lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 21, 2010 20:48:50 GMT -8
First, thank you Ferrynutseattle for your great adaptation of the Steilacoom II platform, what an elegantly proportioned vessel. The only reason we would need this boat for the Island is if we have to move the mainland dock to Fairhaven. Our current old Ferry, the Whatcom Cheif is running near capacity, over capacity in the summer, at the current 3/4 mile transit. It is also getting elderly with corosion issues. I would hopelessly inadequate running to any where else, 6.5 nautical miles to a possible Neptune Beach landing, or 10 nautical miles to Fairhaven. If somehow we are able to stay where we are, a 54 car Ferry like the Christine Anderson would be my choice, in light of future expansion.
Now let us remember, since the retirement of the Steel Electrics, the State is currently operating a 4 boat deficit, three if ones counts in the leased Steilacoom II.
When the State bid the 54 car Steilacoom IIs in 2007??, the bids came in very high around 25 million each. At that time Nichols was in receivership, Todd was the only one to bid and times were still pretty good. Since then, Nicholls is back, times are bad, steel is down in cost and the builders are hungry. Steilacoom IIs today would go for 12-13million, perhaps even lower if out-of-state bidding was allowed. So let's take a high 14 million for the 54 car 219' model. Since the costly items are in each end, the middle part could be easily built for the same per/foot price, so doing that, the 66 car model, as drawn by FNS, would cost 16.31 million. By adding 54 feet, or 72 cars, cost would be 17.45 million, or three for less than the cost of a new 64.
If I am thinking right, the 36' strectched 66 car would carry 2 more cars than a new 64, the 54' stretched 8 more cars than a new 64, and in the future if one wanted to, they could be stretched again. The Rody could be replaced by a 54 car non stretched model which would handle more cars than it does. So if we were to build two of either the 36 or 54 foot stretched models we could handle Inter-Island in the summer, and Point Defiance for far less money. If we were to get on it and build one right now, the first one could even work at Keystone in the summer until the next 64 is finished. Then we could retire the Rody.
So my plans is :
Finish the Chetzemoka, and the second 64 "Heavy Weather Ferries= 2 New 64s Build 2 stretched 72 car Steilacoom IIs "Light Weather Ferries = 2 new 72s Cancell the third 64 Build one 144 car ferry =1 new 144
Retire either the Evergreen State or the Rody, keep one or the other in reserve. Return the HiYu to Dock Queen status.......
This would leave us in the same although somewhat improved position as before the Steel Electrics were shut down. The money from the cancelled 64 and the savings of the two Stretched Steilacoom IIs could be used to build the 144s, more traffic gets moved across the water, everybody wins.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 25, 2010 15:45:42 GMT -8
Dear Ferrynutseattle,
I noticed that you called the Steilacoom II a PC Ferry, is there some basis for this name? For lack of another tern, i would have called it an AI Ferry, for Anderson Island.
Also, since we are having this situation of the possible ejectment of our mainland dock from where it is now, could I share your drawing of the potential Ferry with our community out here on our Ferry Problem Wesite? I have shown it to some of the others privately, and they think it looks great.
Thanks, Jim
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 25, 2010 20:25:56 GMT -8
Dear Ferrynutseattle, I noticed that you called the Steilacoom II a PC Ferry, is there some basis for this name? For lack of another tern, i would have called it an AI Ferry, for Anderson Island. Also, since we are having this situation of the possible ejectment of our mainland dock from where it is now, could I share your drawing of the potential Ferry with our community out here on our Ferry Problem Wesite? I have shown it to some of the others privately, and they think it looks great. Thanks, Jim "EGfleet" has it right! The STEILACOOM II is a Pierce County ferry. I just use PC as an abbreviation. In your private Hotmail account inbox, you should have two ".bmp" files for your viewing pleasure. One of these you can use on your site. Enjoy! This is a Forum version of the finished variation I did for "lifc". Some of the colors are a carryover from the MV WHATCOM CHIEF.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 25, 2010 21:16:59 GMT -8
Ferrynutseattle,
Thank you for the beautiful drawings, this is one fine looking vessel. I still wonder why this was not considered for production by the State. It's a known product, cost-effective, and a far better sea boat than most of the old ones, especially with rolling chocks. Looks great to me.
