|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 19, 2009 21:34:11 GMT -8
I've never really thought about the white bottles much over the years... in fact they're actually disappearing as the ropes break or whatever and aren't being replaced, because our cleaning supplies don't come in gallon jugs anymore.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 22, 2009 11:04:26 GMT -8
Ferry system saving millions by cutting loose consultants
Officials have cut spending on consultants by more than 50 percent over the previous budget.
By Scott North Herald Writer
SEATTLE -- As Washington lawmakers look for ways to trim spending by billions of dollars, they may find some ideas in an unlikely place: the troubled state ferry system.
Plagued in 2007 by questions about weak leadership, millions of dollars spent on plans that bore no fruit and doubts about the safety of an aging fleet, ferry officials found themselves being ordered to chart a new course.
That's led to some big financial savings, said David Moseley, the assistant state transportation secretary who took over as Washington State Ferries chief in February 2008.
The ferry system now is on track to spend about $25 million less on consultants than it did in the previous two-year budget period, and is studying options to reduce spending even more, officials said.
Moseley has been doing a "superb job," said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, who heads the powerful Senate Transportation Committee.
"The department has made huge progress," Haugen said "Can they do better? Yes. But there has been a total change in how the ferry system does business."
During the 2005-07 biennium, about $44.8 million was spent on ferry system consultants. About three-fourths of that money went to people who were designing and planning expensive upgrades to terminals in Edmonds, Mukilteo, Whidbey Island and elsewhere, records show.
Many of the consultants, although employed by private companies, worked from desks and at ferry system headquarters in Seattle.
That's changing.
Ferry officials expect to end the 2007-09 budget period having spent about $19.8 million on consultants, said Jean Baker, deputy chief of finance and administration for the ferry system.
Overall, that is more than a 50 percent reduction in consultant spending. The biggest cuts are in terminal projects, where money for consultants has been shrunk to one-fourth the previous level.
There are now 27 on-site consultants at the ferry system. That's half as many who worked there in 2005. Those who remain are being scrutinized carefully to make certain the skills they bring are critical, and not somehow available elsewhere in the ferry system.
Of the 45 consulting contracts the ferry system still has on the books, nearly a dozen have been inactive for at least six months.
"We are keeping what we need to keep the fleet going," Baker said.
Time was that people whose work revolves around ferry system terminals filled two floors in the Seattle office building that houses ferry system headquarters. Enough on-site consultants have seen ferry jobs disappear that terminal workers now fit into a single floor. The emptied office space is being sublet to transportation planners working on the Highway 520 bridge project, said Marta Coursey, communications director for the ferry system.
The changes reflect a renewed focus on making sure the ferry system has the boats it needs to continue to operate.
"It's all vessels, vessels, vessels now," Coursey said.
Concerns about the ferry system caught widespread attention in November 2007.
That's when Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, then only months in the job, ordered the four oldest ferries in the fleet pulled from service. She said there were too many concerns about the Steel Electric-class vessels, particularly related to the integrity of their then-80-year-old hulls.
Hull corrosion problems were found on other vessels, too, triggering emergency repairs and forcing service reductions. State lawmakers responded in part by stepping up efforts to scrutinize ferry system spending.
They were particularly critical that millions of dollars were spent designing new terminals while the aging fleet received far less attention.
