|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 26, 2024 15:57:55 GMT -8
Is anyone familiar with what is happening to Matanuska? I've examined Alaska state reports concerning the system, but nothing's too clear. Is AMHS going to repair her, or is she just going to sit in lay-up until her replacement comes? She's going to sit in layup until the governor can say "gee, sorry. Did I let another ship rot to death, completely bypassing Alaska's legally mandated disposal process? Gee... my bad."
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 3, 2023 20:18:34 GMT -8
..... and we thought B.C. Ferries was inept! State legislators in Alaska should be concerned. The legislature can't do a damned thing about it until we have a new governor. Alaska's governor has a very strong line-item-veto power, and our feckless legislature can't block him even on popular programs with a state-wide constituency. You'd have to be mad or desperate to take a job with the AMHS right now.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 24, 2023 9:41:44 GMT -8
She finally sees passenger service: Alaska-built ferry makes maiden voyage with passengers after years of delay (ADN, with paywall) She had her first revenue service up the Lynn Canal yesterday, having been modified for overnight crews. The State is holding off on modifying Tazlena until they get operational data from Hubbard as to what happens to her sailing characteristics with the modifications. Mal is in for major repairs, and will need to be replaced, they are looking at another mainliner to replace her. Tusty replacement is looking to revenue service in 2027 or 2028.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 10, 2023 12:52:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 27, 2022 12:17:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 5, 2022 8:39:53 GMT -8
Mat went into winter maintenance. Kennicott is taking the SE runs. Sooner or later MHS is gonna have to get off the pot and replace Matanuska. Meanwhile Columbia languishes in KTN. Seriously the most underfunded and mismanaged system I've ever seen. We just rebuilt the Mat. I suspect she will outlive Columbia.With the new infrastructure bill signed into law last summer, I expect Alaska to get 3 new ferries (including an all-electric ferry that connects Haines and Skagway). We love building things; we just don't maintain them. 1) Tusty replacement 2) New mainliner, sized closer to the three sisters than Columbia or Kennicott. Given the flavor of the infrastructure bill, look to this vessel to be a hybrid vessel with pod propulsion. We'll see how well pods survive in Southeast Alaska. Given the lack of log-booms going up and down the coast, there is a lot less prop damage than there was in the '70s and '80s, but I have to admit to a desire for a more conservative propulsion design (although I would be all for running tank experiments with an x-bow). 3) an all-electric vessel with capacities similar to Lituya for use between Haines and Skagway . The bill pretty much requires us to build an electric or LP powered vessel, and USCG regulations make it difficult to build a LP powered vessel with a clear open car deck. The tank needs to vent above the passenger accommodations which means either a vertical tank which would go through the car deck, or a horizontal tank above the car deck which is a very top-heavy proposition. At least it was when they did the scoping work for the Tustimena replacement. That leaves electric, and I can't think of anywhere else in the system that has a short enough range aside from perhaps Prince William Sound, and freeing up one of the ACF vessels would be a better option up there. /Edit to add- this is my reading tea leaves. I've long since given up on pretending I know what this administration will actually DO.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 16, 2022 9:31:20 GMT -8
Until she has a replacement? Which to my knowledge, there's no "major"-class vessel in the works other than Tustumena's replacement. I'd be curious though... Matanuska's sibling vessels have either been retired ( Malaspina) or have its replacement scheduled ( Tustumena), with no concrete or announced plans to deal with a Matanuska replacement. Meanwhile, over the past three seasons now, two COVID and one post-COVID, AMHS seems content to run the mainline route with 1.5 vessels (Matanuska and Kennicott), with Columbia having sat for the past three years. If this service pattern is to continue for the forseeable future, with no need to have two full-time mainline vessels, would it be more possible to have Columbia act as the sole dedicated mainline vessel, and therefore become a replacement to Matanuska?I thought that the federal money for infrastructure might lead to at least a partial reinstatement of ferry service? Or was that just for building new vessels? The Mat went through a major overhaul/mid-life upgrade complete with new engines that have an expected 20-year service life. Assuming the metal does not rot out from under her, she's going to be in the system awhile. The Mat and Mal are (were) a good size for us, large enough for 90% of what we do, small enough to be able to work year-round. The Long-Range transportation plans have been shown to be unreliable, they are political documents rather than planning documents. Most recent iterations agree that a replacement mainliner will be needed. Look to having it replace Columbia, but be about as large as the Mat. Columba has older equipment on board, and she is just too big to serve a smaller system. My predication, which is only a prediction, is that we get an all electric connecter between Haines and Skagway which will free up one of the ACF vessels (and meet one of the criteria for the infrastructure bill), and one mainliner that will be a partner to the Mal for awhile, and may replace Columbia. If we can pull it off, another ACF with crew quarters.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 9, 2022 16:29:20 GMT -8
