ACCESS BOARD RESEARCH

Access for Persons with Disabilities to Passenger Vessels and Shore Facilities: The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

FINAL REPORT

July 12, 1996

Prepared for: The Office of the Secretary of Transportation Office of Environment, Energy and Safety

Prepared by: Environmental Engineering Division, DTS-72 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

CONTENTS

• GLOSSARY
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 2. INTRODUCTION
• 3. APPROACH
• 4. VESSEL ONBOARD ACCESS
• 5.VESSEL ACCESS COSTS
• 6. SHORE TO VESSEL TRANSITION ACCESS
• 7. SHORE TO VESSEL TRANSITION ACCESS COSTS
• 8. COST SCENARIOS
• 9.STABILITY CALCULATIONS
• 10. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
• 11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• REFERENCES

APPENDICES

• A. Coast Guard MSIS data output and Marine Safety Offices' fleet survey responses
• B. Engineering and cost calculations for sample vessels
• C. Unit costs from field work and literature
• D. Detailed cost spreadsheets and notes-- fleet
• E. Detailed cost spreadsheets and notes-- shore access
• F. Stability analysis for elevator installations
• G. Statutory issues for passenger vessel access
• H. Points of contact
• I. Minutes of April 15, 1996 information meeting

GLOSSARY

1. The source for all or part of the definition of this term was the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board's Draft Regulation published in December 1994.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank many helpful people for their contributions to this document. Ira Laster, Don Trilling and Nancy Ebersole at the sponsoring agency, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, have been most understanding and patient. Al Penn and LCDR George Cummings have been instrumental in providing the knowledge, experience, and data resources of the Coast Guard. Coast Guardsmen in the field offices, too numerous to mention, gave their time to assist in the fleet data gathering effort and helped to arrange many of the field visits. Dennis Cannon, Peggy Greenwell, and David Yanchulis of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and David Parks of the National Park Service gave valuable insights into the technical, legal, and people aspects of access for persons with disabilities. David Porter of Childs Engineering in Medfield, Massachusetts graciously provided cost data for the construction of an accessible dock facility in Boston.

Many people in the passenger vessel industry have kindly contributed their time and facilities to the process of field work and interviews necessary for the project. In particular, gratitude is due the members of the Working Advisory Group. They are, in addition to those aforementioned Government representatives, Pete Lauridsen of the Passenger Vessels Association, Alan Bernstein of B.B. Riverboats, and Speed Davis of the National Council on Disabilities.

Michael G. Dyer, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Joseph Feiner, E.G.G. Dynatrend

Katherine McGuiness, Katherine McGuiness & Associates

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report, undertaken on behalf of the Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety, Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB), is an assessment of the feasibility of implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) on the passenger vessel industry. The results are findings on technical feasibility and a set of cost data based on assumed access solutions. This exploration of implementation issues will be, in part, the basis for future decision making by OST in the matter of access to waterborne transportation and accommodation assets.

This document was preceded by the "Interim Report: Approach and Methodology" dated 1 October 1995, which established the approach for the cost analysis, the technical, economic, and social factors considered, and the assumptions for developing unit costs and applying them to the industry.

The scope of the cost calculations includes new construction and alterations for the Coast Guard inspected passenger vessel fleet, and access provisions to the vessels over the piers and docks serving the fleet. It does not include foreign flagged cruise ships at this time. Neither are terminals and other associated shoreside facilities included as they are already subject to ADA regulations for transportation terminals. Recommendations for additional future research are found at the end of the report.

1.1 APPROACH

The calculations include only the costs of implementation, i.e., capital and operating expenses and revenue impacts. The benefit of providing a civil right cannot be quantified, especially in the larger sense of the improved quality of a barrier-free society. The industry may realize benefits due to increased business from persons with disabilities, insurance premium reductions, and reduced employee injuries, but data from analogous access upgrades to quantify this are not available.

The approach characterizes, by type, the numbers of vessels and shore facilities to find the costs associated with compliance based upon assumed sets of access solutions. Unit costs reflect the access premium, that is, the increased cost of providing access relative to current practice. The industry implementation costs are scheduled based upon analysis of fleet growth and replacement rates (from 25 to 40 years), and an assumed replacement/upgrade of the existing dock and pier population within 40 years.

The access solutions do not anticipate all outcomes but were developed as widely applicable and practical designs for an industry uniquely diverse among the transportation modes, both in its services and its physical assets. The solutions also take account of the interactive complexities of ADA.

1.2 ACCESS ISSUES

A lot of good faith effort has been made by some operators to provide access accommodations. Their knowledge of ADA is weak, however, since no regulations for vessel access have been issued. This study proposes access solution sets to be flexibly applied to a very diverse industry, since vessel size or function may present difficult technical problems and because previous ADA statutes and regulations have defined areas where access specifications may be relaxed. There is precedent for this approach, which is critical for a reasonable application to marine transportation.

1.2.1 Fleet

Multi-deck access for wheelchairs is the critical issue, from the standpoints of cost, safety, and operations. The study finds that elevators or lifts are feasible for most multi-deck vessels, but that lift technology needs improved capacity and better availability to the marine market. Integration of these features in new vessels will be a matter of good design practice. Elevator and lift retrofit on existing vessels, more difficult and costly than for new construction, is assumed for major alterations of larger vessels only.

Other access features include unisex heads (rest rooms), doors and passageways, signage and alarms, wheelchair tiedowns, and improved food service. These can be incorporated with ease in new designs, with a cost premium mainly for added space and weight. Retrofitted access features for vessel alterations may be smaller in scope, but can carry proportionally greater costs because of the difficulties encountered with modifying tightly arranged existing compartments.

1.2.2 Dock and pier

The solutions developed for access from the shore over docks and piers account for manmade and environmental height barriers for wheelchair passage along that path of travel. Features for other disabilities are considered in the cost calculation, but are small items relative to solving the wheelchair barriers. This study proposes five practicable and widely applicable access solutions which include extra long gangways, fixed intermediate ramps, extra floating docks, and accessible gangways to the vessels' decks.

1.3 DATA ISSUES

Available industry data lacked in several key areas and was "pushed" to develop the schedule for industry implementation. On the vessel side, the study first develops a detailed snapshot of the current passenger vessel fleet based upon Coast Guard data. The determination of vessel service life values and replacement rates is based on limited available historical data and evidence from industry. An overall fleet growth projection of zero is used, based on Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers data.

Industry-wide shore facility population data are very weak, except for the ferry lines. Those data available were augmented by site visits and empirically linked to the vessel population to produce a national model. Industry-wide growth projections for shore facilities are also assumed to be zero because 1) available fleet data show no overall growth trend, and 2) shore facility data to support a growth assumption do not exist.

1.4 RESULTS

Costs are found using current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for nominal and real interest rates, assuming 1998 as the start year for implementation and present valued to 1996. The calculation of the impact costs focuses on societal cost, which is the value to society of lost or diverted resources. These include capital outlays for access on new and modified assets and increased operating costs associated with the access features; they are calculated in a forty year cost stream and the present value found at a 4.9% real discount rate. Amortization of capital outlays is not included.