Ferry officials now are recommending construction of five new boats: three Island Home-style vessels that would carry 64 cars each, and two bigger ferries capable of carrying 144 vehicles each. Although the ferry system has legislative approval and money to begin building some of those boats, shipyards have yet to begin cutting steel.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 22, 2009 15:59:48 GMT -8
Ferry officials now are recommending construction of five new boats: three Island Home-style vessels that would carry 64 cars each, and two bigger ferries capable of carrying 144 vehicles each. Although the ferry system has legislative approval and money to begin building some of those boats, shipyards have yet to begin cutting steel. OK, here we go: time for me to devise another fleet deployment schedule based on the ferry officials new vessel recommendations outlined above. You know how much I love speculating on this subject, so here's what a summer deployment schedule could look like in say, 4 or 5 years, after these 5 new vessels are built: FUTURE SUMMER SCHEDULE FLEET DEPLOYMENTAnacortes - San Juan Islands: Hyak, Kaleetan, Yakima Anacortes - SJI - Sidney, BC: Chelan San Juan Inter-Island: Sealth Port Townsend - Keystone: N64-1, N64-2 Mukilteo - Clinton: N144-1, N144-2 Edmonds - Kingston: Puyallup, Walla Walla Seattle - Bainbridge: Tacoma, Wenatchee Seattle - Bremerton: Elwha, Spokane Fauntleroy - Vashon - Southworth: Cathlamet, Issaquah, Kittitas Point Defiance - Tahlequah: N64-3 standby/out of service: Hiyu, Kitsap, Klahowya, Tillikum retired: Evergreen State, Rhododendron This deployment assumes that the Sidney run will somehow be saved. If it doesn't continue, then that's even better for vessel deployment, because that will free up Chelan. I also did not account for any possible modifications to the F/V/S route - ie. splitting up the triangle. I know there's been discussion around that possibility in the long range plans. If it were to happen, that structure could possibly look like this: Fauntleroy - Vashon: Cathlamet, Issaquah Fauntleroy - Southworth: Kittitas Vashon - Southworth: Hiyu In any case, this is just food for thought, and as always, take this with a grain of salt. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Mar 22, 2009 20:13:39 GMT -8
South Whidbey Record Editor Mar 21 2009, 3:43 PM · UPDATED COUPEVILLE — State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen said Washington state will build four new ferries to replace aging vessels in the fleet.
The surprise announcement came during a town hall meeting Saturday in Coupeville. Haugen, a 10th District Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said the vessels would be partially built on South Whidbey, with each new vessel pumping about $10 million into the South End economy.
Haugen's revelation drew loud cheers from the crowd of more than 130 that had gathered in the Coupeville Rec Center for the meeting. Haugen, however, created a bit of suspense before sharing the news.
"I can tell you today what nobody one else knows," she said.
"You are all sworn to secrecy," Haugen added, as some in the crowd laughed. "Even my caucus doesn't know what's going to come out of our transportation budget."
"First of all, we are going to build boats. Four of them," she said. The crowd roared its approval.
The state has already committed to building one ferry, a new vessel for the Keystone-Port Townsend route that will carry 64 vehicles.
That ferry is being built by Todd Pacific Shipyards of Seattle, which will construct the hull, and Nichols Brothers Boat Builders in Freeland.
The current bid on new ferries for the Keystone-Port Townsend run was submitted by Todd Pacific Shipyards and Nichols Brothers; the price was $65.5 million for one ferry and $124.4 million for two.
Nichols Brothers is already doing design and pre-construction work on the new 64-car ferry.
Haugen said two additional ferries would be constructed during the next budget biennium, with the fourth ferry then being built in the following biennium.
South Whidbey Record Editor Brian Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 23, 2009 7:18:52 GMT -8
OK, here we go: time for me to devise another fleet deployment schedule based on the ferry officials new vessel recommendations outlined above. You know how much I love speculating on this subject, so here's what a summer deployment schedule could look like in say, 4 or 5 years, after these 5 new vessels are built: FUTURE SUMMER SCHEDULE FLEET DEPLOYMENTMukilteo - Clinton: N144-1, N144-2 Clinton won't get them both. The first one was slated for the San Juan Islands in every version of the deployment plan I've ever seen... with three lanes of overheight capacity in the tunnel, the SJI needs one desperately (especially if you're going to take away the Sealth).
