Figure 1. Main Deck — Original Design
Figure 2. Upper Deck — Original Design
Figure 3. Sun Deck — Original Design
The vessel was constructed in 2001 and is a catamaran style high speed passenger-only ferry which is certified to carry a maximum of 450 passengers and operated by a government entity. The ferry has three passenger decks and an operational speed of 36 knots. The upper deck (second deck) is the entry deck.
Figure 1. Main Deck — Original Design
Figure 2. Upper Deck — Original Design
Figure 3. Sun Deck — Original Design
A representative of the Access Board reviewed the original designs of the vessel with a representative3 of the ferry to identify passenger features that would not meet the 2006 draft passenger vessel accessibility guidelines.4 The ferry representative proposed new designs for the passenger features that would meet the draft guidelines and estimated how much the designs would add to the new vessel’s construction cost if built in 2008, and noted other impacts. It was recognized early in the study that some changes in the new designs created ripple effects which in real life would have led a designer to completely reconstruct the layout of the vessel. As the case study does not have the funding to explore the impact in such detail, the study uses the current layout to estimate impacts.
Same Footprint Option — The ferry representative estimated that it would cost about $10,432,5005 in 2008 dollars to construct the vessel based on its 2001 design. With the new vessel having the same footprint as the original vessel, the ferry representative estimated that the new designs would add about $108,600 to $127,200 to the vessel’s construction price, approximately a 1.0 to 1.2 percent increase. To comply with the draft guidelines between 42 to 59 seats would need removal, thereby reducing the 450 carrying capacity to that of 408 to 391 passengers.6 The new designs also reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, but provided a vertical platform lift to connect the main and upper (second) decks. Since a reduction in seating is not acceptable to the ferry representative, the case study looked at the impacts incurred by lengthening the vessel and returning it to a 450 seating capacity.
Longer Footprint Option — Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are at 100 percent capacity (and passengers are left at the pier), the ferry representative indicated a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service and a larger ferry was needed to return the seating capacity back to 450. The longer footprint option is estimated to increase the cost of the new designs by $429,600 to $453,200, or approximately a 4.1 to 4.3 percent increase. Cost increases include:
The increase in vessel weight is estimated to increase the fuel consumption by about 10 percent which increases the 547,000 annual gallons used by 55,000 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon, this increases annual operating costs by $165,000.
Below, the actions taken on features in the original vessel designs to create new designs meeting the draft guidelines for a new vessel are discussed below. The case study sought to identify actions that (a) have significant impacts, (b) incurred additional costs but did not have significant impacts, or (c) have other outcomes which should be noted.
An action is identified as having a significant impact where the redesign of the feature would add more than 0.5 percent to vessel’s construction costs; would substantially reduce the vessel’s usable space or necessitate an increase in the vessel’s size; or would present major operational issues. An action is identified as incurring an additional cost but not having a significant impact where a specific cost can be attributed to the redesign of a feature but it does not meet the criteria for a significant impact. Costs include materials, installation labor and engineering work. Where the impact is the same in both the “same footprint option” and “longer footprint option”, no mention of these options is made in the discussion material.
The ferry has three passenger decks connected by stairs with only the upper (second) deck being an entry deck. The draft guidelines require a means of vertical access to connect the main and upper decks, but no vertical access is required to the sun deck. V206.2.1 Exception 8. As the upper deck is less than 3,000 square feet, the draft guidelines allow a platform lift to be used to connect the main and upper decks.8 V206.7.5. In evaluating the impact of providing a two-deck platform lift, three lift locations are discussed below.
Location 1 — The platform lift is positioned on the upper deck just forward of the starboard side entry point. On both decks, the platform lift opens toward the bow with a bulkhead separating it from the seating located forward of its position. This location occupies the area of about 12 seats (all at tables), and increased the cost of the new designs by $92,000 and added 1.5 tons (2240 pounds per long ton) to the vessel’s weight.
Location 2 — The platform lift is positioned in the space occupied by a single-user toilet room on the upper deck of the original vessel (Fig. 6 shows the toilet rooms in the new designs). The lift opens on the upper deck toward the bow and on the main deck toward the stern. Although the stern stair to the sun deck projects into this toilet room, the room has sufficient vertical clearance so the stair probably does not need shifting toward the stern to allow the platform lift in the room. The platform lift increased the cost of the new designs by $92,000, added 1.5 tons to the vessel’s weight, occupied the area of about 9 seats, all at tables (18 seats, if the main deck cross aisle needs to be restored), and causes the loss of one toilet fixture.
