|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 1, 2020 14:01:38 GMT -8
It's warrenty work from the 2 year drydock that she just got done with... but since she is the only mainliner running right now, there is no relief vessel avalable.
This is apparantly what our governor means when he says Alaska is "open for buisiness." Basic infustrucute was shut down so he can get yet another report to tell us yet one more time that the service could not be privitized.
Screw him, and his entire administration. To quote Stan, "smilling dummies lieing to you everywhere you go." But. administrations past. With arm and heart and brain, we will come back from this.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 18, 2020 9:38:32 GMT -8
Neil, it would be a mistake to try and understand this as a Democrat/Republican issue. The chief architect of the reduced budget in the Senate is a coastal Republican, but he was acting to prevent worse from the Governor's veto. And, much as I was not pleased with him at the time, I think his path has been shown to be correct, given what the Governor vetoed overall. This current administration is a TEA party attack on the institutions of the State, and while the Governor's supporters are generally Republican, he does not have broad-based Republican support. There is a very active recall movement going on right now, and at its forefront is the patriarch of the largest coal mining family in the State, as well as the head of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce. His vetos shocked Tammy Wilson, the representative from North Pole who used to be the baseline for hardline budget cuts, into joining with the Democrats to oppose him. If the recall goes through, our Lieutenant Governor is a Republican of the old-school, and transportation projects will fair better under him. Politically, the AMHS is not as protected as it was. Unlike BC or WA, the system does not serve the main population center of the state. Or the second or third, for that matter. It's going to need to find a way of serving without taking quite as much of the DOT budget to do so, as long as Wasilla gains power. That being said, "Old Alaska" still looks after each other, and the idea of so many Alaskans being cut off with so little warning shocked even Wasilla. There is room for compromise. Reading this report, it's actually a backhanded compliment for the system doing as much as it has. The report (which really was meant to give a pathway to privatization) makes no bones about the fact that privatization is not going to happen. It also gives a very grim picture of what will be required to get the system down to the Governor's requested subsidy. It references the work of the Southeast Conference as having a lot of good ideas, but ideas that could be implemented without the need for a new public corporation. That is to say, the Legislature could empower AMHS to make many of the changes while keeping administrative control. This is where I see the compromise happening. I think Costal Alaska will agree to cuts, but as long as there IS a public AMHS corporation with a bit more autonomy from the political whims of each passing administration. I think we will see a shift away from mainline service, perhaps building a few more ACF boats. I suspect there will be negotiations with the Union to allow different staffing for the mainliners for summer and winter months, made possible by a reduced max capacity on the vessels in the winter. Additionally, the change in staffing will allow the ships to either be run on a 24-hour schedule or a 12-hour schedule as the time of year requires, with less paid for 12-hour schedules that see the crew home at night. I don't expect the Malispena or Columbia will still be in the system in 10 years. This report puts the Tustimena Replacement Vessel in danger. Seriously, it describes replacing her with the Hubbard (!) at one point. However, the money is allocated, and it's mostly federal. If she survives this administration, she will be built.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 17, 2020 13:29:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 17, 2020 13:27:06 GMT -8
Gee, what a surprise ... Some things are best done in the public sector. Actually, it is a bit of a surprise. One of the basic tenants of research is that you find what you are looking for, which is why the research question is so important. They were, frankly, looking for ways to privatize. They found literally 2 routes out of the entire system where that would work. I expected a somewhat more bullish response. I obviously misjudged the professionalism of the people conducting the study in some of my previous statements about it. It is worth noting that the two routes they found are served by the newest vessels of the fleet, smaller day-boats. I suspect that will be a saliant point when discussing how to organize the system going forward. *Edit to add: I've started actually reading the study, and it's even mroe grim then the newspaper article suggests. One of the options studied is for the State to maintain ownership, and responsibility for replacemnt of, the vessels and ports while leasing both to a privete entity. In that option the study states:
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 17, 2020 9:28:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
MV LeConte
Nov 26, 2019 15:11:42 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 26, 2019 15:11:42 GMT -8
As an update, Aurora had 20% more steel that needs to be replaced then Labonte. LeConte will be fixed this spring, Aurora is out until further notice, and the Mal is being laid up, possibly for good.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 9, 2019 22:15:52 GMT -8
The funding shortfall news of the AMHS should be the 'call to arms' for the good citizens of the great State of Alaska! ... 'Bottom-line'- time for both the AMHS and perhaps the good folks at WSF as well, and for that matter the electorate of both States; Is it time to reconsider the benefits of creating a corporation such as the current BCFS model? The current state of affairs at the AMHS is frankly, appalling! Changes MUST be made, the sooner, the better. Your 'call to arms' happened long ago in Southeast, but unlike BC and Washington State where the ferries serve the main economic and population centers of the state, our ferries do not. The most recent study, currently being ignored by the Administration as they try and pretend there is a private buyer for the system, looked at just that. The conclusion it came to (and I think it was a well-founded conclusion) is that while the BC Ferry may be a starting point for an Alaskan solution, it's only a starting point. While BC has a few long routes, it has nothing approaching the Aleutian run and, obviously, nothing as long as Bellingham to Ketchican. It also has a lot of short, profitable runs between population centers that match the entire population of Alaska, let alone the small coastal communities. In addition, BC Ferries can procure vessels on the wold market, wich AMHS cannot do. Case in point, the 4 new hybrid-electric