|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 13, 2011 11:15:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 3, 2011 11:58:12 GMT -8
I personally Painted that Smiley Face on the Ship while it was in Portland during its CIP The Base Circle for the smiley face is 8 feet. The smiley is a wonderful element of whimsy, and I think it has given a lot of us a happy feeling when we saw it. Out of curiosity, is there a utility to having a bright yellow dot on the bulbuious bow?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 28, 2011 20:21:50 GMT -8
Time for a new cost estimate for the Alaska Class ferry. Earlier this year, the Legislature set aside $60 million for its next generation of ships. That brought funding to a total of $120 million.
Many thought it would be enough to design and build the first vessel.
“Unfortunately, numbers tend to stick and $120 million is the number that stuck. So everybody believes that’s full funding for the vessel,” says Captain Mike Neussl, who runs the Alaska Marine Highway System.
He says the estimate is several years old and may be low.
“That may or may not be the case because we’re not on contract with anybody for a vessel at that price,” he says. www.ktoonews.org/2011/11/25/alaska-class-ferry-costs-may-rise/
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 26, 2011 14:59:55 GMT -8
A small tidbit from the State of Alaska FY2012 Governor’s Operating Budget; Department of Transportation/Public Facilities Vessel Operations Management Component Budget Summary www.omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/12_budget/Trans/Proposed/comp629.pdfIt is now assumed that a new vessel design for the M/V Tustumena replacement should be seriously considered. The M/V Tustumena was built in 1963, and has operated on routes which have very harsh weather, which in turn creates a very high degree of wear on the ship and its associated systems. Going forward it will be a challenge to the system to secure the required design funding. Nothing new, really. Sort of a commitment to becoming committed sometime in the future to a replacement vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 25, 2011 10:13:08 GMT -8
One thing I did find odd, is that given that AHMS saw first hand as a spectator the plight and plagues of the fast cats why they deicded to go ahead with theirs anyway, only to have the two vessels laid up. It's also worth noting that the M/F Fairweather (I don't know enough about the northern waters to comment on the M/V Chenega) has two distinct operational advantages due to her speed. The first is that she can run to and from Sitka at any time, independent of the tides.. The rest of the fleet needs to wait for slack tide, creating 6 hours between windows. The second is that she can run Juneau to Sitka and back on one shift, allowing her to be crewed as a day boat. My understanding is that the Pacicats offered BC Ferries no similar advantages once additional loading time was taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 22, 2011 22:48:45 GMT -8
www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/doc/reports/amhs_systems_analysis.pdfPage 75 of the 2008 baseline report for the AMHS begins a comparison of the AMHS and BC Ferries, specifically to look for lessons we can learn from you all. I ran across it and figured you might be interested in seeing what it says about your system.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 3, 2011 7:05:28 GMT -8
Does anyone have experience with the Android app for Pro-Boards? How well does it operate this specific board?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 27, 2011 22:10:39 GMT -8
"Will $77 million airport in remote Alaska prove inaccessible?" www.alaskadispatch.com/article/will-77-million-airport-remote-alaska-prove-inaccessibleShort form, we are building a $77 million airport 6 miles across open ocean from Akutan, and largest fish processing plant in North America (I could post really interesting articles about trying to power it geothermal if that interested people here). We are looking at ways to ferry people across the open ocean strait, and one of the methods currently being discussed is a hovercraft. The difficulty (aside from cost) is that a similar hovercraft operating out of Cold Bay is not living up to expectations for harsh weather operations.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 23, 2011 11:11:24 GMT -8
Just to be clear, if part of the answer to my question is "building capacity and economic development for Alaska," I'm ok with that, especially if it improves logistical access to the southern panhandle for other endeavors.
You know, if they really want to change the relationship, how about a build/maintenance contract with AS&D that would provide the State assurance into the future, and encourage AS&D to build with inexpensive maintenance in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 22, 2011 9:25:24 GMT -8
One of the reasons for the cost of the Alaska Class is that it is largely a completely new design, not based on an already existing one. Even our original three blue canoes were based on the Coho, heavily modified, but still recognizable as being the base for the design. Kennicott was based on a new design, is a much more complex vessel, and came in for USD $80 Million, or around $108 Million in today's prices. While I strongly question the idea of building such a vessel for USD $26 million as that's the price of a small to mid sized civic structure on land, there IS cause to wounder at the estimated price tag, especially if the yards have essentially been chosen before the final ship goes out to bid. Why is she more expensive than the Kennicott. One answer, of course might be that the price of steel was $260 a ton in '98 and is $800 a ton now, but I don't know enough to know if that in itself is the answer. The question is valid, especially as we contemplate what a replacement for Tustimina may cost.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 20, 2011 7:33:07 GMT -8
I am no defender of the Jones Act. That being said, your numbers are off. The first $120M USD is for design and build of the first of the class. The second ship is set to be less expensive.
Since there is no other ferry system remotely like ours in the United States, the Jones Act forces us into new-builds for everything we might want to do. We applied for a waiver for Wikersham but were blocked (partially by Puget Sound ship building interests) and so had to sell her and build Columbia in Puget Sound. Then, when Seattle realized that they were loosing revenue from cruise ships that had to load-unload in Vancouver (Vancouver to Anchorage is fine under the Jones Act), they saw the light... and what the Jones Act costs them.