The industry implementation costs are separately calculated for the fleet and shore sectors. The total societal cost for both sectors is estimated from $428.7 million to $502.6 million.

1.4.1 Fleet societal costs

The cost for phasing in an accessible fleet follows from a single set of assumptions derived from a high-confidence set of population data. Table 1-1 shows the results, sorted by Coast Guard regulatory category (in descending order of vessel size) and between new construction and existing vessel alterations. Total societal costs for the fleet are calculated at $396.7 million, including $33.2 million for technical and sensitivity training for industry personnel.

Table 1-1

Fleet sector societal costs ($millions), 1996 present value

1.4.2 Shore access societal costs

Shore-to-vessel access costs are calculated separately for ferry terminals, because of known population data for that particular sector, and non-ferry facilities, for which two assumed facility/vessel ratios are used. Three distributions of high and low cost access solutions are used for both population sectors, since data on hydrographic features is scant. The calculation considers only capital costs phased in over 40 years. The range of societal costs is $32.0 million to $105.9 million.

Table 1-2

Terminal access societal cost summary, 1996 present value ($millions)

1.4.3 Other cost bases

The body of the report also has calculations of the "business" cost, which is the same as societal cost but includes the expense of amortizing capital outlays. Amortization is at a 7.9% nominal discount rate, also present valued to 1996. The total business cost is estimated from $483.6 million to $573.9 million. The "actual" cost is a simple total of the cost stream with no present value discounting; its total is estimated from $968.4 million to $1.15 billion.

A detailed business cost summary for the vessel access sector appears in Table 5-22; Tables 7-6 an 7-7 contain the data for shoreside access.

1.4.4 Scenarios

A brief study of the impact on five fictional small operators shows that some would bear potentially large expense for providing accessible vessels and docks. The fictional operators of fishing and commuter boats, which don't need elevators or lifts, would face relatively low business expenses of $37.5K and $20.8K, respectively. Three other fictional operators, each with two ferries or excursion boats, would incur present value expenses from $358K to $787K.

2. INTRODUCTION

The ADA was signed into law in 1990. Six years later, the impact on the passenger vessel industry is unclear as no regulations have been developed for that mode of transport. This may be partly due to the fact that marine transportation is the "forgotten stepchild" among the major modes. However, the marine industry's unique missions and operating environment and the difficulties of applying ADA's various titles thereto are probably a better explanation for the slow pace of implementation.

The original act defined lines of applicability in five Titles, none of which made use of the words "vessel", "boat", or "ferry". Three Titles affect the passenger vessel industry: Title I (employment opportunity), Title II (program access and public transportation), and Title III (public accommodations and public transport). Title II applies to the public sector and Title III to the private sector. Both present a dual regulatory format, broadly dividing public agencies and private businesses into two groups: (1) those providing "public accommodations" as "facilities", and (2) those providing "public transportation" by "vehicles"¹.

While most entities must comply with either Title II or III, this is not the case for many passenger vessel operators, who may have to comply with both. The industry is subject to both sets of ADA regulations with the additional challenge of existing Coast Guard regulations.¹

Passenger vessel operators have been subject to some general provisions of ADA since its passage, that is, the broad anti-discrimination language and the requirement to make "readily achievable" and "reasonable accommodations", within limits proscribed by health and safety risks and "undue burden".

2.1 GOVERNMENT ACTIONS

The OST has been given the lead in the investigation of access for persons with disabilities on passenger vessels. Background work was conducted by the Urban Harbors Institute (UHI) of the University of Massachusetts, Boston² for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The UHI conducted two seminars for affected parties and completed a report highlighting the concerns of the stakeholders and the safety and regulatory questions implied by the ADA. The report did not identify a set of marine transportation access requirements or any associated cost impacts.

Shore facilities access has been examined by the Recreational Access Advisory Committee of the United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. The Committee developed a flexible access regime for recreational boating and fishing facilities and proposed a new section in the ADA Access Guidelines (ADAAG) for such unique features as gangways from dock to vessel³. The State of Massachusetts completed a study and a negotiated regulation process titled "Marine Facilities Access" in 1992⁴.

The Coast Guard has an advisory role relative to passenger safety issues for ADA and the existing requirements of the Shipping Chapters of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Coast Guard Headquarters and the Marine Safety Office (MSO) field units have also assisted in preparation of this report by providing vessel data for the fleet characterization.

The Coast Guard has also sponsored a study by students of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) to rank, in order of feasibility and benefit, several access accommodations on new passenger vessels⁵. They found that crew training, onboard ramps, signs and alarms, and accessible rest rooms were practicable and that elevators, 1:12 boarding ramps, and emergency equipment were less so. In the latter cases, the effects on small boat designs were given strong consideration.

A recently published interim final rule overhauls the Coast Guard's inspection and certification requirements for small passenger vessels. The rule acknowledges the potential impact of ADA on the passenger fleet, but does not address ADA compliance. The Coast Guard's response to pertinent comments in the docket is that they will work with the Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of ADA implementation⁶.

State and local public sector entities, such as the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority and the City of San Francisco, have developed marine access standards^{7, 8}. We have incorporated some aspects of these documents in the access solutions proposed herein.

The Volpe Center chaired an Internal Working Advisory Group (IWAG) made up of government, industry, and advocacy representatives to steer some aspects of the cost study. They were assembled for their advice and comments on the direction of the impact study, although not necessarily to achieve consensus views. The Group met on March 23, 1995 and later reviewed the interim report; the approach used here reflects their comments.

A working meeting was held on April 15, 1996 among representatives of the passenger vessel industry, government, and national advocacy groups to consider in depth the safety and technical issues of access onboard passenger vessels. The findings of that group are included in several portions of this report, including the recommendations sections where the needs for future work are identified. The agenda and minutes of that meeting appear as Appendix I.

2.2 INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES

Passenger vessel operators have, on the whole, been slow to provide this access to their businesses, in good part because the Government has not begun a topical rulemaking process. There have, nonetheless, been many efforts to improve access using "readily achievable" modifications and, particularly among publicly operated services, to make substantial investments in access accommodations in both new and existing vessels and facilities.

Dock access modifications and onboard accommodations are appearing on a steadily increasing number of waterfronts and vessels, mostly associated with large ferries, leisure cruise and gaming boats. Several ocean-going cruise ships offer full access and berthing arrangements to persons with disabilities¹⁰. The smaller vessels and operators, however, tend to have more limited resources-- as well as more daunting size-related technical problems-- and have not moved as quickly to upgrade their facilities.

2.3 THE INDUSTRY AND ADA

The passenger vessel industry is notable for its great variety of services, physical assets, and operating environments. The challenge of providing access includes understanding the provisions of ADA for different types of public facilities.

The spectrum of passenger vessel types and designs is almost limitless, including large cruise ships, small charter fishing vessels, historical replicas, and state-of-the-art high speed craft, among many others. The variety of designs-- the term "custom built" applies to a large number of these vessels-- and services sets passenger vessels quite apart from other modes such as air and rail, which offer more narrowly focused transportation services within much more severely proscribed design limitations.

