Integrating Passenger Ferry Service with Mass Transit (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

30 SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES The synthesis survey uncovered many successful practices in activities, information, and facilities related to integrating passenger exchange and physical operations of water- and land-based transportation systems. The case examples pre- sented in this report have cited several successful practices. The following is a listing of the subject areas of successful practices revealed from the survey effort. • Operational integration with dedicated transit service: – Island Transit and Washington State Ferries (Island County) – Kitsap Transit and Washington State Ferries (Kitsap County) – New York Waterway ferries and proprietary shuttles (New York and New Jersey) – BC Ferries and BC Transit (Snug Cove, British Columbia, Canada). • Cost-saving pass available for transfer between ferry and transit: – TransLink Vancouver SeaBus (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Transport for New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) – Public Transport Bermuda – San Francisco Bay Area Clipper Card – Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Fare Zone Pass (Boston, Massachusetts) – Puget Sound ORCA (Puget Sound Region, Wash- ington) – New York Waterway and MTA (New York City, New York). • Fully integrated multimodal transit facility: – Hoboken Terminal (Hoboken, New Jersey) – Waterfront Station (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Lonsdale Quay (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Bremerton Transportation Center (Bremerton, Washington) – Whitehall Station (Manhattan, New York) – St. George Terminal (Staten Island, New York) – Pier 79, West 39th Street Terminal (Manhattan, New York). • Single-level floor plan for accessible transfers: – Waterfront Station (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Lonsdale Quay (North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Bremerton Transportation Center (Bremerton, Wash- ington) – Pier 79, West 39th Street Terminal (Manhattan, New York). • Clear wayfinding system between modes: – Waterfront Station (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Lonsdale Quay (North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Bainbridge Island Terminal (Bainbridge Island, Washington). • Real-time arrival and departure information for all modes: – Hoboken Terminal (Hoboken, New Jersey) – Waterfront Station (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Lonsdale Quay (North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). • Posting of schedule delays and fare policies for all con- necting modes in shared facilities, on agency websites, and in printed materials: – 511.org (San Francisco, California) – TransLink (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) – Washington State Ferries (Puget Sound Region, Washington State). LESSONS LEARNED: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS • The appropriate degree of water- to land-based transit service integration varies based on a number of factors related to geography, land use, and travel markets. However, there are essentially four motivating factors that appear to give rise to ferry–transit integration. One or more of these factors may be present in each aspect of integration: – The land-based transit service is coordinated to the ferry schedule because the transit service is located on an island or remote location, and thus the ferry dock is a good ridership market. – The sheer volume of passengers transferring between ferry and land-based transit demands the attention of the agency or agencies involved. – Coordination is present in the initial development of services and the ferry–transit interface is fully chapter eight CONCLUSION

31 integrated from the beginning or is developed as part of a new or added connection or increased capacity. – Coordination is a result of regional or local trans- portation demand management and/or congestion management strategies. In many cases, ferry–bus integration serves to mitigate vehicle congestion and capacity issues for limited ferry vessel and terminal capacity or to address the capacity and congestion on a parallel roadway. • The degree of coordination is heavily linked to the frequency of ferry or transit service. High frequencies of ferry or transit service generally coincide with a decreased need to coordinate schedules and operations. Lower frequencies of service are much more common, particularly for ferry service, and demand creative solu- tions to facilitating integrated ferry–transit activity such as matching headways between land- and water-based systems, facilitating operational communications, and integrating facilities. • Operational integration requires inter-agency coordina- tion and is mostly applicable where the primary transit market is ferry riders. To avoid inconveniencing other passengers, operational integration will sometimes only exist for a single route, called a dedicated bus or train service in this report. In contrast, service designed to meet many traveler destinations, called multi-purpose service in this report, is less appropriate for operational integration. • Although some ferry agencies are well-established in their region, and have successfully developed a strong market between terminal destinations, this is not neces- sarily an indication of the presence of integrated land- based transit services. • In the survey, complete fare integration, where riders are granted a full-fare transfer from one mode to the other, predominantly exists only within agencies that operate both land- and water-based modes. • Schedule and real-time information accessible online and optimized for mobile devices allows users to plan trips remotely and facilitates the communication of informa- tion across agencies, presenting a more unified service that is likely to appeal to more passengers. • The physical nature of a ferry terminal may present obstacles to creating fully integrated facilities. Ferry docks are often lengthy, adding to the distance required for passengers to walk to other transit services. In addi- tion, buses require space to queue, load, unload, and maneuver. Wayfinding systems (such as signage) are also a critical element of a successful land- and water- based transit interface. Based on information gathered in this report, the following items are suggested for future research: • Impact/difference of private versus public ferry operators on intermodal transfers. • Impact/difference of rail versus bus to ferry on perception of intermodal transfers. • Differences between auto/passenger and passenger-only ferries in terms of demographics and travel markets. • Equity and access in ferry service. • Are tourists disadvantaged or discouraged by the use of smart cards for transit passes and transfer discounts? Does creation of these instruments to serve frequent users have a negative influence on infrequent users? • What is the essential difference in the operating “medium” for land-based versus waterborne transit systems? How much does this basic difference influence and impact reliability, and to what degree do conditions such as weather and tides make operational coordination a sig- nificant consideration? • Bicycle connections/issues and the use of ferries and transit. • Availability of free and paid parking at terminals on transit and ferry ridership. • Basic determinants for assessing the potential of untapped ferry rider markets. • Potential of waterfront transit-oriented development to encourage travelers’ use of ferries for primary trans- portation. • Ability of ferries to compete with or complement land- based transit where there are parallel routes, including the impact of toll roads and/or significant traffic con- gestion through limited vehicle portals (i.e., Manhattan, San Francisco, and Vancouver) that make land-based travel less reliable, convenient, and attractive. • Funding issues that influence integration of land- and water-based transit. • Incentive programs targeted at attracting multimodal riders.