Actually, I've heard the argument made that part of the reason it took so long to get double hulled tankers in Prince William Sound is that the Oil Embargo Act forces the oil to go to US Ports, and the Jones Act increases the cost of new hulls. EXXON is still a cheap two-bit crappy company, so they still would have been running the Valdez, so it's not like we can directly blame the spill on the Jones Act, but it does keep old ships running longer.
***Edit to add, the Jones Act does not prevent us from using existing designs as evidenced by the FVF (an essentially existing design modified to fit our docks). We have a somewhat conservative system that wants ships that fit within our existing supply and repair infrastructure, so twin screws in front of rudders pushing a traditional hull, powered by the same fuel that drives the rest of the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 19, 2011 20:30:11 GMT -8
I've seen the AMHS car decks so full that people literally had to parallel park the final car on/off the car deck. Of course, there is more incentive to get people on the vessel when the next one does not come by for a few days…
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 19, 2011 17:48:11 GMT -8
Personally I prefer the more "traditional" ferries, the "slow boats." However the FVF's do work well when they are deployed on the routes they were intended for, namely the Juneau/ Sitka run and the Prince William Sound run. I would love for Fairweather to start and end her day in Sitka, scheduled to meet the Lynn Canal dayboat in Juneau (one day out of Sitka, transfer, then into Haines, or vice versa). Aside from that, I agree. The older vessels are hard to beat, but Fairweather does shine on the run for which she was designed.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 19, 2011 13:40:34 GMT -8
State seeks injunction against ferry manufacturers juneauempire.com/local/2011-09-16/state-seeks-injunction-against-ferry-manufacturersThe state Attorney General’s office filed a motion . . . asking for a preliminary injunction in an ongoing lawsuit over the fast vehicle ferry (FVF) engines. The motion seeks to protect the state against the prolonged loss of use of the two fast ferries due to engine degradation.
...
Given the approximately one-year lead time needed to produce these engines, the state could find itself in a position where the currently installed engines are decertified for continued use well before the final lawsuit resolution. This could remove the Fairweather and Chenega from operational service.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 19, 2011 13:34:18 GMT -8
New Alaska Class Ferry could be built in state www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1361:alaskaferry19september2011j01&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=107Of import Alaska Ship & Drydock was selected as construction manager and general contractor to potentially build the next generation boat--the new Alaska Class Ferry--for the Alaska Marine Highway System.
. . .
"By participating in the design, ASD will have thorough knowledge of the vessel and what it will take to construct it,” ADOTPF Commissioner Marc Luiken said. “ASD can then submit a bid to build the vessel. This puts ASD in a partnership with the state, an arrangement that should limit costly change orders and cost overruns. The new process fulfills our responsibility to maximize the value of public funds while providing an opportunity for economic development and jobs in Alaska.” Again, the lack of editing on this article brings up concerns about its validity.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 15, 2011 13:06:24 GMT -8
It's indicative of the difficulty finding a mission for Susitna when the same article says that she is not an ocean vessel, and suggests that she could operate Homer to Kodiak. One tidbit from the Alaska Public Radio Network www.alaskapublic.org/2011/09/12/destination-of-nearly-complete-ferry-remains-unclear/ is that the Mat-Su Burrough owns 50% of the intellectual property that is the Susitna. The audio version of this story mentions that the Australian Navy may wish to purchase those properties. Somehow, that did not make it into the transcript.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 11, 2011 1:27:59 GMT -8
The story of this boat boggles my mind. I wonder how many Susitna type expenditures there are in the U.S. military; not necessarily experimental frankenferries, but just poorly vetted, extremely expensive projects in a veritable black hole of American public funds. That depends on how you look at those funds. She is an experimental proof of concept landing craft that could eventually lead the way for a new way of landing troop transports or tanks onto the beach. She was going to be built. The options were to build and test her, and then scrap her, or to build and test her, and give her to an organization that would share real world experience with the hull back to the military in a prolonged test. For a better explination of what I am saying, check out Lew Madden's responce to the follwing article (ignore the article if you wish) www.alaskadispatch.com/article/concerned-how-did-mat-su-ferry-spin-out-controlThe problem is not necessarily with the original plan, the original planners just underestimated how hard it would be to find the political will to have a landing fit for a LANDING CRAFT. IF this were a project that had a prayer of getting capital funding on it's own right, we would be much better suited buying a Lituya class vessel with an option for a second, and a dock on each side. However, any crossing of the Knik has run afoul of political pressure (people who are afraid that it would screw up Anchorage's tax basin allied with people who are afraid that a ferry would delay the building of a bridge), so waiting for the will to do it right was not a possibility. This SEEMED like a way to prove the need for the crossing. Who knew?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 11, 2011 17:24:56 GMT -8
www.bclocalnews.com/news/127255458.htmlNothing really new, this story reports that there are 4 AK class ferrys planned, but the story is in such bad need of editing that that is as likely a typo as new information. One line caught my attention. Aside from tourism, Alaska is also very interested in shipping seafood to Asia through Prince Rupert’s container port, [Ketchikan Gateway Borough Mayor Dave Kiffer] added. What sort of regular barge/package service is there presently between Southeast and Prince Rupert?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 3, 2011 23:32:21 GMT -8
Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard. This quote got me thinking, and so I looked more closely at the proposed AK class. Amidships, there is a wall on every level with the exception of the bathrooms... which are essentially spit to be two individual bathrooms fore and aft of the center-line, with fixtures and fittings in each (and a divider so that half can be closed for cleaning while the other half remains open). You don't suppose that the designers are thinking about making things relativity easy if they do decide to stretch her? EDIT to add... While I was looking at the plans, I counted the number of boxes they have representing cars in the car-deck, and got to 61. I don't know if that is a more accurate number than the 50 quoted by the news, but it is a lot more closely aligned with the 69 cars that fit into Taku's car deck. If you add cars forward of where they are represented in the plans, you can get to 69.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 23:17:32 GMT -8
The other big outlying question is what happens to the rest of the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. If the road north out of Juneau is built, and the road from Sitka across Baranoff is built, and the road from Petersburg south is built, the Alaska Class would be well suited for a Juneau-Sitka-Petersburg route, with a return the next day (using the aforementiond Crew berths for the overnight in Petersburg).