Similarly, docks and piers are constructed in a wide variety of sizes and shapes to serve the many vessel types, under diverse sets of site constraints such as available watersheet, tides, currents, and shoreside features.

The application of ADA will, generally, include the provisions for public transport and public accommodation. These definitions and the rationale for access solution sets for vessels, docks, and piers are given in Chapter 3 "Approach". Chapters 4 and 6 describe the particulars of the solution sets, while the unit and industry costs are found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 8 shows the results of several cost scenarios developed for fictional small business operators. Chapter 9 is a brief technical treatment of the effects of elevator installations on vessel stability. Chapter 10 addresses additional matters such as qualitative assessment of benefits and implementation issues, and Chapter11 is a brief compendium of conclusions and recommendations.

3. APPROACH

3.1 SCOPE

The cost impact study consists of onboard and dockside access elements. Vessel onboard access accommodations for both new construction and alterations are determined for the fleet during the phase-in period, which reflects estimated fleet replacement rates. Dock and pier access costs are calculated over the same phase-in period, on the assumption that ADA path-of-travel requirements will cause upgrades of access from shore facilities.

The results will be unit costs for sample vessels and dock facilities, and the cost of the industry implementation, referring to the cost of inaugurating new services and products throughout the industry. Several scenario costs are estimated for fictional small operators.

The study does not consider the cost impact of "readily achievable" access modifications to existing assets under ADA, as such accommodations are already required, and in many cases already completed. In addition, implementation of this vague requirement is not easy to gauge within the great variety of the industry.

3.2 GENERAL

The study addresses only the projected costs of ADA implementation. The benefits, and therefore the cost-benefit ratios, are not calculated for two essential reasons. First, the civil rights afforded by ADA provisions of access and mobility are not calculable benefits. Second, those aspects of accessibility which can be perceived to offer tangible benefits, such as ridership increases or reduced liability, cannot be supported by solid data at this time. A more detailed discussion of this issue appears in Section 9.1.

A spectrum of full access solutions is instead advanced for the purpose of finding the cost to implement the rights to access and mobility guaranteed by ADA. The practicability and acceptability of these solutions has been tested by field work, and contacts with industry and disabilities advocacy representatives.

The costs to be calculated are:

• Capital costs associated with the installation of accessible accommodations at dock and pier facilities and for the new construction and retrofitted access features during major alterations of vessels.
• Operating costs expected for such items as increased fuel consumption by heavier vessels, and maintenance of new equipment.
• Revenue losses due to onboard capacity lost to provide space for accessible accommodations. This applies to vessel alterations only, where available passenger space is a given and lost area will result in real passenger capacity reductions. For new construction, it is assumed that owner-specified capacities will be met and that access accommodation costs will be strictly a matter of capital costs and operating costs associated with added vessel weight.
• Personnel training costs for awareness, sensitivity, assistance techniques and technical matters (i.e. handling of wheelchairs).

3.2.1 Methodology

The following steps were taken to determine the costs of access. Sub-heads indicate tasks specific to either passenger vessels or shore facilities.

Characterize affected populations by type and age

-Passenger vessel fleet

-Vessel life expectancy, build rates, and frequency of alterations in the passenger fleet.

-Dock and pier facilities population snapshot.

Identify physical barriers to access.

Identify constraints to solutions unique to the marine environment.

Develop access solutions

Calculate unit costs

-Sample vessels for calculation of unit costs

Calculate costs to industry implementation

-Linking of solutions to affected populations

3.2.2 General considerations

The following are the baseline conditions and assumptions of the analysis:

• Access standards-- ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)¹⁰ are used as the standard for full access. ADAAG deals primarily with mobility, sight, and hearing impaired people. Onboard capacity of persons with disabilities as a function of total capacity will follow the guidelines for reserved parking space densities. Some modifications and exemptions to the guidelines are suggested as a result of limiting factors; development of new standards was not however a goal of the study.
• ADA applicability-- This study addresses Titles II and III of ADA, Public Services (including "public transport") and Public Accommodations. Title I, covering employment opportunities, and other legal civil rights matters under Title IV are not included.

The study determines unit costs and industry implementation costs for new construction and alterations of vessels, and the access premium for upgrading the modeled dock and pier population. Application of ADA "alterations" language to vessels is assumed to cover modifications to "primary function" areas, that is the part of the vessel housing the main public activities.

• Economic factors-- The study used current OMB guidelines¹¹ for real discount rate (4.9% for 30 year or greater terms) and nominal discount rate for amortized capital outlays (7.9%). Time duration of the analysis is based upon assumed vessel replacement rates, fleet turnover, and expected frequency of alterations. Implementation of dock access accommodations is assumed to be over the same period of time. The assumed zero year for implementation of regulations is 1998.

The industry implementation calculations include society and business costs. For business costs, amortizations of capital outlays are included, whereas society costs count only absolute capital expenses.

• Access solutions-- Two sets of variegated access solutions are advanced, one each for onboard the vessels and for shore-to-vessel transition. They all provide full access but will offer the flexibility needed for a diverse industry. Previously developed public and private standards were also used for guidance, within the legal framework of ADA. See Section 3.3 for the supporting rationale and Chapters 4 and 6 for detailed descriptions of the access solutions adopted for this study. Design and engineering impacts are assessed.
• Cost sampling-- Representative unit costs are found in the field and the technical literature for both the passenger fleet and docks/piers.
• Industry implementation-- Cost for the industry implementation is based upon available fleet and port data. Coast Guard passenger vessel data from the Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) and a broad sampling of data from the Marine Safety Offices (MSO) fleets of responsibility are the basis of the nation-wide fleet characterization.

Acquisition of national dock and pier facility data has proven difficult. The Army Corps of Engineers produces catalogs known as the Port Series¹² for many areas, but coverage is far from complete, especially for small passenger boat facilities. A complete ferry system data base compiled by Urban Harbors Institute for the FTA¹³ and data gathered during field visits are extrapolated to the vessel fleet to complete a national population model.

3.3 ACCESS SOLUTION SETS

Passenger vessel operators occupy a unique niche in the transportation industry, providing a wide variety of services from basic A-to-B transit to a wide spectrum of leisure and entertainment activities. Many operators offer a mix of services, either on separate sailings or simultaneously. An approach of multiple access solutions is the reasonable and logical way to deal with the diverse vessel and dock populations in this sector. There is precedent for this approach, in the Federal Air Access Act regulations, the work of the Recreation Access Advisory Committee of the ATBCB, and in the draft Marine Facilities Access regulations developed for the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board⁴.

3.3.1 Vessels

ADA treats vessel types according to several definitions. The primary distinction made by the Act in this arena is between "public transport" and "public accommodation". The meaning of the former is straightforward-- transportation provided by public or private entities on a regular and continuing basis-- and may be directly equated with such vessels as ferries, commuter boats, and water taxis.

Public accommodation means private entities whose operations affect commerce; the relevance for passenger vessels appears to be in such "public gathering" activities as food service, entertainment, and recreation. Many vessel types are, therefore, subject to public accommodations provisions of ADA and may be subject to those of public transport as well.