Location 3 — The platform lift is positioned on the portside of the interior stair, in the area of the fire station on the upper deck. The lift opens toward the bow. This location occupies the area of about 13 seats9 and requires the repositioning of the upper deck fire station and drinking fountain which is estimated to cause the loss of 2 additional seats, for a total loss of 15 seats (13 at tables). In addition, this lift location added $88,000 to the cost of the new designs and increased the weight of the vessel by 1.4 tons.10
The platform lift located on the upper deck also impacts passenger movement at one of the two main entry points for the ferry on the port side, which is the side primarily used by the ferry. In addition, the lift reduces the port side fore/aft aisle width from about 50 inches to 34 inches at this location.11 This width does not conflict with US Coast Guard (USCG) requirements but would need at least 36 inches to provide an accessible route to the platform lift.12 Reducing the portside entry point by a few inches and/or shifting the internal stair to the starboard side are estimated to have an insignificant impact on the new designs. On the main deck, the port side aisle is not reduced because of the lift.
Summary — Platform Lift — The above three options13 provide a range of outcomes which combined provide a general picture of the impact of the draft guidelines regarding vertical access. For purposes of this case study, to provide vertical access, it is estimated this action would increase the cost of the new designs by $88,000 to $92,000, and increase the vessel weight by 1.4 to 1.5 tons. The action would cause the loss of 9 to 18 seats and could impact other amenities of the vessel such as aisle widths, toilet rooms, number of seats with tables, and food service locations.
Toward the after end of the vessel, three exterior stairs connect the three decks, and near the center part of the vessel one internal stair connects the main deck and upper deck. The stairs have a tread depth and riser height which produces a slope, as allowed by the USCG, which is much stepper than that allowed by the draft guidelines.14 The external stairs at the stern and the internal stair (and a forward sun deck ladder to the upper deck), are part of two means of escape (MOE) required by the USCG which connect all three decks.
The draft guidelines require two accessible means of escape (AMOE) from the upper deck to the main deck, but only one15 from the sun deck to the upper deck. V207.2. The draft guidelines allow stairs, elevators, and platform lifts to be components of an AMOE. V410.1.2. As the aft exterior stairs (which are part of one AMOE ) are open to the weather, these stairs are not required to comply with the stair technical requirements in the draft guidelines (which produce a tread to riser slope of about 32.5 degrees). V410.2 Exception 3. The draft guidelines also exempt the stair technical requirements, and the requirement for stairs, elevators and platform lifts to have areas of temporary refuge (ATR) when a vessel is protected by an automatic sprinkler system. V410.2 Exception 2, V410.3 Exception 2, and V410.4 Exception 2. An ATR is an area where people who are unable to use stairs may remain temporarily to await further instructions or assistance during emergency evacuation. Where an ATR is required, an ATR must have a direct connection to an enclosed stair, elevator, or platform lift it serves, and must have within it one clear deck space (generally, 30 inches by 48 inches) for every 200 passengers in the area served by the ATR. V411.2 and V411.3.
Based on the current layout, to provide a second AMOE which connects the upper deck to the main deck, the ferry representative had the choice in the new designs of either (a) adding an automatic sprinkler system to protect the vessel and use the (unchanged) interior stair, (b) reducing the slope of the interior stair and providing it with two ATR16, or (c) providing the platform lift with two ATR17 and emergency power. The impacts of these three options are summarized below.
a) Sprinkler System — An automatic sprinkler system would increase the cost of the new designs by $230,000 and add 2.3 tons to the new vessel’s weight. This weight by itself is estimated to increase annual fuel consumption by 9 percent which equals around 50,000 gallons (see issue #4 below for more information on fuel consumption).
b) Stair with ATR — The interior stair serves the forward part of the vessel and if its slope was reduced from 37 degrees to 32.5 degrees, the stair footprint would increase by about 20 inches. Since this internal (exit) stair has a width of about 72 inches, it is assumed it is designed to handle 216 passengers.18 Therefore, an ATR associated with the stair must have a size which will at least hold two clear deck spaces (each generally, 30 inches by 48 inches) for two passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids. As the interior stair is not enclosed, to meet the requirement for an ATR to have a direct connection to an enclosed stair, an enclosed landing area was created at the top of the stair. Magnetically held open fire doors were added to this landing on each side. An area to the port side of the stair, but within the enclosed landing, was used to hold the two clear deck spaces (36 inches by 48 inches).19 The drinking fountain which was in the area of the ATR was moved to another part of the vessel and the fire station relocated to the port side of the ATR bulkhead.
