Community Briefing Note 05 — Did PTA choose the ferry system before comparing the alternatives?

“Optioneering” is project-management language for something quite simple: before choosing what to build, you identify genuinely different ways of solving the problem, work out how each would perform and what each would cost, and then choose the best one.

Damien Smith · 8 September 2026

Boffins would normally start with the problem:

How do we provide a useful, high-frequency ferry service on the Swan River?

Then compare routes, terminals, vessels, speeds, fleet sizes, charging systems and connections with buses and trains.

Only after that should you decide what to build.

The history of the Swan River ferry project raises an uncomfortable question:

Did genuine optioneering happen here?

Or did PTA substantially choose a high-speed electric catamaran with megawatt charging first, and then conduct consultation, site selection and engineering around that architecture?

How much had already been decided?

By the time the vessel procurement reached the market — and stakeholder consultation was already underway — most of the important system decisions had already been made.

PTA confirmed that Incat Crowther had been involved in developing the vessel General Arrangement.[1]

The tender was called Design and Construction, but the “Design” part needs some qualification.

Tenderers had to remain “substantially consistent” with the existing reference design. The specification already required a battery-electric catamaran, 24 metres long, five identical vessels, operation through Matilda Bay, four berths there, primary high-power charging at Matilda Bay, capability to accept 1.5 MW charging, and a maximum speed of at least 25 knots.[2][3]

There was still plenty of detailed naval architecture for the successful builder to complete. But the decisions that define the transport system were largely already there.

This was not really:

“Here is the transport problem. Design the best system.”

It was much closer to:

“Here is the ferry system and reference vessel. Finish the design and build it.”

That can be a perfectly legitimate procurement strategy.

But it leaves one important question:

Where was the earlier process that compared this system against materially different alternatives?

Did the answer come from San Francisco?

Arup, the engineering consultancy, says PTA engaged it to undertake conceptual work on Perth’s marine structures and electrical charging infrastructure.

It also says its Perth team was “collaborating with our colleagues in San Francisco, drawing on their international experience to deliver the city’s zero-emissions electric ferry programme.”[4]

Again, international expertise is a good thing. Engineers borrow good ideas from elsewhere all the time.

But the comparison is interesting.

San Francisco uses high-speed electric catamarans and 1.5 MW charging. Its new ferries run at about 24 knots. Perth then emerged with 25-knot electric catamarans and 1.5 MW charging.[3][5]

That system makes sense in San Francisco.

One important market is Treasure Island, the former US Navy base being transformed into an entirely new neighbourhood of up to 8,000 homes and more than 20,000 residents.[6]

It is a concentrated new travel market sitting on an island, with limited mainland public-transport connections, in a large, generally deep-water bay with established commercial ferry operations and extensive hard-edged waterfronts.

Matilda Bay is a very different problem.

It is shallow, environmentally sensitive, subject to low speed limits and heavily occupied by sailors, rowers, paddlers and other small recreational craft.

The passenger demand is different too. UWA and Canning Bridge already sit inside an established road, rail and bus network.

None of that proves the San Francisco architecture is wrong for Perth.

But it makes the sequencing important.

Did Arup bring San Francisco expertise to Perth as one input into genuine optioneering? Or did something close to the San Francisco solution become the de facto answer, with the engineering then directed towards making it fit the Swan River?

The election commitment cuts both ways

PTA’s consultants often remind us that expanding Perth’s ferry service was an election commitment.

Fair enough. The Government has a mandate to expand the ferry network.

But that was not a blank cheque for every technical decision already sitting inside the reference design.

Government also told the community, during the election period, that important parts of the system were still open to reconsideration. Further stakeholder engagement would consider terminal locations, safety, environmental impacts and effects on other river users.[7]

Tenderers were expressly allowed to put forward Alternative Offers.

A materially different vessel had already been proposed and its proponent was specifically directed into the tender process so it could be considered. PTA later said final terminal locations had not been determined while the stakeholder process was actively seeking feedback on possible locations. It also gave an express assurance that compliant tenders and their associated Alternative Offers would be considered.[7]

In effect, the deal with the community was:

“We are going ahead with ferries, but if there is a better way of doing it, bring it forward.”

And people did.

The crowdsourced alternative

Over time, something resembling a different transport system has effectively been crowdsourced from tenderers, river users and other stakeholders.

The pieces now include:

JoJo’s as an alternative terminal;
a more direct JoJo’s–Canning Bridge route;
slower, double-ended ferries that do not need to turn at terminals;
much smaller charging requirements;
potentially fewer vessels;
connecting bus services; and
a different timetable and operating model.

No single stakeholder invented all of that. It emerged because different people understood different parts of the problem.

The alternative tender itself proposed a lower-speed double-ended ferry, materially lower energy use, smaller distributed charging infrastructure and greater flexibility in terminal location.

And prima facie, the wider alternative now looks very serious.

It potentially uses less infrastructure, less power and fewer vessels. It avoids much of the conflict in Matilda Bay and avoids relying on speed exemptions. A double-ended vessel saves turnaround time rather than trying to recover it by going faster. A more direct route may also provide a useful high-frequency service.

Preliminary modelling suggests this sort of system may well outperform the present proposal on several important measures.