ADA also draws certain distinctions between publicly and privately owned assets. Publicly owned services such as commuter ferries are expected to satisfy more demanding access standards for existing assets than private entities; there is, however, no distinction for new construction. There is, likewise, a public expectation that transport lines meeting the "fixed route" definition of regularly scheduled service, e.g. larger operations with printed schedules, will provide for access more quickly and effectively than "demand response" services.

Finally comes the marine environment in which passenger vessels operate. Weather and water create problems of motion, safety, reliability and maintenance, for both vessels and shore facilities. Addressing access needs in this milieu is the single, most unique, factor separating this industry from other modes of public transport and accommodation.

3.3.2 Docks and piers

The shoreside infrastructure presents a wide variety of construction and design types to meet the requirements of tide, current, vessel use, and space limitations. They are built to match vessels of varied size, service and number, to fit varied sizes of available "watersheet" (area available for docks/piers and vessel maneuvering), and to function in a great spectrum of coastal and inland settings. The basic engineering and design types are limited, but, in arrangement and accommodation details, their diversity nearly matches that of the vessel population.

3.3.3 Summary

The necessity of a multi-tiered access approach is compelling given the unique nature and wide variety of services in the passenger vessel industry. Two access solution sets are proposed, one for onboard accommodation and one for shore-to-vessel transition. These are based upon field visits and interviews as well as the input of the Internal Working Advisory Group.

The access solution sets are a well informed attempt to anticipate the regulatory standards for a complex industry. One size will certainly not fit all in the passenger vessel trade; a pragmatic approach allowing for varied access solutions is the most probable and logical outcome of the regulation. The cost impact is, therefore, calculated based upon a set of access models which sensibly provide achievable accommodations. The solutions are limited in number compared to the probable outcomes in the fleet, but result in representative unit costs for the population.

4. VESSEL ONBOARD ACCESS

The challenge of access for persons with disabilities on passenger vessels is obvious: there are intrinsically unique barriers in this transportation mode due to their function in a dynamic, waterborne environment. The approach to finding access solutions is the topic of this chapter, which follows the sequence laid out in Chapter 3. A characterization of the fleet population (4.1) is followed by discussion of barriers and constraints (4.2 and 4.3) and access solutions (4.4). The specific solutions for the selected sample vessels appear in Chapter 5 in the development of unit costs.

4.1 FLEET POPULATION

The analysis includes all passenger vessels inspected by the Coast Guard under Subchapters T and H of Title 46 of the CFR; foreign flagged cruise ships operating in the United States are not included at this time. This industry is contesting the jurisdiction of the United States Government as regards ADA; visits to representative terminals and ships were not possible.

A pending Coast Guard rulemaking suggests a new regulatory structure for passenger vessels which would establish T, K, K' and H classes, roughly in increasing order of size and passenger capacity¹³. Although fleet population data currently available are sorted according to the existing regulatory framework, the fleet is characterized according to the new regulations (T, K, and H) which will be in force for the foreseeable future.

4.1.1 Approach to fleet characterization

The Coast Guard proved to be the only source of available fleet-wide data, both through the Headquarters inspected vessel data base and the knowledge of field inspectors in the local Marine Safety Offices (MSOs) (see Appendix A). A data base specific to ferry systems was recently developed for the Federal Transit Administration by the Urban Harbors Institute¹².

The cost calculations require a rather detailed characterization of the present-day passenger vessel fleet, sorted both by Coast Guard's defining regulations and the access categories found in ADA. The latter requires more specific knowledge of vessel use than is of normal interest to the Coast Guard and, therefore, is not reliably found in their data base.

The approach is:

• Obtain global regulatory definition data from Coast Guard Headquarters.
• Gather vessel use data by queries to selected Coast Guard field offices.
• Extrapolate vessel use data to the known global population.
• Sort vessel uses by ADA definitions of "public transport" and "public accommodation".
• Compare Urban Harbors Institute national ferry data to extrapolated Coast Guard data to test the latter's validity relative to one service segment of the fleet.
• Calculate service lives for Subchapters T, K, and H vessels using fleet age data and apply uniformly to all service types within those groupings.

Coast Guard regulatory definitions The existing 46 CFR Subchapters T (subdivided into small and large) and H define classes according to size and capacity and specify certification requirements, operations, and safety standards for construction, fire protection, lifesaving and other systems. The proposed Subchapter K creates a new group of small vessels with high passenger capacity. Definitions of inspected classes follow:

One assumption for data analysis is necessary to bridge the gap between the existing and proposed Coast Guard regulations: T-S vessels are correlated with new Subchapter T boats and T-L to new Subchapter K. While the definitions do not correlate well (from vessel length to passenger capacity), the numerical comparison was tested (Section 4.3.3) and found to be valid for purposes of characterizing the affected population.

4.1.2 Exceptions

The bounds of the study except several vessel types, which are small segments of the fleet population, for the purpose of simplifying the approach to a first order cost estimate. These exceptions are not on the basis of merit relative to ADA; the reasons for each case follow below:

• Nautical school vessels (Subchapter R)-- not publicly available as "for hire", e.g. military and merchant marine academy vessels.
• Industry crew boats and offshore supply vessels-- not publicly available.
• Cargo vessels carrying limited numbers of passengers for hire-- not inspected as passenger vessels by Coast Guard.
• "Six packs", small vessels carrying six or fewer passengers-- not inspected as passenger vessels by Coast Guard.
• Vessels preserved for historic value-- it is usually not feasible to provide access without threatening or destroying historical significance (the relevant citation is Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation 28 CFR Part 36.405). Access provision will be unique on each of these vessels, and non-quantifiable for these purposes.
• Passenger submarines-- special separate provisions for safety and access need to be developed for this newly emerging class of passenger vessels.

The study also does not include passenger vessels that operate on non-navigable waterways and which are inspected by state safety authorities rather than the Coast Guard. It is recognized that these may represent hundreds of vessels, but gaining access to and acquiring the needed data from many different authorities was judged an inappropriately large task within the scope of the project.

Gaming boats will be included in the new construction cost calculation, despite the volatile and uncertain growth patterns. Gaming vessels are high-capital ventures in which no expense has been spared to provide easy and comfortable access for players of all ages, often as a requirement of state regulatory authorities, which treat the vessels as floating buildings. Indeed Coast Guard inspectors have observed that all gaming boats have come into service with full access, including elevators.

4.1.3 Fleet data

Coast Guard Headquarters and the Marine Safety Offices (MSO) were canvassed for passenger fleet data. The input from MSO field inspectors is summarized in Table 4-1 (existing Subchapter classes) as a snapshot characterization of the inspected passenger carrying fleet, including only those vessels in the fleets of responsibility of MSOs which answered the data call. It is roughly half complete, including representative areas from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts and inland waterways. These data may be confidently extrapolated to the entire fleet.

Data from the Headquarters Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) yielded global fleet distributions, presented for comparison's sake as the bottom row of Table 4-1. Note that the MSIS data includes all vessels, without the service data obtained from field units. Table 4-2 shows the MSO fleet data extrapolation (ratio and proportion to global fleet population relative to MSIS) which will be used for cost implementation. It indicates the correlation between new and existing Coast Guard classifications, as well as applicable ADA use definitions.