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 21:55:01 GMT -8
Thank you for replying, it's always interesting to see how far ahead fleet planners must be thinking to keep a system in good shape.
What sort of improvements does Columbia need to make her "more involved" as a mainliner?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 18:40:56 GMT -8
Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard. Aurora, leConte and E.L. Bartlet have been a part of the system since the 70's, and have served us well. E.L. Bartlent was replaced (very inderectly) with Lituya, and she seems to be doing well for the system. There have always been a place for day boats, these ones just take the concept and go bigger. Will they replace the mainline completely? No. Are they a part of the future? Yes. Will we need to look at a replacement ferry for the mainline? Yes. If you hop over to Kenicott's thread, I have a link to a post that suggests that they might be thinking about stretching her, Alaskanmohican, I would love to hear any information you have on that. The Tustimina will need to be replaced, and eventually, the Aurora and leConte; the Alaska class is probably too big. The AK Class vessels have crew cabins, specifically so they can run multiple crews to give the system more flexibility as to home-porting the vessel. Whether this means they plan on being able to do longer strings of short runs in the future, I don't know, it DOES probably indicate that they are putting more flexibility into the design then limiting her to 12 hour days, thinking about how the mission for this design may change in the next 45-60 years.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 14:10:38 GMT -8
Maybe we don't need all the mainliners we have, but if we had fewer but newer mainliners could this be a more cost effective system. It would just require more capital investment now to build larger vessels, but would be less in operating costs in the future. Don't get me wrong I love our original Spauldings, but they are getting up there in age and costs. I will cry for our lost Spauldings, especially Taku, when the eventually do go. That being said, I am heartened by the design of the AK class ferries with their rounded edges and passenger accessible deck spaces. This design, if it still looks anything like this at the end of the design process, gives me hope for the eventual mainline replacements. Kennicott is very capable, but she looks like a floating apartment block. While she has a lot of deck space, it feels claustrophobic and crowded, as an afterthought stashed in alongside her elevator. In the long run, I don't foresee us having many more years with a $3B budget surplus in this state, and we should probably build for the future while we have the resources to do so, preferably building ships with a Spaulding influence.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 10:21:00 GMT -8
My main concern would be the use of such a vessel on a Prince Rupert to Ketchikan run. I don't see that there is enough traffic for a run from Prince Rupert, just to Ketchikan. Vehicles line up to go to various ports in Southeast, not just Ketchikan. Would vehicles and passengers going to ports north of Ketchikan have to reload on to other vessels? Would this traffic have longer wait times in PR for a vessel going north of Ketchikan? Several years ago AMHS used the Aurora or LeConte as single stop boats between Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. I believe that short SE route was a big looser and was discontinued after a year or two. I agree that that run seems the weakest fit for the AK Class. Perhaps that is why they are seeing that as the third (and least likely to be built) ferry. Reading between the lines, a difference between "then" and "now" might be SOLAS. If we have a SOLAS hull doing the international hop, it might be easier to retain our older main-liners for a longer period of time, keeping them within the state. There is a general trend towards a more fractured system (day-boats from Auke Bay-north and Auke Bay-Sitka), and as much as I don't like seeing this from a passenger perspective, during the life-span of this vessel, IF the pipe-line is still flowing, it will be filled with ANWR or NPR-A oil. There will be no more North Slope oil that the State owns and will be getting revenue from. The population of the state is growing in southcentral, shrinking in southeast, and the political challenge of using decreasing State revenue to keep our system functioning. If being proactive about saving our ferry system into the future is more short runs, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 1, 2011 22:47:39 GMT -8
Throughout the "Alaska Class Ferry" project, we have been assured again and again that the plan is for the first AK Class to replace the Mal as a north Lynn Canal day-boat, so she could be better utilized as a mainliner. It would be... disappointing for that to change now that there is funding for the Alaska Class.
|
|