|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 26, 2010 18:53:44 GMT -8
*Buzz* no we don't. Bremerton only recovers about 47% as of the last year EGFleet has on record, 2006. Of course, one of the three *I* thought ran black, doesn't... there's only two. :oops:
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jan 26, 2010 19:52:14 GMT -8
Forgive me for taking another diversion to scenic Moot Point, as I know WSF is determined to build vessels on the basis of inter-changeability, but I'm still not convinced that a vessel like the Sealth or the Island Home class is required for the Tahlequah route. I admit that I'm speaking from a very limited knowledge of WSF affairs.
There is an extremely limited base of funding for fleet renewal. As noted, you've got increasing steel prices. We're talking about a short, 15 minute crossing over sheltered waters that probably never requires anywhere near the foot passenger capabilities of your existing vessels, or the 64 car boats being constructed. I suspect if BC Ferries were considering a route like this, they would be looking at building a vessel along the lines of the Quinsam, or the Skeena Queen, depending on needed capacity. There would be a modest fuel efficient power plant required, capable of ten or eleven knots. Passenger accommodation on the car deck, and one wheelhouse.
Taking the cost of building, the modest requirements of the route, and fuel economy into account, wouldn't a route-specific vessel be more cost effective than the benefits gained from building a more elaborate boat that was able to serve other routes?
Whidbeyislandguy said he didn't want barge ferries. I don't get that. I might be totally out to lunch here, but surely aesthetics aren't the primary concern.
I'm curious as well about the fuel consumption of WSF boats, and the expected efficiency of the Chetzemoka. Is there a table of figures similar to what we saw for BC Ferries vessels summer before last, which shows the typical round-trip fuel burn?
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 26, 2010 20:20:43 GMT -8
I can't speak from an "official" or even "educated" standpoint, but from my viewpoint, I guess the question is, what is the less expensive alternative for the Point Defiance route? Building a new, one-off, purpose-build vessel, -or- filling the route with a vessel offset by the construction of new, multi-use vessels? There are plenty of boats in the WSF fleet that aren't quite ready to be put out to pasture yet, and could make a very efficient showing for themselves on secondary routes like Pt.Defiance.
I have to believe that, if Keystone Harbor could be made to accommodate an Issaquah class boat, the debate raging on this board and elsewhere regarding the merits of the Island Home design wouldn't be happening at all, and we'd be getting ready for the launch of the brand-new, 144-car Chetzemoka.
Just my thoughts.
Jody
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 26, 2010 21:24:10 GMT -8
I'd venture to guess that we would have 3, or perhaps all 4, 144-car ferries in service by now had the lawsuit over who was going to build them not come to fruition and tie-up the process in the courts for several years. Alas, that's obviously not how things went down, and here we are.
Is Sealth ideal for Point Defiance-Tahlequah?....probably not, but, as Jody eluded to, it is an existing ferry which could serve the purpose there if the state were to start building the 144's which we so desperately need. Don't worry about it, though. That's not going to happen either. PD-T will get the 3rd 64-car vessel. I don't agree with it, but that's where the state is at as of right now.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jan 27, 2010 13:36:32 GMT -8
Stop me there but... "POFF's"?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jan 27, 2010 13:50:32 GMT -8
Stop me there but... "POFF's"? POFF = Passenger Only Fast Ferry
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 27, 2010 15:09:02 GMT -8
Least fuel efficient (at least with the POFF's gone now) are the Supers. In terms of operating costs, how do the Supers compare to the Evergreens? "Efficient" being the 'cost per passenger-mile' thing they used some years back, which showed the least efficient auto ferries being the S/Es, then I think the Supers, then Evergreens, Jumbos/Mk IIs, and finally Issaquahs. (In terms of cost per passenger-mile the Issies run away with it. And building more of those boats actually wouldn't be a bad move.)
|
|
|
Post by Freeland on Mar 16, 2010 14:27:33 GMT -8
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Mar 16, 2010 16:57:53 GMT -8
Nichols has updated their web page on all of the new projects.... They have started a eight car Ferry called the Cache Slough Ferry. Pictures at this location. www.nicholsboats.com/cache_slough.htmlClick on General Arrangement to get the blue print of this Ferry. I wonder if this is a new ferry to replace the Real McCoy on Cache Slough on the Sacramento River... Interesting. Good catch! Jody UPDATE: Answered my own question, to the affirmative. From a press release back in May: "Solano – The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) today announced the award of a contract to build a new Real McCoy (Ryer Island Ferry). The $4.3 million contract was awarded to Nicols Brothers, a boat building company located in Freeland, Washington. Caltrans anticipates having the new vessel in operation by summer 2010. Upon delivery the new vessel will continue to provide non-stop service from State Route 84 in Rio Vista to Ryer Island in Solano County."
