as part of an o f f i c e building complex. Above or below ground concourses could l i n k the terminal with e x i s t i n g waterfront development as w e l l . An example of integrating a ..ferry terminal to downtown employment areas by a pedestrian walk way system, i s i l l u s t r a t e d by a Halifax proposal i n figure 18. A Dartmouth scheme to develop an o f f i c e complex as FIGURE 18 S i t e p l a n o f H a l i f a x f e r r y t e r m i n a l See: Development P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t e s , L t d . H a l i f a x - D a r t -mouth F e r r y Study (Dartmouth, N.S.: C i t y o f Dartmouth, 1976), E x h i b i t I I -2 . 1 0 5 FIGURE 19 S i t e p l a n o f Dartmouth f e r r y t e r m i n a l Development P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t e s , L t d . , H a l i f a x - P a r t m o u t h  F e r r y S t u dy (Dartmouth, U.S.: C i t y o f Dartmouth, 1T(b), E x h i b i t 111-1+. 1 06 FIGURE 20 San F r a n c i s c o f e r r y t e r m i n a l f a c i l i t i e s See: P. F. Spaulding and A s s o c i a t e s , Inc., Golden Gate Commuter Fe r r y b o a t System ( S e a t t l e : P. F. Spaulding and A s s o c i a t e s , Inc.,' 19Y0), p. i|0. 107 part of a new ferry terminal i s shown.in figure 19. F i n a l l y , a combination of both e x i s t i n g and ferry related development i n a downtown San Francisco, i s shown i n figure 20. Ferry terminal development can assure a steady, long term source of increasing patronage. Toward the Selection of a Policy Framework Wxth the i n d i v i d u a l p o l i c i e s i d e n t i f i e d , i t i s possible to select an appropriate policy framework. Depending on the operating goals and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds, there i s an unlimited number of variations to the policy format that can be implemented. The process of selecting the most favourable policy framework requires an assessment of the combined cost-effectiveness of each p o l i c y , accounting for the various physical constraints of the crossing, and keeping patronage to within the capacity l i m i t a t i o n of the system. In the f i r s t instance the effectiveness of patronage increasing p o l i c i e s may d i f f e r depending upon whether a system i s established or i n the design phase. I t i s i n t u i t i v e that a system having a high l e v e l of convenience would not benefit as much from adopting a policy to increase convenience as would a system with a lesser degree of convenience. Assuming the same expenditure i s involved i n each i n -stance, the p o l i c y would be more cost-effective, for the l a t t e r than for the former, system. I f a function f (o,t,v,m) could express the unit cost of increasing the patronage (p) for each operation-oriented (o), terminal-oriented ( t ) , vessel-oriented (v) and marketing (m) p o l i c y , then the most cost-effective policy framework would minimize t h i s function with respect to cost (E), or: 108 §=W, [f<°>t,v,m)] where the function i s a mirrimum when BE U t h e o r e t i c a l l y , given a set of equations that specify the system, operating and physical constraints, an optimum policy framework can be obtained from the solution to t h i s expression. A less rigorous way of assembling a polic y framework i s based on trade-offs among policy concerns. When dealing with the variable of distance, d i f -ferent p o l i c i e s are applicable to short and long ferry runs. The basic trade-o f f becomes — the longer the t r a v e l distance (less time savings), the more importance i s attached to increasing on-board amenities. Stated i n another way, a person i s w i l l i n g to forego time saving i f an adequate amount of vessel amenities are provided. A second trade-off involves vessel speed. For t r i p s that take a long period of time, reduction of t r a v e l time can be achieved by u t i l i z i n g a vessel technology capable of s a i l i n g faster. The trade-off i s — the longer the commuting time, the more advisable i t i s to increase the block speed of the f e r r y . A t h i r d trade-off states — the shorter the route d i s -tance (tra v e l time) the more important are savings i n loading/unloading, waiting and accessing at the terminal. Hence, a clear d i s t i n c t i o n arises for patronage increasing p o l i c i e s , when distance i s involved: the longer the route, the more success can be obtained by vessel-oriented p o l i c i e s ; while the shorter the route, more stress should be placed upon terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s . Trade-off performed when the distance variable i s a constant, emphasizes the importance of both operation-oriented and terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s . For short ferry routes, the f i r s t trade-off i s — the more continuous the ferry r i d e , the less the disamenity of accessing and transfe r r i n g becomes to the commuter. Referring to the distance-time diagram i n figure 21, a commute by 109 FIGURE 21 Distance-time diagram comparing a car t r i p with a ferry t r i p . 110 D i s t a n c e CBD 4 tentnnal t e r m i n a l d w e l l t i m e r t i n i t i a l c a p a c i t y — two beat, l o a d s subsequent c a p a c i t y .— t h r e e boat, l o a d s FIGURE 2 2 E f f e c t o f h i g h e r . s p e e d and s h o r t e r d w e l l time on f e r r y c a p a c i t y i n t h e peak d i r e c t i o n I l l f erry replaces, the stop-and-go pace of car t r a v e l ( s o l i d l i n e ) by.a smooth, non-stop ride (dotted l i n e ) . Ride continuity as a type of operation-oriented p o l i c y , d i r e c t l y compensates for time l o s t i n mode change. The second trade-o f f i n short route systems i s — the greater the number of access opportunities (including both mode type and bus route variety) the less inconvenient the transfer becomes. A corrolary to t h i s trade-off i s — the less the access opportunities, the more terminal amenities should be provided. Both these trade-offs s i g n i f y the importance of terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s to short d i s -tance ferry routes. Any envisioned patronage increase must l i e within the proposed physical or operational capacity of the system. One way of accommodating extra r i d e r -ship i s to add vehicles and increase the frequency of service. The added number of s a i l i n g s translates into a greater t o t a l crossing capacity. However, operation-oriented p o l i c i e s , on short ferry routes, can be used to increase the system's over-the-water capacity, without adding new vessels. The f r e -quency of the system can be increased by: 1 ) increasing the block speed i n order to shorten s a i l i n g time; 2) reduce the time consumed loading and un-loading passengers; 3) reduce the layover ( i d l e ) time; and 4) any combination of the above. By way of another time-distance diagram (figure 2 2 ) , a hypo-t h e t i c a l system's capacity can be shown to increase from two to three ship loads of passengers, by implementing a l l three of the operation-oriented p o l i c i e s . Findings A number of potential policy options, capable to increase ferry patronage have been i d e n t i f i e d . They include p o l i c i e s that are vessel-oriented, opera-tion-oriented, terminal-oriented, and re l a t e to marketing and land use. Their effect i s dependent on which i n d i v i d u a l p o l i c i e s are assembled into a poli c y 112 framework. The type of terminal, operating practices and system goals also influence the impact of the policy framework. Selection of the policy framework can best be achieved by a cost-effectiveness analysis. However, the mechanism of cost-effectiveness can be approximated q u a l i t a t i v e l y , based upon certain trade-offs. Five simple trade-offs were established: 1) distance (time) with amenity; 2) time with speed; 3) t r a v e l time with loading/unloading time; 4) ride quality with transfer convenience and; 5) transferring with access opportunities. The cost-effectiveness of a patronage increasing policy i s also con-strained by the system's physical capacity. Enlarging capacity requires more frequent over-the-water crossing. This can be achieved by adding vessels or by operating the system more e f f i c i e n t l y — quicker loading and unloading, higher block speed, less layover. In conclusion, the i d e n t i f i e d p o l i c i e s and the applicable trade-off parameters are summarized i n the table that follows. \I3 SYNOPSIS OF POLICIES TO INCREASE FERRY PATRONAGE TABLE 1 ORIGIN* POLICY DISTANCE* . TRADE OFFS Operations-Oriented R H 0 H R 0 R 0 H R 0 System Orientation Destination Proximity Connectivity Service R e l i a b i l i t y Preferred A r r i v a l Times Integrated Transit Feeders s/1 time, distance s time s access s/1 time, distance s/1 time s time, access Terminal-Oriented H A 0 A 0 A 0 H R 0 R 0 A R 0 R 0 0 R 0 H R 0 A H 0 A H R 0 A 0 R A H 0 R 0 0 0 • Access Choice - t r a n s i t - park-and-ride - park-and-ride hybrid - kiss-and-ride • Mnimize Walking Distance - physical design - perceptional devices - technological systems • Terminal Flows - separated by mode and d i r e c t i o n - eff e c t i v e i n t e r f a c i n g • Amenities - v i s u a l - design - comfort - safety Ve s se1-Oriented • Amenities - v i s u a l - design - comfort - safety - special Marketing • Customer Services - inform the public - fare payment schemes • Promotion s/1 access s/1 access s/1 access, time. s/1 access s access, time s/1 access s/1 access, time s/1 access s access s/1 time, access, distance s/1 time, access, distance 1- time, access, distance 1 s/1 1 s/1 s/1 s/1 time, distance time, distance time, distance time access Land Use Ferry Served Development * Key: H = H i s t o r i c a l ; A = Advocate; R = R e v i t a l i z a t i o n 0 = Operating P r i n c i p l e s , s = short distance, 1 = long distance. 114 FOOTNOTES "^ Ttoman Krzyczkowski, Over-the-Water Program Design •> Volume 3 . (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-216-068 197D-, pp. 1 3 7 - 1 4 3 . 2 C i v i l Engineering 587 lecture, by Professor F. Navin on September 2 7 , 1278. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , Golden'-Gate  Ferry (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation Di s t r i c t , 1 9 7 9 ) , p. 12-. 4 Gregory L. Thompson, A Macro Analysis of Variables Influencing Transit Usage (Victoria, B.C.: Br i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit Services, 1 9 7 3 ) , p. 7 . 5 Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, Transportation Services Measures, a report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . (Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1 9 7 3 ) , p. 1 - 2 . Gordon J. Fielding, Douglas P. Blankenship and Timothy Tardiff, "Consumer Attitudes Toward Public Transit." Transportation Research Board 563 (1976) p. 2 3 . ' ' 7 Kenneth A. Hough, Analysis of Responces to Larkspur Ferry  Questionnaire (San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transport-ation D i s t r i c t , [1977] ), p. A -5 . Thompson, op. Cit., pp. 14-16. 9 Hough, op. c i t . , pp. 1 0 - 1 7 . "^ A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., Feasibility Study of San Francisco - Marin Ferry  System . (San Francisco: A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., 1969), p. 3 3 . "^J.J. Haynes, "Public Attitude Toward Transit Features and Systems." Transportation Research Board-649 (1977) 4 8 . 12 j-^Ricardo Dobson and Mary Lynn Tischer, "Comparative Analysis of Determinants of Modal Choices by CBD Workers," Transportation Research  Board 649 (1977) 1 0 . 13 Transport Canada, The Fundamentals of Urban Transit (Unedited  Working Paper) (Ottawa,: Department of Supply and Services, 197#), p . 8 - 1 . 14 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, Modal Split Model, prepared for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. (San Fran-cisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , [ 1 9 7 0 ] ) . p. 15 Personal correspondence from Mr. Jerome M. Kuykendall, Assistant General Manager for Planning and Research, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation Disrict, March 13, 1 9 7 9 . 