Data checks The data extrapolation indicates a valid sampling of vessel service information from the Coast Guard MSOs. The acquired data accounts for 52.7% of the national fleet; the global/sample ratio is 1.895. The component ratios for T (T-L and T-S) and H vessels are 1.894 (nearly identical to global) and 1.961, respectively. These factors are used to extrapolate the detailed fleet characterization from Table 4-1 to Table 4-2. The Subchapter H sampling is within 3.5% of global and, therefore, valid. The only independent comparison available for a particular vessel service is the Urban Harbors Institute ferry systems report. They found, among the responders to their questionnaire, the following:

• 168 ferry systems operating 391 ferries, excluding 73 of the barge type.
• 97 Subchapter H ferries.
• 142 Subchapter T ferries carrying more than 150 passengers (i.e. future K vessels).
• 152 T ferries carrying 150 passengers or fewer (i.e. future T vessels).

Table 4-1

Subchapter T and H fleets

(MSO data)

Table 4-2

Extrapolated Fleet Population

*Sailing vessels are assumed to all be in proposed Subchapter T, i.e. 150 passengers

The Urban Harbors Institute data validate two key points in our treatment of available Coast Guard data:

• The extrapolation of service types to global MSIS data tracks well for ferries, since all values are well within 10% of Urban Harbors Institute's findings.
• The assumption that T-L vessel numbers will correlate with the future Subchapter K population works well for the ferry population. It may reasonably be extended to other types.

4.2 ACCESS BARRIERS

Access onboard a passenger vessel is comprised of the same generic issues as in any other venue. Rather than reiterate ADAAG requirements, this study identifies the unique aspects of marine access as cost factors to be included in a total cost calculation. Access requirements are categorized by mobility, safety, and amenities.

The primary issue is access for people in wheelchairs and those with other mobility impairments, both from cost and technical viewpoints. Access barriers for the sight- and hearing-impaired can be solved by more routine improvements; nonetheless these cost factors must also be addressed.

4.2.1 Wheelchair access

The most obvious, and difficult, barriers to overcome relate to the mobility, safety, and amenities for people in wheelchairs. The deck arrangements and safety features, particularly on smaller vessels, pose an array of problems. Skillful design on new construction vessels will solve many, while retrofit for alterations can have a larger impact.

Mobility Barriers commonly found onboard are the following: transition from dock or gangway at the deck edge, adequate passageway width (especially on small vessels), door widths, door sills, door opening arrangements, and access between decks.

Safety The attitude (still water condition) and motion of a passenger vessel will have a singular effect on a person in a wheelchair. Tiedowns and deck fittings are required. Crew training for evacuation and other assistance must be provided, covering all types of disabilities.

Amenities The heads (bathrooms) on passenger vessels are usually non-accessible, particularly on smaller craft. Food service arrangements, i.e. bar heights and chairless tables, are often lacking. There may be additional need to adapt amenities, particularly on "event" vessels such as gaming boats and tour boats.

4.2.2 Sight and hearing impaired access

Safety issues are paramount for the sight and hearing impaired. Mobility requirements are low impact, including such safety measures as tactile strips, Braille signage, and limitations on projections into passageways. Amenities such as reading cards or tapes for certain "event" vessels may be needed but are not specifically considered herein.

Safety Most vessels lack tactile hazard indicators and Braille signage for the blind. Audible and visual emergency alarms must be provided.

4.3 CONSTRAINTS ON SOLUTIONS

The design and operation of passenger vessels are driven by their unique environment. The safety of crew and passengers depends upon a stable and watertight platform and a robust structure capable of responding to dynamic loads and sustaining damage from collisions and groundings.

Space is critical on many designs, particularly on high-density craft where passenger capacity is determined by available seating. The impact of ADA space requirements varies with the Coast Guard per passenger space minima. 10 ft² per capita area is the most commonly used, but high passenger density craft need only 3.75 ft²/seat.

Constraints arise mainly in regard to access for the mobility-impaired. Access is constrained by vessel safety features such as door arrangements, deck fittings, and cambered decks, as well as space restricted passageways, heads, and other passenger service spaces. Access features for the sight- and hearing-impaired are not substantially constrained by marine design practices. The ADAAG specifications include provisions on passageway clearances for the safety of blind people. The designer should consider these as part of the overall accessible passage configuration, whose primary purpose is for wheelchairs.

4.3.1 Safety

The approach to safety is in the context of Coast Guard regulations. The costs of those ADAAG specifications which exceed Coast Guard standards (e.g. passage width and door sills) are calculated; others are subsumed by regulations which exceed the access requirements.

The solutions herein are based on the best currently available solutions and information. The Coast Guard has suggested that a hazard analysis is necessary to address all access safety issues. Such an analysis might show different or additional safety solutions and may be a valuable follow on effort to this study. The following are the specific items considered for this study:

Doors and sills Several operators and Coast Guard personnel have pointed out the access problems arising from the narrow widths, high sills, and large opening force required for marine service doors, particularly watertight and weathertight doors. For the cost estimates, we assume that width requirements must be met, but that the safety provisions of sill heights and closing forces cannot be overridden by the ADAAG. Good detail design practice will solve the sill ramping problem. The operation of some doors however may require power assist or crew assistance.

Passageways The ADAAG specification for aisle/corridor widths, turns, etc. exceeds Coast Guard requirements. Passageways on most larger vessels that were observed satisfy ADAAG, but this is not the case on small vessels. Designers will provide proper passageways for new construction of almost any type, with possible exceptions among the smallest vessels. Retrofits for alterations will be problematic on many small passenger vessels and some leeway for exceptions and equivalent facilitations may be necessary.

Elevators and lifts Installation of elevators for multi-deck access is attended by two major regulatory issues, stability and fire protection. The added weight and vertical moment of an elevator can have serious impact on the intact and damage stability characteristics, especially in the case of a small vessel.

Elevator shafting must satisfy Coast Guard fire protection regulations since deck penetrations cross "fire stopper" and weathertight boundaries. These and other installation requirements (power, controls, etc.) will be addressed in greater detail in the final cost calculations.

Elevators are subject to approval by the Coast Guard, by the American Bureau of Shipping or other classification society, if the vessel is classed for insurance purposes, and sometimes by state authorities. For example, the Illinois gaming boats' elevators were built to landside specifications and approved by the Coast Guard after weight testing. New technologies, including hydraulic and screw-column elevators, may become available, limiting the impact of shipboard elevator installations. The cost basis for this study is for conventional overhead lift types as seen in the field.

Stair lifts have been used with mixed success in some passenger vessels. Installation requires power, rails in the stairwell, storage space for the lift, and adequate stairway width for normal egress. In addition, an extra stairwell may be required to satisfy egress requirements. An emergency situation involving loss of power while the lift is in transit in the stairway can cause a serious safety problem. Stair lifts, unlike elevators, are not "universal use" and can attract undue attention to the user. Use of lifts is assumed on portions of the small boat sector in the cost model, but there is a need to define the limited situations in which lifts would be permissible since ADAAG restricts their use.