On the main deck, the stair landing was increased in size to hold the two clear deck spaces. The magnetically held open fire doors on the bottom of the stair were repositioned to the sides of the ATR/stair landing space.20
Combined with lengthening the stair footprint toward the bow by about 20 inches to provide a 32.5 degree stair slope (not shown in Fig. 7), the ATR (and stair door maneuvering clearances on the main deck) would occupy the space of 8 seats21 on the main deck, plus 8 more seats if an after cross aisle is needed for the center aisle. The 20 inches added to the stair length would also increase the vessel weight by around 0.1 tons and add $2000 to the new design cost. On the upper deck, 4 seats22 were lost.
This stair/ATR option would increase the cost of the new designs by about $27,600, add about 0.5 tons to the new vessel’s weight23, and cause the loss on both decks of 12 to 20 seats24 (10 to 18 at tables).
 |
| Figure 8. Main and Upper Deck Platform Lift/ATR |
c) Platform Lift with ATR — Since an AMOE must comply with the same safety requirements as the USCG required MOE (V410.1.1), the second AMOE must be reasonably separated from the first AMOE using one of the stern stairs. Therefore, using the internal stair location as a guide for reasonable separation, the platform lift location (discussed above) in the upper deck toilet room is not an acceptable location for providing a second AMOE. The platform lift located at the side of the internal stair was further evaluated to determine its impact if an ATR was added. If the platform lift opened in the direction of the bow, into an ATR, and the ATR had two parallel clear deck spaces (each 30 inches wide and 48 inches long) and an entry door which opened inward, the ATR would have an external length of 132 inches and project toward the portside from the stair bulkhead 64 inches. Added to this length, the maneuvering clearance on the push side of the ATR entry door would occupy another 42 inches.
The ATR projection from the stair bulkhead reduced the portside aisle width on the upper deck to 28 inches which could require the platform lift, ATR, and internal stair to be moved toward the starboard side about four inches to restore a Coast Guard required minimum width of 32 inches and move another four inches to provide the 36 inch wide onboard accessible route25 to the platform lift. The impact of moving these features was not evaluated, but would probably be insignificant in the longer vessel new designs. It was also recognized that reducing the depth of the port side entry point may also be an option to provide some of the needed aisle width.
The ATR itself (including the entry door maneuvering clearances and restoring the main deck stair cross aisle, but not including the 15 seats impacted by the platform lift) would occupy the space of 5 seats on the main deck and 9 seats on the upper deck, for a total of 14 seats (7 at tables) loss.26 In addition to the platform lift cost, the two ATRs would increase the cost of the new designs by about $13,000 and add 0.2 tons to the new vessel’s weight.27 The impact does not address the location of the portside fire door at the bottom of the stair which is magnetically held open during normal operations. Emergency power for the platform lift is discussed in issue #12 below.
Summary — AMOE, ATR and Sprinklers — Assuming an automatic sprinkler system would not be used, it is estimated that to provide two areas of temporary refuge and meet other accessible means of escape requirements, these actions would increase the cost of the new designs by $13,000 to $27,600, add 0.3 to 0.5 tons to the vessel weight, and cause the loss of 9 to 20 seats.
3. Other Stair RequirementAside from the AMOE requirements, the draft guidelines also require stairs connecting levels not connected by a ramp, elevator or platform lift (vertical access) to meet access requirements which produces a slope of 32.5 degrees. V209 and V502.2. As the stern stair from the upper deck to the sun deck connects a deck not connected by vertical access, the stair must comply in the new designs which would require the stair footprint to increase by about 30 inches.28 This action would require the removal of the 8 seats located at the base of the stair on the upper deck, increase the cost of the new designs by at least $2,000, and add around 0.1 tons to the vessel’s weight.
The vessel has 450 fixed passenger seats (249 at tables) which are located in four seating areas on the three decks. The four areas are:
Four wheelchair spaces (not meeting the size criteria of the draft guidelines) are provided on the upper deck (the entry deck), in the interior seating area. The seating areas in this vessel would be classified by the draft guidelines as transportation seating areas. V106.5. None of the seats are located in assembly areas. The draft guidelines require that with a total of 450 seats in transportation seating areas, at least six wheelchair spaces be provided which are integrated in the seating plans, dispersed among the three seating areas on (and connected by an accessible route to) the entry deck, and dispersed among seats at tables and seats without tables. V222. The draft guidelines also require that such wheelchair spaces cannot overlap or obstruct any Coast Guard required means of escape, a required onboard accessible route or required accessible means of escape. V802.1.4 and V802.1.5.