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 16, 2010 17:36:54 GMT -8
Did Nichols say they had prevailed upon their Senator, MMHaugen, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee to insert language into an omnibus bill that would require the WSF to study modifying the 144 class design to repace the steel superstructure with an Aluminum one ala Island Home Class? The only shipyard in Washington State with H Class Aluminum construction experience is the formerly bankrupt Nichols brothers shipyard.
Did she say that the same bill specificly states that one 144 can be built before the fourth 64 if there is money to build it. She did not say that the 144 would be built instead of the fourth 64 but only that it could be built before it.
In reviewing the MMH legislation it is safe to say that WSF has no independent management team. The WSF is being managed by Olympia, by MMH in particular. David Mosely and his team are just the hands of the Senate Transportation Committee Chair.
The next study she is requiring is one of an independent panel of ferry "experts" (between 3 and 5) that will review WSF Management decisions. So now we have the largest ferry system in North America going to be overviewed by 3 to 5 other ferry system experts who will report by August on the WSF program.
This management review will also be required to review all other consultant reviews performed in the last four years (this is the Cedar River Group reports done for MMH and the JTF) but none of the dozens prepared in previous years such as Booze Allen Hamilton, HDR and others. The purpose of the review, simply to further the legislative agenda for WSF and maybe to steer some work to her constituents.
A couple of other projects she has funded, a million plus for Mukilteo ticket booths, 2.4 million for permitting to replace the Muk ferry dock. No mention of any other routes project needs, none.
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Mar 17, 2010 3:31:22 GMT -8
Chief
Got a bill number on that? Last time I wrote my local rep on the transportation committee I didn't get a reply but I'd like to give it a shot again.
The Governor really needs to take MMH aside and tell her to knock it off. Running the ferry system for the benefit of the local ship yards, unions, consulting firms etc has got to stop. Not only is it hurting those paying ferry tolls and state taxpayers, it is going to hurt the overall economy if the state doesn't catch up on the lack of building that goes back to the Booth Gardner era. The service interruptions at Port Townsend and Bremerton over the last 2 1/2 years are bad enough but pale in comparison to what could happen if the 144 program doesn't get going in time to replace the Evergreens and Supers before they start suffering bad cases of the Gold Band Blues.
This isn't even old fashioned smoke filled back room corrupt government. It is happening out in the open. It is deplorably bad government. Will we collectively do anything to stop it? Could a flood of letters, emails and phone calls do anything? Will the state voters make MMH a minority member of the transportation committee? I'm not sure but I'm not holding my breath.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Governor has the guts or the clout to take on MMH. Worse, I don't think the Governor even has the inclination.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 17, 2010 6:45:52 GMT -8
Which is annoying, because MMH is systematically destroying the ferry system.
That bill number, by the way, is HB 3209.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 17, 2010 11:34:12 GMT -8
Don't be so down on Sen. Haugen, after all her technical background is hairdressing.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 17, 2010 13:49:22 GMT -8
Yet she won't give us money for paint. You'd think with a hairstyling background, she'd be aware of how important appearance is.
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Mar 19, 2010 20:42:24 GMT -8
Thanks for the info on HB 3209. Section 19 (3)(c) in relation to the 144 car ferry design reads in part
“$8,320,000 is provided solely for the completion of technical design, detail design, and production drawings, all of which must plan for an aluminum superstructure”
I called my representative on the house transportation committee and spoke with his legislative aid. I noticed that he had voted for the original house version but when it came back from the senate with Haugen's amendments he voted against it. The aid did not know the reason for his change in vote. She was unaware of the aluminum requirement and was not aware if it or another amendment was the cause of his change in vote.
I called the Governors office and my call was received by a very polite person who was happy to take my comment on legislation on the Governor's desk. However, her tone changed when I mentioned and amendment by Sen. Haugen. I got the vibe that MMH is almost as unpopular in Olympia as in Eagle harbor. I pointed out the insertion of the word aluminum and that it seemed intended to be for the sole benefit of a yard in MMH's district and to the detriment of the the ferry system and the public. I expressed my appreciation of the efforts that WSF has put into what seems to be a very efficient and widely useful design and that I hated to see their professional expertise overridden by a legislator who's technical qualifications are in the hair dressing field. I urged the Governor to veto the section due to the inappropriate micromanagement.
