Fast‑ferry dispute resurfaces: council hears public comment and requests clarity on next steps

The New Shoreham Town Council on April 7 considered but did not formally move to reconsider its previous position opposing a Rhode Island fast‑ferry application. The matter drew extended public comment from residents, ferry operators and councilors about competitive effects, town‑ferry relationships and potential impacts on the year‑round lifeline ferry.

Multiple residents urged the council to rejoin Interstate Navigation in opposing the Rhode Island Fast Ferry application at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). "I would like to encourage the town to reconsider its position and join forces with interstate navigation and its opposition to the Rhode Island fast ferry," said Judy Gray, a resident.

At the same time, several speakers warned that blocking new high‑speed services can have complicated effects on year‑round ferry economics. David Lewis said the town risks losing summer revenue that presently helps subsidize the lifeline ferry for off‑season runs: "If there's another fast ferry competing… either cut service or raise fares," Lewis said, arguing reduced summer revenue could lead to fare increases or cuts in service.

Representatives of the proposed Rhode Island Fast Ferry and its operator addressed the council. Charlie D'Addio, owner of the Rhode Island Fast Ferry, said competition historically has increased visitor traffic in other markets and disputed claims that an additional high‑speed route would cause a "lifeline death spiral." He cited the PUC division’s earlier findings, saying regulators had rejected the claim that new seasonal high‑speed service would meaningfully harm Interstate’s lifeline service.

Commercial stakeholders tied the landing‑fee question into the dispute. Jessica Ranowski, writing for family interests that operate in Old Harbor, emphasized the value of a cooperative relationship and urged the council to maintain constructive engagement with ferry operators.

At least one councilor said she felt threatened by the manner in which the town was approached and questioned using the landing fee as leverage in negotiations; others said the council should continue to protect the town’s longstanding position opposing a fast‑ferry landing without a permanent dock and should have solicitors monitor the April 14 PUC deadline.

Town solicitor advice and procedural concerns shaped the discussion: the PUC process for a standalone reconsideration filing is different from a local motion to reconsider, and the solicitor advised councilors on the appropriate procedural route. Several councilors expressed a desire to be better briefed on PUC rules and the likely regulatory and financial impacts so they can make an informed decision.

No council motion to reverse the town’s prior position was passed at the meeting; one councilor made a motion to reconsider but it received no second. Councilors asked solicitors to continue monitoring PUC filings and requested further legal and financial briefings to inform any future action.

The exchange underscored the complex interplay between competitive ferry services, municipal landing fees and the town’s dependence on ferry access for commerce and emergency transport. Councilors emphasized that the town seeks to protect year‑round ferry service while maintaining respectful, constructive relationships with ferry operators.