Again Thank You,
Jim
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 25, 2010 22:16:10 GMT -8
Jim,
As I recall, the StII was considered by the state, and rejected. As for being a "far better sea boat", I just don't understand the allusion. The Steilacoom II missed her first four sailings today alone because of high winds and sea conditions. Is she really that much better than the Steel Electrics, et al?
Just a question. When I see comments like this it makes me shake my head. I could easily have the wrong perception, but I'm of the impression that the StII isn't the ideal boat for its conditions, and I don't see where the stretch version addresses many of the problems that make the StII a fair weather boat.
For the Lummi Island trip, I think it would work fairly great, and I want to stress that the imagineering behind it is genius, backed up by very skillful execution. But the implication that it's ideal for PT is mystifying. Am I missing something?
Jody
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 26, 2010 2:09:33 GMT -8
First of all, never said the PC boat was ideal for Keystone, and no it's not a bettter sea boat than a Steel Electric, it's all a question of degree. By old ones, I meant some of the long departed ferries like the Vashon, San Diego, et all that seem to be held in so high regard, not the SE's.
I believe the 54 car PC type was rejected by the State due to the very high 25 million bid each the State received, instead of the 14-15 million that was projected. They then wisely decided not to build them. Had the State been able to bid out-of-State, the ferries would have met the original cost projections, and the local yards would have had to be competitive, something they do not have to be with the in-State only bidding. I still think the 54 car versions are too small.
The streched versions are another matter. They will be more seaworthy, especially with the addition of rolling chalks and would have still been able to be built for less than 20 millon apiece, properly bid, then and now. While I do agree that the Keystone run needs a heavier weather ferry, these would have been great interim boats that could have been quickly built and available and would likely resulted in less than 1/2 the cancellations that are happening now with the shorter version. Then a more orderly process to get replacements for the SE's could have resulted and possibly a better heavy weather vessel designed than what is being built now. Once the heavier weather boats were built, the lighter PC type vessels could have been re-assigned to Point Defiance and Inter-Island in the summer, or one kept as a spare. They certainly would work netter than the Rody or the HiYu. That way Port Townsend and the Olympic Penninsula would not have been out the tens of millions of dollars in lost sales and tourist revenues, shipyards would have had business, and we would have had two nice steel platforms left over that move cars on the water, instead of just bad memories.
I will unequovically state that the lenthed PC 252 foot 66 car version will work better, cost less to operate and maintain on the Point Defiance run than the new heavy weather IH 64 car model, whic is not neccessary there as in Keystone. A 72 car 270 foot version PC type would work even better and still be under 20 million.
Yes, I also agree that the 144 car ferrys would have been a better bet all around, but, Keystone isn't going to move, and I would rather see two lengthend PC types, two IH types, and part of a 144 than three IH ferries.
As for running from Lummi to Fairhaven, I would prefer to see a heavier weather vessel, as it can be rougher than Admirality in the "triangle" in the area berween Point Francis and Eliza Island. However, considering the monies available, we will be hard pressed to get even the 254 foot 66 car, PC type (PC252L). This is a brilliant adaptation of a successful design.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 26, 2010 6:17:14 GMT -8
Yes well. The Tub toys no matter how much longer they are made as still to open for the run if you want it to be able to at-least run when the SE did....