The ferry representative proposed to provide six conforming wheelchair spaces, one at a table on the main and upper decks (2 total), one without a table on the main and upper decks (2 total), and two on the exterior seating area of the upper deck. These actions are estimated to cause the loss of 9 seats and are included below in the summary regarding all seating impacts.
Summary – Passenger Seating — The ferry representative estimated that between 42 and 59 seats (more than half at tables) were loss due to the draft guidelines in the new designs of a vessel with the same footprint, thereby reducing capacity from 450 passengers to that of 408 to 391. Seating impacts include, providing:
Because the ferry service experiences over-capacity crowds during rush-hours, the ferry service proposed to increase the length of the new designs by four feet to return about 31 seats. In addition, by maybe tightening some circulation paths to minimum width requirements, adding fold-down seats in some places, reducing the seat pitch and the number of seats at tables, and adding seats to the sun deck, estimated minor adjustments to the seating areas would provide the remaining seats and return the capacity back to 450 in a vessel which is four feet longer. The ferry representative noted that seats at tables are very popular with passengers.
These actions are estimated to increase the cost of the longer vessel designs by about $200,000 and add 3.3 tons to the vessel weight, and add another $5,000 to $10,000 for engineering work related to the circulation path/seating layout reconfigurations.
Same Footprint Option — The original ferry was designed to operate at a speed of 36 knots (36 nautical miles per hour). If 42 to 59 passengers were no longer carried, a weight savings of 3.0 to 4.2 tons is achieved which more than compensates for the weight increase due to the two deck platform lift system and ATR. Therefore, no change occurs in fuel consumption, speed, weight and the size of engines needed.
Longer Footprint Option — As the existing vessel is filled to capacity during rush hour runs (at least 15 percent of the crossings) and with passengers left waiting at the piers, the ferry representative believes that reducing the number of passengers carried is not an acceptable alternative based on current demand. During rush hours, the vessel has about five minutes of turnaround time at one terminal and is allowed 30 minutes for each crossing. A minimum speed of 34.5 knots is needed to keep the schedule. However, as the schedule often does not run perfectly, the ferry representative believes at least one additional knot is needed as a safety margin, meaning the minimum vessel speed should be 35.5 knots. To return passenger capacity back to 450, the new designs required the vessel to be lengthened by four feet. Adding four feet, increased the vessel weight by 3.3 tons and returned the loss seating. Combined with other weight impacts (e.g., the platform lift weight and area of temporary refuge), this option increased the vessel weight by 5.0 to 5.3 tons and reduces its speed to around 35 knots.29 Regaining about 0.5 knots to achieve the minimum necessary speed of 35.5 knots will require the engines to work harder and burn more fuel. As the original vessel has four engines (1700 HP @1850 rpm) which are operating above the recommended RPM (revolutions per minute), having the engines work harder is not an option without incurring engine failures and higher maintenance costs.
It is estimated to regain 0.5 knots four engines with about 1,870 HP30 each are needed and are estimated to increase the cost of the new designs by $117,000. It is estimated fuel consumption would increase by 55,000 gallons annually, from 547,000 gallons to 602,000 annual gallons, a 10 percent increase. At $3.00 per gallon, this represents a $165,000 annual increase in operating expenses.
The case study did not evaluate the wake or emissions impacts of the larger new engine package, or whether the fuel tanks in the existing vessel design would have to be enlarged triggering related weight implications. The study also did not evaluate the increase in fuel consumption due to the larger engine package weighing more.
Vertical Clearances — Passenger circulation paths generally provide at least 80 inches of head clearance, except at doors. All doors used by passengers have openings which provide between 74 and 78 inches of vertical clearance. The draft guidelines require all doors used by passengers (including doors only used by passengers for emergency purposes as part of the emergency/evaluation plan) to have 78 inches of vertical clearance. V204 and V307.4 Exception 1. The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to have all passenger doors provide 78 inches of vertical clearance. This action is estimated to increase the cost of the new designs by $1,600.