I doubt it will do any good but I gave it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Mar 20, 2010 0:07:31 GMT -8
I have been considering the aging WSF fleet and the need for new vessels to end the service disruptions that have been so common since the abrupt retirement of the steel electrics in late 2007.
I believe the following to be factual based on WSF documents and public statements:
1. The summer schedule calls for 19 vessels to be in service throughout the system.
2. Prior to the retirement of the Steel Electrics the state owned 24 automobile ferries.
3. Two of those 24 ferries, the Hiyu and the Nisqually, had not been in service for several years prior to 2007.
4. Assistant Secretary Mosley testified to the legislature that a fleet of 22 vessels is adequate to maintain the established (pre Steel Electric Crisis) level of service.
5. Since the retirement of the Steel Electrics WSF has leased a boat from Pierce County to maintain a maximum of 18 ferries in service.
6. WSF considers 60 years to be the maximum service life of an automobile ferry.
7. The construction of three 64 car ferries has been funded and is under way. They are scheduled to be delivered in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
8. The first of the long desired 144 car ferries is scheduled to be delivered in 2014 but is not yet fully funded. If sufficient funds are not available a 4th 64 car ferry may be built.
In the near future the newly constructed vessels will be used to do the following:
2010: The first 64 car ferry will go to Port Townsend/Keystone to relieve the leased Pierce county boat. The maximum number of vessels in service will remain at 18.
2011: The second 64 car ferry will bring the fleet up to 22 vessels and allow the system to return to a level of service not experienced since 2007 with 19 vessels in service for the summer.
2012: The third 64 car boat will replace the Rhododendron in regular service at Point Defiance. WSF will then have 23 automobile ferries and will be able to dispose of one to maintain the desired 22 vessel fleet.
The Rhododendron, the oldest boat in the fleet, will then be 65 years old, 5 years beyond what WSF considers the maximum service life. The Hiyu, 20 years newer than the Rhody, is the slowest and lowest capacity boat in the system and can not work on any run without creating a significant service disruption. The state will have to decide to keep the oldest vessel or the least useful.
If any of the above is in error please correct me.
The following are my opinions on the most reasonable course of action for WSF going forward from 2012.
1. To minimize service disruptions the state should surplus the Hiyu in 2012.
2. If the first 144 car ferry is funded and delivered as projected in 2014 the Rhododendron should then be retired.
At that point WSF would have a 22 vessel fleet with a maximum age of 60 years. The summer schedule of 19 vessels can be maintained with 3 vessels in standby status or out of service for maintenance. Two Evergreen State class and one Super Ferry in standby would offer options for vessel replacement or substitution with minimal service reductions.
3. WSF will then need to maintain the 144 car ferry building program at a one vessel every other year pace through 2020 to replace the Evergreen State class without exceeding 62 years of age at retirement.
4. The building program can not slow down at that point! WSF will need to keep a building program going at a one boat every other year pace form 2020 to about 2050 to replace the Supers, Jumbos and Issaquahs by approximately 60 years of age.
I would like to know what you think of my ideas.
Is it reasonable to dump the Hiyu before the Rhody?
Is it possible to get the legislature to accept the construction of a ferry every other year as a normal part of maintaining the system?