4.3.2 Engineering

Most significant issues arising here relate to elevator installations. The vessel's intact and damage stability characteristics must be maintained within specified limits under the influence of substantial added mass which is often "high weight". Power requirements may dictate a larger auxiliary electric plant onboard. Regular maintenance of the system will be required.

Weight is added both for new access components and because of the extra space needed for access accommodations, resulting in vessel speed losses and/or increased power requirements. Main power plants will use more fuel and, in some cases, require extra maintenance. The stability aspect of added weight due to elevators is explored in Chapter 9, through the use of five sample passenger vessels.

4.3.3 Space requirements

The accommodations for wheelchair access taken together can require considerable deck area, with two implications. The first is that added space for new construction means added weight. Secondly, there is a revenue premium if passenger accommodation spaces are reduced, as in the case of alterations to existing vessels.

4.3.4 Egress and evacuation

The Coast Guard and some operators have expressed concern on the efficacy of emergency evacuation of persons with disabilities. Their concern is twofold: 1) safety of passengers of all abilities; and 2) the costs of added accommodations, if necessary, for egress of persons with disabilities.

Safety must be viewed both from the standpoint of existing and pending lifesaving requirements (found in 46 CFR Parts 75 and 180 and the international Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)) and the fast evolving evacuation technology. The CFR and the interim rule cover lifesaving appliances, evacuation routes, and crew training requirements, and requires lifeboats, liferafts, or lifefloats for Coast Guard inspected vessels on sliding scales tied to vessel size, passenger capacity, and service area. All passenger vessels must provide Type 1 lifejackets for 100% of the people onboard.

Current practice and the regulations provide that crew training and lifesaving appliances will effect proper evacuation of all passengers, including the elderly, injured and persons with disabilities. While some operators request an able-bodied companion to accompany and assist each person with a disability during the trip, crew are required by statute, and bound by maritime tradition, to safely evacuate all passengers in cases of emergency. This study could not identify any appliances specially provided for use by persons with disabilities.

The regulations require adequately sized and protected egress to muster areas or locations where lifejackets are available. Vessels built to accessible standards will of course have proper corridor and door design, but assistance for movement between decks will be necessary (elevators/lifts not available). Crew on any vessel will assist entry into available lifeboats or liferafts. If passengers must enter the water, they will all wear Type 1 lifejackets, which are designed to float persons face up and should preserve even persons with severe disabilities. Crew manning requirements relative to the number of boarded passengers with disabilities have not been addressed at this time due to lack of data and experience.

No additional cost is assumed to accrue due to the evacuation requirements for persons with disabilities, because both existing and new emergency procedures must intrinsically account for all passengers, including those injured during casualties and those with disabilities, that is, they have a significant element of "universality". It is clear that providing accessible egress from within the vessel to muster or lifejacket storage areas is the most important design issue, and that crew training and evacuation procedures are the critical pictures for safe evacuation in an emergency.

4.4 ACCESS SOLUTIONS

Previously described diversity of the inspected passenger fleet leads to a consideration of how to provide access thereto without using a rigidly applied standard. The solutions must account for vessel construction and compartment arrangements while satisfying the legal standards of ADA.

4.4.1 Affected vessel population

For purposes of the study, new construction and retrofit are separately considered and are defined as follows:

New construction: Keel laid on or after assumed effective date of new regulations of 1 January 1998.

Alteration: Alteration undertaken on or after effective date of 1 January 1998. The study will not include "readily achievable" access features on existing vessels and will limit its consideration to large "primary function" alterations, that is alterations to those parts of the vessels housing their main public activities.

According to ADA, alterations to the "primary function area" of an establishment trigger an additional requirement to provide an accessible "path of travel" to the primary function. This kind of alteration involves significant cost, occurs with predictable frequency, and implies a reasonable limit on the number of unit cost calculations needed for the cost model. Smaller alterations such as in-kind component replacement are too varied, numerous, and unpredictable to measure. In any event, they are already covered by the general access provisions of ADA and likely involve minimal cost premiums.

DOJ regulations, 28 CFR Part 36, define alteration as any "change...that affects or could affect usability of the building or facility or any part thereof." and except "normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering, asbestos removal, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems" which do not "affect the usability of the building or facility." DOJ requires that any alterations meet the ADAAG to the maximum extent feasible.

4.4.2 Description of access solutions

A set of full access solutions is proposed to deal with the spectrum of passenger vessel types and sizes, both for alterations and new construction. The extent of access varies due to physical and practical limitations of the vessels. Specific requirements for access accommodations (Table 4-3) are based upon observation of vessels and facilities designed or modified for access for persons with disabilities, and practical application of the ADAAG. The following are the proposed solutions:

• Access 1-- All passenger areas of all decks accessible in accordance with the ADAAG, for mobility, sight, and hearing impaired people. This includes passage widths and slopes, elevators or lifts to all decks, accessible heads, signage and alarms, food service accommodations, and tiedowns for wheelchairs.
• Access 2-- Full access accommodations and passenger services provided to the extent available to all passengers, on at least one deck. Access features on a single deck will most often result, except when other amenities, for example access to open deck, are only available on another deck.
• Access 3-- Access accommodations, including passage size, accessible heads, signage and alarms, and food service, provided on one deck. "Equivalent facilitation" on that single deck may substitute for some services available on other decks. Multi-deck access is not required since this solution applies only to alterations of small (T) boats, where technical and cost impacts are likely to be much more burdensome.
• Access 4 (T fishing boats)-- Single deck access to and within primary function area on one deck only. Accessible head is provided, and other amenities to the extent available to all passengers. Figure 4-3 shows a generic arrangement. Access 4 should apply only to new construction and large alterations of primary function passenger areas. For the cost industry implementation, only new construction is considered since large alterations of these craft are rare.

Table 4-3

Vessel Access Solution Set

1. Access to more than one deck may be needed in some cases; single deck access with full amenities will often result.

4.4.3 Application to fleet population

The access solution set (Table 4-3) will be applied to the passenger fleet taking account of:

• The size of the vessel and its ability to support the space and weight requirements of the pertinent access features.
• The type and service of the vessel and its categorization as "public accommodation" or "public transport".
• The differentiation between new construction and alterations.

Table 4-4 sorts the vessels by Coast Guard subchapter and ADA applicability definitions, and shows the application of the access solutions. The ADA sort is limited to the distinctions between public accommodation and transport and between new construction and alteration. Available fleet data do not distinguish fixed route from demand response vessels.

