Laserfiche WebLink
Executive Summary • DRAFT Ferry Financial Feasibilitv Studv & Cost -Benefit and Economic I <br />WETA notes that peak boardings are typically 50 percent higher than shoulder-boardings, <br />suggesting a larger boat size or an additional peak boat trip could be needed by 2040. <br />■ SF to/from RWC— forecast to attract 1,300 boardings on weekdays today with about two-thirds <br />in the peak commute direction from SF to Redwood City. In 2040, weekday ridership is forecast <br />to increase to 2,190 boardings. Like the OAK service, the SF service suggests a larger boat or an <br />additional peak boat trip could be needed by 2040. <br />Figure E-3 displays the preferred routing concept for the OAK/RWC and SF/RWC routes. Also, there is <br />a combined service scenario that looks at running both routes simultaneously. Table E-1 summarizes <br />the TDM analysis results for the three service scenarios. <br />Based on the forecasts, the OAK-RWC and SF-RWC routes and the Combined Service Scenario would <br />meet the WETA Performance Measures and Standards for minimum Peak Hour Occupancy of 50 <br />percent by the 10' year of operation and the minimum Passengers Per Revenue Hour of 100 <br />boardings. <br />Table E-1: Daily Ferry Ridership Estimates — by Scenario, Direction, Year <br />Source: CDM Smith analysis (2020) <br />E.2.4 Terminal Facility and Vessels <br />Section 5 summarizes an engineering report that COWI produced which provides conceptual designs <br />for two Redwood City ferry terminal options. COWI updated the conceptual layout from the 2012 <br />Redwood City Ferry Terminal Feasibility Report (Option 1) for the ferry terminal located on the north <br />side of the preferred site, and developed a new conceptual layout (Option 2) for the ferry terminal on <br />the west side of the preferred site. <br />Construction Costs — Ferry terminal estimates range between $15 million and $20 million in 2019 <br />dollars, depending on terminal location and functionality. <br />■ Option 1— includes a one-sided float, which would limit the number of vessels that could access <br />the terminal around the same time. <br />■ Option 2 — includes a two-sided float accessible by two vessels at the same time. <br />Smith <br />E-5 <br />2019= <br />.. I <br />040 <br />Reverse <br />Tota, <br />Scenario 1: <br />72381 <br />OAK/RWC <br />45 <br />852 <br />756 <br />181 <br />1,874 <br />1,022 <br />120% <br />(6 peak dep.) <br />Scenario 2: <br />SF/RWC <br />441 <br />206 <br />1,294 <br />730 <br />363 <br />2,186 <br />892 <br />69% <br />(8 peak dep.) <br />Scenario3: <br />Combined <br />822 <br />251 <br />2,146 <br />1,486 <br />544 <br />4,060 <br />1,914 <br />89% <br />(14 peak dep.) <br />Source: CDM Smith analysis (2020) <br />E.2.4 Terminal Facility and Vessels <br />Section 5 summarizes an engineering report that COWI produced which provides conceptual designs <br />for two Redwood City ferry terminal options. COWI updated the conceptual layout from the 2012 <br />Redwood City Ferry Terminal Feasibility Report (Option 1) for the ferry terminal located on the north <br />side of the preferred site, and developed a new conceptual layout (Option 2) for the ferry terminal on <br />the west side of the preferred site. <br />Construction Costs — Ferry terminal estimates range between $15 million and $20 million in 2019 <br />dollars, depending on terminal location and functionality. <br />■ Option 1— includes a one-sided float, which would limit the number of vessels that could access <br />the terminal around the same time. <br />■ Option 2 — includes a two-sided float accessible by two vessels at the same time. <br />Smith <br />E-5 <br />