|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 17, 2014 17:33:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 17, 2014 20:36:24 GMT -8
Here is a Canadian news item on this same story from the CBC: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-ambassador-buy-america-restrictions-on-prince-rupert-ferry-terminal-unacceptable-1.2876947In that the AMHS terminal in Prince Rupert is used only by AMHS vessels, and its reconstruction is being paid for by American tax payers (100% of the costs, I gather) why would we (Canada/BC) make a big fuss about American steel being used? When BC Ferries has terminals rebuilt here in BC, is it Canadian steel being used, or is it Chinese?
I am fairly sure that BC Ferries and AMHS vessels can not use each others Prince Rupert facilities. They used to be able to do so, but since BC Ferries went to the European berthing arrangements for its northern vessels, the inter-operability between the two ferry operators is no longer possible.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Dec 28, 2014 13:30:36 GMT -8
Solution to the problem with the steel: Dofasco sells half to the project and the other half comes from US Steel. Everyone wins!
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 3, 2015 11:17:29 GMT -8
Prince Rupert Alaskan Marine Highway terminal upgrade possibly cancelledOn the surface, I think there may be some editing issues with this article. This article seems to imply that the AMHS is saying (in a joint statement with Tourism Prince Rupert) that it is possible that if this bebuild does not happen, they may stop sailing to Prince Rupert. Somehow, I think that if the AMHS were actually making that sort of threat, it would not be in a joint statement with a non-governmental agency, and it would not be burred in a Christmas Eve news dump, so take it for what it is, and more importantly what it probably is not.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 22, 2015 15:07:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 22, 2015 16:55:47 GMT -8
The AMHS berth in Rupert is pretty much the original, built for the start of service by AMHS in 1963. Between 1966 & 1980 this berth was also used by BC Ferries for the Inside Passage vessels QPR & QotNorth. It has had at least one upgrade since 1963, but it is now old, wooden, & very near to the end of its life. It needs to be replaced. The regulators on both sides of the border who are stewing about whose steel is to be used need to just get on with it. If this berth rebuild was for BC Ferries the steel would no doubt be coming form China.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 22, 2015 17:21:09 GMT -8
Perhaps this has gotten to the point where it is worth its own thread. The capitol city newspaper for Alaska is recommending the AMHS simply Cut Prince Rupert from the schedule altogether. That's not a serious part of the discussion yet, but it has been lurking in the background since the blockade. At the end of the day, I suspect that we will use the existing terminal for awhile, you will have your next Federal election, we will have a restored price of oil improve our finances, and we will find a face saving compromise that gets the structure rebuilt.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 22, 2015 19:19:39 GMT -8
The capitol city newspaper for Alaska is recommending the AMHS simply Cut Prince Rupert from the schedule altogether. That's not a serious part of the discussion yet, but it has been lurking in the background since the blockade. If you follow that link to the the Juneau Empire above, have a look at the comments that follow. Most are not in agreement with the newspaper's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 25, 2015 20:02:54 GMT -8
From the Alaska Dispatch, Confrontational Canadian stance on dock project likely to backfire on B.C.Nothing really new here, but it does answer a question brought up earlier with regards to Prince Rupert. With the rebuild of the BC Ferry terminal, AMHS can no longer use their dock should something happen to the current structure. However, the existing structure still has useful life left.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 26, 2015 21:59:03 GMT -8
Alaska Governor Walker says Prince Rupert terminal will be rebuilt. Important take-home from this article 1) of course our Governor is very clear that the facility will be rebuilt, and 2) the State is saying that the current structure could last no more than 5 more years.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 4, 2015 14:26:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Dec 21, 2015 9:57:07 GMT -8
Alaska State Ferries has no choice but to rebuild the PR terminal....as a Stop in a Canadian Port is required to operate a service to Bellingham as it passes through Canaidian waters. Why do u think a cruise ship on a cruise to Alaska makes a Canadian port stop....they have to.! Most cruises originating in San Fransisco/LA or Seatte stop in Victoria so they can go to Alaska via the West Coast of Vancouver Island.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 21, 2015 10:10:15 GMT -8
Alaska State Ferries has no choice but to rebuild the PR terminal....as a Stop in a Canadian Port is required to operate a service to Bellingham as it passes through Canaidian waters. Why do u think a cruise ship on a cruise to Alaska makes a Canadian port stop....they have to.! Most cruises originating in San Fransisco/LA or Seatte stop in Victoria so they can go to Alaska via the West Coast of Vancouver Island. No, they never stop in Rupert when going to/from Bellingham. The Jones Act requirement that makes a Canadian stop mandatory for foreign ships does NOT apply, as AMHS ships are US domestic ships being USA built & crewed. Nevertheless, Rupert will continue as a stop for other AMHS sailings (i.e. not going to/from Bellingham) so long as Rupert remains the easiest & cheapest point to connect to the North American highway system.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 21, 2015 19:54:35 GMT -8