Thresholds — Eight exterior doors which would be used by passengers (including those used only by passengers for emergency purposes) have thresholds which are about ¾ inches high on both sides of the doors. The draft guidelines require in a new vessel that thresholds on accessible routes or part of accessible means of escape not exceed ¼ inch vertical or ½ inch beveled. V206.2.2, V206.5, V207.2, V410.1.1, and V404.2.5. The draft guidelines allow thresholds on weathertight doors to have ¾ inch non-beveled thresholds for door sealing purposes.32 V404.2.5 Exception 4. The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to slope up (at 1:48) the maneuvering clearance on both sides of the doors to reduce the threshold to ½ inches beveled.33 This action is estimated to increase the cost of the new designs by $1,000.
Maneuvering Clearances — The eight exterior passenger doors in the vessel have varying amounts of clear space on both sides of the doors. As all eight doors are part of a required accessible route or an accessible means of escape, all these manual doors are required to have conforming maneuvering clearances. V206, V207, and V404.2.4. As the two rear doors on the upper deck have door closers and passenger operated latches, the ferry representative proposed in the new designs to provide the necessary 12 inches of latch side clearance by slightly shifting the port and starboard seating areas forward and removing 2 seats (1 seat at each door) and reducing the size of two tables which are provided in the original designs. In addition, on the main deck, the ferry representative proposed in the new designs to remove 2 seats at the forward doors (1 at each door) to provide maneuvering clearances with sufficient depth. These actions are estimated to increase the cost of the new designs and are included in the costs shown in issue #4 above. A total of 4 seats were lost to provide maneuvering clearances at four exterior doors.
The ferry has one drinking fountain on the main deck by the toilet rooms and another on the upper deck near the interior stair. The draft guidelines require where one drinking fountain is provided on a deck, one drinking fountain will be wheelchair accessible and another one shall be accessible for standing persons. V211.1 and V211.2.
The ferry representative proposed to add a second drinking fountain to both the main and upper decks. On the main deck, space is available to the side of the original drinking fountain but the adjacent cleaning gear locker may need a reduction in size. On the upper deck, depending on the location of the platform lift and area of temporary refuge, the second drinking fountain either was proposed to be located next to the original drinking fountain or provided in another part of the upper deck in the space of 1 seat. These actions are estimated to increase the new designs by $2,000 and could contribute to the loss of another seat.
The ferry has a public address system which serves all passenger spaces of the vessel. The system provides limited information to passengers and primarily is used to alert passengers that embarkations and disembarkations will soon occur. The draft guidelines do not require the four transportation seating areas (mentioned above) which have fixed seats to be equipped with assistive listening systems34, because audible communications over the public address system are not integral to the use of the spaces in which the fixed seats are located. V219.2.
The only passenger storage facilities provided on the ferry are life jacket storage lockers and features under the fixed seats which hold individual life jackets. The draft guidelines require one storage facility of each type to be accessible. V225.2. The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to provide one accessible locker in each of the four seating areas. This action is estimated to have an insignificant cost and impact on the new vessel designs.
Main Deck — A cluster of three individual user unisex toilet rooms are provided on the main deck. One is designated as the ADA toilet room. The draft guidelines require in such clusters on high speed vessels that one of the three toilet rooms be accessible. V213.2 Exception 5. The draft would require that the ADA toilet room to be deeper to provide the 12 inches of maneuvering clearance at the push side of the door and the lavatory could not be located within the clearance of the water closet.
The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to increase the depth of the ADA toilet room and relocate the lavatory. This action is estimated to have an insignificant cost impact on the new designs, but would reduce the path to one of the other toilet rooms to around 23 inches. This action is estimated to have an insignificant impact on the new designs and passenger use of the toilet rooms. To provide a conforming escape path from the crew break room, the break room would be reduced in size by a few inches.
Upper Deck — On the upper deck, one uni-sex toilet room is designated as accessible. On each side of this toilet room, two multi-user toilet rooms (one for men and one for women) are provided but are not accessible. The draft guidelines require all three toilet rooms on this deck to be accessible. V213.2. The ferry representative proposed in the new designs to provide a cluster of three uni-sex toilet rooms, one of which would be accessible, instead of the current configuration. The women’s toilet room would be converted in the new designs to a complying uni-sex toilet room with an in-swing door. This action reduced the number of toilet fixtures from five to three and is estimated to have an insignificant impact on the new designs and customer use of the toilet rooms. Figure 10 shows a platform lift occupying space for one toilet room but could be located elsewhere (see issue #1 above).
The ferry has no audible general alarm. In emergencies, the public address system is used to give directions to passengers. The draft guidelines do not require accessible visual alarms since no audible alarm systems are provided to alert passengers. V215.