115 CHAPTER FIVE WEST VANCOUVER FERRY CASE STUDY Introduction: Geography, Demographics and Transportation West Vancouver i s an affluent r e s i d e n t i a l suburb northwest of downtown Vancouver (see figure 1). The high coastal range mountains constrain r e s i -d e n t i a l neighbourhood to within a mile of waterfront. In the eastern part of the D i s t r i c t , the b u i l t up area extends to the 1200' elevation, and f o l -lows the Capilano Canyon to Cleveland Dam. West Vancouver includes a series of v i l l a g e s — Horseshoe Bay, C a u l f e i l d , West Bay, Dundarave and Ambleside. Park Royal i s a major commercial mall, that attracts customers from much of the Lower Mainland. The 1976 census population of West Vancouver i s 37,389- About 72 per cent of the population i s over the age of 19 and 20 per cent i s over the age of 60. The size of the labour force i s estimated at 21,930. The average annual income based upon tax returns f i l e d i n West Vancouver i s $15,478.1 The passenger transportation system i n West Vancouver consists of roads, highways and buses. A g r i d i r o n road system i s imposed on the Ambleside-Dundarave area, which gives way to a contoured road system i n the B r i t i s h Properties. Marine Drive i s the major east-west urban a r t e r i a l , l i n k i n g a l l the waterfront v i l l a g e s between Horseshoe Bay and the Lions' Gate Bridge. The primary north-south a r t e r i a l i s Taylor Way, between Park Royal and the B r i t i s h Properties. Secondary north-south a r t e r i a l s are 26th and 15th streets. The Upper Levels Highway i s a major east-west p r o v i n c i a l expressway to Horseshoe Bay. Taylor Way l i n k s the highway to the Lions' Gate Bridge. Transit i n the community i s provided by the municipality owned "Blue Bus System". Four fix e d routes are operated, three of which are trans-bridge service to Vancouver. During the morning two hour peak, 21 - 25 B R I T I S H P R O P f B T i r s / C A P I L A N O E S F A I E S : • SltMIMWC 'i. ..,r J i n 4 r— 1 h-1 FIGURE 1 Vancouver and West Vancouver Adapted from: A. Kopystynski, Analysis of Selected C i t i z e n Survey Questions (West Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Development and Planning, 1978), Figure 1. 117 buses operate-into the c i t y . In the evening rush, 25 - 30 buses provide a return t r i p . A majority of t r a n s i t and auto t r i p s are f o r work purposes. Nearly three-quarters of them are destined to points outside of the West Vancouver. Work t r i p s to downtown Vancouver comprise 48 per cent of a l l destinations. By mode, 54 per cent of a l l car t r i p s and 95 per cent of a l l bus t r i p s are destined f o r downtown Vancouver. This translates into about 10,000 d a i l y 2 work t r i p s to the downtown from West Vancouver. Case Study: West Vancouver Ferry Background The issue of a West Vancouver Ferry, from Ambleside to Vancouver (CBD) has been shrouded i n p o l i t i c a l uncertainty and secrecy. The f i r s t suggestion for some form of cross-Inlet ferry service, came i n the 1971 K e l l y Report. Sul l i v a n discussed the po t e n t i a l of a ferry service between Vancouver and North Vancouver i n his bus improvement report of the same year. Following the ele c t i o n of the NOP as the P r o v i n c i a l government i n 1971, various G.V.R.D. and P r o v i n c i a l in-house discussions about t r a n s i t took place. Questions revolved around which of the two former ferry routes were to - be selected — Ambleside or North Vancouver. By 1973, the ferry concept had been up-graded from that of "water t a x i " to the status of a "major l i n k " i n the regional t r a n s i t network. F i n a l l y , without any p r i o r consultation with 4 West Vancouver o f f i c i a l s , the North Vancouver route was chosen by 1975. West Vancouver had long favoured some form of additional cross-Inlet capacity. With the r e j e c t i o n of a t h i r d bridge crossing i n 1973s emphasis was placed on selective road construction and the development of some sort of rapid t r a n s i t l i n k between West Vancouver and downtown Vancouver. In a 1978 Council memorandum, former Mayor Peter Jones stated, "...on an interim 118 basis, such a [transit o n l y ] f a c i l i t y could consist of an improved bus fe r r y - t r a n s i t system,...moving people from various North Shore places i n c l u -5 ding 'downtown' West Vancouver to 'downtown' Vancouver...." .Provincial authorities and the Urban Transit Authority (formerly the Bureau of Transit Services) offered no comment about a future option to extend the Sea-Bus or a provision of any other form of rapid t r a n s i t to West Vancouver.^ This case study singles out the option of providing Sea-Bus to West Vancouver for a f e a s i b i l i t y analysis. Physical Description The proposed ferry route would operate from the foot of 14th Avenue i n West Vancouver, to the e x i s t i n g Sea-Bus terminal on the South Shore of Burrard I n l e t i n downtown Vancouver. The West Vancouver r e s i d e n t i a l terminal i s s i t e d at the present bus depot property which was the o r i g i n a l terminal location for the Ambleside, fe r r y . The route length i s 3-5 nautical (4.0 statute), miles. A t h i r d of the s a i l i n g route w i l l be on the waters of the Outer Harbour, and w i l l require passage under the Lions' Gate Bridge. Assuming a block speed of 13.5 to 14 knots (15-16 miles) per hour, the crossing can be completed i n about f i f t e e n minutes. The vessel to be used for t h i s proposed service i s the Case Existolog-i c a l Sea-Bus catamaran ferry that i s currently operating on the North Vanc-ouver route. In t h i s manner, the two routes could u t i l i z e a common South Shore terminal and the North Shore maintenance berth. The proposed West Vancouver ferry terminal would be s i m i l a r to the f l o a t i n g terminals i n use by Sea-Bus at North Vancouver and Vancouver, ( f u l l e r description provided i n Appendix 5)• 119 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Trade-offs and Policy Framework The system i s a short haul route, s i m i l a r to the Sausalito f e r r y , but somewhat longer than the l o c a l Sea-Bus service. The distance does not require a high speed vessel technology; a Sea-Bus type vehicle would s u f f i c e . Since i t i s a short run, few vessel amenities are required. However, a rearrange-ment of e x i s t i n g Sea-Bus seating, to allow for group conversations and f o l d down trays should be a pol i c y item. S a i l i n g time i s s u f f i c i e n t to allow for sale of coffee and pre-packaged snacks on morning service and cocktails on the evening return service. Overall, the inherent plus added amenities would have a far smaller passenger a t t r a c t i n g a b i l i t y than on the Sausalito and 7 Larkspar routes. The shortness of the route requires greater emphasis on operations policy and p o l i c i e s to reduce transfer resistance and f a c i l i t a t e quick access and i n t e r f a c i n g at the departure terminal. The f i r s t operations-oriented po l i c y must stip u l a t e that schedule preferences ought to be accom-modated as w e l l as. possible without requiring more than three vessels. Therefore, a r r i v a l s cannot be scheduled at closer than fourteen minute inte r v a l s with three sea-bus vessels. Secondly, the municipal bus network must be re-organized to complement the ferry system orientation. No pol i c y action i s required f o r system orientation or destination proximity. Thirdly, connectivity i s best achieved by stressing both car and bus access. Service may l a t e r warrant the addition of a l i g h t r a i l feeder system using B.C. Railway right-of-way, between Horseshoe Bay and the ferry terminal. Higher 1 connectivity, can be immediately achieved by u t i l i z i n g the buses diverted from trans-bridge operation, on various l o c a l feeder routes. Hence, the terminal i s to be developed as a major time transfer f o c a l point for l o c a l and B.C. Hydro North Shore buses, car users and future l i g h t r a i l . Terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s require the attainment of a medium l e v e l of 120 access i n the short run. Access choice i s to be provided by bus, park-and ride and kiss-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s . There appears to be l i t t l e need for a policy to reduce walking distances. Terminal flows, however, require special attention to reduce pedestrian and vehicular movement c o n f l i c t s with present r a i l freight and future l i g h t r a i l passenger operations. I t i s therefore necessary to keep the majority of feeder a c t i v i t i e s north of the railway tracks. The schematic i n figure 2, indicates.a .proposed design that achieves easy access, non-conflicting terminal flows and e f f e c t i v e vessel i n t e r f a c i n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Bellevue Avenue between l4th and 13th Street would become an east-bound one way, with t r a n s i t using the near side and kiss-and-ride drop-offs using the f a r side of the street. Access to the terminal would be by way of a tunnel below the railway tracks. On the south side of the tracks, the proposed LRT st a t i o n would l i n k i n to the passenger walk way. On the assumption that the present bus depot would be g moved, some park-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s could be provided adjacent to the terminal. Access for the auto users would be located i n the v i c i n i t y of the LRT terminal. However, since an at grade crossing i s required, a l t e r -nate park-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s may have to be found o f f the s i t e , with free express shuttle service to the terminal. Potential parking l o t s include open space near the Recreation Centre, and at the 15th Street and 26th Street Highway interchanges. The rather long service headways may require additional stress on providing moderate levels of terminal amen-i t i e s , and effec t i v e feeder-to-ferry i n t e r f a c i n g . Every attempt must be made to exploit e x i s t i n g and cost-free v i s u a l amenities — the natural view across the outer harbour towards Point Grey, English Bay and Stanley Park, the Lions' Gate Bridge and Centennial Seawalk. In t h e i r e n t i r e t y , the net re s u l t of these ridership p o l i c i e s are also deemed to be small when compared to the Golden Gate System. However, they appear to 121 Walk-in access Kiss-and-ride area Present "Rus Depot" \ S i t e (shaded^ (Bellevue one-way between i „ ll+th and . T3th) (Argyle p a r t i a l l y closed) Passenger waiting area Park and Ride Lot ( i f no c o n f l i c t with r a i l r i g h t of way ) Sea-Bus Terminal Scale: 1"=100» FIGURE 2 West Vancouver Terminal Schematic Adapted from base map provided by the West Vancouver Department of Development and Planning. 122 emerge greater i n magnitude than those achieved through vessel-oriented p o l i c i e s . F i n a l l y , there i s l i t t l e d i rect gain i n ridership as an outcome of marketing and land use pol i c y . Though i t w i l l be important to inform the public of altered bus operation, once regular downtown commuters become fa m i l i a r with the ferry operation, t h i s customer service w i l l lose e f f e c t i v e -ness . Longer term land use changes may resul t i n some ferry patronage increase — for example, re-zoning land near the terminal area from detached dwellings to low r i s e multiple dwellings. Return t r i p patronage could be generated by l i n k i n g the ferry terminal with fast bus or LRT service to Park Royal, 3/4 of a mile to the east. This policy would have l i t t l e or no effect on peak hour d i r e c t i o n flows, but there probably could be substantial reverse-direction commuting to Park Royal, Capilano 10.0 and other North Shore centers near Ambleside. Table 1 summarizes the selected policy framework for the West Vancouver Sea-Bus proposal. Impact of Policy Framework on Ridership Based upon the assumptions about the extent of the West Vancouver Sea-Bus amenity factor, the mode s p l i t increase as a result of the introduction of ferry service was estimated at ten percentage points over the present mode s p l i t values. Overall, the ridership increasing potential of the selected policy framework appears to have but one t h i r d of the a t t r a c t i n g p o t ential of the Golden Gate Ferries (see appendix 1, parts 8 and 9 for d e t a i l s ) . This mode s p l i t r i s e was translated into a s i x t y per cent increase i n cross-Inlet t r a n s i t patronage. Operating Costs: Methods, Comparison and Evaluation Operating costs for the Sea-Bus system i s obtained from a unitized cost 123 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF POLICY FRAMEWORK AND IMPACT ON INCREASING RIDERSHIP POLICY PART OF FRAMEWORK? IMPACT Operations-Oriented System Orientation Destination Proximity Connectivity Service R e l i a b i l i t y Preferred A r r i v a l Times Integrated Transit Feeders n.a. yes yes yes yes yes high medium high high medium Terminal-Oriented • Access Choice - t r a n s i t - park-and-ride - park-and-ride hybrid - kiss-and-ride Mnimize Walking Distance - physical design - perceptional devices - technological systems • Terminal Flows - separated by mode and dir e c t i o n - e f f e c t i v e Interfacing Amenities - v i s u a l - design - comfort - safety Vessel-Oriented yes * yes yes-yes no no yes yes yes no no n.a. medium medium high low low low medium Amenities - v i s u a l - design - comfort - safety - special no yes yes n.a. no low low Marketing Customer Services - inform the public - fare payment schemes Promotion yes yes no n.a. n.a. Land Use Ferry Served Development yes (low) Key: n.a. = not applicable * i f adopted, low impact due to long term impacts are i n parentheses space l i m i t a t i o n 124 formula, developed i n Appendix 1, part 6. Because a f i n a n c i a l statement for the ten months of operation i n f i s c a l 1977 to 1978 i s not p u b l i c l y available, B.C. Hydro's projected budget for 1978-1979 Sea-Bus service was u t i l i z e d i n stead. 