|
MV Hiyu
May 17, 2016 13:27:13 GMT -8
Post by Kahloke on May 17, 2016 13:27:13 GMT -8
Thanks for posting this. With her retirement official, this thread now resides in the Historic Washington Ferries Board.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 17, 2016 15:59:23 GMT -8
Post by EGfleet on May 17, 2016 15:59:23 GMT -8
Ferry system ready to say bye-bye to Hiyu
By Ed Friedrich of the Kitsap Sun
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND — Washington State Ferries outgrew the Hiyu years ago but kept the little vessel around for emergencies. There were several. Now the 34-car ferry finally is headed for retirement.
The Hiyu was built in 1967 in Portland, Oregon, to serve on the Point Defiance-Tahlequah route. It was replaced in the late 1980s when it couldn't keep up with increased traffic. The same thing happened on the San Juan Islands interisland route — the system's smallest — in the late 1990s.
The Hiyu was mothballed for more than 10 years but returned in 2007 as an emergency replacement because the state didn't have a decent backup. It last sailed July 23, 2015, providing supplemental service on the Southworth-Vashon Island-Fauntleroy route that was otherwise running on a two-boat schedule because of vessel moves associated with emergency repairs to the Puyallup and Elwha.
Now, with five new boats built in the past few years and two on the way, the Hiyu is being readied for auction.
"It's out-served its usefulness," said one of its former chief engineers, Jim Nicks, during a media tour Tuesday at Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility. "It's slow, it's small and it's old."
Two older ferries — 58-year-old Klahowya and 57-year-old Tillikum — continue to operate because their 87-car capacity and 15.5-knot speed are borderline sufficient. They'll be the next to go. Their sister ship, Evergreen State, already has been retired and will be auctioned with the Hiyu, which crawls at 10 knots.
"We hope the Hiyu has a second life and continues to stay in action as a vessel," WSF spokeswoman Broch Bender said. The Coast Guard requires a crew of five, which would likely discourage its continued use as a passenger vessel.
The Rhododendron was sold for $275,000 in 2013 to a British Columbia scallop-growing company, which uses it as an operations support vessel.
Despite all the boats recently added to the fleet, WSF has no backup vessel. Four to five ferries will be undergoing maintenance the next five weeks. In mid-June, the 124-car Kitsap becomes available for standby for the rest of the summer. The Tillikum also will be free for five weeks.
The Hiyu is one of a kind, with a stubby hull, tall truck tunnel down the center, passenger compartments along each side above parking lanes, and a bridge across the top. With about 24 bench seats and chairs sprinkled around, there's space for a maximum of 200 passengers.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 23, 2016 10:30:22 GMT -8
HIYU, WE BARELY KNEW YOU: WSF retires the fleet’s smallest vessel by LUCIANO MARANO, Bainbridge Island Review Staff Writer Today at 9:59AM There comes a time in the life of every child when they must grow up, move on and live on their own. Everyone reaches that point in their own time, sooner or later. Much, much later, for some. In the case of the “baby” in the Washington State Ferries family, it took about 50 years. After 49 years of service, the M/V Hiyu, the smallest vessel in the WSF fleet, has been retired. The 199-passenger, 34-vehicle capacity boat will now be decommissioned and sold to a new owner for new adventures, WSF officials announced last week. The tiny boat (it’s only 162 feet long) is know affectionately around the fleet as “baby Hiyu.” Despite the cutesy name and diminutive stature, it actually boasts a greater resale value than its larger brethren, explained Jim Nicks, the vessel’s last chief engineer, as the Hiyu can be more easily refitted for a multitude of purposes and is also easier to operate and maintain. “Everything works great,” Nicks said. “The boat is seaworthy, it’s sound. The hull is great. The steel is great. The generators are fine. “You could grab your tools out of your garage and fix pretty much anything on here,” he said. This decommissioning was particularly bittersweet, as the Hiyu was arguably the most beloved boat in the fleet, said WSF Chief of Staff Elizabeth Kosa. “What makes the Hiyu so cute is also what makes it so impractical for Washington State Ferries,” she said. “While the Hiyu was a good and dependable vessel, its tiny size means it is no longer the best option for moving passengers and commerce across the Puget Sound,” Kosa explained. “The addition of modern, bigger and faster Olympic Class vessels to the fleet means it’s time to bid farewell to the Hiyu.” Nicks agreed, saying he was not overly nostalgic about his role as the