I really can't answer that question. I recall the reason for her existence - replace the Wickersham - but as for the politics and budgeting involved in her procurement I have no clue. I was fifteen years old when she was launched and didn't have much interest in state budget or politics then. I have sailed on her many times, and my only real criticism is purely sentimental (it isn't the Matanuska). Much more attractive than Kennicott, still a Spaulding, but not a Malaspina class. Those are the ferries I grew up with. She was built before I was born. That being said, I could hazard a few guesses from what I do know. The Wickersham was a modern ferry-liner. She offered an experience halfway between a cruise and a ferry. There may be some clues as to what we asked for with the design of Columbia in her having a sit-down restaurant as well as a cafeteria. She has notes of a liner that the rest of the fleet lack, it's possible that there was more of a pull in that direction then the budget would warrant.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 28, 2022 21:27:13 GMT -8
The shoreside structure was discussed extensively in the documents that lead to the design of the ships. The placement of the elevators is set to shift the car lanes to match the Auk Bay terminal, since the ACF is wider than the berth, and would not dock with the ramp on centerline. Despite the current administration lying about the inability to use a side berth, the ships DO have a side door, in in the aft. The ships were designed to match a new nose-in berth in Haines, because the operational efficiency of a nose-in berth with no turns for the drivers to get vehicles off the ship would allow for a short turnaround in Haines, and a round trip from Auke Bay - Haines - Auke Bay in a single dayboat shift. Meanwhile, the nose-in birth at Haines and the stern side-door in Skagway would amount to a longer time in Skagway, but still a fairly easy 8-hour shift. Meanwhile, by moving the side door aft the ships could do without sponsons, improving the sea-keeping abilities. The ships are well designed. DOT ran into some trouble with an ACOE permit for the Haines port which delayed things through the Walker administration, and the Dunleavy administration is wed to the idea of a completely new Berner's Bay terminal instead of working with ACOE to come up with a solution at Haines, so they lie about the capabilities of the ships, and the in-state media can't be arsed to look into the public documents that describe how we got here.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 28, 2022 21:02:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 19, 2022 23:18:35 GMT -8
It may be a pipe dream, but if they are serious about turning it into a museum and marine training facility, the sale price - $1! As nice as a museum may be, I think the State of Alaska is really in a long-term crisis mode about fixing/rebuilding their entire system. I'm having a real hard time believing the good folks of Alaska are allowing the disintegration of their ferry system to continue in real time. Blame some of this on the 'Jones Act', so..... We... we're kind of not in the crisis mode anymore. We're being hindered by political sabotage. There are vandals at the helm that are trying to trash the system, but the reality is that the latest infostructure bill is going to give us 3 or 4 ships. With that kind of pledged capital, we have the ability to go from dead idle to building very quickly. We just need to get rid of the governor. Stay tuned to the upcoming elections.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 17, 2022 8:29:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 7, 2021 10:37:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 7, 2021 9:50:14 GMT -8
Glad to see they are actually moving forward with this new-build. It seems like AMHS has been hanging by a thread - it's very existence even threatened - so the news that the "Tusty" replacement project is still on the books is promising. ...but a five year time line to launch? Even if they were starting from scratch, that seems excessive, unless there is no shipyard capacity presently. Especially when you look earlier in the thread at the 18 month timeline.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 7, 2021 8:38:38 GMT -8
I was looking to fix the broken links in this thread, following the AMHS long history of shifting things within their website, and I ran across the following: Tustumena Replacement Design RefreshIt's a PowerPoint with not much substance, but it appears that the new Tusty has increased the beam by 3' and increased the length at the waterline for stability and handling, increased the height of the forecastle and bridge, and added pod propulsion. The latest part marks a huge change for AMHS. Reading the scoping papers for just about everything built since the fast ferries, and they were all about conventional craft pushing screws with shafts. I'll see if I can find better information somewhere. Edit to add: There are actually some significant changes to the plan of the ship. Far from being a 'refresh,' this is a new design iteration worthy of review and discussion. The promenade has been removed from the accommodation deck which, when combined with 5' of beam, gives them a lot more interior room to work with. A deck has been wrapped around the forward lounge that replaces much of the lost deck space. The passenger capacity has not increased, but there are 22 more passenger births, and 40 lane-feet more car deck space.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 6, 2021 15:37:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 30, 2021 8:10:14 GMT -8
