|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 19, 2007 11:22:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 19, 2007 17:45:18 GMT -8
No action at Keystone, no action at Mukilteo... Whidbey is well on its way to truly becoming an island again.
|
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Mar 19, 2007 19:37:26 GMT -8
Well, nothing like this surprises me in the least. It seems like most major projects of this magnitude have problems.
Remember how long it had taken to finish I-90 with the infamous "ramps to nowhere", the wasted attempt at a monorail system, costs overruns on the Sound Transit airport terminal, the recent waste of taxpayer money for vote on what to do with the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
This is just another in a long list of civic projects in the greater Puget Sound area that will end up costing millions more.... if it ever gets built at all.
Yes they all have (had) different scenerios and their own set of problems, but they took years to resolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 19, 2007 20:09:45 GMT -8
Next thing you know they'll be talking about bringing back the Kulshan. It's still around I hear... My very first ferry memory. :-) At least fewer people up there would make my grandpa happy, he refuses to leave the island, even at 86!
Seriously though, I've been riding the run off and on visiting family for almost 25+ years now and the last few years have gotten much worse in terms of waits on both sides. I find myself making the long drive around more and more on Sunday nights. And the few times I did a weeknight, ughh.. The new boats with the extra few cars and the holding capacity are needed, especially at Mukilteo. It really is a shame for there to be another delay, although I understand. However the single pier at Mukilteo is a huge liability. I believe it was the Cathlamet that proved that one back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 20, 2007 8:48:20 GMT -8
It's a moot point now, at least for the next two years. The new transportation budget just released from the house puts a hold on all terminal projects for two years and freezes ferry fares for a year.
We'll see what happens next...
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 20, 2007 12:57:13 GMT -8
The new transportation budget just released from the house puts a hold on all terminal projects for two years and freezes ferry fares for a year. That ain't all that's gonna freeze over before we see a second slip at Mukilteo...  |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 20, 2007 18:24:19 GMT -8
Would this hold on terminal projects include the Keystone terminal? Hmmm, perhaps a longer service life for Steel Electrics?  |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 20, 2007 18:34:24 GMT -8
Wow, our government now deserves the official seal of "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb". Delaying project after project, while waiting, WHERE THE **** IS THE ACTION! THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ACTION ON THE GOVERNMENT AND DOT, SURE THERE MAY BE ISSUES BUT RESOLVE THEM TO IMPROVE OTHERS LIVES SOONER VERSUS LATER!!
That's my rant of the night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 20, 2007 20:41:01 GMT -8
Would this hold on terminal projects include the Keystone terminal? Hmmm, perhaps a longer service life for Steel Electrics? For the umpteenth time, no! Those boats are at the end of their practical service life and nothing, nothing, nothing will extend it short of jacking up the smokestack and sliding a new boat under it. As far as "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" goes for putting a hold on the terminal money, P-Reb, you oughta get a look at what's planned. You'd change your tune... Completely replacing the freshly refurbished Colman Dock? A brand new, multi-modal "Taj Mahal" terminal in Anacortes (where the bus service doesn't go anywhere and the only "multi-modal" transport would be to serve the Airporter shuttle)? I admit it will cramp the style of the Keystone terminal; Mukilteo just got jammed by the discovery of indigenous artifacts, so that's a non-event. I really do think that freezing the terminal funding for two years and the fare-jacking for one will force a shake-up somehow at WSF. I only hope it's productive. |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 18, 2007 19:50:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 18, 2007 21:14:00 GMT -8
Ok.. Wow. Since I go up there all the time I am all for the new terminal and I know construction and material costs are sky high. But $200M? What could possibly be pushing it up that much? What are the big ticket items besides the pier itself and the new holding area?