The vessel embarks and disembarks passengers from two ferry terminals. Adjustable gangways connect the upper deck with the landside terminals. The passenger boarding system was not evaluated as part of this case study.
The weight increases are estimated to have an insignificant impact on the stability of the ferry. Sufficient spare generating capacity is available to power the platform lift in normal vessel operations. As the ferry representative would probably not be using the platform lift as part of an accessible means of escape, the platform lift does not need emergency power and the impact of the draft guidelines on the vessel’s emergency generating capacity is insignificant.
Same Footprint Option — The ferry representative estimated that it would cost about $10,432,50035 in 2008 dollars to construct the vessel based on its 2001 design. With the new vessel having the same footprint as the original vessel, the ferry representative estimated that the new designs would add about $108,600 to $127,200 to the vessel’s construction price, approximately a 1.0 to 1.2 percent increase. To comply with the draft guidelines between 42 to 59 seats would need removal, thereby reducing the 450 carrying capacity to that of 408 to 391 passengers36 (see “longer footprint option” below). The new designs for this option also reduced the toilet room fixtures available from eight to six, but provided a vertical platform lift to connect the main and upper (second) decks. Costs are summarized below.
| Two Deck Platform Lift System | $88,000 to $92,000 |
| Two Areas of Temporary Refuge | $13,000 to $27,600 |
| Stern Stair Lengthening | $2,000 |
| Wheelchair Space and Seating Reconfiguration | $1,000 |
| Increase in Door Vertical Clearances | $1,600 |
| Door Thresholds | $1,000 |
| Two Drinking Fountains | $2,000 |
| - Total | $108,600 to $127,200 |
Longer Footprint Option — Because of at least 15 percent of the 100 weekly crossings are at 100 percent capacity (and passengers are left at the piers), the ferry representative indicated a loss in seating was not an option for the ferry service and a larger ferry was needed to return the seating capacity back to 450. The longer footprint option is estimated to increase the cost of the new designs by $429,600 to $453,200, or approximately a 4.1 to 4.3 percent increase.
The increase in vessel weight is estimated to increase the fuel consumption by about 10 percent which increases the 547,000 annual gallons used by 55,000 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon, this increases annual operating costs by $165,000.
| 4 Feet Lengthening Of Vessel | $200,000 |
| Engine Upgrade Package | $117,000 |
| Two Deck Platform Lift System | $88,000 to $92,000 |
| Two Areas of Temporary Refuge | $13,000 to $27,600 |
| Stern Stair Lengthening | $2,000 |
| Door Thresholds | $1,000 |
| Increase in Door Vertical Clearances | $1,600 |
| Two Drinking Fountains | $2,000 |
| Engineering for Layout Reconfiguration for Seating | $5,000 to $10,000 |
| - Total | $429,600 to $453,200 |
Note 1 — The ferry representative believes for the longer footprint option that:
Note 2 — After informal review by the US Coast Guard, it was determined that the four foot increase in length and the addition of areas of temporary refuge and a platform lift shaft did not raise the vessel’s gross registered tonnage to an amount equal to 100 or more tons. Therefore, the new longer vessel would still be subject to 46 CFR Subchapter K.
Note 3 — Estimates for stair extensions (stern stair to sun deck and internal stair used as part of an accessible means of escape) were provided by contacting an aluminum stair manufacturer and using product data for landside applications to develop cost and weight estimates for application in the case study. The cost was not considered accurate by the ferry representative and raised to $2,000 for both stairs.
1 The crawl space under the main deck roof area is not designed for human occupancy and is not included in the square footage calculations.
2 The crawl space under the upper (second) deck roof area is not designed for human occupancy and is not included in the square footage calculations.
3 Although the report notes decisions made by the ferry representative, it should be noted that the Access Board hired a consultant (acceptable to the ferry representative) to provide most impact information (including cost estimates) which was used by the ferry representative in the case study decision making process. Most cost/weight estimates include an added 20% contingency which the consultant noted would represent the typical cost and weight outcome.
4 2006 draft guidelines, as amended by Board action at the 2007 and April 2008 meetings.
5 The vessel was estimated to cost $9,750,000 to construct in (fall) 2006. With an estimated one year shipyard inflation rate of 5%-6%, (using 7 percent as more than a year has past) gives an early 2008 cost of $10,432,500.