vessel’s final engineer and acknowledging the need to retire the small ship for the sake of progress. “I think it’s outlived it’s usefulness,” he said. “It’s slow. It’s small. “If you get a couple of garbage trucks on here and maybe a grocery truck, it kind of takes up all the space,” he added. The retiring of the Hiyu marked the end of a quirky chapter in WSF history, Nicks explained, as there would surely never be another boat like it. “There wouldn’t be any value in it,” he said. “It was more like a family [amongst the crew], everybody kind of took ownership, and that was nice. But as far as the paying public or taxpayers, it just wasn’t a good value anymore.” The Hiyu required a very minimal staff while underway, including just one engineer, making it further unique among the fleet’s vessels. “It is easier until something happens,” Nicks laughed. “But [then] you’re the only guy. On this boat, there’s only one engineer and all the other boats have at least three people in the engine room, minimum. So you’re the guy if something goes wrong. However, as far as the dynamics of getting along with people, there’s no problem because you’re the only guy there.” Built in 1967 in Portland, Oregon, the Hiyu was first assigned to the Point Defiance-Tahlequah route, where it would remain active until the mid 1980s. It then spent 10 years serving on the San Juan Islands route, before being transitioned to a standby vessel in the mid ’90s. The Hiyu would occasionally return to its old stomping grounds for sporadic service throughout the years to come, and also make appearances on the Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth and the Steilacoom-Anderson routes, before its final sailing on July 23, 2015. The Hiyu will remain Coast Guard-certified for another year, Nicks said, having passed its most recent inspection “with flying colors.” No official asking price has yet been announced, as WSF officials are still in the process of cataloging and repurposing as much equipment from the Hiyu as possible for use on other vessels. However, Nicks said that at least three separate parties have already expressed serious interest in the tiny vessel, including a private business in Seattle and the Lummi Tribe of Whatcom County. Nicks praised the work of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility team in decommissioning the Hiyu. “The island crew is great,” he said. “The Eagle Harbor people did a great job taking care of this boat. They do all the heavy lifting and they’ve done a really, really good job.” The last ferry to be decommissioned was the M/V Evergreen State, the oldest boat in the fleet, in January. Built in 1954, the M/V Evergreen State remained active until November of last year. www.bainbridgereview.com/news/380531511.html
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 23, 2016 17:27:00 GMT -8
I've never heard the Hiyu referred to as 'Baby Hiyu.' I've called it the Flying Saucer for years, and that's what it was frequently called up in the San Juans before I got there.
Some years ago, I said on this board: "Mighty Hiyu. Saving the world, one car at a time." The interisland crew saw it and apparently it became their motto whenever the Saucer came to make the rounds 'round Shaw.
Great little boat. I'll miss her.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 24, 2016 0:54:40 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 24, 2016 0:54:40 GMT -8
Our little group of HIYU admirers is still fighting tooth an nail to get the HIYU here for Lummi Island, Watch out for our further efforts!
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
May 24, 2016 2:04:19 GMT -8
Post by FNS on May 24, 2016 2:04:19 GMT -8
Our little group of HIYU admirers is still fighting tooth an nail to get the HIYU here for Lummi Island, Watch out for our further efforts! Hope you get the HIYU! We wouldn't want her to snuggle up to her sister in the Hawaiian water just yet. Speaking of her sister, more photos are showing up each week on the YFB-87's Facebook page. We have been treated to a first class tour of this ferry. www.facebook.com/wikolianareefproject/?fref=photoMeanwhile, the organization, preparing the YFB-87 for her new life as a " HOTEL FOR FISH OF ALL SPECIES", is selling these shirts as a fund raiser.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 24, 2016 3:39:08 GMT -8
Our little group of HIYU admirers is still fighting tooth an nail to get the HIYU here for Lummi Island, Watch out for our further efforts! You don't have to fight tooth and nail; all you have to do is make one simple effort. Be the high bidder.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 25, 2016 8:57:58 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 25, 2016 8:57:58 GMT -8
Barnacle,
That would be true if we wanted to buy, we want our County to get it, they run the Lummi Island Ferry.