I notice the DOT site says the second slip and the parking garage are both deferred as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 18, 2007 21:18:56 GMT -8
Someone must be inflating Oh yeah, BIG OIL  OK, seiously, that is a bit high for a terminal. If there are any fancy features, screw it. Two slips, overhead loading, transit center, 400 car holding lane. Sounds about right at around 150 million. Isn't it near 10 million for a slip? I know that the damage the Sealth caused back to Slip 2 in seattle was 3 million dollars. (that is what I saw on evergreenfleet's website or was that 300k) So it sounds about right, unless anyone would like to contradict me. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 19, 2007 9:57:06 GMT -8
Well, slip design is changing at long last for WSF. The traditional cable-and-counterbalance affairs are going the way of the dodo, as it was finally discovered that the hydraulic ram system installed at Sidney was much cheaper and considerably less expensive to maintain than the old systems. I'm not sure how the construction costs compare in exact numbers, but I think Sidney's slip was about $7M as compared to Shaw Island's $11M.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager 
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 19, 2007 11:07:53 GMT -8
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Ferry_Terminal.htmlLast updated June 18, 2007 9:29 a.m. PT Cost of Mukilteo ferry terminal exceeds $200 million
THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMUKILTEO, Wash. -- The cost of a new state ferry terminal has surpassed $200 million, $50 million more than originally expected, and Mayor Joe Marine says the figure will keep rising the longer the project is delayed. State officials planned to begin building the terminal, dubbed Mukilteo Landing, in this suburb between Seattle and Everett next year but have pushed back the start to 2009. An archaeological study is being made of what appears to be an ancient Indian village at the old Air Force fuel depot site, and the state does not have title to the land. "My concern is if we have to put it off another year, and another year, costs are going to continue to increase," Marine said. Local officials are concerned that the ferry project be in sync with Sound Transit's Sounder commuter train station, which is scheduled to be opened in early to mid-2008, and a Port of Everett shipping pier intended for use mainly by The Boeing Co. "The development that happens down there, you want it to be really coordinated and in the best interest of everyone," City Council member Kevin Stoltz said. "When you do things piecemeal, you end up with one side doing things that adversely affect the other. "In the end, Mukilteo residents lose out on all of that." Work on the ferry terminal, originally expected to cost at least $152 million, has been stalled partly because the Air Force has not turned over the old fuel depot site to the Port of Everett. Marine said he hoped the land transaction could be completed by the end of this year, but state and port officials have said it could take longer. "If we run too headstrong on this, it will cost a lot more money than if we just do it right," said state Rep. Brian Sullivan, D-Mukilteo, a former mayor. --- Information from: The Herald, www.heraldnet.com |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 19, 2007 19:28:21 GMT -8
An archaeological study is being made of what appears to be an ancient Indian village at the old Air Force fuel depot site, and the state does not have title to the land....
Work on the ferry terminal, originally expected to cost at least $152 million, has been stalled partly because the Air Force has not turned over the old fuel depot site to the Port of Everett. Marine said he hoped the land transaction could be completed by the end of this year, but state and port officials have said it could take longer. Is it just me here or does this sound a wee bit like they were jumping the gun on the "done deal" in any case? |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 20, 2007 9:01:17 GMT -8
Well, I know WSF was certainly carrying on like they owned the joint... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 21, 2007 7:28:28 GMT -8
Well, slip design is changing at long last for WSF. The traditional cable-and-counterbalance affairs are going the way of the dodo, as it was finally discovered that the hydraulic ram system installed at Sidney was much cheaper and considerably less expensive to maintain than the old systems. I'm not sure how the construction costs compare in exact numbers, but I think Sidney's slip was about $7M as compared to Shaw Island's $11M. Is the red color on the wingwalls there going to be used at other slips as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 21, 2007 7:48:22 GMT -8
Is the red color on the wingwalls there going to be used at other slips as well? Not unless they're built by the city of Sidney. The vibrant wingwall skid pad colors seems to be a trademark of the BC dock builders, whereas WSF goes for the understated black (though green might be nice)... |
|