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 23, 2009 8:13:48 GMT -8
Yeah, and my personal opinion is that the "Ferry Officials" have got it backwards. We really need 3 144-car ferries and 2 64-car ferries. With 3 144's, 1 could go to the islands, and 2 could be at Mukilteo. 2 64-car "Island Home" vessels is all that is necessary at PT-KEY, with one of those working as the SJI inter-island ferry during the winter months, and I still think one of the remaining Evergreens (ie. Tillikum or Klahowya) would work at PD-TAHL, at least until those vessels are slated for retirement.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 23, 2009 9:25:22 GMT -8
Ferry officials now are recommending construction of five new boats: three Island Home-style vessels that would carry 64 cars each, and two bigger ferries capable of carrying 144 vehicles each. Although the ferry system has legislative approval and money to begin building some of those boats, shipyards have yet to begin cutting steel. OK, here we go: time for me to devise another fleet deployment schedule based on the ferry officials new vessel recommendations outlined above. You know how much I love speculating on this subject, so here's what a summer deployment schedule could look like in say, 4 or 5 years, after these 5 new vessels are built: FUTURE SUMMER SCHEDULE FLEET DEPLOYMENTAnacortes - San Juan Islands: Hyak, Kaleetan, Yakima Anacortes - SJI - Sidney, BC: Chelan San Juan Inter-Island: Sealth Port Townsend - Keystone: N64-1, N64-2 Mukilteo - Clinton: N144-1, N144-2 Edmonds - Kingston: Puyallup, Walla Walla Seattle - Bainbridge: Tacoma, Wenatchee Seattle - Bremerton: Elwha, Spokane Fauntleroy - Vashon - Southworth: Cathlamet, Issaquah, Kittitas Point Defiance - Tahlequah: N64-3 standby/out of service: Hiyu, Kitsap, Klahowya, Tillikum retired: Evergreen State, Rhododendron This deployment assumes that the Sidney run will somehow be saved. If it doesn't continue, then that's even better for vessel deployment, because that will free up Chelan. I also did not account for any possible modifications to the F/V/S route - ie. splitting up the triangle. I know there's been discussion around that possibility in the long range plans. If it were to happen, that structure could possibly look like this: Fauntleroy - Vashon: Cathlamet, Issaquah Fauntleroy - Southworth: Kittitas Vashon - Southworth: Hiyu In any case, this is just food for thought, and as always, take this with a grain of salt. Enjoy! Interesting...though I agree with Barnacle, you won't see two 144's at Mukilteo. Everything I've ever seen from the state only puts one there. I'm curious as to why you put the Spokane at Bremerton instead of the Wally...I know they're interchanageable, but the Spokane rarely leaves the K-E run and I don't think she's been put on the Bremerton run to date for any length of time. They usually send the Wally there.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 23, 2009 9:58:43 GMT -8
I'm curious as to why you put the Spokane at Bremerton instead of the Wally...I know they're interchanageable, but the Spokane rarely leaves the K-E run and I don't think she's been put on the Bremerton run to date for any length of time. They usually send the Wally there. Nothing more than my personal greed ;D I like the Walla Walla better than Spokane, mainly for her re-done cabin, and I take the Edmonds-Kingston ferry on a fairly regular basis. You're probably right, though - Walla Walla will most likely end up on the Bremerton run. I would love to see Spokane's interior re-done, and updated. I know, it's not really a priority since she does have the more comfortable chairs we see on the rest of the updated ferries today, but the designer in me would like to see a consistent theme, not to mention something that looks a little nicer, like what Walla Walla has.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 23, 2009 10:07:21 GMT -8
...and I still think one of the remaining Evergreens (ie. Tillikum or Klahowya) would work at PD-TAHL, at least until those vessels are slated for retirement. Except the Klahowya and TIllikum can't work PDT because the engines carb up too badly, because they never get up to full speed or up to good operating temp. The Evergreen could probably do it, but I won't swear to it.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 23, 2009 10:58:20 GMT -8
