|
Post by Northern Exploration on Dec 14, 2007 19:54:56 GMT -8
Frank Gehry designed the building and as my friend from Portland calls it the Experience Pain in Your Eyes building. He calmed down quite a bit when he designed the Art Gallery of Ontario and it is looking much nicer and more restrained. But then Paul Allen wasn't underwriting the AGO and there wasn't an unlimited budget. He also grew up in the area and maybe was afraid of the people from his old neighbourhood getting after him.
I have been following the whole discussion of the WSF situation and have found it very interesting. I don't have anything to add because I know so much less about the whole system there. Odd we have BCFC getting a whole bunch of heat for getting a ferry from offshore to get ferries in the time frame they wanted it. And at the other extreme we have WSF limited by the Jones act and experiencing a big problem.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 15, 2007 8:39:13 GMT -8
It is an interesting dichotomy, isn't it? I find it intriguing that such is the case. I would expect Canada to actually have more in the way of "protectionist" laws like the Jones Act (of which the US-built requirement is only a very small part, and the act as a whole I approve of, but I'll restrain myself) given that I seem to see a good deal more national pride (if not patriotism) in Canada than I do the US. And I'm not knocking that. I halfway wish I were Canadian, but I'd have to give up my job to do that... I've talked with BCF employees about how the operation works from the inside and at the very least I'm not interested in starting over. (Gehry goes crazy when he gets to Seattle, and as a result we have a library that looks like a seven and a music thing that looks like a pile of giblets at the base of the Space Needle. Sigh.)
|
|
|
Post by shipchandler on Dec 15, 2007 9:23:00 GMT -8
It is an interesting dichotomy, isn't it? I find it intriguing that such is the case. I would expect Canada to actually have more in the way of "protectionist" laws like the Jones Act (of which the US-built requirement is only a very small part, and the act as a whole I approve of, but I'll restrain myself) given that I seem to see a good deal more national pride (if not patriotism) in Canada than I do the US. And I'm not knocking that. I halfway wish I were Canadian, but I'd have to give up my job to do that... I've talked with BCF employees about how the operation works from the inside and at the very least I'm not interested in starting over. (Gehry goes crazy when he gets to Seattle, and as a result we have a library that looks like a seven and a music thing that looks like a pile of giblets at the base of the Space Needle. Sigh.) i always thought protectionism originated in montana lol,washington is like our really hot girlfriend, where as montana is her jealous ex that beats on us from time to time
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 15, 2007 11:20:42 GMT -8
National Pride is actually a hotly debated issue up here a lot of the time, as there is a lot of regionalism involved, especially in federal politics, but most of the provinces seem to be smaller reflections of the same. Because of that, although the efforts are often made to make the appearance of unity at official functions, and what not, the provinces have historically spent a lot of the time fighting against each other and the federal government.
I would say the lack of any so-called protectionist laws, which would have seen the ferries required to have been built in Canada, would indicate, if not a lack of national pride... at least a lack of interest on the part of the federal government, in particular, in maintaining national pride by keeping our industry healthy and keeping investment within Canada. It is a very tricky issue though.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jun 3, 2008 18:46:03 GMT -8
Since we finally got some info on the new Keystone boats, what about the 144 boats? Are they designed yet? When will they rebid? Do all the shipyards have agreements? Will using the generators and engines for the Island Homes affect the build schedule?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 3, 2008 20:11:40 GMT -8
Since we finally got some info on the new Keystone boats, what about the 144 boats? Are they designed yet? When will they rebid? Do all the shipyards have agreements? Will using the generators and engines for the Island Homes affect the build schedule? (1) Guido Perla & Associates is working on it. I have no idea if they'll look anything like the concept drawings, or if Perla is going to force the Martinac concept on WSF. (2) Probably when the design work gets finalized. (3) There is the JOA between Todd, Nichols, and Martinac, so yes. (4) Doubtful. It was my understanding that there were enough systems purchased for four boats, although it was so long ago I wouldn't swear to it.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 10, 2009 20:28:57 GMT -8
Something I found kind of funny. Looks like Washington State MIGHT be building another ferry after-all, just not quite what we had in mind. SR 21 - Keller Ferry Replacement Project Facts Current vessel in service since 1948 New vessel would be more reliable Safer for users and operators Project Status Winter 2009 Design work on a replacement vessel is complete. The project office team is now designing the vehicle terminals. This project includes the design and construction of a replacement ferry boat and associated vehicles loading terminals. Why is WSDOT replacing the existing Keller Ferry vessel? The current vessel, the Martha S., has been in service on this route since 1948. Replacement parts are no longer being commercially manufactured, they now must be custom-made as needed. The vessel has a limited capacity, especially when large trucks are on board. The End Result A more reliable vessel with enhanced passenger amenities. Project Benefits Reduced service interruptions and increased safety for ferry users. What is the project timeline? The new