The Surplus of State property goes through a series of gradients before it is sold.
The surplus sequence goes something like this: Ist priority= Instate Governmental agencies, Counties, Municipalities, the like.. 2nd Priority = In State Non Profit Agencies. 3rd = Out of State Governmental Agencies. 4th = Out of State Non Profits, 5th= Up for Bid, the highest Bidder.
I am pretty sure, they know the price for bid priorities 1-4, perhaps not for what they will officially put it up for bid. Priority 1-4 needs to be negotiated BEFORE it goes up for bid. Thanks to the efforts of the Independent Committee and County Council person Barbara Brenner, who asked for a delay for the County to do due diligence, Whatcom County ought to be in first position. However, the question of price and commitment needs to be asked, very, very soon.
I have had many conversations with the State Ferry Surplus person. Since I was not a County Official and the immediate time was not at hand, I was unable to get a firm price, at one point they appeared ready to give it to us. The boat survey lists the scrap value at $170, 000.00 @ $45.00 a ton, from what I know of current scrap prices, this is high. The Inter-Agency price will be a fraction of that, which could be determined and likely influenced to our favor with some help from our State Legislative Representatives or Senator. Remember, the citizens of the State have already purchased the HIYU, the State would rather the vessel continue operation here within the State generated economic activity than either leave or become inactive.
The Hiyu has 45% of its service life left, the Whatcom Chief is at 170% of its service life with increasing risk of failure, as well as having other problems. We have, in fact, recently done a financial study that shows the running of the HIYU' will literally buy us a new Ferry in 15 years, at the present fare structure. Printed versions of this study are in the hands of the County and LIFAC. Both groups would not give us more than three minutes to present the facts at their meetings, which would have been impossible.
Yes, tooth and nail, more to be revealed.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 25, 2016 9:43:46 GMT -8
Barnacle, That would be true if we wanted to buy, we want our County to get it, they run the Lummi Island Ferry. The Surplus of State property goes through a series of gradients before it is sold. The surplus sequence goes something like this: Ist priority= Instate Governmental agencies, Counties, Municipalities, the like.. 2nd Priority = In State Non Profit Agencies. 3rd = Out of State Governmental Agencies. 4th = Out of State Non Profits, 5th= Up for Bid, the highest Bidder. I am pretty sure, they know the price for bid priorities 1-4, perhaps not for what they will officially put it up for bid. Priority 1-4 needs to be negotiated BEFORE it goes up for bid. Thanks to the efforts of the Independent Committee and County Council person Barbara Brenner, who asked for a delay for the County to do due diligence, Whatcom County ought to be in first position. However, the question of price and commitment needs to be asked, very, very soon. I have had many conversations with the State Ferry Surplus person. Since I was not a County Official and the immediate time was not at hand, I was unable to get a firm price, at one point they appeared ready to give it to us. The boat survey lists the scrap value at $170, 000.00 @ $45.00 a ton, from what I know of current scrap prices, this is high. The Inter-Agency price will be a fraction of that, which could be determined and likely influenced to our favor with some help from our State Legislative Representatives or Senator. Remember, the citizens of the State have already purchased the HIYU, the State would rather the vessel continue operation here within the State generated economic activity than either leave or become inactive. The Hiyu has 45% of its service life left, the Whatcom Chief is at 170% of its service life with increasing risk of failure, as well as having other problems. We have, in fact, recently done a financial study that shows the running of the HIYU' will literally buy us a new Ferry in 15 years, at the present fare structure. Printed versions of this study are in the hands of the County and LIFAC. Both groups would not give us more than three minutes to present the facts at their meetings, which would have been impossible. Yes, tooth and nail, more to be revealed. When you say "We" are you talking about the government of Whatcom County, the Lummi Island ferry Advisory committee or your group interested in purchasing the Hiyu? Is anyone involved with Whatcom County government or with the operations of the ferry actually pursuing the Hiyu or is your group from Lummi Island? Because honestly in reading the official minutes to the meetings on the Whatcom County website, the only name I see associated with the Hiyu being purchased is yours, and the county largely seem to have dismissed the idea of purchasing the Hiyu when they determined it would cost well over $7 million dollars just to get the Hiyu to work for them. Cards on the table: Are you speaking in any way in a official capacity for Whatcom County or the the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee when it comes to the purchase and use of the Hiyu? (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/AgendaCenter/Lummi-Island-Ferry-Advisory-Committee-8)
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 25, 2016 20:21:59 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 25, 2016 20:21:59 GMT -8
The us, is the Independent Lummi Island Ferry Committee, formerly known as the TECH Committee. We were a subcommittee of LIFAC, until, we brought out the HIYU reports, suddenly the LIFAC Chair pulled our sanction on a technicality.