A proper business case might still show that PTA’s Matilda Bay option provides better public value. But it is difficult to see how from any reasonable calculation that can be made from the information now public. PTA has the modelling resources, assumptions and data needed to demonstrate that case — which is another reason the comparison should be published and independently tested.

We are now well beyond the point where the alternative can reasonably be dismissed as NIMBYs.

Was consultation still capable of changing the system?

Government was telling stakeholders that important questions remained open, including terminal locations, safety, environmental impacts and effects on other river users.[7]

The tender process also allowed materially different ideas to be put forward.

In other words, the process appeared to leave room for the final ferry system to change if better information or better ideas emerged.

And they did.

Across the tender and stakeholder processes, a materially different system emerged: JoJo’s as an alternative terminal, a shorter JoJo’s–Canning Bridge route, slower double-ended ferries, smaller charging requirements, potentially fewer vessels, connecting bus services and a different operating model.

The important point is not who proposed which part of it.

The point is that this is not simply another location for PTA’s existing ferry system. It is a genuinely different way of providing the transport service.

That creates a straightforward test.

Was that different whole-of-system option ever compared properly against the PTA system?

Not just terminal against terminal, but route against route, timetable against timetable, fleet against fleet and complete public value against complete public value.

A proper comparison should use the same assumptions and include:

patronage and passenger demand;
journey time and frequency;
bus and train connections;
vessel numbers and vessel costs;
charging and terminal infrastructure;
operating costs;
safety and environmental impacts;
effects on existing river users;
loss of amenity; and
NPV and BCR calculated using normal Treasury business-case rules.

A proper business case might still show that Matilda Bay provides better public value.

But it is difficult to see that from the information currently available.

PTA has the modelling, assumptions and data needed to demonstrate the case. If the comparison has been done, publishing it would resolve much of the argument.

If it has not, then there is a more fundamental question about the sequencing of the project.

Was the multi-criteria assessment comparing genuinely different complete transport systems, or was it filtering sites around a ferry architecture that had already largely been chosen?

Why this matters now

We now know substantially more about the performance of the selected system.

PTA’s latest operations material identifies a service of around 30 minutes at existing speed limits, while its preferred faster timetable depends on speed exemptions.

The business case was built around a substantially more frequent service and very large far future decongestion benefits.

Those interactions between route, speed, fleet size, frequency and patronage are exactly the things whole-of-system optioneering is meant to expose before the expensive decisions are locked in.

Two questions for Government

What materially different whole-of-system alternatives were actually modelled and compared before the high-speed vessel, megawatt charging system and Matilda Bay operating architecture were selected?
Will Government publish an independent, side-by-side comparison of the Matilda Bay and JoJo’s systems using the same assumptions and normal Treasury business-case rules?

Maybe Matilda Bay wins.

Maybe JoJo’s wins.

That is what optioneering is supposed to find out.

About the author

Prepared by Damien Smith, Perth naval architect and Director of Damien Smith Design Pty Ltd.

Disclosures: Damien Smith Design was a tenderer for the Swan River ferry project and submitted both a conforming offer and an Alternative Offer. Damien is also a member of the Management Committee of Mounts Bay Sailing Club and a member of the Australian Labor Party. These interests are openly disclosed.

The views expressed in this note are Damien Smith’s own and do not represent Mounts Bay Sailing Club, the Australian Labor Party, or any other organisation.

This note draws on publicly available information, tender documents and correspondence relating to Damien Smith Design’s own participation in PTA250023.

Sources and supporting documents

[1] PTA250023 Addendum 4 — Design and Construction of Transperth New Electric Passenger Vessels.
PTA confirms that Incat Crowther was involved in the General Arrangement; states that 25 knots was based on timetable requirements; confirms an intention to seek a speed exemption; and identifies Matilda Bay as the proposed charging location.

[2] PTA250023 Book 4 — RFT Specification.
The principal vessel and operating specification, including the existing General Arrangement requirement, catamaran configuration, 24 m maximum length, five-vessel fleet, Matilda Bay route and berths, charging architecture and 25-knot requirement.

[3] PTA250023 Addendum 9.
Confirms that the vessels were required to be capable of accepting the full 1.5 MW charging capacity.

[4] Arup — Ferry Service Expansion, Perth.
Arup describes its conceptual marine-structure and electrical-charging work for PTA and states that its Perth team collaborated with colleagues in San Francisco drawing on their electric-ferry experience.

https://www.arup.com/en-us/projects/ferry-service-expansion

[5] San Francisco Bay Ferry — REEF electric ferry programme / 150-passenger vessel procurement.
The new battery-electric ferries are specified for 24-knot operation. Arup’s San Francisco electrification work provides the background to the high-power charging architecture.

https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/reef/

[6] San Francisco County Transportation Authority — Treasure Island Transportation Program.
Describes the redevelopment of Treasure Island for up to 8,000 homes and more than 20,000 residents and the associated expansion of ferry and other public transport.
https://www.sfcta.org/projects/treasure-island-transportation-program

[7] PTA letter, 9 April 2025 — Swan River Ferry Service, Ref 72-57650.
States that further stakeholder engagement would consider final terminal locations, heritage, environmental and safety matters and operational impacts on other river users, and directs proponents into the vessel tender process.