vessel and terminals are now being designed. Vessel construction is dependent on additional funding. Public Involvement Your thoughts and opinions are important to us. If you have any questions or concerns about this project please contact the project engineer listed below or Al Gilson, WSDOT Public Information Officer. Environmental Protection As preliminary designs are refined, any new environmental issues will be evaluated and appropriate mitigation developed. Please visit the WSDOT Environmental Services Web site for more information. Increasing safety is one of our priorities Improved vessel reliability and modern design will enhance safety for users and operators. Will this project impact tribal resources? At WSDOT we seek to address the concerns of the tribal nations using the process outlined in Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act and the WSDOT Tribal Consultation Policy adopted in 2003 by the Transportation Commission as part of the WSDOT Centennial Accord Plan. Financial Information This project is funded through the following sources: •State Gas Tax- $217,000 • Federal Funds - $10,783,000 • Total Funding Available from all sources - $11 Million. • UnFunded Amount - $5.5 million (est.) How can I get more information? Contact: Ken Olson, Project Engineer 2714 N. Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 324-6140 Email: olsonk@wsdot.wa.gov
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jan 12, 2009 12:31:03 GMT -8
Did you notice that a significant amount of Federal funds would be used for this proposed construction? Would the in-state construction restriction apply to this vessel? Apparently not as a significant amount of funding would come from the Feds. Seems like the timing might be wrong for this project. It seems very uncertain that the current Legislature would allocate funds for new vessel construction, when the state budget is so far in the red?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Apr 27, 2009 10:42:18 GMT -8
The decision to construct at least 3 new vessels based on the Island home design and possibly 4 seems rather strange. While these vessels serve a special need for the Port Townsend-Keystone route, would they resolve any other critical needs? Their small car-deck capacity is not that much larger than the Steel-Electric class they replace. They are significantly smaller than the Evergreen class; would this limit their usefulness on the Vashon-Southworth route? Common sense would dictate that larger vessels are more urgently needed. The open question seems to be would they be a good fit the Point Defiance-Tahlequah route?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 27, 2009 12:37:17 GMT -8
I agree with your assessment of the situation. 64-car vessels are too small for ANY of the routes in the WSF system today, even Port Townsend-Keystone. We've been pigeon-holed into building small vessels for that particular route because of the decisions made around Keystone Harbor. Beyond that, there really is no use for 64-car vessels. Having said that, they will be better than the Steel Electrics. I've been on Island Home, and its car deck is much more open than the SE's, and also taller. Overheight vehicles will have an easier time fitting into the new vessels.
Looking at Point Defiance-Tahlequah for the moment, I suppose one could argue that a 64-car ferry is marginally larger than the 48-car Rhododendron, however we have all heard time and time again that the larger 87-car Evergreen Class vessels have filled up quite nicely on that run the few times they have been deployed there. Having a larger boat there seems to siphon some traffic from the north-end vessels. A 64-car vessel may be adequate for awhile, but ultimately that route will need a larger ferry. Shifting to larger vessels (IE. 3 Issaquah 130's) at F-V-S may help ease the burden and delay the need for a larger boat at Point Defiance. Splitting that route up as proposed in the long range plan will certainly help: Fauntleroy-Vashon; Fauntleroy-Southworth; Vashon-Southworth. It would also provide a use for Hiyu on the Vashon-Southworth run.
One of the two 64-car vessels scheduled to be built for PT-KEY could possibly be deployed to the San Juans as the inter-island ferry during the winter schedule, assuming PT-KEY will be on a one-boat schedule that time of year, and assuming SJI traffic in the winter time hasn't outpaced that size of vessel. The rest of the year, SJI really needs an Evergreen class vessel or Sealth.
Ultimately, it comes down to timing. Rhododendron needs to be retired soon. Evergreen State and her sisters will not be far behind. They already have a blueprint for the Island Home type, and smaller vessels should be cheaper and faster to build than larger ones. I guess the state figures it can get by with smaller ferries for awhile. It's not particularly forward thinking, but we're out of time, and our options are limited. I just wonder what will become of that 3rd 64-car ferry when traffic out-paces its usefulness on the Point Defiance crossing, and my thinking is that will happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 27, 2009 14:18:49 GMT -8
Given that when a 90 (okay, 87) car boat shows up down PDT way, traffic drifts to the south end rather quickly, I'd think a 64-car boat is already outclassed. But that's just me...
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 27, 2009 19:06:27 GMT -8
I've been thinking more about the Vashon Island situation and that 3rd 64-car "Island Home" ferry. Barnacle, you're probably correct in that a 64-car ferry will be outpaced as soon as it gets built and put on the PDT run, however, it will be better than Rhody's capacity, and if they do some mitigation work on the north end of the island by putting 3 Issaquah-124's at F-V-S, that would/could alleviate some of the backups at Tahlequah. Of course, they won't be able to do that until they start building some 144's so Cathlamet and Kittitas can be released for other duties, and it sounds like that will be several years off.