6 Although each passenger is not required to have a seat, for customer service reasons, the ferry representative believes (in general) one seat is needed for each passenger, recognizing 48 would be exterior and not used in bad weather. Therefore, the case study assumes that for each seat lost, one passenger is lost. Seating capacity per USCG requirements was not evaluated, as a lengthening was needed anyway.
7 $1,000 was removed, as wheelchair space and seating reconfiguration cost in “same footprint option” is included in $5,000 to $10,000 for reconfiguring the main and upper deck seating areas.
8 See footnote #1 (page 2), and #2 (page 3).
9 Two seats (X’ed out in the Fig. 6, Upper Deck) are not included in the 13 seats lost due to the platform lift. Although not usable because the aisle access way is basically not available, in the reconfiguration of the deck seating layout (see issue #4), the case study assumes these two seats would be available.
10 As the platform lift shares the A-60 stair fire bulkhead, the cost and weight of the lift is reduced.
11 The port side entry point enclosure projects out into the port side aisle a few inches. Across from it, a bulkhead (wall) supporting the drinking fountain also projects a few inches into the aisle. The distance between these two projects is about 50 inches. With the platform lift added, the lift projects out further than the drinking fountain bulkhead and reduces the aisle at the entry point to 34 inches. The USCG requires at least 32 inches.
12 As about 90 passengers have seating in the forward half of the upper deck cabin, 45 could use the port side aisle as a means of escape to the interior stair, thereby a minimum width of 32 inches would be allowed by USCG. However, a minimum 36 inch clear width onboard accessible route is needed to the platform lift. The route could run forward along the starboard side aisle, across the bow cross aisle, and aft along the port side aisle. To maintain the clear width of 36 inches, management policies would need to ensure the legs of seated passengers did not block the accessible route at the bow cross aisle. Therefore, to avoid management issues, the case study widened the aisle between the platform lift structure and the port side entry point.
13 The case study did evaluate use of a limited use/limited access elevator (LULA), a small elevator, instead of a platform lift. On vessels with all passenger decks 3,000 square feet or more, platform lifts could not be used in new construction and a LULA could be the next vertical access option. A LULA requires a small “penthouse” on the top which projected into the sundeck and limited the LULA location to aft the pilot house, and increased vessel costs by $140,000 and added 3.0 tons to the vessel weight. When positioned along the port side of the interior stair, 9 seats were loss. In addition, the LULA reduced the portside fore/aft aisle to a width of 22 inches on the upper deck which would mean the interior stair would have to be shifted to the starboard side at least 10 inches (to meet minimum USCG requirements) which would impact seating on the starboard side.
14 The stair to the stern stair between the upper and sun deck may be near 39 degrees, as allowed by USCG.
15 Where a USCG required means of escape is permitted to use a ladder, the corresponding accessible means of escape is not required. As the forward means of escape from the sun deck includes a ladder, only one accessible means of escape is required from the sun deck (see V207.2 Exception 1).
16 A means of escape/evacuation plan for the vessel was not available to make the determination as to whether the main deck needs an ATR. If the USCG required MOE from the main deck does not run up to the upper deck but only connects the open areas on the bow and stern areas, no ATR is required on the main deck. If so, the ATR cost and weight increase would be reduced by about one half.
18 In general, the Coast Guard requires a passenger exit stair to be at least 32 inches wide and have a width of 1 inch for each 3 passengers using it (72 inches multiplied by 3 equals 216).
19 Because the forward most clear deck space (CDS) is confined on 3 sides, the width requirement increases from 30 inches to 36 inches and a 36 inch wide accessible route must connect it which means the after CDS is 36 inches wide. The after CDS can overlap the accessible route. Travel through one CDS to get to another is allowed by the guidelines (V411.3).
20 The case study recognizes that the stair/ATR configuration shown is only a rough conceptualization of the impacts and would most likely require the relocation of the stair and reconfiguration of the surrounding seating.
21 In general, 2 seats were lost within the footprint of the main deck ATR, 6 seats were lost due to the maneuvering clearances for the repositioned stair fire doors (which are held open during normal operations by magnets but would be closed during emergencies). Four other seats X’ed off in Figure 7, are basically not usable but would be restored in the reconfiguration of the seating layout (see issue #4). However, if a cross aisle was needed, these 4 seats would be included in the 8 seats loss to provide a narrow cross aisle.
22 In general, 2 seats (on the port side of the stair) were lost within the footprint of the upper deck ATR and enclosed stair landing and 2 seats were lost for the relocation of the drinking fountain. The 2 seats, X’ed off in Figure 8, are no longer usable but are restored in the seating layout reconfiguration (see issue #4). The seat at the top and bottom of the 2 X’ed off seats could be turned 90 degrees and would be usable. The wheelchair space at the table and ceiling support swapped location for access to the center aisle.
