Outcomes Framework  /  NCI Pipeline Underwriting

East Cape Access Decision

Four access modes for an NCI pipeline site near Los Frailes, scored against the six v1 Outcomes metrics. This converts the comparative access memo from a logistics comparison into a framework-grade underwriting artifact: explicit rubric, v1 directional ranges, named v1.1 anchor paths, and a veto-threshold aggregation.

Use case
NCI project underwriting
Site context
East Cape, Southern Baja
Framework version
v1 directional
Date
May 2026
Companion input
SJD to Los Frailes Access Comparison
Classification
Internal · Pre-decisional
What we are underwriting

The decision, restated as a framework question

Conventional question

How do we move guests and residents between SJD and the site fastest and cheapest per passenger-mile?

On that question the paved highway wins. It is also the answer that quietly dismantles the premium the project depends on. The conventional question selects for the worst strategic outcome.

Framework question

Which access mode, as an underwriting input to the site, moves the six Outcomes metrics in the right direction without tripping a veto threshold?

Access infrastructure is not a logistics line item. It is a programming decision that changes the site's relationship to its surroundings, its capital stack, and its risk profile. That is what the framework is built to score.

Method note. Each mode is scored 1 to 5 on each v1 metric, where the score reflects the mode's contribution to that metric for the project as a whole, not the mode in isolation. Scores carry a defined rubric per metric. All figures are v1 directional, drawn from the companion access memo and industry rules of thumb, and carry an explicit v1.1 anchor path. Precise over impressive: where the data is not yet primary-source, it is tagged.
Scorecard

Four modes, six metrics

Higher score is better in every row. The aggregate line is an equal-weight mean, shown for reference only. It is not the decision rule. The decision rule is the veto gate in the next section.

v1 Outcomes metric Helicopter eVTOL Fast ferry Paved highway
Financial ROIHigher is better 3 4 4 1
Timeline to accessLower months is better 5 2 3 1
Cost of capitalLower blended WACC is better 3 4 4 2
Lifecycle carbonLower is better 2 5 4 2
Economic developmentHigher local multiplier is better 2 3 4 3
Resilience and insurabilityHigher is better 3 4 3 2
Equal-weight mean (reference only) 3.0 3.7 3.7 1.8
First finding. The paved highway loses even on a naive equal-weight mean. This is itself a result. The access memo needed veto logic to rule the road out because its matrix included logistics dimensions, time, cost per passenger, raw capacity, where the road wins. The six Outcomes metrics already encode the strategic view, so the road fails on the merits before any veto is applied. The framework metrics are doing exactly the job they were designed for.
Method visible

Per-metric scoring, rubric, and citation path

Each metric below carries the scoring rubric, the four modes' v1 directional values, the method, and the named v1.1 anchor that will replace the directional figure with a primary source.

Metric 01 · Landowners, operators, capital

Financial ROI

v1 directional

Effect of the access mode on unlevered IRR over the hold, through the project's pricing premium, absorption pace, and any direct revenue line the mode itself carries.

1Structurally erodes the premium or induces competing supply
2Net cost with no premium or revenue offset
3Premium preserved, no revenue line, bridge cost
4Premium preserved plus revenue line or absorption lift
5Premium, revenue, and absorption lift compounding
Helicopter  3Preserves scarcity premium. Capex $3 to 7M to launch. Marginal as a retail service, workable as a partially subsidized owner benefit. No standalone revenue line.
eVTOL  4Preserves premium and adds a brand asset that plausibly lifts absorption and rents. Offset by $30 to 80M capex and a 3 to 5 year dormant-capital drag.
Fast ferry  4Preserves premium, carries a genuine retail revenue line, day access for Cabo-staying visitors, and shares capital with marina ambitions. Capex $15 to 50M.
Paved highway  1Capex is public, so it looks free to NCI. It is not. It induces competing inventory along 75 km of corridor and erases the "two lanes, not four" premium the comp set is built on.

Method

v1 IRR effect modeled qualitatively from premium preservation, absorption pace, and revenue lines. The road's negative score reflects induced-supply dilution of the project's absolute market position, not its per-trip cost.

v1.1 anchor path

NCREIF NPI mixed-use subset for the project base case, plus a comp-set access-premium elasticity study using Costa Palmas absorption and price data, plus a discounted induced-supply scenario for the road case.

Metric 02 · Landowners, operators, municipalities

Timeline to access

v1 directional

Months from decision to commercial access availability. Adapted from the framework's timeline-to-shovel-ready metric: access availability gates when the site can sell and operate at full premium.

15+ years to availability
23 to 5 years
324 to 36 months
412 to 24 months
5Under 12 months
Helicopter  56 to 12 months to commercial launch. An authorized corridor operator already exists. The only mode that can run in 2026.
eVTOL  23 to 5 years. Mexican aviation-authority type acceptance runs 18 to 36 months on top of US type certification, plus a new vertiport regulatory category.
Fast ferry  324 to 36 months. Port concession, pier construction, naval and environmental review, and a coastal-zone concession run in parallel.
Paved highway  15 to 10 years from political decision to ribbon cutting, with a high probability of environmental-review defeat given regional precedent.

