How It Impacts Ferry Riders and Ferry Operators

By Wes Starratt, P.E.

Will ferry passengers be faced with long lines at security check points, be required to pass through metal screening machines, need to have an up-to-date passport, be forced to remove their shoes and who knows what else, be asked to pledge allegiance to the commander-in-chief, and, failing all of that, be taken aside and told to swim?

Fortunately, the answer is "Probably Not." We should not expect airport-type screening at ferry terminals, unless we are faced with another orange or red security alert, which, fortunately, we have yet to experience, since it might mean that an attack is imminent. Under normal circumstances, even with the new security regulations, the greatest inconvenience that ferry passengers are likely to encounter will not be much more than an increase in the visual screening that already takes place when you board the ferry.

However, concern persists among ferry operators following the passage of the Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 and the publication of Interim Rules on July 1st of this year. These Interim Rules will be the subject of an important public hearing on July 23rd in Washington, DC, with comments welcomed until July 31st, when the public comment period closes. Changes in the Interim Rules are likely, including the incorporation of recommendations from an "industry plan" that will be presented by the Passenger Vessel Association (PVA). These changes will be incorporated in the Permanent Rules that will take effect in November. At that point, security officers are to be appointed by ferry operators, and vessel and facility security plans are to be prepared for submission to the Coast Guard. The Permanent Rules will be fully enforced, beginning in July 2004.

Mary Culnane, Manager of Marine Engineering for the San Francisco Water Transit Authority (WTA), says that the new regulations are a "big deal" for ferry operators, since they create a financial burden and also a responsibility burden. But the WTA, which will not commence providing ferry service for several years, is less concerned than other operators about the impact of the regulations on its future services, since it has the time to design its terminals and its ferries to meet the new security requirements. That includes the installation of an Automatic Identification System (AIS) on each of its vessels.

Meantime, other ferry operators are expressing concern. Here’s what Ron Duckhorn, head of the Bay Area’s Blue & Gold Fleet, has to say about the potential impact of the Interim "regs" on his operations:

"Our greatest concern is the requirement in the Marine Transportation Security Act that passengers be screened and searched as they board a vessel. This screening would create delays in all of our services, but would be most onerous in our Alcatraz services. We board 300 passengers and disembark 300 passengers in the space of 20 minutes, ten to fourteen times a day. If we were required to search each individual boarding the vessel, we would not be able to maintain our departure schedule. Although airline travelers are willing to put up with such delays, I doubt visitors would be willing to do the same for a two and a half hour excursion to Alcatraz."

Ferry operators like Baylink in Vallejo and Golden Gate Ferries also believe that the new regulations "will definitely have a significant impact on our operations," according to the Bridge District’s general manager, Celia Kupersmith. So, ferry operators are in communication with the industry trade group, the Passenger Vessel Association, which is preparing the industry’s alternative vessel security plan for submission to the Coast Guard at the end of July.

There are two basic operating segments of the Maritime Security regulations: one pertains to terminal facilities and the other pertains to vessels. Both are based on Maritime Security Levels of the International Maritime Organization: MARSEC 1 corresponds to Homeland Security levels green, blue, and yellow; MARSEC 2 corresponds to the orange level; and MARSEC 3 corresponds to the red Homeland Security level.

Maritime facilities covered by the Act include passenger terminals for vessels carrying 150 or more passengers, as well as cargo terminals and oil installations. Each terminal operator must designate a security officer, then make a security assessment, and prepare and submit a security plan to the Coast Guard by the end of 2003. Each terminal must be operated in compliance with maritime security regulations by July 2004. Operators must also implement security in accordance with changes in MARSEC levels, report security breaches, and coordinate security with visiting vessels.

At security level MARSEC 1, among the long list of regulations are the following: a public access area must be designated to segregate unchecked persons and their effects from check persons and their effects; sufficient security personnel must be provided to monitor all persons within the public access area and conduct screening as needed. At MARSEC 2, these restrictions are tightened; and at MARSEC 3, all persons are screened and identified, and all baggage is screened.

All passenger vessels carrying 150 or more passengers must comply with the Maritime Security regulations. Operators must appoint a company security officer and security officers for each vessel, and then conduct a security assessment and prepare a security plan for each boat. At all MARSEC levels, the operator much search specified areas of the vessel prior to embarking passengers, perform routine security patrols or provide additional closed-circuit television to monitor passenger areas. At MARSEC 2, these activities are to be intensified, and at MARSEC 3, the vessel operator may go so far as to conduct random armed security patrols.

Ferry operators will certainly incur some costs for added manpower, as well as for reconfiguring public access areas, putting some areas off limits, and upgrading communications and surveillance equipment. In addition, the U.S. Congress, in drawing up the Maritime Security Act, specifically mandated that a wide range of ships and boats carrying as few as 50 passengers install Automated Identification Systems (AIS) for security as well as for safety. These systems, which are similar to transponders in aircraft, enhance radar coverage by using the Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide reliable vessel identification, position, speed, and course, plus the proximity of other vessels. In the San Francisco Bay, AIS systems will have a radio link to the Coast Guard’s Vessel Tracking Station on Yerba Buena Island. The Coast Guard strongly supports the installation of these systems on existing vessels, and the Water Transit Authority appears to agree, since it has included AIS systems in its specifications for all of its new ferries.

We talked with Lockheed Martin, one of the producers of these systems, and got a cost estimate of about $9k, which is likely to drop to the $6k level for portable AIS systems that are comparable to lap-top computers and could easily be carried by pilots.

Since there isn’t an organization of ferry boat riders (but maybe we should form one), we talked with the organization that represents the ferry boat operators, the Passenger Vessel Association in Washington, DC. Ed Welch, its Legislative Director, commented:

"PVA as an association and its members have been involved with these regulations since the very beginning. The most important thing about them from the PVA standpoint is that they allow for what is called an alternative security program, or an "industry standard," and it gives ferry operators the choice of complying with an industry standard that has been submitted to and blessed by the Coast Guard. We will be submitting our "industry standard" to the Coast Guard by the end of July, and hope that, by mid-August, they will have it approved, and we can make it available to our members.

One of the things that we are very concerned about is the screening of passengers and luggage. We are very concerned that it could involve airport-type security. The regulations call for screening, but the definition of screening is more flexible than airport screening. If you have your security personnel stationed where people begin to board, and they are watching folks, scrutinizing people, and pulling aside anyone that looks amiss, our reaction would be that that would satisfy the screening requirement. An alternative might be some intensive sweeps of the vessel both before and after boarding. On this level, our reaction would be that the screening requirement would be manageable."

The Passenger Vessel Association is currently completing its version of the new security rules according to industry standards, which should minimize inconvenience to passengers and costs to ferry operators without diminishing the effectiveness of the security regulations.

We have only touched the surface of these regulations, which involve several hundred pages of fine print written in great detail in government legalese. It is a challenge to read them, and we struggled through the task as best we could. But, we kept wondering, how does one interpret these regulations?

We asked our Coast Guard contact, who responded that, "There is screening of luggage at all MARSEC levels, but that may be no more than the vessel operator looking at hand-carried items and people going aboard the vessel; in other words a ‘visual check’." At MARSEC 2, the security officer may pat down all of the bags, as they do at the ball park, looking at unusual luggage, but not doing anything high tech, although unaccompanied luggage would be x-rayed. For passengers, at MARSEC 1, they will encounter visual screening; at MARSEC 2, they may face a metal detector or something on that order. But at MARSEC 3, they will likely encounter airport-type screening.