Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD)
July 28, 2005 [Email]

CASCO BAY ISLAND TRANSIT DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 4656 • PORTLAND, MAINE 04112 (207) 774 7871 FAX 774 7875

Office of Technical and Information Services
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD), a member of the Passenger Vessel Association, submits these comments regarding your efforts to develop accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels, as published in the Federal Register of November 26, 2004. Please include these comments in the official record of both of your dockets as well as the corresponding U.S. Department of Transportation Docket.

Background
The Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD) is a public, quasi-municipal, non-profit ferry boat operator established through emergency State legislative action in 1981. CBITD purchased the assets of the privately owned Casco Bay Lines (CBL) through bankruptcy proceedings to ensure the continuation of transportation service among and between the islands of Casco Bay and the mainland terminal in Portland, Maine.

Five vessels with passenger capacities of 299 upwards to 399 provide daily service to six islands, operating 20 hours per day, 365 days a year and upwards of 30 trips per day. Docking facilities at each island are owned and maintained separately by the Maine Dept. of Transportation, the City of Portland and one private dock. The customers we serve are seasonal and year round commuting residents of the islands and incidental tourists. CBITD maintains 40 year round employees covered under collective bargaining agreement, and approximately 100 employees seasonally. CBITD transports approximately 950,000 passengers and 25,000 vehicles per year. Following is a chart of CBITD vessels and statistics.

*Island Holiday is currently for sale and has been replaced by the Aucocisco III.
**Each vessel is fitted with main deck rub rails. Therefore, actual main deck beam is approximately two (2) feet narrower than breadth listed above.

Approach to ADA
CBITD made a commitment over the past 23 years of operation to provide accessible transportation to all passengers. By utilizing a combination of local, state and federal dollars, CBITD has made capital improvements to its ferries to enhance accessibility in instances where it has been physically possible to do so. The Districts’ position has been that it will make reasonable improvements to its vessels and facilities to enhance safety, reliability and accessibility. It is the right thing to do and makes good business sense. Some of these improvements are listed below:

• 1984- Portable gangways were designed and built to accommodate wheelchairs onboard all CBITD vessels.
• 1985- Designed in 1985 jointly by the City of Portland (landlord) and CBITD
  (leasor) the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal incorporated ADA guidelines in effect at the time.
• 1986- Construction of the Machigonne II, a 122’ split cabin passenger and vehicle ferry with three decks provided with wheelchair accessible restrooms and wheelchair area on the main deck. Embarkation and debarkation are from the main deck via Transfer Bridges on the mainland and Peaks Island, and passenger amenities are available in either main deck cabin.
• 1994- Construction of the Maquoit II, an 85’ passenger ferry with two decks, wheelchair accessible restrooms and a passenger elevator between decks.
• 1997- Retrofit of the Island Romance, a 65’ passenger ferry with two decks to provide a wheelchair accessible restroom and wheelchair lift between decks.
• 2002- Retrofit of the Bay Mist, an 85’ passenger ferry with two decks to provide wheelchair accessible restrooms and wheelchair lift between decks.
• 2005- Construction of the Aucocisco III, a 110’ passenger ferry with two decks provided with wheelchair accessible restrooms and passenger elevator between decks.

Operating Environment
Casco Bay presents unique challenges with tidal ranges as much as 14’ and seasonal weather conditions presenting high winds, rough seas, ice and snow. The proper design of gangway systems and docking facilities is paramount to safety of the passenger and vessel crew. The Maine Department of Transportation has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades to ensure that facilities adequate to our needs were constructed, maintained and adaptable to these changing conditions.

With the spirit of the ADA in mind, three of the most recently constructed facilities are provided with three levels, two fixed ramps and the top of the dock, for the embarkation and debarkation of passengers. These facilities work extremely well with CBITD two deck vessels in providing multiple options to minimize gangway slope while maintaining critical safety. The other two MDOT facilities are provided with two levels, one fixed ramp and the top of the dock, which provide options to minimize gangway slope. The Peaks Island MDOT owned facility is provided with a 100’ mechanically adjustable Transfer Bridge.

CBITD also utilizes two other non-MDOT owned facilities; one owned by the City of Portland, and one privately owned. Each of these dock facilities are provided with two levels, one fixed ramp and the top of the dock to provide the same options for minimizing ramp slope.

The mainland terminal facility is provided with three ramps which can be varied in angle by electric hoist to accommodate main deck or 01 deck passenger transit, depending on height of tide, and one 100’ float adjusted Transfer Bridge that is utilized for vehicle and passenger transfer.

Note: All island facilities serviced by CBITD are unmanned

ADA Access Board and Staff
CBITD would like to thank the Access Board and Staff for visiting our operation on two separate trips to Maine in 2002 and 2003. Multiple meetings and excursions onboard our vessels illustrated the operating challenges faced by CBITD. The meetings were held in the summer under ideal weather conditions, and although we believe the experience was a positive one, we do not feel that enough time was spent studying the transportation challenges under other seasonal weather conditions.

Subsequent to our meetings with the ADA Access Board, CBITD worked cooperatively with Board members and Staff to review the plans of the new vessel Aucocisco III and consequently made design changes to ensure the vessel adequately accommodated those with transportation disabilities.