Figure 4-3

"Access 4" for T Fishing Boats

Again, the largest cost and technical impact is clearly from multi-deck access with elevators or, to a lesser extent, with lifts. The access solutions are differentiated mainly along the lines of their multi-deck access requirements. Proposed access requirements are generally along the lines of size and service, with the following main points in mind:

• New public accommodation vessels must provide full multi-deck access, excepting some T boats, where power and stability limitations may allow for full access and services on one deck only.
• Alterations of H and K public accommodations require full access and services, whether available on one deck or more; for T boats, some equivalent facilitation is allowable in a single deck access configuration. The engineering limitations of existing vessels are the reason for reduced multi-deck access.
• New and alteration public transport vessels will provide full access and services, on one deck, although equivalent facilitation will be acceptable for alterations. All vehicle ferries with separate car and accommodation decks, on runs longer than one half hour, will need elevators. Toilet and food service accommodations are not required for short run ferries (Coast Guard definition is less than 30 minutes). Access provisions on commuter boats are assumed to include only boarding, passageway, and wheelchair safety features.
• T fishing boats are generally among the smallest inspected vessels and are most often operated by small businesses. "Access 4" provides basic single-deck access.

Table 4-4

Access Solutions by Vessel Type

Notes: 1) Elevators for ferries with separate vehicle and passenger decks only.

Table 4-4 shows a clear breakpoint between K and T public accommodation vessels in the matter of multi-deck access. Relaxation of this requirement for small vessels, particularly for alterations, is technically and legally logical. The latter point is the "elevator exemption", in 28 CFR Part 36, provided for small existing buildings, defined as fewer than three stories or less than 3000 ft² per story. A similar approach, with different area values, can be applied, as demonstrated by the sample boat data in the following section.

4.5 SAMPLE VESSELS

A representative sample of vessels was selected from files at Coast Guard Headquarters and field units, data available to the Volpe Center, field visits to operators, a search of pertinent literature, and an engineering analysis of several boats in the San Francisco Bay area. The sample vessels are the basis for the development of unit costs, which result in specific impact scenarios and inputs for the industry implementation cost calculations.

Appendix B includes results of the Bay area study and Appendix C is a compilation of unit cost data found in the field and the technical literature.

Table 4-5 groups sample vessels roughly by service and Subchapter, showing total and per passenger areas. Gross areas of passenger accommodation (hotel, restaurant, and public spaces) are found and reduced by the areas taken by other appurtenances such as lifesaving equipment, vents, and rails. Table 4-5 shows that reasonable passenger area breakpoints can be found in the structuring of the Coast Guard's passenger vessel categories. While a strict application of 3000 ft² per deck would eliminate all but the largest passenger vessels, a total deck area of 3000 ft² appears to fall nicely between the proposed T and K Subchapters. Some exceptions, notably the high density craft, appear among the representative existing designs shown in the Table (see shaded rows).

Common per passenger areas run from 10 to 20 ft² (Coast Guard requires 10 ft²/passenger as one measure of allowable capacity) resulting in less than 3000 ft² for almost all T boats (150 or fewer passengers). K vessels will tend towards capacities significantly greater than 150 as a matter of optimal revenues and, for the unit areas required, will most often be above 3000 ft² of accommodation spaces.

Table 4-5

Sample Vessel Passenger Accommodation Areas

5. VESSEL ACCESS COSTS

Fleet costs are developed in parallel for both new construction (5.2) and alterations (5.3) by the following steps:

• develop installation schedule (5.1)
• calculate unit capital, operating, and life cycle costs for sample vessels
• calculate cost for industry implementation based on installation schedule and sample unit costs

Section 5.4 is a brief consideration of personnel training costs. Selected cost scenarios, including shore access expenditures, are presented in Chapter 8. The following are brief descriptions of the cost categories used:

• Capital costs

Direct cost of access features including elevators and lifts, signage/alarms, embarkation access, food service, and tactile materials for the blind. There is a significant cost difference for the installation of these items between new construction and alterations, since in the latter case ripouts of and intereferences with existing systems will often result. It is assumed that these items are installed only once for the service lives of the affected vessels.

The space requirement for the access accommodations on new construction, expressed as a capital expense due to the added area and hull weight required.

• Operating costs

for vessel alterations, lost revenue due to deck area and passenger capacity reductions.

for all vessels, the effects of increased power requirements due to increased displacement and wetted surface area. The costs are expressed as increased fuel consumption, ignoring the possible speed loss.

• Life cycle costs. Maintenance costs associated with elevators, lifts, and other access features, calculated for all cases.

Cost factors are calculated using Office of Management and Budget guidance¹¹:

• Nominal interest rates: from 7.3% for 3 year term to 8.1% for 30 year term.
• Real interest rates: from 4.2% for 3 year term to 4.9% for 30 year term.

This study does not develop an algorithm to predict how owners' decisions to modify or replace will be affected by ADA "alterations" requirements, nor does it account for the "preemptive" effect ADA on alterations of vessels and shoreside facilities. Building and alteration rates are assumed to continue as found in current practice.

5.1 FLEET POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The calculation of industry-wide costs entails the extrapolation of unit costs to the fleet, based upon vessel service lives and replacement rates, and the frequency of alterations. A detailed and accurate current fleet snapshot was developed in Section 4.1.3. Historical data for the fleet consists of yearly Treasury Department reports from the late 1800s up to 1965. A large data gap existed for the period from 1966 to 1987. The Coast Guard data management system resumed data collection beginning in 1987.

Because the recent data history is limited, development of fleet growth and service life/replacement factors is problematic. The rough half-life data found in Section 4.1.3 is used with supporting evidence from industry to assume average vessel service lives. The outlook for fleet growth is suggested from these data and independent Coast Guard work in support of their passenger vessel rulemaking. The trending results for fleet growth and alterations will be combined with the fleet snapshot to develop installation schedules in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, respectively.

5.1.1 Fleet replacement

Approximate average vessel service lives, according to the half life calculations (para. 4.3.3) and discussions with industry are 40 years and 25 years for Subchapter H and T vessels, respectively. The Coast Guard found that 25 years is the average service life for T boats in their regulatory evaluation for the small passenger vessel rulemaking (1990)¹⁴. Vessels built under the new Subchapter K are assumed to replace those under the present T-L.

The annual replacement rate for K vessels is assumed in between those for H and T and closer to H because of similarities in size and service. Replacement of the fleet is therefor calculated at annual rates of 2.5%, 3%, and 4% for H, K, and T vessels respectively.

5.1.2 Fleet growth

Overall fleet growth has been stagnant for 30 years; that is, replacement and scrapping rates have been roughly equal. The last annual Treasury Department Merchant Marine Statistics¹⁵ report in 1965 listed 5862 passenger vessels, compared to the current fleet of 5770 according to Coast Guard MSIS.

Treasury data indicate that in the 1950s and early 1960s, the passenger fleet expanded dramatically with the post-war economic expansion and as World War II surplus craft such as PT boats were brought into such services as fishing and charter. Table 5-1 indicates this trend for the build years 1942-46; the same may be observed for build years in the late 1950s as craft from other services moved into the passenger trade.

In the data gap between 1965 and 1987, most of those boats fell out of service while the revival of passenger boats for transportation and leisure bloomed, especially on inland waters and around the large cities. Passenger vessels have become more specialized with a much larger proportion of the fleet purpose-built for particular services. Volatile growth and decline of particular fleet segments (e.g. construction booms in dinner/excursion boats in early 1980s and gaming boats in the 1990s) often occur, reacting to public trends and regulations which cannot be forecast.