Nevertheless, Rupert will continue as a stop for other AMHS sailings (i.e. not going to/from Bellingham) so long as Rupert remains the easiest & cheapest point to connect to the North American highway system. I would not count on that. You are probably correct, it is currently more likely that the AMHS keeps Prince Rpert service than that it drops it, but this is not entirely an economic decision. Remember, AMHS is laying up 4 ships, and there are 3 communities in Southeast that will not get service for a month this winter. When it comes to Alaska's budget, we are offering up sacred cows that have a much stronger constituency than the Marine Highway, and the Marine Highway is already cutting core services. Rupert is more convenient than Bellingham for travel to most of the Lower 48, and would certainly be easier on scheduling, but Alaskans with DUI's have difficulty entering Canada which is a bigger issue emotionally than the practical number of Alaskans it would affect. We still remember the blockade, and the Steward/Hyder border crossing is a reminder that while we have little say over what happens in D.C., we have no say whatsoever over what happens in Ottawa. The connection to Bellingham has a much stronger emotional value than the connection to Rupert. Secondly, part of the formula for Federal funding is based on the millage of the route system. The Bellingham trips pay for their own operation, and on top of that it is an important part of the formula for capital funding. If one of the southern termini is cut, I strongly suspect it will be Rupert. All of this is simply the thoughts of a Southeast Alaskan. I see the ferries every day, but I do not work for the system, and have no inside knowledge.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Dec 21, 2015 22:51:37 GMT -8
Nevertheless, Rupert will continue as a stop for other AMHS sailings (i.e. not going to/from Bellingham) so long as Rupert remains the easiest & cheapest point to connect to the North American highway system. I would not count on that. You are probably correct, it is currently more likely that the AMHS keeps Prince Rpert service than that it drops it, but this is not entirely an economic decision. Remember, AMHS is laying up 4 ships, and there are 3 communities in Southeast that will not get service for a month this winter. When it comes to Alaska's budget, we are offering up sacred cows that have a much stronger constituency than the Marine Highway, and the Marine Highway is already cutting core services. Rupert is more convenient than Bellingham for travel to most of the Lower 48, and would certainly be easier on scheduling, but Alaskans with DUI's have difficulty entering Canada which is a bigger issue emotionally than the practical number of Alaskans it would affect. We still remember the blockade, and the Steward/Hyder border crossing is a reminder that while we have little say over what happens in D.C., we have no say whatsoever over what happens in Ottawa. The connection to Bellingham has a much stronger emotional value than the connection to Rupert. Secondly, part of the formula for Federal funding is based on the millage of the route system. The Bellingham trips pay for their own operation, and on top of that it is an important part of the formula for capital funding. If one of the southern termini is cut, I strongly suspect it will be Rupert. All of this is simply the thoughts of a Southeast Alaskan. I see the ferries every day, but I do not work for the system, and have no inside knowledge. Kevin, somehow I don't think it would reflect well on Alaska's image if it became known that accommodating people with DUIs was influencing state ferry policy.
Apparently, AMHS traffic through Prince Rupert has been declining, so it would seem to me that Alaska has a bit of a hammer to use with Canadian authorities when it comes to maintaining service through that city, in terms of rebuilding the dock. I suppose that Alaskans do the finances and take the time factor into account when figuring out whether to ship south via 'Rupert or Bellingham. I haven't looked at the traffic figures to see which port serves more passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 4, 2016 11:06:15 GMT -8
Mayor Brain seeks Alaska highway terminal solution, is added to climate leadership councilNo actual information, just nice to know that this is still on someone's RaDAR. Essentially the compromise that is being referenced is that the Americans supply the material, and Canadians supply the labor... which kind of seems like what was to originally happen (unless some US firm out of K-Town was going to bid). So, the "compromise" appears to be "We'll wait until our Federal elections are over, you get passed your Federal elections, and then we can fix this." Fair play.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Dec 30, 2016 22:09:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Dec 31, 2016 10:38:50 GMT -8
No need for a trade war with our largest trading partner. Engaging in a 'war' means that there must be at least two combatants. There's no better time than at the commencement of President 'Tweet's' presidency to lay down some Canadian Law! From the steps of the House of Commons, Prime Minister Trudeau, Trade Minister Freeland, Premier Clark, and Prince Rupert Mayor Lee Brain, standing together should, with a copy of the threatening letter from the underling deputy commissioner of Transport for the State of Alaska in full exposure, deliver the following simple message. "If you want to rebuild your AMHS terminal in Prince Rupert, you will do it with Canadian Steel erected by Canadian workers"! " The American slogan of "Buy American, Hire American" is clearly a new U.S. domestic policy put forth by an altruistic, naïve, newcomer to the world of the intricacies of International diplomacy. Canada has numerous bi-lateral trade issues with which to deal with our omnipotent trading neighbour. Re-negotiations are underway on the oft contended softwood lumber treaty to name but one. During these negotiations, there will be much to-ing and fro-ing between both sides. The outcome fully satisfying neither side but intelligent 'compromise' will be the outcome. As the "David" in most, if not all these trade battles, Canada's negotiators will, once again, be faced with the task of maintaining the bulk of our best interests while allowing our trading partners the belief that history has been re-written..eh?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 3, 2017 14:14:39 GMT -8
Considering how our fleet is being re-organized, and seeing as how we are losing SOLAS compliant Taku, is there a surplus SOLAS compliant BC Ferry that we the AMHS can subsidize that could dock at the AMHS terminal in Ketchikan?