LIFAC is a politically appointed board, their use seems to be a bumper between the County and the Citizens. They never do anything on their own, always waiting to be told what to do by the Public Works, even though they are chartered by the Council. In the past four years their total output has been a couple of sign changes and the approval of free passage for a parent accompanying kids from the mainland to the Island Grade School. Their meetings are once a month for 1 hour and 20 minutes before the Mainland Members have to leave. Not once in four years have they had an extended meeting.
On the other hand, the Tech group had one 2 1/2 hour meeting a week for 6 months on the applicability of the HIYU. We produced a 25 page document, foot noted and confirmed as true, a 36 page Committee Initiated Reference Doc with interviews of State people, Shipyards, Coast Guard, Caterpillar, and others. Further the main doc references about 500 pages of published industry documents and studies. Many of the later were about 1 million dollars worth of previous Studies for the County, they had forgotten about, almost all obtained by FOI requests. Although we repeatedly asked LIFAC to get us documents, not one was forthcoming from them.
LIFAC has recently re-organized after the Chair was not re-appointed, and two of their best people quit out of disgust. Most members of LIFAC know nothing about a Ferry, and the island ones view the little Ferry as a gate to future growth.
The 7 million dock figure, which rose to 11 million later, actually was 7-11 million as written, was the result of a draft study by a Consultant group, they wanted to demolish the existing, throw it away and start over with all material outside the ramp towers. Much of the dolphins and structures are fairly new, 2009 to 2014, other parts are old, worn out and need to be replaced now, the newer parts are perfectly fine to be re-located and plenty strong. Much of the existing dolphin structures don't need to be replaced or moved at all, in fact in 2014 they took out the ability to land one of the smaller State Ferries, after 30+ years, by replacing and moving in the mid dolphins on the Mainland side, over protests. By looking at this report, the 2009 Pile Test and 2006 Geo-Tech study (these two studies were "lost"), we determined that the cost to dock the HIYU would be about 1.2-2.4 million which would land both sizes of vessels. To do what the Consultants want would be like wanting to replace the front window of your house by tearing the whole thing down and replacing it with a new dwelling with the new front window.