1^ These costs were subdivided into hourly costs, mileage costs and berthing costs. The unit cost figures obtained are $138.05 per hour, $8.75 per mile and $22.53 per s a i l i n g . Operating costs f o r trans-bridge or feeder bus service, i s based on f i n a n c i a l and s t a t i s t i c a l data provided by the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver."1""1" The unitized operation formula, derived i n Appendix 1, part 7, divided costs into hourly costs, mileage costs and peak-hour vehicle cost. The unit costs are estimated as $10.97 per hour, $0.45 per mile and $5-55 per peak hour bus t r i p . The operating costs of three alternative scenarios were compared: (1) Ferry-only cross-Inlet service; (2) Ferry cross-Inlet with l i m i t e d trans-bridge bus service and (3) Equivalent trans-bridge bus service The r e s u l t i n g operational s t a t i s t i c s — vehicle numbers, route miles and operating time — for each scenario were developed i n Appendix 1, part 11 f o r use i n the operating cost formulas. The assumptions about Sea-Bus service — frequency, headways and s a i l i n g s — are outlined i n part 10. Total operating costs are evaluated i n parts 12 and 13. Table 2 outlines the operating s t a t i s t i c s f o r each scenario and the current (base) conditions. In terms of distance, t h i s table indicates that o v e r a l l peak-hour route miles can be decreased by the substitution of trans-bridge bus t r i p s by ferry crossings. Route distance declines by 137 miles and 81 miles i n scenarios one and two respectively, compared to base route miles. The s i g -nificance l i e s with the fact that the bus-ferry system i s capable of hand-l i n g more passengers at reduced bus operating miles. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n 125 scenario one, the system carries .1.6 times the base peak hour r i d e r s , at less than 3/4s of the o v e r a l l t r a v e l distance, with the introduction of the ferry l i n k . On the other hand, bus equivalent service would nearly t r i p l e bus mileage, from 487 to 1,282 assuming the current peak-hour ten minute headways continue, (see appendix 1, part 9) TABLE 2 CASE STUDY OF OPERATING STATISTICS Alternative Distance t r a v e l l e d i n Miles (Number of vehicles i n use) feeder bus trans-bridge bus ferry Base 0 CO) 487 (21)* 0 (0) Scenario 1 350 (29) 0 "(0) 35 (3 i n f i r s t hour) 21 (2 i n second hour) Scenario 2 230 (18) 176 (14)* 30 (2) Scenario 3 0 (0) 1 282 (74)* 0 (0) * t o t a l s of buses crossing bridge i n CBD d i r e c t i o n . Substituting the operating information into the appropriate formulas (see Appendix 1, parts 12 and 13), the morning peak-hour operating costs f o r each option are summarized i n Table 3. The differences among the operating costs are not very large, especially between the three scenarios. However, the ferry only alternative would have twice the operating cost as the current 126 base operation. The bus-ferry alternative i s less expensive than the ferry only option, but by not more than f i f t e e n per cent. The bus-equiv-alent scenario appears to be the best alternative from a s t r i c t l y f i n a n c i a l operating viewpoint."'"2 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF OPERATING COST Scenario Operating Cost i n dollar s Base Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 1 025.84 2 134.61 1 865.78 1 796.82 By transforming these operating costs into yearly estimates, a compar-ison may be performed with the operating cost of an equal capacity bridge. Based upon the calculations i n Appendix 2, the table below shows the TABLE 4 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS' Alternative 1979 Operating Cost (dollars) Ferry only 472 158 Ferry with Bus 401 734 Bus Equivalent 353 460 Bridge Equivalent 60 762 yearly expenditures on bridge operation and maintenance would be at a f i f t h of the cost of the bus equivalent scenario. True operating costs must account 127 f o r the ri g h t of way usage costs as w e l l . In the case of the ferry only a l t e r n a t i v e , waterways are free, hence there i s no cost. In the second and t h i r d alternatives, the cost associated with bridge operations must be passed on to trans-bridge bus operating cost apportioned i n terms of the capacity u t i l i z e d . This i s done i n a l a t e r section. Evaluation of Capital Costs The comparison for c a p i t a l costs i s based on the figures and c a l c u l a -tions i n Appendix 3- Leaving the apportionment of c a p i t a l expenditures i n terms of equivalent capacity requirements for the next section, the t o t a l magnitude of the c a p i t a l expenditures on infrastructure i s assessed. For bus associated options, c a p i t a l cost calculations were li m i t e d to a c q u i s i -t i o n of new buses. In scenarios one and two, no additional buses appear to be needed. For scenario three, a c a p i t a l expenditure of 2.14 m i l l i o n dollars i s envisioned for the expansion of the bus f l e e t from t h i r t y - f o u r (34) to f i f t y - f o u r (54). Expenditures for the r e s i d e n t i a l terminal i n West Vancou-ver are based upon costs experienced f o r the e x i s t i n g North and South Shore Sea-Bus terminal. Such a terminal i s estimated to cost close to 16 m i l l i o n dollars (1979). In addition to t h i s are c a p i t a l costs associated with Sea-Bus purchases. Scenario 1 requires three vessels at a t o t a l cost of 12.9 m i l l i o n , and scenario 2 requires two Sea-Buses for a t o t a l cost of 8.6 m i l l i o n current d o l l a r s . Capital costs f o r the construction of a bridge at Brockton Point was estimated from a 1970 Swan Wooster-CBA report, to cost near 220 m i l l i o n current d o l l a r s . Comparing the c a p i t a l costs f o r these three alternatives, the table below shows that the bus alternative requires the lowest expenditure. The ferry alternatives would cost eleven times more, while the bridge would exceed the bus equivalent alternative by over 100 f o l d . Amortizing these 128 c a p i t a l costs permits them to be related to operating costs on a yearly basis. This i s done i n the following section. TABLE 5 MAGNITUDE OF INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL COSTS Alternative Capital Costs i n 1979 dollars (millions) Bus equivalent Ferry options Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Bridge 2.14 28.7 24.4 218.3 Comparison and Evaluation: Total Costs The t o t a l costs are obtained by amortizing the annual c a p i t a l costs discussed i n the previous section over the l i f e t i m e of the infrastructure (or vessel) component (see Appendix 4 for d e t a i l c a l c u l a t i o n s ) , and adding t h i s to the annual operating costs, presented i n Table 4. The c a p i t a l cost i s based on apportioning that cost that i s associated with the capacity necessary to carry the designated patronage. For the ferry scenarios, the c a p i t a l costs include the West Vancouver terminal, shore f a c i l i t i e s and the required Sea-Bus vessels. No attempt was made to allocate the benefits or costs of capacity freed up on the bridge as a re s u l t of scenarios one or two. I t i s assumed that there i s enough backlog t r a f f i c , as shown i n figure 1 of Chapter three, to keep the bridge loaded during the two hour peak period of Sea-Bus operation. No c a p i t a l costs related to the use of streets by the feeder buses or use of the South Shore terminal by the West Vancouver Sea-Bus are included as they are sunk costs. Annual operating cost of the 129 ferry with bus and bus equivalent options include the bridge operating cost, apportioned i n the same manner as c a p i t a l costs. The f i n a l annual c a p i t a l and annual operating costs, plus the t o t a l cost i s summarized i n Table 6 below. TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF TOTAL COSTS i Alternative Costs: ( m i l l i o n $) Capital ' Operating TOTAL Ferry only 1.25 0.47 1-72 Ferry with buses 1.40 0.43 1.83 Bus equivalent 0.8l 0.41 1.22 Based upon the figures i n t h i s table, the bus equivalent alternative i s the most cost effective. method of transporting the designated peak-period commuters. Of the two ferry alternatives., the f i r s t i s more cost e f f e c t i v e than the second scenario — costing 1.4 times as much as the bus equivalent system and just ten per cent less than the ferry system with p a r t i a l trans-bridge bus operation. Resting upon economic factors alone, the bus equivalent alternative i s more feasible than a ferry t r a n s i t proposal. However, t h i s r e s u l t should be observed with caution. The r e l a t i v e magnitudes of t o t a l costs may change i f a different interest rate i s u t i l i -zed i n calculating the c a p i t a l recovery factor. Also, i t i s not e n t i r e l y clear i f the bus system, with the l i m i t e d l e v e l of amenities when compared with the f e r r y , can indeed achieve the ridership l e v e l of a ferry t r a n s i t system. Evaluation of Non-Quantifiable Aspects Aside from the economic evaluation, a number of non-quantifiable items 130 are associated with the ferry option as an alternative to bridges and buses fo r over-the-water transportation. In the f i r s t instance, West Vancouver commuters — both car and t r a n s i t commuters — have no other convenient route by which to reach the South Shore than by the Lions' Gate Bridge. The only other non-interrupted option, the Second Narrows Bridge, would add about nine miles to the one way West Vancouver to Vancouver CBD t r i p . The adoption of a Sea-Bus system would give the West Vancouver commuter a convenient and fast t r a n s i t contingency system. Secondly, the ferry system would insure adequate a c c e s s i b i l i t y to and from West Vancouver and points on the South Shore and Lower Mainland. The Lions' Gate Bridge i s an aging structure, that may require closure and replacement some time i n the future. Secondly, an accident such as a ship grounding or sea-plane crash into an Integral part of the s t r u c t u r a l component or a natural disaster such as an earthquake, could reduce the number of usable lanes or knock the span out e n t i r e l y . The i n s t i t u t i o n of a Sea-Bus i n advance of any such eventualities, would guarantee the continued, convenient, a c c e s s i b i l i t y and mobility standards of West Vancouver residents. A t h i r d item that concerns physical access i s the proposed s t r u c t u r a l improvement of the Lions' Gate Bridge. There e x i s t s the p o t e n t i a l of long closures as a resu l t of the B.C. Department of Highways' bridge deck replacement project. Since re-decking i s not a w e l l established construction technique, engineering, technical or s t r u c t u r a l problems may close the bridge f o r prolonged periods of time. There Is the remote chance of permanent closure. A West Vancouver Sea-Bus could help to r e l i e v e transportation problems during any planned or unplanned bridge closures. The fourth item i s the f l e x i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the ferry t r a n s i t 131 concept. The system can be ea s i l y sold i f i t i s found not to succeed i n West Vancouver. The f l o a t i n g terminals can be cut loose, relocated or sold along with the Sea-Bus f e r r i e s . Once i n place, bridges do not have t h i s relocation p o t e n t i a l , nor do they have a resale value other than as metal scrap. Sea-Bus can be sold as a functional, quickly implementable, over-the-water inf r a s t r u c t u r e . As a result of the system's f l e x i b i l i t y , p olicy makers and poli c y making has a broader scope. Policy makers are not necessarily bound to the ferry system once i t i s implemented. Policy and operating f l e x i b i l i t y can d i r e c t l y contribute to system r e l i a b i l i t y . Ferries are not constrained by the t r a f f i c stream, thus system wide r e l i a b i l i t y due to better schedule adherence during the peak period i s attainable. Furthermore, ferry t r a n s i t i s independent of the road network and buses become independent of CBD oriented a r t e r i a l s . Not only i s the ferry independent of the vehicular t r a f f i c streams but i t does not require any over-the-water infrastructure. Though the creation of separate transit-only infrastructure does remove t r a n s i t from the over-the-water t r a f f i c stream, r e l i a b i l i t y i s not necessarily