AMHS is advertising for a "Vessel Construction Manager" . . . on Facebook no less. I'll assume they've advertised elsewhere also. My thoughts on that: What does it matter what this person might do? Until things change in Juneau and the AMHS is sufficiently funded and maintains a steady vision, nothing will change. The infrastructure bill provides for at least 2 new ships for AMHS. As I understand it, the Tusty replacement is a third that has already been funded, but could not get a waiver from the Buy American laws past the previous administration, so that's 3 ships. It would not be wholly surprising if we were actually cutting metal on her by the end of 2022. Of course, I've said similar before. Even with Juneau being Juneau, in grand Alaskan tradition there's always Federal dollars to use.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 6, 2021 20:51:39 GMT -8
The new infrastructure bill contains $200 Million/year for the next 5 years for operations of the AMHS, and a provision going forward that allows Federal Highway fund money going to the AMHS. In practical terms, it means at least one new ship, probably more. The carbon reduction language is laughable; new ships must simply be more efficient then the ships they replace, which means a replacement for the Tusty or Mal simply has to clear a bar set by a utilitarian ship built 50 years ago. Federal infrastructure bill proposes billions of dollars for Alaska highways, ferries, broadband and sanitation projects A lot of the coverage seems to suggest that various provisions will repeatedly need to come up for renewal. Do you sense that this is something that will be popular enough on both sides of the aisle to be renewed consistently every five years, or will AMHS continue to find itself short $200m at that time, holding hostage the residents of coastal AK? I don't anticipate this being a long-term funding source, but Alaska does have a tendency of getting weird things funded, and then keeping the funding. Who knows. If the State does not squander the opportunity, this could provide breathing room do the reorganization of the system that is so badly needed. We could, for instance, forward-fund the system so that summer schedules were published early enough that people planning a trip to Alaska could actually know what was sailing when. The long-term change that this DOES allow is it allows funding through standard highway department appropriations, which does open the door to the AMHS receiving operating funds from the Feds going forward. Of course, AMHS would be competing with the Rail Belt for those dollars, so it still matters who is in Juneau.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 6, 2021 8:49:09 GMT -8
The new infrastructure bill contains $200 Million/year for the next 5 years for operations of the AMHS, and a provision going forward that allows Federal Highway fund money going to the AMHS. In practical terms, it means at least one new ship, probably more. The carbon reduction language is laughable; new ships must simply be more efficient then the ships they replace, which means a replacement for the Tusty or Mal simply has to clear a bar set by a utilitarian ship built 50 years ago. Federal infrastructure bill proposes billions of dollars for Alaska highways, ferries, broadband and sanitation projects
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 28, 2021 18:07:27 GMT -8
The answer lies in the original white papers, but the current administration is too disingenuous to admit it. The ACF ships are designed to sail from Auke Bay to Haines and back on a 12-hour schedule. To do this, they were designed for nosing in at Haines to keep the stop short. One ship would do that run, and the other would work Haines to Skagway. She was overbuilt for the trip, but the idea was that she could have acted as a relief vessel for the le Conte and Aurora, which have been working as dayboats ever since the USCG reviewed below-water crew quarters after BC lost the Queen of the North. The issue is that the Army Corps of Engineers had trouble with the nose-in dock, and it's not a high priority for the DOT outside of AMHS, who is responsible for building it, so the revision to the plans for the nose-in dock was never completed. The Walker administration favored adding crew quarters for a cost of $27 Million for both ships (remember that number, it becomes important later). The idea for the ACF is that it was the opening of a class of ferries that could work throughout the system. In that regard, it's actually in the most recent transportation plan. For that, to work, the ACF should have crew quarters. For that reason, and because the plans were ready when the Walker Administration needed them, I suspect that they are an optional add-on from Elliot Design Group. The drafting and engineering had probably already been done. Enter the current administration and its breathtaking love of incomitance. They shelved the crew-quarters to push a brand new ferry terminal for seasonal use at the far north end of the Juneau road system. One that would not be available in the winter would not have a shelter to protect walk-on passengers and would require the maintenance of an additional facility for the AMHS. One that would cost $27 Million to build. It's not working out, so we are back to looking to put crew quarters onto the ships, but since they have been out of the yards for a while, it's no longer a simple add-on. It's now a retrofit, so now it's $30 million. The current administration does not want to admit that they are now back to a more expensive version of the Walker administration plan, so they pretend this is all new. The circus? It's all Dunleavy.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 28, 2021 10:06:00 GMT -8
For anyone interested, there are some neat pictures of the fast ferries on the deck of the Red Zed 1 big lift ship.