Comments on the Proposed Guidelines
The work of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee is commendable. This broad based group, appointed by the Access Board, established a forum for greater understanding by all parties concerning the issues of access by disabled persons to and from vessels. Operators gained new awareness and an appreciation of the concerns and challenges of those with transportation disabilities as well.

Since the proposed guidelines were published in November 2004, we have made best efforts to review and study the budgetary and operational implications to CBITD. This daunting task continues, and some of the proposed guidelines have been identified as having serious financial and operational impact. Examples are listed below:

1. Slope. With CBITD vessels operating in extreme tides and winter weather conditions to fixed facilities, we suggest adding the language “where practicable” regarding this requirement. For a variety of reasons, the slope requirements will not be achievable at all times. Providing this language will allow for those periods where compliance cannot be met due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator. To illustrate the challenges of the 1 in 12 slope standard, when the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal was designed in 1985, the three passenger vessel access ramps would have extended completely through the ferry terminal to the other side of the building into the parking area and vehicle roadway. To further illustrate, the existing Transfer Bridges at Peaks Island and the mainland, although quite long at over 100’, still cannot meet the slope requirement as a direct result of tidal conditions. Severe weather conditions in Casco Bay, such as winds, ice and rough seas, prevent floating ramps as a feasible solution.
2. Gangways. CBITD has worked very hard and at great expense to mitigate potential injury to its employees by engineering out much of the risk associated with gangway deployment. We designed and fabricated gangways that could be manipulated by two deckhands to accommodate the facilities we service. The design proposals contained in the rules present further challenges from an operational and financial perspective, and may impact staffing requirements for deployment purposes. We are not sure that an “off the shelf” system such as is proposed is available and if so, we are uncertain such a system would meet operational needs or function properly and without risk. It is the opinion of CBITD that engineering and independent ergonomic assessments, development and certifications remain to be performed prior to acceptance of the proposed gangway criteria.
3. Grandfathering. We urge the Board to grandfather existing vessels and facilities, unless substantially altered.
4. Alterations. We urge the Board to develop and provide a clear definition of alterations that would trigger the ADA requirement.

Guideline Suggestions
We are aware that the Passenger Vessel Association has been in frequent contact with the Access Board regarding this rulemaking, including testifying at public hearings three times in 2005. We support the following points that PVA has stressed in its comments:

• Providing access in marine and aquatic environments is more challenging than doing so at sites on land. Waves, wind, tides, fluctuating river, lake and ocean levels, and various types of vessel motions must be contended with. In designing, constructing,and operating a vessel, there is no higher priority than safety.
• There is a wide diversity of types, sizes, and functions of passenger vessels in the U.S. domestic passenger vessel fleet. Most vessels to be affected by the Access
  Board action are not cruise ships. While it is not the intent of CBITD to “pass the buck”, and we believe our voluntary compliances represent that, the proposed
  guidelines do in fact appear to be addressed to the larger cruise ship industry. Reading the comments to the proposals that have been posted on the Access Board website, it is apparent that the many people that are following the development of these regulations also believe that the large cruise ships will be most affected, while the reality is the passenger vessel will bear the same responsibilities and financial burden as the large cruise ship.
• Designing accessibility into a vessel becomes exponentially more difficult as the size of the vessel decreases. Therefore, it is appropriate to have one set of guidelines for vessels with a capacity of more than 150 passengers*, and a different set for vessels with a smaller passenger capacity. (* See CBITD recommendation below)
• The Access Board should develop its guidelines for vessels with a capacity of more than 150 passengers first, waiting until after this work is complete before further
  study and development of guidelines for smaller vessels. Although CBITD supports developing guidelines for larger vessels first, it differs from PVA on the seemingly arbitrary breakpoints that are recommended. It is only through the wonders of naval architectural design and USCG regulation that a vessel carrying 150 persons or more can be quite small. As an example, CBITD operates two Blount built ferries certificated to carry 304 total persons, yet these vessels are less than 60’ in length at the waterline. CBITD urges the Board to reconsider the breakpoint and a reconsideration of the compliance threshold of 600 persons or more for “large vessels”, the same threshold utilized for USCG Super K regulatory purposes.
• The recommendations of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee, on which four PVA members participated, are preferable to the proposed guidelines put forth by the Access Board. CBITD would urge that the recommendations of PVAAC be reexamined and compared to the proposed guidelines, and that areas of greater difference be reconsidered.
• Any provision that passenger vessels be required to provide vertical access between decks should be tailored very narrowly to those vessel designs and capacities that are capable of safely and efficiently containing elevators or lifts. In many cases, installing elevators in vessels is technically infeasible, structurally impractical, and potentially unsafe. This is particularly true for small vessels.
  

Conclusion
CBITD has made a commitment both in philosophy and funding to meet the spirit of ADA over the past 23 years. As stated above, we believe it is the right thing to do for our customers, and makes good business sense. Nonetheless, it will be extremely difficult to meet the regulations as currently proposed because of factors beyond our control. We urge the Board to not only reexamine the previous good work of the PVAAC, but to also considered the comments and advisement of CBITD in determining what the final rule will look like.

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

Sincerely,

Patrick R. Christian
General Manager, CBITD