guaranteed. For instance, a transit-only tunnel, such as the BART Tube, can e a s i l y be closed i n busy harbours due to anchor dragging or accidental f i r e s . Furthermore, i n areas where bridge i c i n g and snowfall i s a greater problem than fog, f e r r i e s have the inherent advantage of better schedule r e l i a b i l i t y than buses. Unlike the bus, the ferry route i s only constrained by two stops that are the portals of the system. F i n a l l y , the s a i l i n g route i s f l e x i b l e i n allowing the most d i r e c t routing and permitting circumnavigation of most marine obstructions. The f i f t h item revolves around the need for added physical cross-Inlet capacity. Just the bridge and ferry alternatives have the c a p a b i l i t y of achieving t h i s goal and the policy to increase f e r r y , or f o r that matter, 132 t r a n s i t r i d e r s h i p . The advantage of a bridge i s not only the higher physical cross-water capacity, but i f transit-only lanes are provided, less infrastructure i s required due to the higher u t i l i z a t i o n of capacity by buses than by a stream of cars. Ferry systems need no over-the-water infrastructure to have an exclusive r i g h t of way. The s i x t h issue arises out of the s o c i a l and environmental aspects. Bridge construction can resu l t i n permanent damage to the ecology of the shore li n e s near the spanning towers. The often massive access infrastructure may do further environmental damage immediately near the bridge and i n the v i c i n i t y of i t s path away from the bridge. Shore f a c i l i t i e s f o r the ferry are l i m i t e d to dolphins that moor the f l o a t i n g terminal. Extensive access f a c i l i t i e s would be unnecessary as access modes could u t i l i z e e x i s t i n g roads. New highways and roads associated with bridge construction lead to various s o c i a l impacts. Neighbourhood severance, v i s u a l i n t r u s i o n and the concen-t r a t i o n of noise and fumes have a major disruptive community-wide e f f e c t . When constructed i n built-up areas, they tend to become barriers to pedes-t r i a n and vehicular mobility. As the seventh item, the ferry concept provides the commuter with a wider range of access and destination opportunities than conventional bus t r a n s i t . Transit modes and access choice to the Ambleside ferry terminal ranges from walk-in to LRT to park-and-ride. Secondly, being a time transfer fo c a l point, destination opportunities and the t r a v e l convenience of the average t r a n s i t commuter can be enhanced. F i n a l l y , the ferry option provides a major planning advantage. System capacity can be planned to coincide with t r a n s i t demand associated with the population growth of the community. In an opposite respect, the ferry capacity that i s provided can be t a i l o r e d to meet the Municipal po l i c y of slow growth. 133 In summary, the ferry option has a number of clear q u a l i t a t i v e advantages over bridging options and moderately important operating benefits over equivalent bus service. A ferry to West Vancouver would increase a c c e s s i b i l i t y and mobility, allow for greater policy and operating f l e x i -b i l i t y and, enhance the o v e r a l l network r e l i a b i l i t y , with irdnimum s o c i a l and environmental impacts. Findings The shortness of the West Vancouver ferry route, necessitated a poli c y framework that accentuates terminal-oriented and operation-oriented p o l i c i e s . Terminal-oriented p o l i c i e s emphasize the provision of access choice and ef f e c t i v e terminal flows — both pedestrian and vehicular. Cperation-oriented p o l i c i e s stress integration of the West Vancouver Municipal bus routes with a ferry system, the continuation of the r e l i a b l e and f r i e n d l y service standards, and meeting the preferred morning peak period a r r i v a l times to the Vancouver CBD. Based upon the San Francisco experience, the ridership increasing a b i l i t y of the selected policy framework i s estimated at s i x t y percent — from 1,500 to about 2,500 over-the-water t r a n s i t passengers i n the morning peak period. Most notable are the findings of the case study f o r ferry service to West Vancouver. F i r s t , the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of the two ferry alternatives — ferry only or ferry with l i m i t e d trans-bridge bus services — was compared with an equivalent bridge-bus system for the same patronage l e v e l . Secondly, i n contrasting the annual t o t a l costs, the apportioned c a p i t a l costs plus operating costs, the ferry option was found to be 1.4 times as costly as the bus equivalent system. Thirdly, i n assessing the various non-quantifiable aspects of the three alternatives, the ferry-only option appears to have some d i s t i n c t advantages over bridge building or over 134 bus-bridge alternatives. These include various social.and environmental benefits, p o l i c y f l e x i b i l i t y and alternate access advantages for-West Vancouver c i t i z e n s . In the f i n a l analysis, the ferry system i s not the most desirable option from an economic basis alone. However, the q u a l i t a t i v e benefits of the ferry tend to outweigh the larger economic costs. Hence, within the l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s case study, i t i s proper to conclude that a ferry t r a n s i t system can be considered as a viable transportation option for the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver. 135 FOOTNOTES '"'"Census Canada, 1976. 2 Adrian Kopystynski, Some Findings on West Vancouver Transit Use (Based ,on the 1973 C i t i z e n Survey") (West Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Planning, [ 1 9 7 8 ] ) , P P - 4 - 6. Conversation with Mr. C. Spratt, Sea-Bus General Manager, on March 13, 1979.. Conversation with Mr. T. Lester, West Vancouver Municipal Manager, on March 27,1979. Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, "Mayor's Memorandum to Council re.: North Shore T r a f f i c Study". May 26, 1978, p. 2. Conversation with Mr. L. Ward, Assistant General Manager of the Urban Transit Authority (Vancouver), on February 21, 1979. 7 See appendix 1 part 8. Municipal Transportation Department, (Review of the) Transit Task  Force Report (West Vancouver, B.C.: Municipal Transportation Department, 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 16 - 25. 9 o See appendix 1 part 0 . 1 0Urban Transit Authority, UTA B r i e f i n g Manual ( [ V i c t o r i a ] , [1978]), pp. 102 - 104. "'""'"Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Fin a n c i a l Statement (West Vancouver, B.C.: Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, 1978), pp. 8,10,21. 12 Operating costs have excluded correction for collected fares. See appendix 2 part 2 for modification of operating costs when t o t a l costs are discussed i n the text. 136 CHAPTER SIX FINAL FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS  Findings The s p e c i f i c findings of t h i s thesis rest upon the outcome of the West Vancouver ferry case study. Assessing the t o t a l costs of both operational and c a p i t a l requirements, the ferry option i s not as economical as a bus system option capable of handling an equivalent patronage l e v e l . Therefore, the ferry alternative cannot be advocated by p o l i c y makers on the basis of cost-effective passenger transport. These added costs, however, may be f u l l y j u s t i f i e d by non-economic, non-quantifiable s o c i a l , environmental and planning advantages d i r e c t l y associated with the implementation of a ferry t r a n s i t system. The ferry t r a n s i t concept should be considered as a serious transportation option i n West Vancouver. Recommendation . Based upon a goal to increase the proportion of t r a n s i t cross-Inlet t r i p s from West Vancouver, i t i s recommended that the following p o l i c i e s be implemented. F i r s t , a future crossing serving West Vancouver ought to be a ferry t r a n s i t l i n k . Second, as one policy i n a series that make up the pol i c y framework associated with the commitment to ferry t r a n s i t , the West Vancouver terminal should be located i n Ambleside, where the majority of West Vancouver commuters reside. Third, the Municipal t r a n s i t system must be integrated with the ferry i n terms of the fare and the departure/arrival schedule. Fourth, the r e l i a b l e , convenient and frien d l y t r a n s i t service standards of the present Blue.„Bus system should be maintained. F i f t h , extra emphasis should be placed on providing safe, easy and convenient access opportunities, through proper terminal complex design. S i x t h , access choices should include bus t r a n s i t , park-and-ride (preferably on the s i t e i f space 137 and. r a i l t r a f f i c permits), plus car, t a x i and para-transit drop-off f a c i l i t i e s . Seventh, every e f f o r t should be made to exploit natural amenities i n the design of access ways, waiting and boarding areas i n the terminal. Eighth, a lim i t e d l e v e l of vessel amenity — soft chairs, conversation areas, plus coffee, snack and c o c k t a i l services — should be incorporated by pol i c y . Ninth, i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to advertize the system and inform the commuting public i n West Vancouver, how to reach and use the proposed system once i t i s operational. And f i n a l l y , a long term policy of land use should emphasize the provision of such attractions i n the lower Ambleside area that would be capable of inducing ridership on the morning return t r i p s from CBD Vancouver. Conclusion In the f i n a l overview, the ferry t r a n s i t concept ^presents i t s e l f as a viable transportation option. The burden of the higher economic costs may become mitigated with time and/or with timing. One near certainty i s that f u e l costs can be assumed to continue t h e i r rapid escalation. In t h i s respect, higher capacity can more e f f e c t i v e l y transport commuters, especially at times when c r i s i s proportions are reached. This cost escalation w i l l also p r e c i p i t a t e a mode s h i f t from car to t r a n s i t use. Coupled with the growth i n population, there exists the potential f o r the development of a sizable t r a n s i t market f o r ferry service i n West Vancouver. One set of conditions that w i l l not change i n time are the inherent q u a l i t i e s of the ferry mode. S o c i a l , environmental and planning advantages w i l l continue to be strong factors favouring t h i s option. The requirement f o r a convenient, contingency access mode to and from West Vancouver w i l l also be a permanent concern. The ferry option can mirror the trend i n society to more leisure time. The amenity of being on the water, fresh a i r , 138 no d r i v i n g frustrations and the a b i l i t y to t r a v e l to work''.Without the need to adjust personal schedules f o r bridge overloading, cater to t h i s trend. Furthermore, the expansion to a high capacity system, with volumes approaching those of a bridge can be achieved without the negative environmental ramifications associated with bridge infrastructure. F i n a l l y , a great deal of p o l i c y , operating and planning f l e x i b i l i t y are available to the pol i c y maker and.the -transportation planner. The West Vancouver s i t u a t i o n i s not unlike some other r e s i d e n t i a l communities i n metropolitan areas upon navigable waters. Certainly, the t y p i c a l peak-hour, peak-direction and peak-location transportation problems, exist to some extent i n a l l of them, whether a ferry option i s suitable for a l l Canadian and U.S. c i t i e s s i m i l a r i n nature t o West Vancouver, cannot be ascertained. The clear i n d i c a t i o n i s , however, that the ferry concept does have a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e to play — planners should consider ferry t r a n s i t as a serious t r a n s i t option. But only time and wise planning can reveal the magnitude of ferry t r a n s i t ' s r o l e on the urban scene i n the United States and Canada. 139 SOURCES. CONSULTED Associated Engineering Services, Ltd. Burrard Inlet 'Ferry Crossing Study. A report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional- Di s t r i c t . Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional Di s t r i c t , 1971. Bailey, John A. "The Problem of Mass Transportation i n the Urban Area." Evanston: Transportation Center at Northwestern University. Baker, W. North Vancouver Archivist. Telephone conversation, January 17, 1979. Banks, S.R. "The Lions' Gate Bridge.(Part 1)." The Engineering Journal 25 #4 (April 1942): 210-22. ; Barr, Captain James. Ferry Across the Harbour. Vancouver, B.C.: Mitchell Press. 