Oh, right - forgot about that little fact. Thanks for the reminder OK - new attempt at the fleet deployment, armed with EG Fleet & Barnacle's information, and once again, basing it on the 2 144's, and 3 64's that the ferry officials are recommending: FUTURE SUMMER SCHEDULE FLEET DEPLOYMENTAnacortes - San Juan Islands: N144-1, Hyak, Yakima Anacortes - SJI - Sidney, BC: Chelan San Juan Inter-Island: Sealth Port Townsend - Keystone: N64-1, N64-2 Mukilteo - Clinton: N144-2, Cathlamet Edmonds - Kingston: Puyallup, Spokane (sigh...I guess Wally should be at Bremerton) Seattle - Bainbridge: Tacoma, Wenatchee Seattle - Bremerton: Kaleetan, Walla Walla Fauntleroy - Vashon - Southworth: Issaquah, Kitsap, Kittitas Point Defiance - Tahlequah: N64-3 standby/out of service: Elwha, Hiyu, Klahowya, Tillikumretired: Evergreen State, Rhododendron
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 23, 2009 13:06:20 GMT -8
I'm curious as to why you put the Spokane at Bremerton instead of the Wally...I know they're interchanageable, but the Spokane rarely leaves the K-E run and I don't think she's been put on the Bremerton run to date for any length of time. They usually send the Wally there. Nothing more than my personal greed ;D I like the Walla Walla better than Spokane, mainly for her re-done cabin, and I take the Edmonds-Kingston ferry on a fairly regular basis. You're probably right, though - Walla Walla will most likely end up on the Bremerton run. I would love to see Spokane's interior re-done, and updated. I know, it's not really a priority since she does have the more comfortable chairs we see on the rest of the updated ferries today, but the designer in me would like to see a consistent theme, not to mention something that looks a little nicer, like what Walla Walla has. What, you don't like the Clown Boat, ( Spokane)with the aqua, purple and persimmon? Allegedly she ended up with the wild color scheme as they were testing materials to go into the Mark II's. I'll agree the Wally has a much nicer interior, but goofy color scheme on the Spokane has kind of grown on me. And no matter how you cut it, it's still better than that horrible orange/yellow/black interior it came out with in '72.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 23, 2009 22:15:58 GMT -8
South Whidbey Record Editor Mar 21 2009, 3:43 PM · UPDATED COUPEVILLE — State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen said Washington state will build four new ferries to replace aging vessels in the fleet. The surprise announcement came during a town hall meeting Saturday in Coupeville. Haugen, a 10th District Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said the vessels would be partially built on South Whidbey, with each new vessel pumping about $10 million into the South End economy. Haugen's revelation drew loud cheers from the crowd of more than 130 that had gathered in the Coupeville Rec Center for the meeting. Haugen, however, created a bit of suspense before sharing the news. "I can tell you today what nobody one else knows," she said. "You are all sworn to secrecy," Haugen added, as some in the crowd laughed. "Even my caucus doesn't know what's going to come out of our transportation budget." "First of all, we are going to build boats. Four of them," she said. The crowd roared its approval. The state has already committed to building one ferry, a new vessel for the Keystone-Port Townsend route that will carry 64 vehicles. That ferry is being built by Todd Pacific Shipyards of Seattle, which will construct the hull, and Nichols Brothers Boat Builders in Freeland. The current bid on new ferries for the Keystone-Port Townsend run was submitted by Todd Pacific Shipyards and Nichols Brothers; the price was $65.5 million for one ferry and $124.4 million for two. Nichols Brothers is already doing design and pre-construction work on the new 64-car ferry. Haugen said two additional ferries would be constructed during the next budget biennium, with the fourth ferry then being built in the following biennium. South Whidbey Record Editor Brian Kelly. What is wrong with this lady? Is she out of touch with reality? Does she hear the message of the Governor and others that Washington State is broke? Some folks are beginning to shout that dreaded message of tax increases.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Mar 23, 2009 22:29:03 GMT -8
And, you can ride the SPOKANE as a foot passenger from Kingston to Edmonds, walk over to the train station, and ride the Amtrak Empire Builder train to Spokane. This train continues on through beautiful Glacier Park in Montana, over the prairies, Saint Paul, cruises along the Mississippi River, through the cheese state, and ends at Chicago. It is Chicago where you can transfer to trains going all directions.