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 26, 2010 8:26:43 GMT -8
True,
But look what we have now, one leased too small Tub Toy, PT will have another two tourist seasons with inadquate service. The State is paying a lease fee to the same dollar cost as if they bought the vessel. The longer PC boats would work better. If they got off their dufff and ordered one right now, at least summer 2011, no, maybe even 2010 would be up to run standard resulting in more revenue for the area and after both of the new 64s arrive, they would have a reserve boat or could then reserve or surplus the failing Rody. Pierce County could get its boat back, they need it. Perfect, no, but better than it is now, and the State would have something left over for not a huge cost.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 26, 2010 8:27:36 GMT -8
I will unequovically state that the lenthed PC 252 foot 66 car version will work better, cost less to operate and maintain on the Point Defiance run than the new heavy weather IH 64 car model, whic is not neccessary there as in Keystone. A 72 car 270 foot version PC type would work even better and still be under 20 million. And I will re-iterate my opinion of building only the 2 IH-Type vessels for Port Townsend-Keystone, then immediately move onto the 144-car ferry program, thus freeing up an existing vessel, perhaps Sealth, to use at Point Defiance-Tahlequah. One thing we both agree on: 3 64-car vessels is one too many of that type.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 26, 2010 8:42:14 GMT -8
Right now the cost of a standard 54 car PC ferry could be bought for about 12 million. The longer 66 car PC252L could be bought for about 14-15 million. This would pay for itself in fare box and increased Sales Tax revenues out of PT if it was quickly aquired. It could run with the leased ST II this year and with the New IH 64 in 2011. If no one liked it, later, it could be sold, mayne even to Whatcom County.
I agree, two IH 64s and a new 144 would be a better alternative, but it would be at least 4 years before this program could be completed, this would be more or less immediate.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 26, 2010 14:45:27 GMT -8
Right now the cost of a standard 54 car PC ferry could be bought for about 12 million. The longer 66 car PC252L could be bought for about 14-15 million. This would pay for itself in fare box and increased Sales Tax revenues out of PT if it was quickly aquired. It could run with the leased ST II this year and with the New IH 64 in 2011. If no one liked it, later, it could be sold, mayne even to Whatcom County. (1) I am skeptical of your price estimates... WSF couldn't get a 54-car boat for $12M two years ago; why could they now? I think your prices are realistic... if the purchaser is a private entity. For whatever reason, government is assumed to have deeper pockets. (2) Boats depreciate. I don't think the state particularly wishes to be in the business of paying to build other fleets.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jan 26, 2010 15:20:58 GMT -8
Right now the cost of a standard 54 car PC ferry could be bought for about 12 million. The longer 66 car PC252L could be bought for about 14-15 million. This would pay for itself in fare box and increased Sales Tax revenues out of PT if it was quickly aquired. It could run with the leased ST II this year and with the New IH 64 in 2011. If no one liked it, later, it could be sold, mayne even to Whatcom County. (1) I am skeptical of your price estimates... WSF couldn't get a 54-car boat for $12M two years ago; why could they now?... Especially given the fact we have seen two price increases in steel in the last month and are anticipating a third by the end of February adding up to more than a 30% increase in material costs over the first 2 months of 2010...
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 26, 2010 17:37:31 GMT -8
Right now the cost of a standard 54 car PC ferry could be bought for about 12 million. The longer 66 car PC252L could be bought for about 14-15 million. This would pay for itself in fare box and increased Sales Tax revenues out of PT if it was quickly aquired. I missed this the first time around... WSF's fare box collection doesn't even cover operating costs. It provides ZERO to the capital construction fund. And given that PT-K only provides about three percent of total fleetwide ridership, I think your income assumptions are a trifle optimistic. (There are three routes in WSF country that are in the black... anybody know what they are? Sit down please, EGFleet... ;D )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 17:53:31 GMT -8
The longer PC boats would work better. My question is, how do you know they will work better? I mean the design is based off of the 54 Steilacoom II design but I didn't know that an engineer has ever deemed that it would be more seaworthy? What?? How could they have a new boat built by later this year?? This makes no sense to me. Have you thought about the time it would take to purchase the new engines, the steel, have the area shipyards bid on the contract at a shipyard. I even think 2011 would be pushing it but that's just my opionion. How do you know it wouldn't be a huge cost? Where are you getting your numbers from? The design would still have to be finalized, that would cost money. Unless, that is, you know how to estimate exactly how much a new ferry would cost to build. Personally I think your figures are a bit on the low side.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 26, 2010 23:10:14 GMT -8
On the extended PC ferry:
Price Quote: I got it from a shipyard, the person said, "steel is not as expensive as it was a few years ago, times are tight, work is scarce, we'd do it to keep going". Actually the estimate was 12-13 million, I lowballed it a bit to get your attention. however if one went-out-of state, didn't load the bidders up with social engineering (costly manditory training programs) this could easily be met. Yes, the costs were if I was going to buy it.