Our group is not a bunch of malcontents and cranks, 10 plus very intelligent and caring people did a great job with our report, the County and LIFAC just don't want it, they want to change nothing. In the past week another member put together a financial report on it, it's a real eye opener, completely supports the HIYU and changes to the system, I will try to post it.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 25, 2016 21:58:06 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 25, 2016 21:58:06 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,187
|
MV Hiyu
May 25, 2016 22:02:19 GMT -8
Post by Neil on May 25, 2016 22:02:19 GMT -8
The us, is the Independent Lummi Island Ferry Committee, formerly known as the TECH Committee. We were a subcommittee of LIFAC, until, we brought out the HIYU reports, suddenly the LIFAC Chair pulled our sanction on a technicality. LIFAC is a politically appointed board, their use seems to be a bumper between the County and the Citizens. They never do anything on their own, always waiting to be told what to do by the Public Works, even though they are chartered by the Council. In the past four years their total output has been a couple of sign changes and the approval of free passage for a parent accompanying kids from the mainland to the Island Grade School. Their meetings are once a month for 1 hour and 20 minutes before the Mainland Members have to leave. Not once in four years have they had an extended meeting. On the other hand, the Tech group had one 2 1/2 hour meeting a week for 6 months on the applicability of the HIYU. We produced a 25 page document, foot noted and confirmed as true, a 36 page Committee Initiated Reference Doc with interviews of State people, Shipyards, Coast Guard, Caterpillar, and others. Further the main doc references about 500 pages of published industry documents and studies. Many of the later were about 1 million dollars worth of previous Studies for the County, they had forgotten about, almost all obtained by FOI requests. Although we repeatedly asked LIFAC to get us documents, not one was forthcoming from them. LIFAC has recently re-organized after the Chair was not re-appointed, and two of their best people quit out of disgust. Most members of LIFAC know nothing about a Ferry, and the island ones view the little Ferry as a gate to future growth. The 7 million dock figure, which rose to 11 million later, actually was 7-11 million as written, was the result of a draft study by a Consultant group, they wanted to demolish the existing, throw it away and start over with all material outside the ramp towers. Much of the dolphins and structures are fairly new, 2009 to 2014, other parts are old, worn out and need to be replaced now, the newer parts are perfectly fine to be re-located and plenty strong. Much of the existing dolphin structures don't need to be replaced or moved at all, in fact in 2014 they took out the ability to land one of the smaller State Ferries, after 30+ years, by replacing and moving in the mid dolphins on the Mainland side, over protests. By looking at this report, the 2009 Pile Test and 2006 Geo-Tech study (these two studies were "lost"), we determined that the cost to dock the HIYU would be about 1.2-2.4 million which would land both sizes of vessels. To do what the Consultants want would be like wanting to replace the front window of your house by tearing the whole thing down and replacing it with a new dwelling with the new front window. Our group is not a bunch of malcontents and cranks, 10 plus very intelligent and caring people did a great job with our report, the County and LIFAC just don't want it, they want to change nothing. In the past week another member put together a financial report on it, it's a real eye opener, completely supports the HIYU and changes to the system, I will try to post it. Sounds like there are some personality clashes, with the holders of some opinions believing that holders of other opinions have no expertise in their field. Not uncommon in the politics of small island communities.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 26, 2016 0:15:04 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 26, 2016 0:15:04 GMT -8
Here's the Financial Study. This took about a week to be assembled, my part of this was limited to providing some of the information to the author. The old Whatcom Cheif is costing too much to maintain, not able to handle the traffic- is maxed out, can't carry all road legal loads, and being loaded illegally. The HIYU fixes all that, and even cash flows, at least for a while, maybe 5-10 years. Sure better than what we have. savetheferry.com/Hiyu%20v%20Whatcom%20County%20Chief%20e266.pdf
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 26, 2016 5:28:56 GMT -8
Post by Kahloke on May 26, 2016 5:28:56 GMT -8
I hope Lummi gets the Hiyu. Sounds like it's going to be a tough battle to get it there, but "The Saucer" still has life left in her and it would be nice to see Hiyu back in service somewhere.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,187
|
Post by Neil on May 26, 2016 9:51:23 GMT -8
I hope Lummi gets the Hiyu. Sounds like it's going to be a tough battle to get it there, but "The Saucer" still has life left in her and it would be nice to see Hiyu back in service somewhere. Despite the engineering reports Whatcom county has, that from my reading, seem to advise otherwise?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 29, 2016 11:19:17 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 29, 2016 11:19:17 GMT -8