We have James J. Hill to give thanks to for creating this train line. The Great Northern Railway revised its timetables in 1929 in celebration of the opening of the new 7.79 mile Cascade Tunnel and introduced the service name Empire Builder in honor of JJH. The EB joined the other trains on this line having names like Oriental Limited and Western Star.
We'll keep the SPOKANE on the Kingston run.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Mar 23, 2009 22:50:11 GMT -8
So are they building four Island Homes or some 144s?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 24, 2009 7:29:31 GMT -8
Funny, I didn't read anything about tax increases in this article. And tell me, why, as a resident of Alaska, do you even care about the tax situation in Washington State?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 24, 2009 7:38:31 GMT -8
What is wrong with this lady? Is she out of touch with reality? Does she hear the message of the Governor and others that Washington State is broke? Some folks are beginning to shout that dreaded message of tax increases. No, she's perfectly in touch with reality. We need boats, period. Nothing is going to change that, except perhaps people learning to walk and drive on water. The only one I hear shouting about tax increases is you, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 24, 2009 11:42:31 GMT -8
Funny, I didn't read anything about tax increases in this article. And tell me, why, as a resident of Alaska, do you even care about the tax situation in Washington State? Well I just about fell out of my chair when I saw THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE on my place in Seattle. Just about the only thing the Governor has been talking about is how far the Washington State Budget is in the Red. Why did she order just one replacement vessel for the Keystone Route? There would have been cost savings if two vessels were ordered. On another subject: I heard that WSF receives no Federal funds for new vessel construction? This is related to the restriction on out-of-state yards bidding for work. Seems like this law should be changed before major construction begins. Taxpayers could get more bang for their investment I may be wrong here, but I believe AMHS receives significant Federal money for their annual maintenance/repair budget.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 24, 2009 13:01:06 GMT -8
Only one boat was ordered because Todd Shipyards and the consortium knew they had the only game in town, and jacked their prices accordingly. And since there wasn't sufficient funding to purchase two vessels, only one was purchased on the grounds that one was better than NONE.
Oh, and I don't live in King County, and I didn't suffer a PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. It must've happened at the county level.
I think that Washington shipyards should be allowed a certain amount of preference (say, 8-10% handicap) over out-of-state, but the Build Them In Washington law has proven to be a handicap more often than not. Todd does excellent work, but they have gotten away with being the only show in town and occasionally need to be reminded that there are other fish.
And aren't maintenance/repair and capital construction two separate budgets?