Estimate of the extended platform: shipyard said. " the major cost of the boat is in the ends, engines, machinery etc. The center part could easily be built for the same per foot cost as the rest of the boat" I calculated the cost with this fomula, even if the base vessel costs 14 million, the 252 foot version would still only cost 16.33 Million.
Engines: from the vendor, 9-12 weeks lead time for same bore size series, gears in stock, up to 18 weeks for larger bore units.
Lead time: normal, 1 year, -expedited with some increased cost, no less than 6 months., would require subassemblys being out-sourced. The design for this vessel is already done, modiciations are relatively simple.
Seaworthyness: Longer boat means longer moment arm, slower pitch reaction, + rolling chocks, slows roll down, + emptier center section means some increase of freeboard= a better sea boat, relative physical design logic.
Yards need business, people need work, vendors need to sell product, times are tight, deals can be made right now.
Fare box: Costs almost the same to run the 66 car is as the 54, same crew, almost no increase in fuel. basically static base costs, more cars carried, more income. In the summer it would run full. don't know the summer schedule, but winter is 10 round trips, that's 240 more cars a day plus passengers in cars. Then add in the Sales Taxes on the goods and services these people buy, the more people employed due to the increased business the ferry brings to the community, sales tax on what those employed buy, - may not pay it all, but, this is "new" money. If everything runs at a deficit, then why do it at all? Simply, this does not take into account the economic activity transportation fosters, ever heard of a Freeway making money? You can bet without it, there will be almost no business, employment, or commerce, it's a bigger picture than just a tin boat hauling cars across a pond. Yes, I do my homework. The fact becomes that inefficient Goverment has to go away. When times are good, some can be tolerated as there is lots of money around, when times are bad, like now, none can be.
Do I think the PC ferries are perfect, no, but sometimes you just cannot get what you want, you have to settle for what you need.
Jim
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 5, 2010 9:42:23 GMT -8
This is a Forum version of the finished variation I did for "lifc". Some of the colors are a carryover from the MV WHATCOM CHIEF.[/quote] Ok, I'm back. Since I live on Lummi Island and our Mainland Landing was in doubt, due to the Lummi Indian Tribe no longer wanting the Ferry Dock on their Reservation, I started looking into Ferry designs. It now appears that they and the County have come to an understanding and the Landing will remain there. This search took me to riding other Ferries, Boat Builders, Marine Architects, Engine Companies, Private Ferry Operators and the Coast Guard. When I noticed Ferrynutseattle's extended PC design I was intrigued. As the "Ferry settlement" only happened yesterday, I was still at it until then. I remain steadfast in my opinion that the extended PC Ferry design is am absolute jewel. I thought it would have been a very good option for us if we had been forced to take the 11+ mile trip to Fairhaven. I also think it would make very good sense for the State to buy a pair of the extended models. For them the 270 foot, 72 car model would be my recommendation. 1. They are cheap in retrospect to the cost of the others. 2. They can be built quickly, the base design is proven. 3 They operate inexpensively. 4. Would make great summer boats for Inter-Island, and Keystone. If the Keystone route grows they may have to add a third boat to keep up with the demand in the summer, in light of the mandated shallow harbor. 5. Would be a great immediate replacement for Point Defiance. 6. Would work better, run cheaper, be easier to maintain, and haul more cars than the Rhododendron. 