Method

Time-to-commercial-launch ranges taken from the companion access memo, cross-checked against the regional regulatory precedent it cites. Treated as the gating constraint on premium-rate revenue.

v1.1 anchor path

Heliport and vertiport permitting case files from the relevant Mexican aviation authority, naval and environmental review timelines for comparable pier projects, and corridor-operator actuals.

Metric 03 · Operators, mission-aligned capital

Cost of capital

v1 directional

Effect of the access mode on the blended WACC the project can assemble. A climate-aligned, brand-positive access story widens the set of capital layers available to the stack.

1Repels mission and ESG-aligned capital
2Hard capital only, no aligned layers unlocked
3Neutral to the stack
4Unlocks one or more green or mission layers
5Anchors a distinct climate-finance narrative
Helicopter  3Conventional financing. The carbon and noise profile unlocks no green layer and mildly undercuts an ESG narrative if framed as permanent.
eVTOL  4A first electric air-mobility link is a credible green-bond and mission co-GP story. Plausibly pulls aligned layers into the stack at a lower blended rate.
Fast ferry  4Hybrid-electric vessel with a future fully-electric retrofit path. Green-debt eligible. A public-fare community tier strengthens the aligned-capital case.
Paved highway  2NCI does not finance it, so direct WACC effect is muted. But association with a contested coastal highway repels the exact mission-aligned capital the platform courts.

Method

Scored on whether the mode opens or closes capital layers, not on a modeled rate. The framework's WACC metric is about feasibility width, and access narrative is a real input to which layers will participate.

v1.1 anchor path

Green-bond pricing comps for transport and marine assets, mission co-GP term sheets, and current senior-debt rates at the time of stack assembly. Model the blended WACC delta with and without the aligned layers.

Metric 04 · Mission-aligned capital, municipalities

Lifecycle carbon

v1 directional

Embodied plus operational carbon of the access mode over the project horizon. The framework adds what the access memo omits: embodied carbon of the infrastructure itself, and induced emissions.

1High operational plus high embodied or induced load
2High in one of operational or embodied
3Moderate on both
4Low operational, moderate embodied
5Low operational, contained embodied
Helicopter  2High operational carbon, roughly 35 kg CO2e per passenger trip. Low embodied. Hard to defend on a 50-year project horizon.
eVTOL  5Very low operational carbon, roughly 3 kg CO2e per trip. Moderate embodied from two vertiports. The strongest carbon profile of the four.
Fast ferry  4Moderate operational carbon, roughly 10 kg CO2e per trip with a hybrid vessel. Moderate embodied from pier, breakwater, and hull.
Paved highway  2Moderate per-trip operational carbon, but very high embodied across 48 km of paved roadway and arroyo bridges, plus induced vehicle miles from competing development. The memo undercounts both.

Method

Per-trip operational figures from the access memo. Embodied and induced load added by the framework. The road's score is held at 2 rather than 1 only because the per-trip number is moderate, the embodied and induced load is the real story.

v1.1 anchor path

Full LCA per infrastructure asset, pad, pier, vertiport, road segment, aligned with ULI Greenprint and the RMI Zero-Carbon Building framework. Operator fuel-burn actuals for operational carbon. Induced-VMT modeling for the road case.

Metric 05 · Municipalities, operators, capital

Economic development

v1 directional

Durable local jobs, small-business formation, and local economic multiplier created by the access mode. The framework reads for durable local economy, not one-time construction spend.

1No local economy, net displacement
2Few jobs, imported labor, no supply chain
3Real benefit offset by displacement pressure
4Durable local jobs and a working local supply chain
5Local multiplier compounding across sectors
Helicopter  2Few local jobs, specialized and largely imported labor, no local supply chain. An elite service with a thin community footprint.
eVTOL  3Some technical and vertiport-operations jobs, but specialized roles skew toward imported labor in the early years.
Fast ferry  4Cabotage rules require Mexican-flag crew, so crew jobs are local by law. A working-fleet relationship with La Ribera and a public-fare tier serving Cabo Pulmo dive operators create a genuine multiplier.
Paved highway  3Real benefits to rancho communities, water, power, medical access, school transport, but the same road brings displacement pressure. Genuine and double-edged.

Method

Scored on durability and local capture of the economic benefit. The road's score reflects a real but double-edged effect, the framework does not net it to zero, but it does not credit it as durable either.

v1.1 anchor path

BLS-equivalent local employment data and a local-multiplier analysis on the Shuman framework, a La Ribera working-fleet economic survey, and cabotage crew-employment records from comparable Mexican ferry operations.

Metric 06 · Municipalities, capital, operators

Resilience and insurability

v1 directional

Ability of the access mode to keep functioning through weather, grid, and climate-insurance dislocations across a 30-year horizon, and its effect on the project's insurance friction.