I don't own any of the pictures, so will not post any here, but a quick web search will show both of them high and dry on the back of a heavy lift ship. It's an incredible sight, not the least because they both fit.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 27, 2021 12:03:28 GMT -8
Senator Murkowski made sure that the ferries were included in the bipartisan infrastructure deal with an eye towards electric ferries in Alaska: Murkowski: Infrastructure deal would benefit Alaska
I mean, I appreciate her enthusiasm, but is there anywhere in the world an electric car ferry has a longer run than 20 miles?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 23, 2021 17:31:20 GMT -8
As someone who doesn't live in Alaska (Live in BC) it is hard for me to figure out what is happening with the AMH. Aren't many communities in Alaska still dependent on ferry travel to move people, goods, services? (or has much of it been taken over by air?) If Ferry travel is an essential service why doesn't the government recognize it and work to try to improve the system/ensure people have the services they need? Also isn't the whole purpose of having a Crown Corporation (Government owned entities) is so that the government still ensures people have the services even if it is not profitable. Anyways just my two cents as a British Columbian but I hope those of you up in Alaska can get the ferry services required. I'm sorry I missed this when it was posted. I think it's important to look at the differences between BC, WA and AK to understand what's going on here. The Seattle area has ferry service. The Vancouver area has ferry service. Anchorage, which has about half our population, does not. Fairbanks, and the Mat-Su, which has about half the remaining population, does not. We also don't have *any* high volume short runs such as your routes out of Point Roberts. We have the Ketchikan to Metlakatla route at 45 minutes, but most of our routes are measured in half-days. Our ships run slower than yours, and their size set by the weather conditions for the runs they do rather than the passenger counts expected on the runs, so they run empty. Even so, our largest ship, Columbia, would be the smallest ship by passenger count in the WA fleet. Imagine, if you will, BC ferries if they did not serve Vancouver, and if their routes looked more like the Prince Rupert to Port Hardy run, but the 50 year old Nothern Adventure only sailed at 16 knots. Now imagine the system could only replace her with a new-build built within the country, because they were bared by law from ships built elsewhere, and no other state has anything approaching the length of routes Alaska has. Finally, our AMHS is nothing approaching a Crown corporation. It's a division of our Department of Transportation, which gets a new head with every new administration. All the revenue form the system goes into the State general fund, and all the expenses for the system are allocated by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. We have no giftshops, no bars, no advertising, no ancillary funding on our AMHS, because all of the cost of maintain such systems would drain from the AMHS, and all the revenue would go to the State. I don't know if ProBoards has filters. If I used the appropriate words to describe this situation, I would find out. Needless to say, the acronym SNFAU would be a good start. We're trying to fix this. We are taking baby-steps towards a Crown corporation with the precedent set by the Alaska Railroad. In public, our Governor supports this. In private, with no public notice, he sends offers to the Philippines to take our ships. But... your Stan Rogers has the right of it. And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow... with Smiling dummies lying to you everywhere you go, Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain, and like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again! Look, we're going to fix this, but we're having to play the long game to do it. We got back a ballet initiative that replaces our primary election and first-past-the-post voting with ranked choice. We are going to get rid of the Anti-Math Caucus who will get primaries if they ever took a serious look at our budget. The assholes who depleted our State reserves by $15 BILLION dollars because they were too gutless and spineless to admit that we need either new revenue or to, you know, stop giving quite as large of a Permanent Fund dividend each year. They have decimated our university. They have stopped paying on school bonds, destroying the tax base of local communities. They have destroyed the Power-Cost-Equalization program that made power affordable in rural Alaska. They are threatening to shut down State government in the middle of the first tourist season in a year and a half to try and enshrine the Permanent Fund Dividend into our constitution. Let me say that last part again. House Republicans are threatening to destroy our post COVID recovery to enshrine Universal Basic Income into our Constitution. This, sir, is why it's hard for you to understand what's going on with the AMHS. Our primary system has turned our politics insane, because the Anti-Math Caucus will be primaried if they actually look at numbers. But, let me say this with all the strength of my arm, heart, and brain. We will fix this. /Edit to add- apparently ProBords does have filters. I promise, I did not Bowdlerize Stan Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 23, 2021 14:43:23 GMT -8
I respectfully disagree. I agree that there is limited viable options, but she is an asset of the state and there are established State protocols for disposing of assets. Not one of those protocols includes the governor having the authority to give the assets away, seemingly on a whim. What I meant, and probably didn't express very well, was that no matter what the strategy, the result in trying to dispose of this vessel would most likely be about the same. You're right about the propriety of the governor's actions, which seem to be in keeping with the state's current attitude toward the ferry system. I over-reacted, and I'm sorry. As a State employee, if I disposed of my State computer without going through proper channels, I would be fired, and possibly jailed. Our governor offered a major state asset in a letter with no public notice whatsoever. The only reason we know about it is because as a mater of course, KTOO files a monthly Freedom of Information act request to view correspondence. I am livid, and I over-reacted to your post.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 22, 2021 22:55:07 GMT -8
It's really kind of hard to criticise any strategy for disposing of a vessel like the Malaspina, because frankly, there's virtually no market. I respectfully disagree. I agree that there is limited viable options, but she is an asset of the state and there are established State protocols for disposing of assets. Not one of those protocols includes the governor having the authority to give the assets away, seemingly on a whim.
|
|