7. Make great spare boats, remember they have none now. The KdT (IH design) boats are very limited, they are not big enough, way to costly, likely fuel hogs, and have some doubtful design issues. In comparison to the extended PC design, the only advantage the KdT's have is their better heavy weather capability. The extended PC boats will haul more cars, operate less expensively and are way cheaper to build and maintain. If you have noticed, the hull cross section of the two vessels are nearly identical, they differ in the treatment of the propeller sections. If you also notice, the KdT design has rolling chocks, and is proven to handle heavy weather. If one applied them to the PC design, I cannot see why the hull would not have similar performance. The difference would then be in the superstructure, which then would be the difference in the weather ability and keep the extended PC design as a lighter weather vessel. In other words, the boat would handle the weather, the customers might not. For summer, spares and protected runs, these are dynamite. As Matt Nicholls told me, "they need to be given a chance", I agree. I also like the way the propellers and rudders are protected in the PC Ferry design, V/S the exposed propellers, shafts and rudders in the KdT design. An extended PC design with rolling chocks, would set down on the beach very nicely, like the old Steel Electrics. In the same situation, the KdT designs which will likely bend the exposed parts. In closing it is my opinion that only two of the KdT designs be built, the money for the third transferred to a new 144, and two extended PC designs be built. This would put the State Ferry System roughly back to where it was before November 2007. I would like to see our County get one of the standard 54 car ones to replace our old, too small and deteriorating Ferry, as it appears we are now staying put. Jim
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Feb 5, 2010 13:07:11 GMT -8
I think that's good news for your islanders. Looks like that garbage truck is about to tip over that little ferry that could! ;D I think the best way to start upgrading your service is using the HIYU. Even her sister in Hawaii, whenever she's not used as a "fishing island" off Kona anymore. The modification needed on the Main Deck is a lane taken out under one of the passenger lounges and turn it into an ADA lounge with an ADA head for the vessel to at least meet parts of the act's standards in ADA accessibility without installing an elevator. HIYU means "Plenty". She or her Hawaiian sister would be plenty big enough to do good service on your run for awhile until a better ferry can be built.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 5, 2010 13:30:50 GMT -8
I agree, the HIYU would be a good interim boat, it seems the State is going to keep it for a while. The settlement with the Tribe buys us a little time with the current boat.
I tried to find the HIYU's sister, even called the Port Authority in Hawaii, no one knows where it is. Might be a good excuse to go there.
I do know most of the Community is going to be on the County for replacing the Whatcom Chief, however the social engineering no-growth ers’ will be pulling for its infinite retainment. The Lummi’s would like to see less trips although, less trips mean a bigger boat.
I would like to see the Chief retained as a reserve vessel, perhaps put into an Inter-County reserve so it would be available for dry dock periods and emergencies. It’s a great boat, it’s just getting old with thinning decks, deterioration in the deck house, ADA non compliant lane widths, and engines that no longer meet pollution specs. For years I advocated lengthening it, however, no longer, it’s just too old.
Thanks for all you help, I like your design, and so did our Ferry crew. Some one will build one, it's just too good.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 5, 2010 13:36:21 GMT -8
The QTB (IH design) boats are very limited Pardon my ignorance, but what does QTB stand for? I would like to see our County get one of the standard 54 car ones to replace our old, too small and deteriorating Ferry, as it appears we are now staying put. That design would likely be a good fit at Lummi Island. How many cars does Whatcom Chief carry? It looks pretty small. 54 cars would probably be a nice upgrade.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 5, 2010 13:59:18 GMT -8
oops, it's KdT for "Kwa-di Tabil" the new Statw Class name for the Chetzemoka size ferries. I will edit and change in the previous documents.
