Laserfiche WebLink
Executive Summary • DRAFT Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost -Benefit and Economic Impact Anal <br />E.2.8 Recommendations, Concerns, and Next Steps <br />This Study concludes that a new Redwood City ferry service would satisfy all the five measures of <br />feasibility (Consistency, Engineering, Economic, Operational and Financial), as seen in Table E-4. More <br />detail is available in Section 9, which presents the recommendations, considerations, risks and <br />outlines next steps to implement a ferry service which are also summarized below. <br />Table E-4: Ferry Feasibility in the Five Areas <br />Area <br />Feasibility <br />Consistency: with broader Redwood City and WETA plans? <br />Yes <br />Operations: can demand be accomodated? <br />Yes <br />Engineering: can a terminal facility be built? <br />Yes <br />Financial: are farebox revenues sufficient and are other operational funds available? <br />Yes <br />Economics: do user benefits outweigh public investment/operation costs? <br />Yes <br />Source: CDM Smith, 2020 <br />Recommendation —All three service alternatives (OAK/RWC, SF/RWC, and Combined Service) have <br />varying levels of feasibility when measured against the five areas that define feasibility for this project. <br />It is recommended that Redwood City's City Council, the Redwood City Port Commission and the <br />WETA Board of Directors consider moving the project to the next phase of development and begin to <br />develop a Business Plan that also includes how the project and service would be funded. <br />Concerns — In addition to the costs and factors analyzed, many known and unknown factors affect <br />Redwood City ferry ridership, and the resulting financial and/or economic feasibility. Capital and <br />operating concerns include the terminals, ferries, construction windows. Ownership and operation <br />concerns include terminal ownership, private ferry operations, and public/private investment <br />opportunities. Ridership factors include fares schedules, first/last-mile costs and responsibilities, <br />regional transportation development, new/emerging technology, and COVID-19 related ridership <br />effects <br />■ Capital and Operating Costs/Concerns <br />• Terminals — Construction and maintenance costs are not fixed and could change over time <br />(increase or decrease) versus those analyzed. <br />• Ferries — Acquisition costs are not fixed, nor are fuel costs, which are subject to change <br />annual operating costs (both up and down) over the project life. <br />• Construction Window—There is a tight construction window due to environmental <br />requirements. A short construction delay could delay overall construction by a year. <br />• Operating Funding — Regional Measure 3 funds are not set aside for a specific route and <br />could be diverted to another service that is operational ready. <br />■ Ownership and Operations <br />• Terminal Ownership — Which entity ultimately owns the ferry terminal, is it split between <br />the landside and waterside facilities? What are the possible grant funding implications for <br />ownership (e.g. WETA is eligible for federal grants for maintenance of waterside facilities)? <br />E-12 Smith <br />