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 25, 2009 2:13:17 GMT -8
Funny, I didn't read anything about tax increases in this article. And tell me, why, as a resident of Alaska, do you even care about the tax situation in Washington State? Well I just about fell out of my chair when I saw THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE on my place in Seattle. Just about the only thing the Governor has been talking about is how far the Washington State Budget is in the Red. Why did she order just one replacement vessel for the Keystone Route? There would have been cost savings if two vessels were ordered. On another subject: I heard that WSF receives no Federal funds for new vessel construction? This is related to the restriction on out-of-state yards bidding for work. Seems like this law should be changed before major construction begins. Taxpayers could get more bang for their investment I may be wrong here, but I believe AMHS receives significant Federal money for their annual maintenance/repair budget. The various taxes that are combined into the property tax bills in Washington (and most other places) fall into three general categories: Operation of local city and county governments, operation of the schools in your school district, and local taxing districts. Those local districts include the Port of Seattle and Sound Transit in the Seattle area, and also include fire districts, sewage districts, public utility districts, or local entities for managing transit, hospitals, cemeteries, rodent control, or whatever else the local people voted into being over the years. With a couple of measures that were added to the state constitution in the past, it is unlikely that the tax rate of any particular property will go up more than, say, the rate of inflation from year to year. This is the case even if the property valuation increases. The main exception is that taxes may increase because of voter approved enhancements to local utility taxing districts. You might want to look closer to your property tax statement to see just which government entities are getting more of your money this year. That might make you more informed on the subject. *Caution: Opinion* The constant calls we hear from some of our more political types for lowered taxes have some merit, but only to a certain point. I, as much as anyone, would like to pay the lowest possible amount of tax to get the government services that are necessary to us. If we can lower the costs of operating government and pass the savings on to the citizenry, that's just great. That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with taxing ourselves to pay for the services we need as a community. Schools, roads, social services. fire & police, libraries, ferries, water & sewage treatment plants, and many other things are all important services to most people in the community. All of these things are necessary to us. There is no reason why we shouldn't tax ourselves to buy them for ourselves. The cost of thee things is going up, just like the cost of your fuel and your groceries and everything else is going up. There is nothing to be gained by reducing taxes to the extent that we harm the public services that we need and want to make our community operate efficiently. And, no, just because my kids are grown and out of school, I still need to pay my full share of school taxes. I will benefit when the bratty child in the house next door gets educated and starts contributing to society. Likewise, I still need to pay my share of road taxes, whether or not I personally use a particular ferry or bridge or stretch or highway. We all pay into the common system, and we all get transportation out of it. And even if I don't drive, someone I depend upon does, or the truck that hauls the groceries to my local store uses it. </opinion> If you have an issue with the choices that the governor is making, then tell her. Or tell the representative in the district where you are a taxpayer. Relatively few people make their opinions known to their representatives. Your voice can be the voice of reason that sways their decisions. I don't really like to write that check, either. But I would ask our governor and the legislature to tax us sufficiently to get all the roads and ferries and transit that we need. I don't want to see money wasted, but I do want a good quality ferry system.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 25, 2009 17:42:18 GMT -8
So are they building four Island Homes or some 144s? I think the Governor's plan for new vessel construction includes on additional Island Home Class vessel to be funded in FY 2013(in addition to the one currently under construction) The other vessels are not mentioned in the Governor's budget. Perhaps Sen. Haugen has a case of "wishful thinking?" I wonder where the Governor would find the funding for such vessels?.........if Federal funding continues to be excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 25, 2009 20:38:53 GMT -8
I find it difficult to believe that we would actually do something as STUPID as build four boats that are identical in capacity to the ones that were consdiered too small to be of much practical use. Two, we can use. Three, I suppose, if 64 cars is adequate for Point Defiance-Tahlequah. (Mind you, when a 90-car boat shows up, traffic migrates to that end of the island.) But four? WSF and the taxpayers don't need that many small boats. With the exception of Port Townsend-Keystone, I think the future of the sub-100 car boat is pretty limited in WSF's operations. And with the exception of the interisland boat, I think even a 100-car boat is pretty useless anymore.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 25, 2009 20:55:44 GMT -8
So are they building four Island Homes or some 144s? I think the Governor's plan for new vessel construction includes on additional Island Home Class vessel to be funded in FY 2013(in addition to the one currently under construction) The other vessels are not mentioned in the Governor's budget. Perhaps Sen. Haugen has a case of "wishful thinking?" I wonder where the Governor would find the funding for such vessels?.........if Federal funding continues to be excluded. The key word is "proposed." The governor's proposed budget. She throws it out and then the house and senate get their crack at it. It isn't just a case of "I'm the governor, what I say goes." They call that a dictatorship the last time I checked. This is the senate's proposed budget...nothing is set in stone here, either. The house will now get a chance to go over it. Then it goes back to the senate and then it goes to the governor. She can then choose to veto it or not. From what I am hearing, it's unlikely she'd veto it. I'm assuming the funding for the new boats will come from some of the 31 other projects that got tabled. That being said, I can't see a need for any more than two Island Homes. Were it up to me I'd do two IH's for Keystone and run them year round, as ther certainly seems to be the traffic for it, and two 144's after that. One boat new boat until 2013 isn't going to cut it. We have another boat go down like the Elwha did not so long ago, which put her out for some 15 months (granted I know the new propulsion system was part of that time out) someone is going to end up going with out a boat.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 25, 2009 21:04:30 GMT -8
Senate Envisions Smaller Car Ferries, Limited Fare Increases By Ed Friedrich (Contact) Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Senate's transportation budget would build four new 64-car ferries, limit fare increases to 2.5 percent per year and keep service at its current level.