The engineering reports were ordered by the County, remember that, ordered by the County. The first one from Elliot Bay was fairly neutral, but used the WSF fully loaded draft instead of design draft, which would have been more appropriate at low tides. The second, the PND Report obviously was ordered with the intent of costing so much, it would disqualify the HIYU. The third was again designed to do the same. Now they can all be justified, if costs are no concern, something normally out of the question. Do what the boss wants, or next time they go somewhere else. I used to be an Audio Consultant for sound systems. I learned my lesson, it doesn't matter if the owners are right or not, you do what they want, even though the end result may be bad. I have been fired twice by trying to stand up for what I thought was right. After that, I got real selective with who I would work for, and it worked out, made sure the failures were not under my pen, the two jobs I got fired from, were both miserable, expensive failures. The three County's HIYU reports are posted on their website under the Ferry part. Elliot Bay HIYU Study www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10662Our response to Elliot Bay HIYU Study savetheferry.com/ILITC%20EBDGres1A%20-%20MSJ%20w-Pics.doc------------ Draft Infrastructure Improvements for HIYU www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10663Our response to Draft Infrastructure Improvements for HIYU savetheferry.com/Response%20to%20PND%20Dock%20Report.doc------------ Reclassification of HIYU from H Class to T Class www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10664Our response to Reclassification of HIYU from H Class to T Class savetheferry.com/HIYU%20toncrew.doc------------ You will notice that the County did not post our HIYU Study and related documents, which are no doubt the impetus for these ordered reports. Would be nice to see the whole story. This whole thing is a mess with a very UN-responsive operator. One of these days the old boat will fail, and there will be nothing to take its place, for at least three years.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,187
|
Post by Neil on May 29, 2016 22:15:26 GMT -8
The engineering reports were ordered by the County, remember that, ordered by the County. The first one from Elliot Bay was fairly neutral, but used the WSF fully loaded draft instead of design draft, which would have been more appropriate at low tides. The second, the PND Report obviously was ordered with the intent of costing so much, it would disqualify the HIYU. The third was again designed to do the same. Now they can all be justified, if costs are no concern, something normally out of the question. Do what the boss wants, or next time they go somewhere else. I used to be an Audio Consultant for sound systems. I learned my lesson, it doesn't matter if the owners are right or not, you do what they want, even though the end result may be bad. I have been fired twice by trying to stand up for what I thought was right. After that, I got real selective with who I would work for, and it worked out, made sure the failures were not under my pen, the two jobs I got fired from, were both miserable, expensive failures. The three County's HIYU reports are posted on their website under the Ferry part. Elliot Bay HIYU Study www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10662Our response to Elliot Bay HIYU Study savetheferry.com/ILITC%20EBDGres1A%20-%20MSJ%20w-Pics.doc------------ Draft Infrastructure Improvements for HIYU www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10663Our response to Draft Infrastructure Improvements for HIYU savetheferry.com/Response%20to%20PND%20Dock%20Report.doc------------ Reclassification of HIYU from H Class to T Class www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/10664Our response to Reclassification of HIYU from H Class to T Class savetheferry.com/HIYU%20toncrew.doc------------ You will notice that the County did not post our HIYU Study and related documents, which are no doubt the impetus for these ordered reports. Would be nice to see the whole story. This whole thing is a mess with a very UN-responsive operator. One of these days the old boat will fail, and there will be nothing to take its place, for at least three years. This is a public forum, so perhaps you should be careful about naming an engineering consultancy firm and suggesting that their work was based on playing to the biases of the client rather than on providing sound research.
And why would the county post a 'study' done by a dissident ferry advocacy group whose minds are already made up, and who don't seem to have marine engineering credentials?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 31, 2016 11:12:39 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 31, 2016 11:12:39 GMT -8
We have no complaint with the Consultants, they did what they were asked to do. None of the reports are technically "wrong", If you take it on face value, and if money was of no concern. We took a lot of time evaluating them, just happen to disagree with some of the conclusions, especially of one on the scope of Dock work.
Our group is not a dissident group, we are not trying to ruin the service, we are trying to improve it and save costs. We have done our research very well and all of it is verified. Our conclusions came from the result of extensive research, we found nothing in the investigation of the HIYU for use here at Lummi Island, that would disqualify the vessel. All adaptation issues could be easily addressed and mitigated. it is not our group that came into the problem with our mind made up. Read our report, the references, the responses, this report took over six months of extensive research and meetings. Within our documents, you will find a plethora of consultations with Credentialed Engineers and Experts who graciously helped us out. Several of us, in our group and contributing supporters, have had extensive marine experience (two with over 40 years in the marine industry), and three of us have engineering backgrounds, one a transportation expert, one an professional study writer, all were deeply involved and learned a tremendous amount, much more than the Officials and their Committee, made an attempt to.