1Fixed, storm-exposed, no reversibility
2Reliable day to day, poor 30-year climate exposure
3Mostly mobile asset, some fixed exposure
4Mobile asset, relocatable, good long-horizon profile
5Mobile, redundant, actively lowers insurance friction
Helicopter  3Mobile airframe, roughly 95% weather reliability, but fuel-dependent and single-point in operations. Walk-away risk is low.
eVTOL  4Mobile, electric, roughly 90 to 95% projected reliability. Vertiport real estate retains value. Main exposure is manufacturer delivery slippage.
Fast ferry  3Vessel is mobile with a resale market, but the pier is fixed and storm-exposed. Roughly 85 to 90% reliability, lower in chubasco season.
Paved highway  2Roughly 98% day-to-day reliability but poor 30-year climate resilience, washout and storm-surge exposure, and zero reversibility once built.

Method

Reliability figures from the access memo. The framework weights 30-year climate exposure and reversibility heavily, which is why the road's high day-to-day reliability does not lift its score.

v1.1 anchor path

A FEMA CRS-equivalent resilience tiering mapped to the Mexican civil-protection framework, carrier underwriting feedback on each mode, and storm-surge modeling for any fixed pier siting.

Aggregation

The decision rule is a veto gate, not a mean

This is the framework's open question on aggregation, resolved for this decision. A weighted mean lets a mode buy back a fatal flaw with strength elsewhere. Access infrastructure has flaws that cannot be bought back. Four gates apply. Failing any one is a no-go, regardless of score.

Veto gate
Helicopter
eVTOL
Fast ferry
Paved highway
G1. Premium preservation. Does not structurally erode the project's pricing premium.
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
G2. Reversibility floor. Access commitment is reversible while the site itself is still in pre-development.
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
G3. Community and conservation license. Does not trigger organized, well-resourced opposition.
Pass, conditional
Pass
Pass
Fail
G4. Developer control. NCI builds, owns, or contracts the asset rather than depending on a public actor.
Pass
Pass, conditional
Pass
Fail
Gate result
Cleared
Cleared
Cleared
No-go
Reading the conditionals. Helicopter clears G3 only if overflight corridors are routed offshore or inland around the marine park and the quieter light airframes are chosen over the heavy twin. eVTOL clears G4 only with an early launch-partner agreement that secures fleet allocation, manufacturer delivery slippage is the live risk. The paved highway fails all four gates. It is a no-go as a project access strategy, independent of its scorecard line.
Recommendation

A sequenced bundle, not a single mode

Ferry as the spine. Helicopter as the bridge. eVTOL as the anchor. Paved highway as a no-go, with an active position against it.

The three private modes each clear the veto gate and each lead a different metric: helicopter wins timeline, ferry leads the blended scorecard and economic development, eVTOL leads carbon and cost of capital. They are not competitors. They are phases. The road fails every gate and, once built, enables every competing project along the corridor. The strategic move is to build private access and stay out of, or quietly oppose, the public road conversation.

Sequenced into the Now City Stack four-phase methodology:

Phase 1Carrying Capacity
Establish what the corridor allows by land, sea, and air, including marine-park overflight and proximity constraints. This is the phase where the road is ruled out, before any pro forma is run.
Phase 2Systems and Program Synergy
Design the sequenced bundle. Site the heliport pad so it converts to a vertiport later, same approach corridors and noise-abatement basis. Co-locate the pier work with marina ambitions.
Phase 3Pro Forma and Capital Structuring
Roughly $50 to 130M of access capital over a 7-year buildout, a fraction of the residential stack. Structure the green and mission layers the eVTOL and ferry narratives unlock. Carry the ferry revenue line.
Phase 4Execution and Stewardship
Live-track reliability, carbon actuals, and per-seat economics. Convert the heliport to vertiport spec when type acceptance lands. Decommission or relegate helicopter service to overflow.
What would change the call

Sensitivity

The recommendation is robust to most single-variable swings. These are the inputs that move it, and they are the ones to monitor as the site advances through pre-development.

  • eVTOL regulatory timeline. Mexican type acceptance running long, or manufacturer delivery slipping, pushes the anchor phase past a 7-year horizon. The bundle absorbs this because the ferry spine carries capacity in the interim. A standalone eVTOL bet would not.
  • Ferry chubasco-season reliability. If summer reliability drops materially below the 85 to 90% range, the helicopter bridge has to be retained longer as overflow rather than decommissioned. Pier siting and storm-surge modeling in Phase 1 are the mitigations.
  • Helicopter standalone economics. If per-seat fares cannot be carried as a subsidized owner benefit, the bridge phase gets more expensive but does not change the sequence. It shortens the case for running helicopter past Phase 3.
  • External road decision. If the federal program funds the Camino Cabo Este independently, the project's access strategy must already be robust to it. The air and sea modes retain their value regardless of road status, which is a further argument for the bundle over any road-dependent plan.
  • Premium elasticity assumption. The road's score-1 on ROI and its G1 veto both rest on the claim that access exclusivity is load-bearing for the premium. This is the single assumption most worth anchoring early at v1.1, via the comp-set elasticity study.