Eventually, the 64-car boat at PDT will simply be overwhelmed even with larger vessels at F-V-S helping out, and they will have to replace it with a bigger boat, like maybe one of the Issy-124's, if one becomes available. But, at that point (and yes, this is a fair ways into the future here) the 3rd "Island Home" vessel can move up to PT-KEY and literally be the 3rd vessel on that run during the summer months, because, I would imagine 2 64-car vessels at PT-KEY are not going to be able to keep up with the traffic demands for very long. Of course, the logistics of operating 3 boats there could be a bit of a problem for the schedule and overnighting, but it's a thought. Who knows - maybe people will eventually wake up and realize that Keystone, in its current form, is not sustainable, and will finally act to relocate the terminal, or dredge the current harbor, which, as we all know, is what SHOULD have been done in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 28, 2009 6:22:49 GMT -8
Problem is, relocating the Keystone terminal was apparently going to crack the Billion Mark in construction costs. And that's an awful lot for a run that generates three percent of the traffic.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 28, 2009 6:47:45 GMT -8
Problem is, relocating the Keystone terminal was apparently going to crack the Billion Mark in construction costs. And that's an awful lot for a run that generates three percent of the traffic. Why would've it cost so much?
|
|
|
Post by wrangler on Apr 28, 2009 7:38:13 GMT -8
The original plan was to move the terminal to the east end of Keystone Spit, and would of cost much less. This plan was dropped without explanation.
The massive rework of the present harbor was the next plan, and was dropped because of expense and opposition from a slew of groups and organizations.
The last proposal was to move the terminal off of Keystone Spit, and would of required the construction of a highway spur.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 28, 2009 13:04:16 GMT -8
(Maybe a few Island Sky type vessels would be more what you're looking for .) We already have 5 vessels that match I-Sky's capacity: Cathlamet, Chelan, Issaquah, Kitsap, & Kittitas
|
|
Scott2
Voyager
Missing everyone. Glad to see some newer members on here.
Posts: 48
|
Post by Scott2 on Apr 29, 2009 1:18:12 GMT -8
I have to say I love FerryNutSeattle's "Tahlequah" design. I'm sure (as is the Hiyu) it could be moved around some if needed. Let's not forget that some boats spend many years on one run (Rhody for example), so why not tailor a boat to the run it would be used on most often? It could still be shifted around if necessary. He has some good points about the cabin considering the run is so short.
Also, does anyone know if / when the keel is to be laid on the first IH boat? I keep hearing about a short build time, and a 2010 delivery. I can't see how this is possible if nothing has been started yet. Does anyone have any insight on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 29, 2009 6:11:37 GMT -8
Also, does anyone know if / when the keel is to be laid on the first IH boat? I keep hearing about a short build time, and a 2010 delivery. I can't see how this is possible if nothing has been started yet. Does anyone have any insight on this? Thanks. I think it's still in the design phase. As for the short build time, two yards (Todd Shipyard and Nichols Brothers Boat Builders) will be building parts of the boat. I believe that was the only way to meet the schedule.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Apr 29, 2009 7:44:41 GMT -8
I have to say I love FerryNutSeattle's "Tahlequah" design. I'm sure (as is the Hiyu) it could be moved around some if needed. Let's not forget that some boats spend many years on one run (Rhody for example), so why not tailor a boat to the run it would be used on most often? It could still be shifted around if necessary. He has some good points about the cabin considering the run is so short. Also, does anyone know if / when the keel is to be laid on the first IH boat? I keep hearing about a short build time, and a 2010 delivery. I can't see how this is possible if nothing has been started yet. Does anyone have any insight on this? Thanks. Firstly, thanks for your good comments on my Tahlequah ferry design. A lot of thought went into this one. A perfect vessel for this run of less than two miles. A single layer of passenger lounge space is all that's needed there. A simple straightforward efficient design with easy facility access for all abilities with four stairways and three elevators on this quick run. Thanks, again, for your comments! It takes some time for the yards to complete their working drawings. I think it may be May or June when the first steel/aluminum cuts are done by the yards' respective hard hatters. As was reported, the steel hull will be built by Todd, the steel Main Deck structures will be built by Everett Shipyard, and the aluminum Saloon Deck, Sun Deck, and wheelhouses will be built by Nichols Brothers. I don't know who will do the final mating of all of these components. About half of the hull of the STEILACOOM II was built by Todd (the ends) and was mated to the rest of that ferry at Nichols. We'll see and learn in the months ahead how the new Keystone ferries will be put together. One thing to note. If all the components are mated at Nichols, we would be able to see this as their yard webcam is updated about every two hours.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Apr 29, 2009 8:50:42 GMT -8