The whole problem is that the current Ferry is too old, yearly costing 3 -4 times its worth to maintain, not able to keep up with traffic, leaving riders and potential revenue behind, carry road-legal loads, overloaded and out of compliance with USCG vehicle loading safety rules. The County has no money put-away to replace the boat, no place to get any grants, either from Federal or State sources, or likely able to bond a new vessel due to the requirements of having to build a new $100 million new Jail, the $34+ million Courthouse repair, and the mandated County Road upgrades. While perhaps not being perfect, the HIYU solves all the above problems and maintains the service which, unless upgraded, will fail at some point, for one of the listed reasons,.
Concerned citizen boards and groups are highly esteemed as they often find solutions to problems not thought of or vetted by Public Agencies or Operators.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,187
|
Post by Neil on May 31, 2016 20:24:05 GMT -8
We have no complaint with the Consultants, they did what they were asked to do. None of the reports are technically "wrong", If you take it on face value, and if money was of no concern. We took a lot of time evaluating them, just happen to disagree with some of the conclusions, especially of one on the scope of Dock work. Our group is not a dissident group, we are not trying to ruin the service, we are trying to improve it and save costs. We have done our research very well and all of it is verified. Our conclusions came from the result of extensive research, we found nothing in the investigation of the HIYU for use here at Lummi Island, that would disqualify the vessel. All adaptation issues could be easily addressed and mitigated. it is not our group that came into the problem with our mind made up. Read our report, the references, the responses, this report took over six months of extensive research and meetings. Within our documents, you will find a plethora of consultations with Credentialed Engineers and Experts who graciously helped us out. Several of us, in our group and contributing supporters, have had extensive marine experience (two with over 40 years in the marine industry), and three of us have engineering backgrounds, one a transportation expert, one an professional study writer, all were deeply involved and learned a tremendous amount, much more than the Officials and their Committee, made an attempt to. The whole problem is that the current Ferry is too old, yearly costing 3 -4 times its worth to maintain, not able to keep up with traffic, leaving riders and potential revenue behind, carry road-legal loads, overloaded and out of compliance with USCG vehicle loading safety rules. The County has no money put-away to replace the boat, no place to get any grants, either from Federal or State sources, or likely able to bond a new vessel due to the requirements of having to build a new $100 million new Jail, the $34+ million Courthouse repair, and the mandated County Road upgrades. While perhaps not being perfect, the HIYU solves all the above problems and maintains the service which, unless upgraded, will fail at some point, for one of the listed reasons,. Concerned citizen boards and groups are highly esteemed as they often find solutions to problems not thought of or vetted by Public Agencies or Operators. Your group's responses to the reports aren't viewable to me, nor are the references in your general financial analysis. In that analysis, it's stated that the numbers are based on "reasonable estimates and reasonable projections". Reasonable to who, and reasonable based on what?
In B.C., a similar opinion piece put together by an unsanctioned group of ferry critics would most likely be ignored by BC Ferries, even if the work had some value. BC Ferries, like Whatcom County, relies on contracted research from recognized engineering firms. I don't know why you would be surprised that Whatcom would not include your group's input on the applicable websites.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on May 31, 2016 22:47:36 GMT -8
I have no idea why you cannot read the responses and references, I had another visitor look at them and they got access. You could put the page address directly into the address field box and try it that way.
Our group was a duly County sanctioned group until the former LIFAC Chair took it upon himself (was later fired by the County Council) to remove our authority on a technicality, Our members were incensed and refused to re-apply., our one lady member said she had never been so disrespected in her life.
In the U.S. anyone has the right to express and put forth a report such as this so we did, it happens all the time. Again we are not a bunch of Cranks and Malcontents who want to ruin the service, we found a gentle way to improve it and remove the gross liabilities now being experienced.
If you cannot open the references and responses, email me your address, and I will personally send them to you.
Strange you mention B.C. Ferries, when I was a member of the County Ferry Task Force, we had a number of contacts with them. They very graciously gave us the material we asked for and arranged for one of their people to give us a presentation. The Washington State Ferries, right up to meeting with the Director, and our State Representatives also were very helpful and supportive. Material from B.C. Ferries, the WSF and Skagit County was used in the financial study, as was reported local passage rates, which, unlike the others, was almost impossible to interpret.