23 On the main deck, 168 linear inches of A-60 bulkhead was added to the stair landing to create the ATR. On the upper deck, 140 inches were added to create the ATR. At 1.88 pounds and $55 per inch — equals $17,000 and 0.4 tons (includes 135 lbs for two fire doors and 200 pounds for stair lengthening). Plus, $3,000 for one damper and fan, $1,000 for two fire doors on the upper deck (the two fire doors for the main deck ATR are already provided, just repositioned), and $2,000 for stair lengthening equals a cost increase of about $23,000. As in most cost estimates in the case study, the value is multiplied by 20% which covers typical contingency costs, giving $27,600 and 0.5 tons. The upper deck ATR assumes 81 inches from the fire bulkhead on the portside of the stair was used on the portside of the ATR.
24 In the overhead of the interior stair, a locker contains life jackets for 50 adults and 20 children and a cooler for the upper deck bar is provided. As the stair slope is reduced, maintaining an 80 inch high head clearance on the stairs may require relocation of these storage features to seating areas for a loss of 4 more seats.
25 See footnote #12 on page 6 regarding the accessible route.
26 Combined with the space impacts of the platform lift (15 seats), a total of about 29 seats were lost. The case study evaluated the ATR impacts if added to the starboard side platform lift. The ATR configuration was similar to the ATR layout at the interior stair platform lift, but the entry door is on the side and its maneuvering clearance is in the starboard side aisle. This starboard side setup occupied 8 to 12 seats and combined with the platform lifts 12 seat impact, created a total loss of 20 to 24 seats. On the upper deck, the starboard aisle width was reduced from 54 inches to 32 inches. To provide a 36 inch wide accessible route, the center forward seating section could be shifted to the port side 4 inches. In addition, the main deck starboard side aisle of 50 inches would be reduced and could require shifting of the center seating section to the port side by 6 to 12 inches to provide a 36 inch wide aisle which may cause the loss of more seats.
27 As the two ATRs share a portion of one side with the A-60 interior stair fire bulkhead, the cost and weight of the ATR was reduced. These ATRs also shared the cost of the fire doors, and damper and fan, provided with the platform lift shaft.
28 The height between the surface of the upper deck and that of the sun deck is about 105 to 110 inches. The stair footprint is about 135 inches in length. It is assumed 15 risers are needed with each being 11 inches long which means the new footprint is 165 inches, an increase of 30 inches.
29 Speed is reduced by 1 knot with every 5 ton increase in weight.
30 It is estimated that to increase a vessel speed by 5 knots, the horsepower of the vessel would double (and fuel consumption would double). If a 36 knot speed needs 1700 HP per engine (6800 HP total), to add 0.5 knots would require an increase of 170 HP per engine (680 HP total). It is estimated each 1 HP increase adds $172 to the cost of the new designs for more powerful engines.
31 The ferry representative reports that on each deck, general passenger circulation paths have sufficient widths to provide horizontal accessible routes and accessible means of escape required by the draft guidelines. All passenger doors have at least one leaf which provides a 32 inch clear opening width.
32 The draft guidelines allow thresholds on weathertight doors to have ¾ inch non-beveled thresholds for door sealing purposes if authorized by the administrative authority (V404.2.5 Exception 4). The case study assumes this exception was not used.
33 If the ¾ inch threshold (see footnote #32) could not pass the Coast Guard leak test, the ferry representative thought sliding weathertight doors (manually operated) would be needed. Providing sliding doors could increase the price of the new designs by $130,000 to $140,000 and increase the vessel weight by 1.25 tons.
34 The draft guidelines may not require assistive listening systems (or visual alarms), but effective communication requirements in the ADA regulations from DOJ and DOT may still require them.
35 The vessel was estimated to cost $9,750,000 to construct in (fall) 2006. With an estimated one year shipyard inflation rate of 5%–6%, (using 7 percent as more than a year has past) gives an early 2008 cost of $10,432,500.
36 Although each passenger is not required to have a seat, for customer service reasons, the ferry representative believes (in general) one seat is needed for each passenger, recognizing 48 would be exterior and not used in bad weather. Therefore, the case study assumes that for each seat loss, one passenger is loss. Seating capacity per USCG requirements was not evaluated, as a lengthening was needed anyway.