On a good day, they can stack about 20 cars on the Chief, it was originally built for 16, cars were bigger in 1962.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Feb 5, 2010 14:04:27 GMT -8
From the website of the Kona Fishing Island. www.fishingislandhawaii.com/QTB: Kwa-di Tabil Class, I think. From the official Lummi Island ferry website: "The Whatcom County ferry system operates 365 days a year. The Whatcom Chief is 93.5 feet long with a beam of 44.1 feet and a displacement of 78 tons. This vessel was built in 1962 and has a capacity of 100 passengers and 20 vehicles. The Whatcom Chief is the only link for the majority of Lummi Island residents and all vehicles to the mainland at Gooseberry Point, a trip of 0.8 miles and about 5 minutes, not including loading and unloading times. The ferry is also a link for a number of summer residents and vacationers." www.co.whatcom.wa.us/publicworks/ferry/index.jspOne little question: Does this ferry service take a day off on "Leap Years"? ;D
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 6, 2010 9:40:38 GMT -8
Deprciation to the Steilacoom II, what depreciation? Pierce county did not have it long enough to have any. The State would be better served to buy a Stretched version like the one Ferynutseattle designed for the Lummi/Fairhaven run. Considering the economic market, and the increased carry capacity, thios would be a better deal and available in a year for no more than 16-17 million from Nicholls. I'd post the picture if I could figure out how, but you can link to: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nwf&action=display&thread=4553&page=7to see it. Jim
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Feb 6, 2010 10:55:20 GMT -8
Deprciation to the Steilacoom II, what depreciation? Pierce county did not have it long enough to have any. The State would be better served to buy a Stretched version like the one Ferynutseattle designed for the Lummi/Fairhaven run. Considering the economic market, and the increased carry capacity, thios would be a better deal and available in a year for no more than 16-17 million from Nicholls. I'd post the picture if I could figure out how, but you can link to: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nwf&action=display&thread=4553&page=7to see it. Jim No the Sate would not be better off paying for all the reengineering that would need to be do, It's really as simple as just making a boat longer or shorter.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 6, 2010 11:46:34 GMT -8
Actually, the price I got was a built price, not as re-engineered by anyone, I think it's already designed. Jim
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2010 9:58:23 GMT -8
From what I understand, the design for lengthening the Pierce County (PC) platform has already been done. As for the question, "is lengthening of the PC type boat feasible", absolutely, as a comparison, just look at the first 737, it was a little stubby thing, now look at the 737-800! The hull cross-section of the PC design is very similar to that of the new Chetzemoka (KdT class), with the exception of the propeller end treatment, which in the PC boat is more Steel Electric like, and in my opinion better. The added, mostly empty, center would make the vessel more stable, not less, however like the KdT class, rolling chocks ought to be added to slow the roll. The 66 car would be 252 feet, the 72 car would be 270 feet long. This is well within normal width/length proportions for car Ferries. Ferrynutseattle’s design, as I have referenced previously, includes crew quarters. Even if the calculations have not been done, this is no big deal, a competent marine engineer ought to be able to do that in a day or two, it's not rocket science, and there's this little item we have now we didn't have in the 60s called programmed computers....
The 66 car could operate with the same engines, might need a size up for the 72, maybe. Speed will somewhat increase due to increase of water line length, even with the same power. This section already has a great track record, and is far more fuel efficient than the EMD installation in the KdT boats will ever be.
The proper way to obtain one or more of these is with a design/build contract, by requesting proposals from venders, not a bid spec system. The product is known, the design is out there and it would short circuit the expensive mess that happened with the last bids. Perhaps even out-of-State proposals ought to be included to keep the locals honest.
As for the State taking over the County Systems, I don't think so, the State has just too many problems running what they have. The whole bloody system needs a complete rethinking and overhaul, I do not see the political will to do it right now, perhaps after the 2010 elections.
The County Ferries are much more cost-effective and run with much smaller crews. Pierce County runs the ST II with either three or four crew, the State runs it with seven. Both Whatcom and Skagit run with three crew. I think a better system might be an Inter-County Ferry Association with shared resources, especially spare vessels, I do agree with that part of Neil's comment. From my observation, Pierce seems to have the best handle on operations of the County systems.
Here on Lummi Island, where I am at, we have just made a deal with the Lummi Indians to continue docking on their reservation. The details are not totally negotiated, but one of the things they want is reduced Ferry Landings until their Marina renovations are in place and the wake mitigated.
The current Ferry is operating at near capacity, over capacity in season. It is 47 years old, has thinning decks, deterioration in the deck house, and lane widths that are now ADA non-compliant. To me, this means a larger Ferry, soon. My choice would be a standard 54 car PC type Ferry, it would cut down the number of runs, use about the same amount of fuel overall and have expansion capability for the future. The idea of shared resources is very appealing to me, our wonderful old girl could even go into the reserve pool, it's got a lot of life left for intermittent use and will haul passengers only just fine too. I have been trying to get the politicians ear about this, but, they don't seem to be interested and generally blow me off, I can't even get my State Rep, who I know personally, to call me back (I know, they are in session now). Any ideas here? With our current upset with the Mainland Landing we have a short window of opportunity with people engaged and listening. Your comments and ideas would be appreciated. Jim
|
|