By the way, I was wrong, there were five Engineers, not three, connected to our reports. Trust me, this is not an opinion piece, we generated about 37 pages of our own interviewed references, read and listed over 500 pages of Industry publications and reports, we did our due diligence, when you read the references you will see that. What we have posted here is just a part of the material that went into and supported our reports.
I can put you in-touch with the fellow who wrote the financial report, if you wish, he can explain it much better than I, he's the statistician. I would also suggest, you contact us directly for further explanation of specific issues and topics, this is not a simple subject with many variables that are not easily understood by most people.
We are trying to promote a positive move here, the HIYU's a great boat that will do the job very well.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Sept 6, 2016 11:30:37 GMT -8
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
Sept 26, 2016 3:01:37 GMT -8
Post by FNS on Sept 26, 2016 3:01:37 GMT -8
It looks like the sister of the HIYU is nearly ready for her new life as a hotel for fish of all species as we see in this USCG note: I have enjoyed seeing new pics added each week from this organization's Facebook site. Insides of this vessel. Outside as well. Now, we await for the sea to do its thing. www.facebook.com/wikolianareefproject/?fref=photo
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Oct 20, 2016 12:00:03 GMT -8
Post by EGfleet on Oct 20, 2016 12:00:03 GMT -8
Not a single bid for state ferry Hiyu, scrap yard could be next Originally published October 20, 2016 at 9:03 am Updated October 20, 2016 at 11:10 am By Evan Bush Seattle Times enterprise producer
Nostalgia only counts for so much, the Washington State Ferries system found out Wednesday. The warm feeling of owning an old state ferryboat could not inspire a single bid for the MV Hiyu, which was up for auction on a surplus site. The vessel’s minimum bidding price was $300,000.
Back to the drawing board, state ferries spokesman Ian Sterling said.
That could mean advertising its sale on a national listing site, Sterling said, or taking a second look at its price.
“The last resort — it could be sold for scrap,” Sterling said. But, “it still has hope.”
Old vessels like the Hiyu don’t always find a home right away, he said.
“It’s not unsurprising that it didn’t sell. It’s outlived its life as a Washington state ferry and there are a lot of things that make it prohibitive to operate in the United States,” Sterling said. Moorage can be expensive. The state requires bidders to submit a plan describing where they will take the boat. Plus, the Hiyu requires a crew of five people to operate legally.
“It sounds romantic to own an old state ferry,” Sterling said. “But when you look into the actual cost of what that might be a lot of the dreamers wake up to that reality.”
Sterling said the Hiyu has selling points.
“It is a lot smaller than other state ferries. While our system has outgrown it, others have not,” he said. In an assessment, the ferry received good marks for maintenance.
Another ferry, the Evergreen State, was also listed for surplus sale.
Built in 1954, it was the oldest in the ferry system fleet and comes with drive engines from a surplus World War II destroyer, Sterling said.
“(The boat) seems to be garnering some interest, so that will stay on auction for now.”
Surplus state ferries have mostly met untidy ends, with a few notable exceptions. Sterling said the state hopes to avoid that fate with both boats.
“We’re a little more responsible about how we recycle ferryboats these days — we’re hopeful it will go to a new home,” he said of the Hiyu.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Oct 23, 2016 22:14:22 GMT -8
Post by compdude787 on Oct 23, 2016 22:14:22 GMT -8
I'm afraid that Lummi Island isn't going to get it. The county seems to be dragging their feet when it comes to replacing the Whatcom Chief.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 24, 2016 13:47:48 GMT -8
I'm afraid that Lummi Island isn't going to get it. The county seems to be dragging their feet when it comes to replacing the Whatcom Chief. There's been a long and fairly circular discussion about this earlier in the thread. I personally don't believe that the HIYU would be a good fit for Lummi... draft issues, crewing issues, reconfiguration-of-dock issues on both ends of the run, all for a boat that's a whopping five years newer than the Whatcom Chief.
|
|