I have to say I love FerryNutSeattle's "Tahlequah" design. I'm sure (as is the Hiyu) it could be moved around some if needed. Let's not forget that some boats spend many years on one run (Rhody for example)... The Rhody primarily stays on a single run because she is effectively not allowed to leave it due to the safety regs that prohibit it. A more relevant examply of a single route boat would be the Klahowya as she could be moved to another route but has remained on the same run most of the time. The problem with the IH ships is that even though they will be fully modern and up to safety specs, they still wouldn't be suited for other routes simply due to lack of vehicle space.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Apr 29, 2009 9:21:37 GMT -8
I have to say I love FerryNutSeattle's "Tahlequah" design. I'm sure (as is the Hiyu) it could be moved around some if needed. Let's not forget that some boats spend many years on one run (Rhody for example)... The Rhody primarily stays on a single run because she is effectively not allowed to leave it due to the safety regs that prohibit it. A more relevant examply of a single route boat would be the Klahowya as she could be moved to another route but has remained on the same run most of the time. The problem with the IH ships is that even though they will be fully modern and up to safety specs, they still wouldn't be suited for other routes simply due to lack of vehicle space. Exactly !! Thankfully someone understands. If it were a BC Boat it would be like, building a new Mayne Queen when you need at-least a boat the size of Queen of Cumberland. This really doesn't make much sense. Why build something with half of the capacity needed? I will admit it is a nice looking boat and fun idea but, it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Apr 29, 2009 10:45:03 GMT -8
Up here in Alaska, the pressure is to build new vessels that require smaller crews. Has anyone looked into the crew needs for the proposed IHs vs the Evergreens, Rhody, and the old Steel Electrics?
According to some old WSF data the Evergreens required a crew of 9, Rhody 7, and the Steels 8.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Apr 29, 2009 11:36:06 GMT -8
I have to say I love FerryNutSeattle's "Tahlequah" design. I'm sure (as is the Hiyu) it could be moved around some if needed. Let's not forget that some boats spend many years on one run (Rhody for example)... The Rhody primarily stays on a single run because she is effectively not allowed to leave it due to the safety regs that prohibit it. A more relevant examply of a single route boat would be the Klahowya as she could be moved to another route but has remained on the same run most of the time. The problem with the IH ships is that even though they will be fully modern and up to safety specs, they still wouldn't be suited for other routes simply due to lack of vehicle space. Prior to restrictions placed before her, the RHODODENDRON had seen service on several runs. After her arrival from Maryland, she was placed on the Lofall - South Point run. After the Hood Canal Bridge was built, she went on to become the main vessel on the Mukilteo - Clinton run. For a good number of years on the Clinton run, she would be the only food ferry there. In 1978, she moved up to the Port Townsend - Keystone run. The KLICKITAT replaced her there in 1983. In 1984, she would get her bows modified and served within the San Juan Islands. In 1985, she backed up the KLICKITAT at Port Townsend. I was aboard the VASHON and watched the RHODY arrive in Port Townsend for her summer extra service. The VASHON was a hostel there in June and July of that year and I spent a few weekends aboard her. After her rework in the early 1990s, the RHODY has been on the Tahlequah run ever since.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Apr 29, 2009 13:43:08 GMT -8
The Rhody primarily stays on a single run because she is effectively not allowed to leave it due to the safety regs that prohibit it. A more relevant examply of a single route boat would be the Klahowya as she could be moved to another route but has remained on the same run most of the time. The problem with the IH ships is that even though they will be fully modern and up to safety specs, they still wouldn't be suited for other routes simply due to lack of vehicle space. Exactly !! Thankfully someone understands. If it were a BC Boat it would be like, building a new Mayne Queen when you need at-least a boat the size of Queen of Cumberland. This really doesn't make much sense. Why build something with half of the capacity needed? I will admit it is a nice looking boat and fun idea but, it just doesn't work. We've already done that, too, in effect. Building the Island Sky, a vessel not classed to cross the straight when we need intermediate to large vessels that can cross the straight to ultimately replace the Burnaby and Nanaimo. Right now, that leaves us with only the Chilliwack (our Hiyu, ;D) to do the fill in work. If EGFleet thinks the building of the IH vessels is a soap opera, imagine what would happen if anyone ever got their hands on the rights to the unwritten saga of building the Island Sky... no one really knows all the plot twists that went on behind the curtain in that drama. At least the IH vessels will have one thing in common with the Steel Electrics: the won't look like anything else in the fleet... their appearance will always be distinctive.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on May 1, 2009 10:38:13 GMT -8
It was posted on another thread that there is a push for more Federal funding to support ferries as part of the national highway system. If such funding was approved, could it be used for new WSF construction? Would the "build in Washington State" limit such funding to maintenance and repairs and docking upgrades? Might be a good time to change this Washington State law?
|
|