"This budget treats the ferry system as a priority and helps chart a new path forward," said Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, one of the Transportation Committee's five ranking members who rolled out the legislation Wednesday in Olympia.
Todd Shipyards won a bid in December to build one 64-car ferry for $64.5 million. The Senate's budget would add three more of the boats, which are based on the Massachusetts-based Island Home, in the next four years. There is $290 million in the budget — which covers the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011 — for ferry construction. The bill stipulates that the first two boats would be assigned to the Port Townsend-Keystone route and that the money can't be used for 144-car ferries.
Consultant Cedar River Group recommended that the state buy four 64-car ferries in the next three years and six 144-car ferries between 2020 and 2030. The system's most dire need is for small boats, it said. Two would serve Port Townsend, one would be assigned to the Point Defiance-Tahlequah route and one to the San Juan Islands. That plan would address the Port Townsend-Keystone crisis and allow the system's most worn-out boats, the Rhododendron and Evergreen State, to retire.
More car capacity could be added to the third and fourth boats to make them more flexible within the system if doing so wouldn't require more staffing, the budget says.
Washington State Ferries would prefer to build three 64-car ferries as quickly as possible and follow right away with seven 144-car boats between now and 2025. A 64-car boat is too small for the interisland route, WSF and Island County officials say.
"There's a lot to like in there," WSF director David Moseley said of the budget. "The big issue is the timing and size of vessel procurement, and we still think three Island Homes and two 144s is the way to go."
Both the ferries' and the Senate's plan would increase capacity only slightly, primarily replacing old boats with new ones of similar size. A citizens group, spearheaded by Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, wants to boost capacity by building just one 64-car boat and then switching to 144s.
A 144-car boat is estimated to cost about $103 million, said Doug Russell, WSF's chief naval architect. That doesn't count about $15 million worth of equipment per ferry that has already been bought.
There is no major funding in the budget for terminal improvements.
The Senate budget would provide $396 million to operate the ferry system for the next two years. All of the routes would continue, including on from Anacortes to British Columbia, which the governor had proposed to eliminate in September. The budget would hold the line on fares by assuming no more than a 2.5 percent annual increase.
The Senate would move toward adopting operating strategies recommended by a consultant, but wouldn't rush into them. It also would provide money to begin a reservation system after a study is completed and the Joint Transportation Committee recommends a plan to the Legislature next year. A pilot program would probably be set up on the Kingston-Edmonds route, said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, the committee chairwoman.
The Senate, by extending the term of transportation bonds from 25 to 30 years, would have more than $4.3 billion to spend in the next two years on more than 400 transportation projects statewide. One would be widening and safety improvements for Highway 3 through Belfair. But due to a revenue decline, other projects are in jeopardy. The proposed Belfair bypass is among 31 projects that wouldn't be finished unless the state can find more money.