We release our 50 year lease and give BC Ferries a lump sum to subsidize the run, clear customs en-route as if it were a train thereby reducing the need for the old dock entirely since the ship does not need to be in a customs-secure berth. Any further improvements needed for the dock are folded into the operating subsidy for the run, and vola, the US need no longer care where the Canadians source their steel.
In a hypothetical world, is there surplus capacity within the BC Ferry system to do this?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jan 3, 2017 21:52:45 GMT -8
Considering how our fleet is being re-organized, and seeing as how we are losing SOLAS compliant Taku, is there a surplus SOLAS compliant BC Ferry that we the AMHS can subsidize that could dock at the AMHS terminal in Ketchikan? We release our 50 year lease and give BC Ferries a lump sum to subsidize the run, clear customs en-route as if it were a train thereby reducing the need for the old dock entirely since the ship does not need to be in a customs-secure berth. Any further improvements needed for the dock are folded into the operating subsidy for the run, and vola, the US need no longer care where the Canadians source their steel. In a hypothetical world, is there surplus capacity within the BC Ferry system to do this? I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting here, Kevin. A BC Ferries vessel sailing just from Prince Rupert to Ketchikan? In any event, SOLAS compliant or not, BC Ferries has no spare vessels during the most important peak season. The Northern Adventure's schedule could perhaps be adjusted to allow a round trip or two to Ketchikan during the week, but the BC government has never expressed an interest in getting into the Alaskan ferry business.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 4, 2017 9:43:29 GMT -8
Nor should they. Connecting SE Alaska to the road system is our responsibility. That being said, I have little sentimentality as to how that is arranged, be it on our metal or BC's.
My question was, based on the wild hypothetical that the AMHS were willing to arrange some-sort of code-share with BC Ferries that would make it worthwhile for the latter (not a political reality), would the BC Ferry system have the spare capacity to add a weekly sailing to Ketchikan?
I don't foresee the deadlock about the US purchasing non US made steel likely to go away under the incoming US administration.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 2, 2018 20:14:39 GMT -8
Sigh. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic. Is there any news or rumor on the Canadian side of the border regarding this dock?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 3, 2018 12:45:52 GMT -8
Sigh. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic. Is there any news or rumor on the Canadian side of the border regarding this dock? Nothing has appeared on my radar 'Kevin', I was wondering just recently about making the enquiry of you as to what was going on with the Prince Rupert docking situation. To be clear, at present there is no ferry service out of Prince Rupert....North to Alaska? If not, what a tragic wasted opportunity on both our houses.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on May 3, 2018 17:18:51 GMT -8
Sigh. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic. Is there any news or rumor on the Canadian side of the border regarding this dock? Nothing has appeared on my radar 'Kevin', I was wondering just recently about making the enquiry of you as to what was going on with the Prince Rupert docking situation. To be clear, at present there is no ferry service out of Prince Rupert....North to Alaska? If not, what a tragic wasted opportunity on both our houses. Looks like it's service as usual- two departures a week north from Prince Rupert, on the Malaspina.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 5, 2018 13:15:00 GMT -8
Nothing has appeared on my radar 'Kevin', I was wondering just recently about making the enquiry of you as to what was going on with the Prince Rupert docking situation. To be clear, at present there is no ferry service out of Prince Rupert....North to Alaska? If not, what a tragic wasted opportunity on both our houses. Looks like it's service as usual- two departures a week north from Prince Rupert, on the Malaspina. Thanks for the update 'Neil'. I guess twice weekly service is better than no service connection at all. Hopefully the dock issue can be solved and appropriate resources are allocated to the AMHS group to continue to renew and grow their fleet.
|
|