1969. Bartholemew, Harland and Associates. A Plan for the City of Vancouver, Br i t i s h Columbia, Including a General Plan of the Region, 192b1. A report prepared for the Vancouver Town Planning Commission, Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1929. Bartholemew, Harland and Associates. A Preliminary Report Upon the Major Street Plan. A report to the Vancouver Town Planning Commission. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1946. Bartholemew, Harland and Associates. A^Preliminary Report Upon the Major Street Plan and Transit Facilities*] Prepared for the West Vancouver Town Planning Commission. West Vancouver, B.C.: District of West Vancouver, 1946. Bartholemew, Harland and Associates. A Preliminary Report Upon Transit prepared for the Vancouver Town Planning Commission. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1946. B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit. Passenger Ferry Project Specifications. Victoria: Bureau of Transit, [1974]. ' B r i t i s h Columbia Electric Railroad Company. "Mainland Transit (excluding Inter-Urban Rail Lines) S t a t i s t i c a l Comparison of years 1945 (before Conversion and Modernization Commenced in))with 1949, Internal Memor-andum." Vancouver, B.C.: Transportation Engineering Department, March 15, 1950. B r i t i s h Columbia Electric Railroad Company. "Route Changes, by Years 1946 to 1949 Inclusive. Internal, Memorandum." Vancouver, B.C.: Transport-ation Engineering Department, March 15, 1950. B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro Transit. "Sea-Bus Harbour Ride," Pamphlet. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro Transit. "How to Win the Bridge Game," Pamphlet. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Burns, John Rodger. Echoes of North Vancouver Ferries. Vancouver, B.C.: By the' Author, 1975. with the Sea-Bus system. Generally, the neighbourhoods between Lynn Creek and Mosquito Creek in the District and City of North Vancouver will be served with bus services that are destined for the Lonsdale Quay. For those who need them in Downtown Vancouver, two shuttle bus routes will be introduced. Connecting passen-gers will be able to choose a Granville Mall service or one that takes them to Burrard Street and the "Golden Triangle". Detailed route and schedule information for all connecting bus services can be obtained by contacting: B.C. Hydro Transportation 850 S.W. Marine Vancouver, B.C. V6P 5Z1 The Sea-Bus really goes to town. FIGURE 16 How to win at the game of bridge. SEA-BUS Province of British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Hugh A. Curtis, Minister e Take the Sea-Bus. 1 O n e bus ticket does it a l l The Sea-Bus system is an integral part of greater Vancouver's transit service. One regular fare will take you from your nearest bus stop to the ferry terminal, allow you to travel on the Sea-Bus, and is good for a connecting bus trip at the other side of the Burrard Inlet. For just 35<t, a com-muter from North Vancouver can travel from home to a destination in Vancouver via the transit system. 2 A s k for a transfer Transferring to the Sea-Bus is just like changing buses. A transfer/fare receipt issued by your bus driver is your fare for the Sea-Bus and connecting buses. Be sure to ask your bus driver for a transfer when paying your bus fare, and retain the transfer for the connecting ferry ride and bus trip. 3 O r buy your ticket right at the te rmina l Should you live or work close to one of the ferry terminals, or decide to get a ride to the terminal, ticket machines are located at each station. A self-service fare system is being employed. The passenger will be responsible for depositing the exact fare: 35c Adults 15c Students and Seniors (with valid cards) 10c Children After depositing the fare in coins, the passenger then pushes a green button on the top of the ticket machine, and then takes the transfer issued from the slot. This transfer, like the one issued by a bus driver, is valid for the ferry ride and connecting buses. Each passenger must have a valid transfer for inspection in the terminals or on the ferry. 4 Set sai l f r o m either Lonsda le or Granvi l le The Sea-Bus system con-nects the North Shore and Downtown Vancouver. The Lonsdale Quay is the north shore terminal of the Sea-Bus. It is situated just off Esplanade at the foot of Lonsdale. A bus loop, a temporary kiss'n ride drop-off area on Esplanade and the floating ferry terminal are linked together by covered pedestrian walkways. At the Granville Waterfront Station an escalator will take passengers from the floating terminal to an enclosed walkway 26 feet above the railway tracks and into the Station on Cordova Street at Granville. Later this fall, when the stairway linking the Station concourse with Granville Square is completed, the Station, walkway and floating terminal will become an extension to the Granville Mall pedestrian precinct. 5 L a u g h at the ra in Your walk between bus and ferry at both the Lonsdale Quay and Granville Water-front Station is protected from the elements. The bus loop at the Lonsdale Quay is covered with a canopy, as is the side-walk leading to the floating terminal. The Granville Waterfront Station is completely enclosed. Passen-gers are protected from weather arriving and leaving at both sides. 6 A l l aboard I As you walk from the bus ' loop or the escalator, signs will direct you to the depar-ture lounges. Once inside the floating terminal a directional sign will indicate which ferry will be leaving next. After passing through the turnstiles which only control the number of passengers entering each ferry, you will be in the departure lounge. When the ferry is ready for loading, entrance ramps will automatically be lowered into place and the departure lounge doors will open. Passengers are expected to enter quickly and take a seat. Departure will follow soon after. 7 In minutes you ' re there The ferries are powered by 4 diesel engines that permit each ferry to cross the Inlet at a speed of 13.5 knots. On week-days the ferries will begin service at 6:15 a.m. and operate every 15 minutes until 7 p.m. From 7 p.m. until mid-night there will be a sailing every 30 minutes. Saturdays the service will begin at 6:30 in morning and run every 30 minutes until noon. Between noon and 6 p.m. service is increased to 15 minutes. Ferry sailings revert to half hourly from 6 p.m. until midnight. Half hourly service is offered on Sundays and holidays between 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. 8 B u s e s are wa i t ing for y o u At both the Lonsdale Quay and the Granville Waterfront Station there will be buses to take you to your destination. The arrival and departure of these buses will be co-ordinated with ferry sailing times. The North Shore bus services have been completely overhauled in conjunction The first of its kind anywhere In the world, the people-mover ferries are an all-aluminum, double-ended, catamaran design. Each has a 400-passenger seating capacity with a full system capacity of 1600 passengers per hour across Vancouver's busy harbour. Six sets of double doors permit rapid boarding. Vessel Statistics: length 112' 6", width 41' 6", depth of main deck 11' 6%". draft loaded 6' 8", engines 4-12V-71NA Detroit diesels with 4 x 400 brake horsepower output, max. speed 15 knots, service speed 11.50 knots, auxiliary power Sunday Sailors Sunday and holiday bus passes are also available, valid for unlimited holiday riding on Seabus and B.C. Hydro Transit Buses. They are not sold in Seabus termini but can be obtained from any bus operator either when using a bus to Seabus or from the connecting buses waiting outside the Seabus terminus: 75? Adult, 25<t Child. Exact cash fare is required in the fare boxes. Bus operators do not carry change. Groups No group fare reductions are offered, nor are Seabus operations available for charter. Special arrangements for group travel can be made. Telephone 324-1101 Refunds Ticket machines will accept overpayment in coins if the exact fare is not available but no refunds will be made except where coin is lost in the machines due to a malfunction. Refunds for such a loss will be made on application to B.C. Hydro Transportation, 850 S.W. Marine Drive, Vancouver, B.C. Lost at Sea & other Seafare The lost property office is located at 696 Cambie Street, Vancouver, telephone 663-2133. Wheeled vehi-cles such as large baby carriages and bicycles cannot be carried on Seabus as the only access to and from downtown is via long escalators. Wheelchair users with escort can be accommodated but contact of Seabus at 986-1501 for arrangements is recom-mended. Pets are not permitted on Seabus. Smoking is not per-mitted on the ferries or carpeted walkways. The information booth in Granville Waterfront Station, adjacent to the fare machines, carries timetables for routes and schedules of connecting buses; and nearby wall maps show connecting bus routes and orientation to downtown points of interest. •••mmm ««»*••• i m «m mm m * K w H u t «B i mm m'mm m > m sm m s SB is 2 x 120KW generators (Detroit diesels). • Each terminus is of a floating E shape design with two berths each. Maintenance and overhaul berths are at Lonsdale Quay. Terminus Statistics: length 260', width 262', berth length 117, height above main deck 20', hull depth 17, weight 9,130 long tons, basic float composition 11" concrete with 86 cells & steel piling & wood fendering. Waterside of Granville Waterfront Station is shown. Province of Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing THE HONOURABLE HUGH A. CURTIS, MINISTER B.C. HYDRO TRANSIT Harbour Ride Vancouver's unique experience tf\'< See the sights Vancouver is famous for while you ride on the Sgty most unique ferry system in the world — a dramatic scenic oi^ siais panorama of mountains, ocean and city skyline. Seabus provides a quick and convenient way of travelling between downtown and the North Shore. By day . . . a pleasant harbour crossing. By night . . . a romantic view. Either way, a 12 minute adventure not-to-be-missed. Sailings Day sailings: every 15 minutes. Evenings, Sundays, holi-days and Saturday mornings: every 30 minutes. If you're a visitor, the best time to travel is before 3 p.m. or after 6 p.m. to avoid heavy commuter traffic. Fares Each Seabus passenger must have an individual ticket. Fares are identical to those of the bus system in Greater Vancouver. Passengers reaching Seabus by transit may ride at no extra charge with their valid bus transfer/fare receipt. Other passengers must purchase a transfer/fare receipt at the automatic self-service ticket machines clearly signed "Pay Fare Here" at each terminus location. The exact fare payment is required in coins — 350 Adult, 10V Child. No change is available and pen-nies are not accepted in the machines. Transfers One-way Seabus trans-fer/fare receipts are valid for transfer to buses at the Lonsdale Quay or in downtown Vancouver, north of Duns-muir within one hour of the issue time printed on the receipt. Fare machines in Granville Waterfront Station, leading to skywalk and Seabus berths. • Exterior facade shows convenience of bus connections in downtown Vancouver. • View from Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver, showing bus bays and fare machine area in foreground. The two 400-passenger vessels are named Burrard Beaver and Burrard Otter after earlier from the bridge and a Master, a Mate and two Attendants comprise each crew. The ferries steam-powered ships that operated on the West Coast. Seabus vessels are exceptionally cover the 2-mile (3.2 km) crossing distance in 12 minutes. • View with North Shore manoeuverable, with four combined propulsion and steering units, one at each end of mountains, and pleasure craft in foreground, both hulls, capable of rotating 360 degrees. The four independent engines are controlled Inspections Random inspections are made within the areas of the ferry termini marked as "Fare Paid Zones". Do not enter these clearly marked zones without holding a valid trans-fer/fare receipt. Round Trips Round trips on Seabus are pos-sible by paying double the normal one-way fare at either terminus. Just insert the double fare in exact coins in the ticket machines and the transfer/fare receipt will indicate that a double fare has been paid. This round-trip receipt is good for one hour. Round-trip receipts are not valid for transfer to connecting buses. Please note that because of safety regulations, all round-trip passengers are required to disem-bark at the terminus and re-enter the turn-stiles for the return trip. Map of Burrard Inlet shows the locations of Granville Waterfront Station and Lonsdale Quay in Vancouver's harbour. The entrance to Gran-ville Waterfront Station is on Cordova Street, at the north end of Granville Street in downtown Vancouver. The arrows also show entrances from Granville Square to the west, and a park-ing lot to the east. The building contains public telephones and washrooms. The P symbols locate automobile parking facilities. Visitor at-tractions in Gastown and Chinatown are within reasonable walking distances. Lonsdale Quay is at the foot of one of North Vancouver's major streets. The terminus for bus connections is adjacent to Seabus berths and an information booth for north shore attractions is located at the fare machines. There are a number of restaurants and small stores within walking distances from the Quay. Timetables for connecting buses are at both Seabus termini. isesto shopping. Grouse Mountain Lynn Canyon 578/150(300)M ^ KDPYSTYNSKI. ADRIAN DANIEL FIGURE 12: BOARDING INFORMATION FIGURE 16: How n o WIN AT THE GAME OF FIGURE 17: SEA-BUS HARBOUR RIDE 140 Burns, John Rodger. North Vancouver I 8 9 I - 1907. North Vancouver, B.C.: By the Author, 1972. "Cable Perries to Ply Port." The'Province. January 29, 1969, p. 25. "Cable Ferry Urged f o r 1st Narrows." The Vancouver Sun. October 2 4 , 1968, p. 15. Case, John N. The People Mover. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Case E x i s t o l o g i c a l Laboratories. [1975]. Census Canada. 1976. Chapman, M. Transit General Manager, West Vancouver Municipal Transport^ ation, personal conversation, January 17, 1979. Chapman, Russel. "How to Stretch a Nickel f o r 5^ miles." New York Sunday  Magazine. May 26, 1974, pp. 12-15. Clarke, G. Harbour F e r r i e s , Ltd. Personal conversation, January 2, 1979-Colleran, R.J., and Funge, WiJ. "The Forgotten Resource: Waterborne Transportation." In Second International Waterborne Transportation  Conference Proceedings, pp. 34-37. Edited by the American S o c i e t y D f C i v i l Engineers. New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969-Cox, A l v i n . "The Role of Waterborne Transportation in'the New York Metropolitan Area." Hovercraft and Hydrofoil 17 #2 (November 1977): pp. 20-25. "Cross Harbour Ferry Gets New Schedule." The Vancouver Sun. October 3, 1968, p. 11. C u r t i s , Fredrick A. "Economics of Water Transportation f o r South Shore Work Trips Commuters to Boston." In Second International Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, pp. 623-639. Edited by the American Society of C i v i l engineers. New York, 1969-Dartmouth-Halifax Bridge Comrnission. F i r s t Annual Report. Halifax: Dartmouth-Halifax Bridge Corrmrission, 1951. De Leuw Cather of Canada. Greater Vancouver Area Rapid Transit Study. Prepared f o r the Joint Transportation Committee, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Vancouver, B.C.: De Leuw Cather of Canada, 1970. Development Planning Association, Ltd. Dartmouth Ferry Study. Prepared for the City of Dartmouth. Dartmouth, N.S.: City of Dartmouth, 1976. Dobson, Ricardo, and Tischer, Mary Lynn. "Comparative Analysis of Determinants of Modal Choices by CBD Workers." Transportation Research  Board 649 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 7 - 1 4 . Eng, Rosemary. "West Van." Vancouver. October 1978, pp. 28-34. 141 Erickson, Arthur Architects. Granville Waterfront Interchange. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit, 1974. "Ferry Service Starts Sept. 9." The C i t i z e n . August 21, 1968, p. 1. F i e l d i n g , G.J., Blankenship, D.P., and T a r d i f f , T. "Consumer Attitudes Toward Public Transit." Transportation Research Board. 563 (1976): pp. 22 - 28. Gibbons, L. West Vancouver Municipal Transportation. Personal conversation. January 2, 1979. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t . Five Year Development Plan (Draft). San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1979. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t . Golden Gate Ferry. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1979-Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t . Golden Gate Transit Guide. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1977. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , Larkspur Ferry Timetable. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , 1978. Grant, D. West Vancouver Municipal Transportation. Interview. March 23, 1979. Grant, D. West Vancouver Municipal Transportation. Personal conversation. A p r i l 4, 1979. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region.1976/1986. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1971. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Regional Transportation as a GVRD  Function. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional District;, '1971. Greater Vancouver Tourist Association. "Road Map of the Fraser Valley." Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Tourist Association, 1941. "Harbour Ferry Service Starts." The Province. September 7, 1968, p. 25. Hardwick, Walter G. Vancouver. Don M i l l s : . Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd., 1974. Harlan, George H. San Francisco Bay Ferryboats. Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1967. Hayes, J . J . "Public Attitudes Toward Transit Features and Systems." Transportation Research Board. 649 (1977): PP- 42 - 48. 142 H i l l , T.W.. "Inpact c f Transit: The Central Business D i s t r i c t O L h . O f f i c i a l Proceedings at Fourth International Conference on'Urban ' Transportation,: pp. 140-146. Editor Pittsburg.Urban Transit. Council. Pittsburg: Pittsbury Urban Transit Council and U.S. Department of Transportation. V o l . 4: Transportation: L i f e l i n e of an Urban Society, 1969. H i l t o n , George W. The Staten Island Ferry. Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1964. Hough, Kenneth A. Analysis of Responses to Larkspur Ferry Questionnaire. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway- and Transportation D i s t r i c t , [1977]. H u l l , Raymond. Vancouver's Past. Vancouver: Gordon Souls Economic and Marketing Research, 1974. IBI Group. North Shore Transportation Study (Draft). Vancouver, B.C.: IBI Group, [1978]. "I t ' s Airy By Ferry." Business Week. 1702, A p r i l 14, 1962, pp. 38-39-Jenkins, Arthur C. Prospective P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a Public Transit Bus System. A report to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transporation D i s t r i c t . Cited i n A.D. L i t t l e , F e a s i b i l i t y Study of San Francisco-Marin Ferry System, p. 8. San Francisco: A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., ,1969-Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company. Transportation Services Measures. A report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1973. Katner, Harold, K. Director-Secretary. City of New Orleans Planning Commission. Personal correspondence, November 7, 1978. Kopystynski, Adrian. Analysis of Selected C i t i z e n Survey Questions. West . . Vancouver, B.C. West Vancouver Planning Department, [197^]. Kopystynski, Adrian. Some Findings on West Vancouver Transit((Based on the 1978 C i t i z e n Survey). West Vancouver, B.C.: West Vancouver Planning Department, [1978]. Kowleski, Stanley M. "Ferry Transit D i v i s i o n Overview." Memorandum to the Building and Operating Committee. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , March.30, 1978. Kowleski, Stanley M. "The Golden Gate Ferry System." In Second International  Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, pp. 124-129. Edited by the American Society of C i v i l Engineers. New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 19^9-Kowleski, Stanley M. "Immediate and Long Range Outlook f o r Ferry Systems." Memorandum to the Committee of the Whole. San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , A p r i l 27, 1978. Krzyczkowski, Roman, et. a l . Over-the-Water Program Design. V o l / 1. S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-21b-0b6, 1971. 143 Krzyczkawski, Roman, e t . a l . Qyer^the-Water Program Design.. Vol. ,3. S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.: National Technical Information Service PB-2l6-068, 1971. Kuykendal, J . Assistant General 'Manager for Planning and Research. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t . Personal correspondence, March 13, 1979. Lea, N.D., and Associates.' Measures to Improve Bus Transit and T r a f f i c Flow  Across the F i r s t Narrows Bridge. Prepared for The: B r i t i s h - Columbia Department of Highways. VAncouver, B.C.: N.D. Lea, 1967. Lester, T. City Manager. Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver. Telephone conversation, March 27, 1979. L i t t l e , A.D. Inc. F e a s i b i l i t y Study of San Francisco-Marin Ferry System. San Francisco: A.D. L i t t l e , Inc., 19£>9. ' Love, Rev. William D. The Colonial History of Hartford. Hartford: By the Author, 1914. Martin, R.H. "An Outline of Some of the P r i n c i p l e Events and Developments In the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Transit System on the Lower Mainland i n the Post War Period." Vancouver, B.C.':' B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railroad Company, [1950]. Matoff, T. Acting Director of Planning f o r the San Francisco Municipal Railway. Telephone conversation. December 4, 1978. Morley, A l l e n . Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C.: M i t c h e l l Press, 1974. Mullerhelm, S. and Laks, E. F e a s i b i l i t y Study of Ferry Mass Transit Across  Burrard I n l e t . Vancouver, B.C.: By the Authors, 1972. Municipal Transportation Department. (Review of the) Transit Task Force Report. West Vancouver, B.C.: Municipal Transportation Department, 1978. — Navin, Professor F. C i v i l Engineering 587 lecture. September 22, 1978. Navin, -Professor F. C i v i l Engineering 587 lecture. September 25, 1978. New York City Transportation Administration. The Operation of Hovercraft i n the Metropolitan Area. S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.: National Technical Information Service, PB-251-235, 1975. "North Shore Ferry Service Planned." The Vancouver Sun. August 20, 1969. p. 1. North Vancouver, City of. "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of City Council held i n the Council Chamber, on Tuesday, September 3, 1968 at 8:05 pm." North Vancouver, City of. "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council, held i n the Council Chambers, City H a l l on Monday, August 19, 1968 at 8:12 pm." Oliver, Nancy. "Vancouver's Heritage." ' -Quarter ly Review. January 1977, pp. 16-19. 144 Ormsby, Margaret A. B r i t i s h , Columbia: A History, Vancouver, .B.C.: .Evergreen Press, 19-58. Owens, Wilfred. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n .for C i t i e s . Washington, D.C.: The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1976. Parkinson, T.. Planning 505. lecture. October 11, 1977. Parsons, Brinkoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc.. Vancouver Transportation Study. Vancouver, B.C.: Parsons, Brinkoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., 1966. Patterson, P.J. "A Fi n a n c i a l History of the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver." Masters Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1928. Payzant, Mrs. J.M. Personal correspondence. February 18, 1979-Peat, Marwick, M i t c h e l l and Company. Modal S p l i t Model. Prepared f o r the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t . San Francisco: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation D i s t r i c t , [1970]-. Pendakur, V. Setty. C i t i z e n s , Streets and Freeways. Vancouver, B.C.: By the Author, 1972. Phraner, S.D. Waterborne Access to Gateway and Other Waterfront Recreation by  Passenger Barge/Tugboat Combinations Interim Technical Report. New York: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1977. Poulton, Professor M.C. Planning 535 project presentation. Spring 1978. "Promoter Slams Span, Hauls i n Cable Ferry." The Province. A p r i l 10, 1969, (Xerox). "Proposed Ferry System Backed." The C i t i z e n . August 26, 1968, p. 1. Reardon, M. "Commuter Boats i n Boston Harbor." In Second International Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, pp. 71-79. Edited by the American Society of C i v i l Engineers. New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969. A Report on Burrard I n l e t Crossings. By P.D. Willoughby, Chairman. Vancouver, B.C.: Committee on Burrard Inlet Crossings, 1954. Rexrode, Gene P. "Passenger Ferry Terminals on San Francisco Bay." In Second  International Waterborne Transportation Conference Proceedings, p p . 674-685. Edited by the American Society of C i v i l Engineers. New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1969. Roy, P a t r i c i a . "The B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c R a i l Company 1897 - 1928." Ph.D. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970.. [San Diego and Coronado Ferry Company]. ' Pathways Through-the Bay. [San Diego].: [San Diego and Coronado Ferry], [I969,]. ~ ~ "Sea Bus Unjams Vancouver's T r a f f i c . " Transportation Research News 73 (November - December 1977) 5-6. 145 Scott, W.S. and Hamilton, G.D. Burnaby Transportation Study. Burnaby, B.C.: Burnaby Planning Department, 1974. Shindel, A. Public Relations Manager. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Highways. Burnaby Branch. Personal conversation. January 25, 1979. Somlyoi, Klara. Information B u l l e t i n #6. West Vancouver, B.C.: West Vancouver Planning Department, 1977. Smith, Wilbur and Associates. Downtown Transit Concepts. Prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1972. Smith, Wilbur and Associates and Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e . Review of Transportation Plans f o r Metropolitan Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1964. Spaulding, P.F. and Associates. Golden Gate Commuter Ferry Study. Seattle: P.F. Spaulding and Associates, 1970. Spratt, C. Sea-Bus General Manager. Interview. October 24, 1978. Spratt, C. Telephone conversation. January 5, 1979. Spratt, C. Telephone conversation. March 13, 1979. Spratt, C. and S u l l i v a n , B. The Burrard I n l e t F e r r i e s : cThe Development of  a Waterborne Rapid-Transit System. Vancouver, B.C.: 1977. Stanwick Corporation. Richmond-Manhatten Marine Transportation Study. Arlington, VA.: Stanwick Corporation, 1968. S u l l i v a n , Brian. Preliminary Plan: Immediate Improvements to Public Transport- ation i n Greater Vancouver. Ottawa: Spatical Dynamics, Ltd., 1971. Swan Wooster-CBA. The Burrard Inlet Crossing. Vol. 1. A report to the National Harbours Board. Vancouver, B.C.: National Harbours Board, 1970. Swan Wooster-CBA. Vancouver Public Transportation Plans for the Future. Vancouver, B.C.: National Harbours Board, 1968. Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning. A Study for Highway  Planning f o r the Metropolitan Area of the Lower Mainland. Part I I : Freeways with Rapid Transit. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1956. Technical Committee f o r Metropolitan Highway Planning. Summary Report. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1956. Thompson, Gregory L. A Macro Analysis of Variables Influencing Transit Useage. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Transit Services, 1973. Transport Canada. Fundamentals of Urban Transit (Unedited Working Paper). Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services, 1978. Urban Transit Authority. UTA B r i e f i n g Manual. [ V i c t o r i a , B.C.]: [Urban Transit Authority], [1978]. 1 146 Urban Transportation and Planning Associates, Inc. Park-and-Ride Park-and-Paddle F e a s i b i l i t y Study. Prepared f o r the City of New Orleans. New Orleans: City of New Orleans, 1973. URS/Coverdale and C o l p l t t s , Inc. and Linscott. San Diego Bay Passenger Ferry  F e a s i b i l i t y Study. Prepared for the Comprehensive Planning Organization on the San Diego Region. San Diego: Comprehensive Planning Organization on the San Diego Region, 1975. Vancouver City Planning Department. A Review of Local Area Planning. Vancouver, B.C.:CCity of Vancouver, 1977-Van St e e l , Marcus. "The Dartmouth Ferries Fight for Their Lives..." The A t l a n t i c  Advocate 3 (November 1956): pp. 65-71 Walden, P h y l l i s Sarah. "A..History of West Vancouver." Masters Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1947. Ward, Larry. Assistant General Manager. Urban Transit Authority. Vancouver. Telephone conversation. February 21, 1979. "Welcome Back Ferry." The C i t i z e n . August 21, 1968. p. 6. West Vancouver, Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of. Financial Statement. West Vancouver, B.C.: Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver. 1978. West Vancouver, Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of. Mayor's Memorandum to Council re: North Shore Transportation Study. May 26, 1978. West Vancouver Library. Ferry Newsclipping Archives F i l e of Vancouver Dally  Province. Woodward-Reynolds, K.M. "The History of the City and D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver." Masters Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columiba, 1943. 147 Appendix 1 1. Physical Data West Vancouver ferry route length 3«5.n. miles (4 s t . miles) Vessel speed 14 knots Crossing time 15 minutes 2. Travel Time Data A l l data i s based upon the centeroid of the West Vancouver Census Tracts, (see figure a-1) Tract Car Bus 130/131 20 25 132 25 33 133 35 50 134 17 20 135 20 25 Average t r a v e l time to Vancouver Ferry-bus 23 28 45 19 28 See isochrone map i n figure a-2, Population/workforce S t a t i s t i c s Information from Census Canada, 1976: Tract 130/131 132 133 134 135 Population 15 463 4 093 6 370 5 263 6 200 Labour Force 7 455 2 485 3 840 3 815 3 795 CBD Bound 3 578 1 193 1 363 1 831 1 822 Total 37 389 21 390 9 787 FIGURE a-1 C e n s u s T r a c t s Source: Klara Somlyoi, Information B u l l e t i n Number 6 (West Vancouver,B.C.: Department, of Planning, 1977),P-5. TTOu'B: 75"% o f the p r e s e n t t r a n s i t commuters and 56/'° o f the l a b o u r f o r c e r e s i d e i n C.T. 1 3 0 , 131 and 1 3 2 , a l l w i t h i n the f i v e m i n u t e t r a v e l i s o c h r o n e , F i g u r e A-2 T r a v e l Time Isoc.hrones . -Cr AD Data S o u r c e : G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t West Vancouver M u n i c i p a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 150 4. Mode Split/Bus Patronage Mode s p l i t values are based upon West Vancouver C i t i z e n Questionnaire, 1977. Tract % Mode S p l i t Patrons 130/131 25 895 (60% of a l l commuters) 132 7 84 133 11 150 134 14 256 135 8 146 Total 1 531 5. Patronage Cross-check The predicted number of trans-bridge patronage obtained i n 4 was compared to actual counts collected by West Vancouver Municipal Transit. The average peak-hour ridership f o r the period between February 26 and March 16, 1979 was 1 58l. The mode s p l i t from the survey appears accurate. 6. Derivation of Sea-Bus Operating Costs The 1978-79 Burrard Inlet Ferry system budget that appears on pages 102-4 of the Urban Transit Authority B r i e f i n g Manual 1, i s the bases of t h i s operating cost unit model. Costs were aggregated as follows: Hourly Costs Ferry wages 261 725 Terminal wages 423 042 Associated wages 43 407 Benefits 178 5&7 Total 906 761 Mile Costs - Fuel 103 343 Maintenance 8 823 Ferry Maintenance 226 397' Total 338 563 151 Berthing Cost Terminal Maintenance 71 315 Administration 328 48C Other - - \ 35 905 Total 435 700 Costs are unitized on the basis of scheduled operations. The Total number of yearly operating hours per boat i s 6 570 hours, the yearly mileage i s 38 688 miles and the t o t a l number of s a i l i n g s i s 19 344. Hence the unit costs are: 138.05 per hour 8.75 per mile 22.53 per s a i l i n g Unit operating cost i s expressed by the formula: O.C. = 138.05 (hours) + 8.-75 (miles) + 22.53 ( s a i l i n g s ) 7. Derivation of the West Vancouver Bus Operating Costs The operating costs f o r the West Vancouver Municipal Transportation System were obtained from page 21 of the 1977 West Vancouver Fi n a n c i a l 2 Statement . Costs are aggregated as follows: Hourly Costs Wages 724 694 Indirect wages 230 529 Uniforms 8 352 Total 963 575 Mile Costs Repair, Maintenance 239 887 Fuel 98 864 Tires 21 511 Other 24 488 Total 384 750 Peak-hour Vehicles Administrative Salaries 37 302 Administrative Costs 36 158 Total . 73 460 152 Operating s t a t i s t i c s reveal a t o t a l of 87 845 yearly driver-hours, a yearly system mileage of 858 000 and the t o t a l number of peak-hour trans-bridge buses i s 13 260 a year. The unit costs are: 10.97 per hour 0 .448 per mile 5.55 per peak-hour bus So: O . C i ' = 10 .97 (hours) + 0 .448 (miles) + 5-55 (buses) 8. Ferry. Mode S p l i t Derivation The mode s p l i t levels for each Census Tract i s based upon a comparison with the estimated mode s p l i t values developed i n San Francisco . The basic assumption i s that a t h i r t y percentage point increase i n patronage could be obtained for a ferry system i f the bus and ferry t r a v e l times are equal. This i s a dir e c t effect of the "Amenity Factor". The source of t h i s amenity factor i s estimated roughly as: seven percentage points for the vessel technology, twelve percentage points for the on-board amenities' and the remaining eleven are for terminal amenities. Through a dir e c t comparison with the San Francisco system, the West Vancouver ferry mode s p l i t was assessed as follows: Technological amenity — a h a l f of San Francisco (3) Terminal amenities — a t h i r d of San Francisco (4) On-board amenities — a quarter of San Francisco (3) Mode s p l i t increase i n West Vancouver i s ten percentage points. 153 9. Projected Ferry Ridership Tract Mode Split Ferry Patrons 130/131 35 % 1 250 132 17 % 203 133 21 % 286 134 24 % 440 135 18 % 328 Total 2 507 10. Service, Frequency and Headway a. Period of service The 2 507 passengers would ordinarily travel to the CBD sometimes during the 2-1/2 to 3 hour peak period. Basically, a person must choose an earlier or later departure time because of the capacity limitation of the bus system and the peak-loading condition that has broadened the peak period. With the introduction of a ferry system, the passengers w i l l be able to travel closer to their desired travel time. Service i s developed upon the assumption that the ferry system w i l l serve the passengers ordinarily traveling during the present peak period i n a two hour period. b. Vessel Requirements The number of sailings required to transport the 2 507 passengers is 1 2 507/400 = 5 sailings. Assuming the distribution of passengers w i l l be sixty per cent In the f i r s t hour and forty per cent i n the second hour, then the number of vessels required '(N) i s found by the expression: N _ Cycle time Headway The cycle time i s twice the crossing time plus berthing: = 15 + 15 + 5 + 5 = 40 minutes 154 The headway i s just the time between consecutive sailings. The vessel requirements for various headways, the optimum headway and maximum frequency of service are presented i n the table following. N h h. . f oest max 10 6 14 4 20 3 40 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 10 15 20 30 40 60 c. Service Requirements Based upon the assumed passenger distribution, the number of passengers and sailings per period i s : 7 - 8 am 1 500 pax 4 sailings 8 - 9 am 1 007 3 Hence, four sailings per hour i n the f i r s t hour, at fifteen rninute headways, with a ten minute layover i n West Vancouver and a five minute layover i n Vancouver are required. This translates into 45/15 = 3 vessels, In the second hour, twenty minute headways, with five minute layovers.';at each end, would require 40/20 = 2 ferry vessels. The time-space diagram (figure A-3) illustrates the operating sequence. D I S T A N T C 6 D + V A N -COUVER Figure A-3. Time-space diagram for ferry operation Notice that the system has a reserve capacity of 293 passengers. 155 11. Operation Scenarios Scenario 1 Perry Only Service - no trans-bridge bus service - buses used as Sea-Bus feeders - h a l f of passengers w i l l use park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s ; bus ridership i s 1 254 - ferry and bus schedules are integrated Route calculations i i . , feeder service: F i r s t Hour: Tract pax h N 130/131 375 15 4 132 62 15 2 133 85 15 4 134 132 15 3 135 98 15 4 cond Hour: Tract pax h N 130/131 250 20 2 132 40 20 2 133 58 20 3 134 88 20 2 135 66 20 3 Distance 40 32 64 28 36 Distance 30 24 48 21 27 Totals: Bus time: 2 hours Bus distance: 350 miles Number of buses: 29 Notes: N = r pax 51 cycle time headway cycle time X 60 (= N 1) (= N 2) J whichever one i s larger D = 60 v cycle distance y C F . h where C F . = N 2/N 1 i f N 2 > N x i f N x 1 N 2 156 Sea-Bus F i r s t hour: 6-2/3.. s a i l i n g s 2 s a i l i n g s deadheading Three ships Second hour: 5-1/3 s a i l i n g s Two ships Totals Number of crossings: 12 Hours: 2 Distance: 56 s t . miles Scenario 2 Bus and Ferry Service - f i v e hourly trans-bridge buses - Sea-Bus f o r rest of t r a n s i t t r i p s - h a l f of Sea-Bus passengers use park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s Transit use assumptions - For a loading of 51 passengers, the t o t a l number of bus patrons i s : 51 X 10 = 510 - Sea-Bus ridership i s 2 507 - 510 = 1 997 - Ridership by hour: f i r s t hour 1 198 f e r r y 255 bus second hour 799 255 - feeder bus headway i s same as ferry f o r proper service integration Required ferry headways: f i r s t hour 20 minutes second hour 30 minutes Ferry requirements: f i r s t and second hour 2 vessels 157 Trans-bridge Buses F i r s t Hour: Tract Pax 130/131 102 132 51 133/134 51 135 51 Second Hour: Tract Pax 130/131 102 132 51 133/134 51 135 51 Feeder Buses F i r s t Hour: Tract Pax 130/131 314 132 116 133/134 102 135 67 Second Hour: Tract Pax 130/131 209 132 77 133/134 27 135 45 Totals: Buses: Hours: 2 Buses: 30 Distance: 406 Ferry: Vessels: 2 Miles: 40 Hours: 2 Dockings: 10 h N D 60 2 30 60 2 18 60 2 26 60 1 14 h N D 60 2 30 60 2 18 60 2 26 60 1 14 h N D 20 3 45 20 2 24 20 3 48 20 3 27 h N D 30 2 20 30 1 16 30 2 32 30 2 18 158 Scenario 3 Bus Equivalent Service This section assesses the requirement for providing equivalent service by bus, during the two hour peak as an alternative to the ferry-only service. The same number of patrons w i l l be served, with a 60/40 s p l i t between the f i r s t and second hour. Trans-Bridge Bus First Hour: - to t a l ridership i n f i r s t hour 1 504. Tract Pax h N D 130/131 750 10 13 220 132 122 10 7 108 133 172 10 10 156 134 264 10 4 102 135 197 10 5 84 Second Hour: - the total remaining ridership i s 1 008 Tract Pax h N D 130/131 500 10 9 162 132 81 10 7 108 133 114 10 10 156 134 176 10 4 . 