Overall, however, the available data indicate a flat to very slow growth rate over the last five years. While Coast Guard MSIS reports the large passenger (Subchapter H) fleet has increased dramatically in that time (approximately 30% to a total of 205), due mainly to new gaming boats, the T fleet has grown at an average annual rate of only 0.4%. The Coast Guard's regulatory evaluation for small passenger vessel certification concluded in 1990 that the T fleet population was staying constant, replacing itself at a 4% annual rate (about 210 per year), with an estimated average service life of 25 years.

The Army Corps of Engineers annual Waterborne Transportation Lines¹⁶ reports support these conclusions. The scope includes ferries and "passenger, steam or motor" vessels, the latter of which are excursion boats and the like. Passenger fishing boats are not covered, and the remaining fleet size tracks reasonably well with the Coast Guard's data. While the summary data in Table 5-2 shows obvious inconsistencies (the ferry fleet certainly did not grow 450% from 1989 to 1991) in data definition and reporting, it is clear that they show no recent growth trend.

The foregoing data leads to the conclusion that the fleet growth rate will be near 0% for Subchapter T, K, and H vessels for the foreseeable future. Gaming boats make up nearly all of the Subchapter H growth since 1990. Otherwise, the statistics do not support any suggestion of growth.

Table 5-1

Post-World War II Passenger Fleet Statistics

Table 5-2

Army Corps "Waterborne Transportation Lines" Data

5.1.3 Alterations

Passenger vessels are assumed to undergo alteration of the primary function area as follows, based upon evidence from interviews with operators:

• H and K-- every ten years. Those within ten years of retirement will not be included in this calculation.
• T boats-- also every ten years, for dinner, excursion, and cruise boats only. The ten year retirement exclusion also applies. Access for all vessels is in accordance with Tables 4-3 and 4-4.

Note that the foregoing assumption is based upon anecdotal evidence which cannot be supported or refuted by available data bases. The ten year alteration cycle may be agressive; a longercycle would reduce business and societal costs.

5.1.4 Elevators

The installation schedules specifically address the provision of elevators and lifts for multi-deck access, the most important impact item. An accurate cost appraisal must include those vessels which will not provide such access, since the access solutions as structured allow for some flexibility in its application. The affected portions of the existing (without exclusions due to the ten year retirement window) and new portions of the fleet are shown in Table 5-3. These numbers are not supported by available data but from knowledge of the fleet gained through interviews and site visits. Explanatory comments follow:

• "Access 1"-- All vessels must provide multi-deck access. Multi-deck construction is assumed for Access 1.
• "Access 3 and 4"-- No elevators or lifts are required by definition of these solutions, which provide for one full access deck. These smaller vessels are, for the most part, single decked and otherwise are the most likely to have technical feasibility issues.
• "Access 2"-- This solution provides for full access and services on one or more decks, depending on the boat's service and configuration. Assumptions for installation of elevator/lifts follow:

Public accommodation vessels

Alterations to Subchapter H public accommodation vessels-- 75% will need multi-deck access due to the distinct nature of services usually available on different decks. 25% are assumed to provide all services on one deck.

Alterations to Subchapter K public accommodation vessels-- 50% will require multi-deck access, and the remainder will not due to single deck accommodations arising from service and technical limitations.

New construction Subchapter T public accommodation vessels-- 50% will not require multi-deck access because of single deck arrangements or equivalent facilitations, or technical design limitations.

Public transport (ferries)

Multi-deck access is assumed to be required only for those vessels with separate vehicle and passenger accommodation decks. The percentages in Table 5-3 are based upon the Urban Harbors ferry lines study¹². Otherwise, wheelchair access will be to the vehicle deck only or will be supplied by shore access to an accommodation deck.

All Subchapter H and K ferries-- Those with car decks, according to the Urban Harbors Institute are assumed to have separate passenger accommodation decks and, therefore, require elevators or lifts.

New construction T ferries-- Half of those Ts which carry cars are assumed to need multi-deck access.

T ferry alterations-- Some of those requiring multi-deck access may have structural or stability limitations; therefore the percentage requiring elevators or lifts is reduced. T ferry barges are not included in this category and have no elevator/lift requirement in any case.

Table 5-3

Elevator Requirements by Vessel Type

Access Solutions and Percentages of Vessels Applicable

5.1.5 Installation schedules

Tables 5-4 and 5-5 are the installation schedules for new construction and alterations, respectively. The schedules include "elevator" and "lift factors", which anticipate the split between those multi-deck access devices and the resulting cost differentials.

Table 5-4

New Construction Schedule

Table 5-5

Alteration Schedule

5.2 NEW CONSTRUCTION

5.2.1 Unit costs

New construction costs will be calculated as 1) the capital cost of building in the extra space required for accessible accommodations, 2) the direct costs of individual access components; and 3) added operating costs.

Capital costs The added space results from extra area required for access accommodations and is expressed as a cost by multiplying area with the weight/area and cost/weight ratios found for the sample vessels in the engineering study (Appendix B). There is a space premium for elevators, accessible heads, and, for high density craft, wheelchair tiedown spots provided for safety from ship motion. Details of these calculations are in Appendices B and D. The added weight of the access features (e.g. elevators) themselves does not result in added shipbuilding cost.

The engineering study also showed that no area and weight premium results from design of accessible passageways, signage and alarms, accessible embarkation station and main doors, and food service bars, which for the most part can be smoothly integrated with skilled design practice.

Direct costs The costs of individual access components including installation in the shipyard, are calculated according to the solution set in Table 4-3. These are elevators and lifts, accessible heads, embarkation stations, main doors, signage and alarms, and food bars. No extra design or engineering costs are included for new construction.

Tables 5-6 and 5-7 show the component and total unit capital and direct costs for each vessel type. Detailed notes on these costs appear in Appendices B and D.

The largest cost item is elevators and lifts. Table 5-7 calculates that cost and adds it to the costs found in Table 5-6 for all other items; it includes the average number of decks serviced and "blends" the unit cost to account for the assumed elevator lift factors across the fleet.

The unit elevator cost is $25,000 per deck serviced, multiplied by the factor of 1.50 for installation expense, a result of $37,500 per deck. The installed cost of a stair lift is $20,000 for two decks, plus $20,000 for each additional deck. Single elevator or lift service is assumed for all vessels.

Operating and life-cycle costs The operating cost premium calculation is limited to the extra fuel consumed by the main propulsion plant to drive the added weight of access accommodations. Added weight is from added areas for access accommodations and the component weight of elevators. Other components do not contribute significant weight. Notional values for ship's power, displacement, and annual operating hours are given and the effect of added weights calculated in Table 5-8. The following formula yields the annual fuel cost premium: (added wt./loaded vessel wt.)X(annual operating hours)X(0.05 bsfc)X(brake horsepower)X($0.70/gallon); where bsfc = brake specific fuel consumption. See detailed spreadsheets in Appendix D.

Table 5-6

Unit new building costs, excluding elevators

Table 5-7

Unit newbuilding costs, with elevators

Table 5-8

Unit annual newbuilding fuel costs