There will be a public hearing on the bill, SB 5352, at 1:30 p.m. Thursday in the Cherberg Building, Senate Hearing Room 1.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 25, 2009 23:09:58 GMT -8
I find it difficult to believe that we would actually do something as STUPID as build four boats that are identical in capacity to the ones that were considered too small to be of much practical use. Two, we can use. Three, I suppose, if 64 cars is adequate for Point Defiance-Tahlequah. (Mind you, when a 90-car boat shows up, traffic migrates to that end of the island.) But four? WSF and the taxpayers don't need that many small boats. With the exception of Port Townsend-Keystone, I think the future of the sub-100 car boat is pretty limited in WSF's operations. And with the exception of the interisland boat, I think even a 100-car boat is pretty useless anymore. We are, unfortunately, destined to make the same mistakes over and over again. Even if somehow, someway it made sense to have a fleet of 64-car vessels, we (our government) are planning now not for next year but for our needs for the next 25 years. Certainly, the plans that have been considered to date have no resemblance to the rate of growth in our region for the next 25 years. 25 years ago, Seattle was a much smaller place. Now, its "suburbs" extend beyond Everett and Tacoma, and into the foothills of the Cascades. Even West of Puget Sound, there was no such place as Silverdale 30 years ago, and Kitsap County as a whole was a much less populated place. There are now people commuting into Seattle daily from as far as Jefferson and Clallam Counties. To think that our state highway system will ever get by without significant additions to it's ferry fleet, or without larger vessels, is pure folly. this is the same thinking that is getting us just now around to building a light rail system. A system that will be swamped to capacity from the day it is completed. Yes, Virginia, we need more ferries, and we need a fleet of mostly 144's. Or bigger. And, frankly, we need to stop thinking that we can restrict growth, it better our lifestyles, or increase or inhibit tourism simply by restricting the size of of the ferries to Port Townsend. It doesn't work that way. Down South here, we are running into a similar situation as Port Townsend by trying to replace the last drawbridge on an Interstate highway in the US with something a bit more modern than the current 6-lane 92-year-old span. For future growth, we probably need the widest bridge that they can conjure up (like a proposal for a 12-lane bridge with light rail access). One group of folks, though, is advocating for only an 8-lane bridge, saying that something more will just encourage more unchecked growth. Yeah, right. Whether it be bridges or ferries, we gain nothing by trying to artificially limit the size of the bridge or the size of the ferry. We will not stop the need for more capacity by just wishing it away. Yeah, maybe a coupe of 64's will be useful. In hte same sort of way that the Hiyu has been useful. But it is time to stock up on vessels that really meet our needs. I also suppose that, for the most part, I'm just preaching to the choir here anyway, though.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 26, 2009 7:44:03 GMT -8
I think the Governor's plan for new vessel construction includes on additional Island Home Class vessel to be funded in FY 2013(in addition to the one currently under construction) The other vessels are not mentioned in the Governor's budget. Perhaps Sen. Haugen has a case of "wishful thinking?" I wonder where the Governor would find the funding for such vessels?.........if Federal funding continues to be excluded. The key word is "proposed." The governor's proposed budget. She throws it out and then the house and senate get their crack at it. It isn't just a case of "I'm the governor, what I say goes." They call that a dictatorship the last time I checked. This is the senate's proposed budget...nothing is set in stone here, either. The house will now get a chance to go over it. Then it goes back to the senate and then it goes to the governor. She can then choose to veto it or not. From what I am hearing, it's unlikely she'd veto it. I'm assuming the funding for the new boats will come from some of the 31 other projects that got tabled. That being said, I can't see a need for any more than two Island Homes. Were it up to me I'd do two IH's for Keystone and run them year round, as ther certainly seems to be the traffic for it, and two 144's after that. One boat new boat until 2013 isn't going to cut it. We have another boat go down like the Elwha did not so long ago, which put her out for some 15 months (granted I know the new propulsion system was part of that time out) someone is going to end up going with out a boat. Yes. But this plan sounds sort of nutty too Why would they build new vessels that are too small to be useful on most of the main Puget Sound Routes? Seems like this would be creating a new budget crisis rather than solving one?
|
|