102 135 131 10 5 84 Totals Buses: 74 Hours: 2 Distance:! 282 12. Cost Base: 1979 West Vane oiver Municipal Bus Operation The following statistics were obtained from the West Vancouver Bus schedule and operating stat i s t i c s between February 26 and March 16, 1979: Buses: 21 Hours: 3 Distance: 487 159 The base value for operating costs i s : O.C. = ,10.97 (3 X 21) +0.448 (487) + 5-55 (21) = 1 025.84 13. Scenario Operating Costs Scenario 1 Feeder costs: O . C . 1 0 . 9 7 (1 X 17 + 1 X 12) + 0.448 (350) + 5.55 (29) = 1 495.67 Total Operating Cost: T.O.C. = 2 134.61 Scenario 2 Trans-Bridge Service Cost: O.C.' = 10.97 (2 X 7);+ 0.448 (176) + 5.55 (7) = 271.28 Feeder cost: O.C. ' = 10.97 (1 X 11 + 1 X 7) + 0.448 (230) + 5.55 (30) = 467.00 Sea-Bus cost: O.C. = 138.05 ( 2 X 2 ) + 8.75 (40) + 22.53 (10) = 1 127.50 Total Operating Cost: T.O.C. = 1 865.18 160 Scenario 3 Trans-Bridge Bus Cost: O.C. = 10.97 (1 X 39 + 35) + 0.448 (1 282) + 5-55 (74) = 1 796.82 Total Operating Cost: T.O.C. = 1 796.82 14. Summary Table of Comparative. Operating Costs Operating Costs Present Ferry Bus-Ferry Bus Equivalent Dollars Cost 1 025.84 2 134.61 ,.1^ 865778 1 796.82 Indexed to Present Cost 1 2.08 1.82 1.75 Indexed to Bus Equivalent 0.57 1.19 1-04 1 Table A-1 Summary Table of Comparative Operating Costs 161 1 FOOTNOTES \kbsca Transit Authority, UTA B r i e f i n g Manual.C[Victoria]. • [1978]), pp. 102-104. . 2 Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Fi n a n c i a l Statement (West Vancouver, B.C.: Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, 1978), pp. 8, 10, 21. Peat, Marwick, M i t c h e l l and Company, Modal S p l i t Model (San Francisco: Peat, Marwick, M i t c h e l l and Company, [1970]), pp. 4-b, Exhibits 2-A - 3-A. The operating assumptions used i n these and the following bus require-ment calculations, are summarized i n the table, below: Tract cycle distances: (miles)" to ferry terminal to CBD Vancouver cycle times: (minutes) to.ferry terminal:. to CBD Vancouver 130/131 132 133 134* 135 5 8 16 7 9 15 18 26 17 9 20 30 60 30 50 50 66 100 40 50 * This downtown service, requires a transfer to one of the trans-bridge routes f o r bus service to CBD Vancouver. 'See note i n footnote 4. 162 Appendix.2 1. Annual operating costs for a bridge at Brockton Point The operating costofor the former Brockton Point Bridge i s quoted below: Annual Allowance For Operation and Maintenance Repainting $ 37,000 Roadway resurfacing and maintenance 46,000 Inspection and miscellaneous maintenance 37,000 Power 55,000 T r a f f i c p a t r o l 133,000 Total $308,000 Source: Swan Wooster -< CBA The Burrard Inlet Crossing, a report to the National Harbours Board, Volume 1 (Vancouver, B.C.: National Harbours Board, 1970), p. 223. Correcting f o r i n f l a t i o n , at 9 per cent over nine years, the present operating cost f o r such a structure would be 729 148 d o l l a r s . This cost i s allocated to the peak periods by d i v i d i n g by two. Dividing t h i s by the t o t a l number of lanes ( s i x ) , the per-lane cost i s 60 763 dollars per annum. One lane was stated to provide a vehicular capacity of 2 000 vehicles per hour, or on the assumption that car occupancy i s 1.3, then one lane would transport 2 600 persons per hour. This i s roughly twice the hourly patronage that i s to be carried by the various Scenarios developed i n Appendix 1. Therefore, h a l f a lane i s required. 163 2. Annual operating cost of transit without administrative costs Removing administrative costs from the unit operating cost formulas developed i n Appendix 1, parts 6 and 7, one obtains the following values for peak-period operating and maintenance cost:"1" Scenario 1 1 851.60 (1979 dollars) Scenario 2 1 575.43 Scenario 3 1 386.12 The annual costs for each of the scenarios i s obtained by multiplying the daily peak-hour costs above by: 5 days/week X (52 weeks/year - 1 week of holidays/year) The annual operating costs become: Scenario 1 472 158 (1979 dollars) Scenario 2 401 734 Scenario 3 353 460 Note: Total annual operating cost for Scenario 2 and 3 must include a portion of the bridge operating cost discussed i n part 1 of this Appendix. The apportionment i s based upon the capacity of the bridge, each requires: Scenario 2 1/4 lane over two hours Scenario 3 1/2 lane over two hours Since i t i s assumed that the backlog of morning t r a f f i c i s capable of taking up any bridge capacity freed up i n Scenario 1 or 2, there i s no need to offset any allocations of capital and operating costs of this added capacity. 'New formulas are: O.C. =138.05 (hours) +8.75 (miles) + 14.03 (sailings) O.C.' = 10.97 (hours) + 0 .448 (miles) 164 Appendix-. 3 1. Cost of f l e e t expansion At the present time, the West Vancouver Municipal Transportation System has thirty-two (32) buses, and not more than four (4) are i d l e during the morning peak-hour per i o d . 1 The buses required f o r the peak period are b a s i c a l l y set by the f i r s t hour i n the period because of the 60/40 s p l i t assumed i n preferred use of t r a n s i t , (see Appendix 1, part 10) Hence, Scenario 1 does not require purchase of additional buses. Diversion of the currently used trans-bridge vehicles and the reduction i n t o t a l route mileage, account f o r t h i s . Scenario 2 also i s assumed not to require additional buses since the route mileage i s about the same as the present peak-hour service, (see table 2 i n text of chapter-five) However, the case i s different for Scenario 3- The number of trans-bridge bus t r i p s nearly t r i p l e from 21 to 74 i n the peak period. The peak period has also been assumed to shorten from nearly three hours to just two. (see Appendix 1, part 11, Scenario 3) The required number of buses to be added can be roughly assessed i n terms of peak period crossings to f l e e t s ize proportions, committed to trans-bridge operation. Prom the calculations that follow, twenty (20) buses must be acquired f o r Scenario 3. Extra Buses Required Scenario 3 bridge crossings i n the f i r s t hour Present number of bridge bridge crossing i n w the f i r s t hour [ f X 32 J - 3 2 20 165 The value In the deonominator i s the number of buses on trans-bridge service — t h i s excludes four buses i n the depot, three on school bus 2 routes and one on the B r i t i s h ( P a c i f i c ) Properties loop. For the type of General Motor bus used i n West Vancouver — with automatic transmission, generally more comfortable i n t e r i o r , etc. — the purchase cost i s about 107 000 d o l l a r s . Total c a p i t a l expenditures required for Scenario 3 i s 2.14 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Scenario 1 and 2 do not require any buses to be purchased. However, c a p i t a l expenditures are necessary for acquiring Sea-Bus type vessels. The cost of a Sea-Bus was 3-6 m i l l i o n i n 1977, and correcting for i n f l a t i o n , currently would cost 4.3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Scenario 1 requires three Sea-Buses — costing 12.9 m i l l i o n — and Scenario 2 requires two Sea-Buses — costing 8.6 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Terminal Costs Capital costs associated with the terminal f a c i l i t i e s at West Vancouver, are roughly: Floating terminal •Passenger f a c i l i t i e s Other Contingencies 10.0 m i l l i o n 1.5 m i l l i o n 1.0 m i l l i o n 0.8 m i l l i o n Total 13-3 m i l l i o n Or correcting f o r I n f l a t i o n 15.8 m i l l i o n This figure excludes start-up costs and assumes a l l park-and-ride and station f a c i l i t i e s are included i n the 'other' or i n the 'contingency' categories. 166 Capital Costs f o r a Bridge Similar to the Former Brockton Point Proposal Capital costs for the construction of a bridge s i m i l a r to the 1970 Swan Wooster - CBA proposal f o r a crossing at'cBrockton Point, are the bases f o r a bridge altern a t i v e . Table A-2 indicates that c a p i t a l costs for such a bridge would be 100.5 m i l l i o n i n 1970, or correcting f o r i n f l a t i o n , 218.3 m i l l i o n current d o l l a r s . 167 TABLE A-2 B r i d g e C a p i t a l C o sts See: Swan Wooster-CBA, The B u r r a r d I n l e t C r o s s i n g , v o l . 1 , a r e p o r t to the N a t i o n a l Harbours B o a r d (Vancouver, B.C.: N a t i o n a l Harbours Board, 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 2 2 3 . 168 FOOTNOTES "'"Interview with Dr. Don Grant, Assistant General Manager of West Vancouver Municipal Transportation on March 23, 1979. 2 Follow-up telephone conversations with Mr. Don Grant on March 23, 1979 and A p r i l 4, 1979. 3 i b i d . ^Planning 505 lecture by Mr. T. Parkinson, on December 6, 1977 169 Appendix 4 A l l capital costs are assumed to be partitioned over the peak-hour periods during the year (2 hours in.the morning and 3 hours i n the evening), since these expenditures mainly address the peak-hour problem. 1. Scenario 1 Capital Costs Capital costs are related to three Sea-Buses and one terminal. The f u l l cost of the terminal i s assessed, although i t would have reserve capacity. The yearly cost i s estimated to be: 28.7 million X CEF = 2.50 million dollars where the Capital Recovery Factor i s 0.08718, 6% at 20 years. 2. Scenario 2 Capital Costs Capital costs are related to two Sea-Buses and a terminal. Total estimate i s : 24.4 million X CRF = 2.13 million dollars with the same assumptions and CRF as above. However, capital cost of bridge use by the trans-bridge buses must be apportioned, for the one-fourth of a lane capacity that i s used. 3. Scenario 3 Capital Costs This includes the capital cost to purchase twenty buses: 2.14 million X CRF = 0.29 million dollars where the Cost Recovery Factor i s 0.13587, 6% for 10 years. As i n the previous case, i t i s necessary for bridge costs to be apportioned. In this case, one-fourth a lane capacity over two hours i s required. 170 Bridge Transit Capital Costs. Bridge c a p i t a l costs.to be. apportioned to .buses, assumes e x i s t i n g structures w i l l be used. The c a p i t a l costs for one-half a lane per hour capacity i s estimated as: where CRF i s 0.07265, 6% for 30 years. Note: To obtain the morning peak-hour yearly cost, each c a p i t a l cost figure must be multiplied by 1/2, since the morning peak i s more intense. Summary of table 6 cost derivations Scenario 1 Operating: .47 m i l l i o n s of doll a r s 218.3/12 h a l f lanes. = 18.2 m i l l i o n or 18.2 m i l l i o n X CRF = 1.32 m i l l i o n dollars Capital: Ferry and terminal 1.25 Total 1.72 Scenario 2 Operating: Bus, ferry Bridge use .40 .03 Sube.total .43 Capital: Ferry and terminal Bridge 1.07 .33 Sub-total 1.40 Total 1.83 171 Scenario 3 Operating: Bus '• Bridge use Sub-total Capital Buses Bridge Sub-total Total .35 .06. .41 .15 .66 .81 1.22 Total costs assuming 12% interest rate i . Capital Costs: Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 1/2 bridge lane i i Total Costs derived: Scenario 1 Operating: Capital: Ferry and terminal Total Scenario 2 Operating: Bus, ferry Bridge use Sub-total Capital: Ferry and terminal Bridge Sub-total Total 28.7 X .13388 = 3-85 m i l l i o n 24.4 X .13388 = 3.27 2.14 X .17698 = .38 18.2 X .12130 = 2.21 .47 m i l l i o n s of dolla r s 1.93 2.40 .40 .03 .43 1.64 • 55 2.19 2.62 172 Scenario 3 Operating: Bus Bridge use Sub-total Capital: Buses Bridge Sub-total Total .35 .06 . 41 .38 1 . 1 0 1 . 4 8 1 . 8 6 173 Appendix 5> 1 P h y s i c a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n s P e r r y : Length by width 3i+ m X 1 3 m D r a f t (loaded) 2 m~ C a p a c i t y LLOO per v e s s e l Crew requirements [j. F l o a t i n g T e r m i n a l : Length by width 8 0 m X 8 1 m B e r t h l e n g t h 3 & m. Depth o f i t a l l $ m ~ E n c l o s e d f l o o r area 1 9 5 0 m C a p a c i t y 9 600 passengers per hour (Assumes one f e r r y Requires f i v e minutes to approach, l o a d , u n l o a d and dapart.) Layout of f l o a t i n g t e r m i n a l w i t h one Seabus at b e r t h and one b e r t h i n g : See: John N. Case, The People Mover ( V i c t o r i a , B.C. Case E x i s t o l o g i c a l L a b o r a t o r i e s , L t d . , ^ 1 9 7 5 J ) » p. 6. In f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Mr. C. S p r a t t on October 2LL, 1 9 7 8 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094560/manifest

Comment

Related Items