Is it desirable to stretch out building on an every other year schedule or would it be more economical to build boats in more closely timed groups like the Supers and Issaquahs and have gaps in between building programs?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 20, 2010 6:34:57 GMT -8
I think you have expressed it pretty well. From my take on serving the public, the HiYu ought to be surplussed before the Rody, although it is better shape overall. I do not think the HiYu will find a plethora of buyers, its configuration is not conducive to a smaller operator, it takes too many crew. I also believe the 64 car KdT class will prove to be less useful than projected, too expensive to operate and will be an albatross to the system. Due to the debt incurred by the State government, I do not believe the one a year schedule will be kept, as it ought to, and the system will continue to be in patch up mode for the foreseeable future. If we get a change in administration, we might see a change, however for the first several years, the austerity will be in full force, this will include the Ferries too, unfortunately. Simply the current administration has been funding everything other than it ought to have, like roads, ferries, and other essential services that make the place work. The Ferry system is being treated like an ugly stepchild instead of the commerce and tourism generating jewel it ought to be. Jim
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 20, 2010 8:41:14 GMT -8
Thanks for the info on HB 3209. Section 19 (3)(c) in relation to the 144 car ferry design reads in part “$8,320,000 is provided solely for the completion of technical design, detail design, and production drawings, all of which must plan for an aluminum superstructure” I called my representative on the house transportation committee and spoke with his legislative aid. I noticed that he had voted for the original house version but when it came back from the senate with Haugen's amendments he voted against it. The aid did not know the reason for his change in vote. She was unaware of the aluminum requirement and was not aware if it or another amendment was the cause of his change in vote. I called the Governors office and my call was received by a very polite person who was happy to take my comment on legislation on the Governor's desk. However, her tone changed when I mentioned and amendment by Sen. Haugen. I got the vibe that MMH is almost as unpopular in Olympia as in Eagle harbor. I pointed out the insertion of the word aluminum and that it seemed intended to be for the sole benefit of a yard in MMH's district and to the detriment of the the ferry system and the public. I expressed my appreciation of the efforts that WSF has put into what seems to be a very efficient and widely useful design and that I hated to see their professional expertise overridden by a legislator who's technical qualifications are in the hair dressing field. I urged the Governor to veto the section due to the inappropriate micromanagement. I doubt it will do any good but I gave it a shot. You can keep track of what Gregoire has signed into law here: www.governor.wa.gov/billaction/2010/default.aspIt'll also note if she vetos any specific element to a bill.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 20, 2010 8:45:25 GMT -8
The only thing that might throw a wiggle into it is the state is (last I heard/read) is insisting the Evergreen State be retired in 2012.
Lord knows they're already not putting any money into her, which is a sure sign they're getting ready to pension off a boat. WSF has a long and established history of doing exactly that before retiring a vessel.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 20, 2010 10:08:42 GMT -8
State just repainted Evergreen States top side. Admittadly it was with federal aid dollars which means it may still be on that schedule, as I doubt the feds would ask: "So um how long you planning on using that for?". But one could say that would be a tacit admission that they plan to use her past the 2012 timeframe when that paint job would be only 3 years old... Not a big investment in the boat, but it is something. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 20, 2010 12:41:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 20, 2010 13:34:52 GMT -8
And, of course, lest anyone read too much into these "long-range plans," one of the long-range plans in the last thirty years called for bridging Cattle Pass between Lopez and San Juan Islands. Another called for a fourth Jumbo Mark II. I realize that the current plan is what we have to work with, but... grain of salt, gents.
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Mar 20, 2010 13:48:25 GMT -8
I also believe the 64 car KdT class will prove to be less useful than projected, too expensive to operate and will be an albatross to the system Deliciously ironic, I guess, in this context. As a refresher (sorry if this is common knowledge) the idea of an albatross as a source of frustration and bad luck dates back to Samuel Coleridge's poem "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/Rime_Ancient_Mariner.htmlThere, though, the albatross is deemed an omen of good luck, but becomes a burden after one of the mariners shoots it with a crossbow and kills it. Seems there are a lot of people on this board that want to kill the albatross too... Jody Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink...
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Mar 20, 2010 20:24:40 GMT -8
Thank you everyone for your comments.
There are several ways one could look at the 64s. They do allow WSF to avoid dealing with keystone Harbor and the local politics of serving the route with one larger vessel for several decades. That may turn out to be a good (or at least ok) thing but it comes at the cost of higher operating expenses.
Or you could look at the 64s as the sailor who brought on the bad luck by shooting down the first 144, at least for a few more service disruption filled years.
The third 64 could become another Hiyu if it ever gets replaced by a larger boat at Pt Defiance. That seems to be a real possibility over a 60 year service life. As a standby vessel it would mean a capacity reduction anywhere it goes.
A fourth 64 would be a drag on the system from day one. I can't see it doing anything other than spending most of the year tied to the dock.
In recent years the Evergreen State has had her mains overhauled, significant hull work and top side paint. Does anyone know of a likely need for other multi-million dollar work being needed to keep her as an often used standby vessel until 2016?
One of the ideas I have considered is how many 144s should be built in the first group. A group of 4 to 7 144s makes sense to me before shifting to Jumbo (Mk III?) construction in a group of 2 or three. The numbers hinge on how may Jumbos can be used in the system. My question for you more knowledgeable folks is how useful might a Jumbo be in the San Juans?
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Mar 20, 2010 20:33:30 GMT -8
One of the ideas I have considered is how many 144s should be built in the first group. A group of 4 to 7 144s makes sense to me before shifting to Jumbo (Mk III?) construction in a group of 2 or three. The numbers hinge on how may Jumbos can be used in the system. My question for you more knowledgeable folks is how useful might a Jumbo be in the San Juans? It's been done before, and it is over kill!
|
|