vessels that are costing $38 million USD apiece, next to our similarly sized Alaska Class Vessels at just under $60 million apiece. Any Alaska Ferry corporation will need a proportionately larger subsidy than BC Ferries (although with a significantly smaller fleet it may be smaller in actual dollars). With that comes the task of finding a way to get politics out of the running of the ferry while still providing an operating subsidy. That's a hard sell. It is, however, necessary. I don't know how to explain how politically immature our State government is, except to say that of our 12 Governors, only 2 left office because they were term-limited. The other 10 either resigned or lost their re-election bids. Each new Administration has it's own priorities and ignores the work of the previous administration. Walker was headed towards the direction of semi-autonomy, but Dunleay's chosen a different path. We don't actually know what it is. We know he hired some consultants, and that they were to have a preliminary report by October. We also know that they did not contact a single Costal city, nor the Southeast Conference to look at the work that had happened up until this point. We also know that there is no publicly released report yet. Oh. And we know that the cost of the report came out of the general fund of the State of Alaska.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 2, 2019 9:20:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 25, 2019 12:42:03 GMT -8
Fifty years in saltwater really is incredible. It's a testament to Spaulding, those who built, and those who maintain that so many are still in service.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 24, 2019 23:16:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 6, 2019 23:04:26 GMT -8
With respect, the intent of the Governor's budget has nothing to do with savings. Several of the items he vetoed have no inpact on the general fund whatsoever, being funded by outside sources. Trying to understand this as a cost-saving mesure is not going to work. Then, by what other measure is this supposed to make sense? He's breaking the functions of government to give him an excuse to privitize. His administration has been taken to court on numorous occasions over no-bid contracts to outsource government functions. It's kind of his thing. Simple vandalism.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 6, 2019 13:19:18 GMT -8
i can only imagine what this will cost in terms of the contraction in Alaska's economy... far more, I'm sure, than the measurable savings from the cuts in ferry service. With respect, the intent of the Governor's budget has nothing to do with savings. Several of the items he vetoed have no inpact on the general fund whatsoever, being funded by outside sources. Trying to understand this as a cost-saving mesure is not going to work.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 5, 2019 17:46:37 GMT -8
It's a banner day for the AMHS. State announces dynamic pricing for ferries, reveals reduced winter schedule - Prices go up on a sliding scale, starting when the ship reaches 30% of capacity.
- At 30% of capacity, the price of walk-up tickets goes up 5%, the price of a vehicle or cabin 10%
- At 90% of capacity, the scale tops off at +30% for walk-on tickets, +50% for vehicles or cabins
- Also, there is an additional 10% for "Special Events," whatever the hell that means.
It looks like the smaller ACF ferries will do better with revenue as well as cost less to operate.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 5, 2019 9:32:17 GMT -8
Alaska’s coastal communities prepare for big change as ferry cuts arrive this week Sigh, where to begin? - The winter schedule comes out tomorrow. The draft schedule that came out in July involves cuts to several towns for months at a time.
- The draft schedule includes no service to Prince Rupert. Allegedly, this is not related to the budget cuts, but to ongoing issues with well... funding protection for customs officials in Prince Rupert.
- The Governor has commissioned a new study on the future of the AMHS system, with the results due next month. (Following not in the article) From the outside, the only substantial difference between this study and previous work is that this one seems aimed at finding a buyer for the AMHS system. Previous work has indicated that the system is simply not viable. The runs are too long with too few passengers. The closest analogue is the BC Ferries, but with a buy American requirement for our ships, and no population densities approaching that of Vancouver Island.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 5, 2019 9:21:38 GMT -8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 4, 2019 Press Release: 19-0041 AMHS Ending Service to Prince RupertAMHS is unable to meet requirements for U.S. Customs in Prince Rupert. I really hope this is a just a strategy bluff, and not the actual end of an era. I've been remiss on keeping you all appraised of what's going on. It's grim. I'll post an article on the main thread, but in the short term, know that the USD $87 million annual appropriation for the AMHS was cut by $40 Million this year. There are no sacred cows in the system, and, well... Prince Rupert has a 50 year old log pier that has not been replaced yet, so... there are more issues than just the Customs problem. For the time being, this is very real. It is possible that, once sanity returns to Juneau, it will also return to the AMHS. Or, thinking outside the box for anyone who might have the ability to make this happen, the Inner Island Ferry Authority does have an idle ship...
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 16, 2019 5:51:31 GMT -8
Anyone have a trip report for Tazlina?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 5, 2019 9:30:22 GMT -8
As a follow-up, the strike is over. Details of the new contract will be released after Union ratification.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 24, 2019 21:39:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 28, 2019 21:55:10 GMT -8
'Name Omitted', a while back I made some remarks about the harm that could be done to the Alaskan economy by ending or severely cutting the ferry service. But I'm curious about whether an actual accounting analysis has ever been done to determine the value of AMHS? There have been several. The earliest I've read dates to the 80's. All of them make it quite clear that the AMHS is a brilliant investment for the State by any economic terms. The ROI is fantastic. The problem is that that's irrelevant. The issue is we are dealing with people who don't think the State should be involved. If the investment is so good, it should be in private hands. I don't have time to find the quote, but the RFP the Governor sent out for a new study on the viability of the AMHS (which completely ignores ongoing studies) flat out states that the study will be difficult to do, because there is no baseline to say what private sector options might have arisen had the AMHS not been in place. In other words, my taxes should maintain roads (not private toll roads, mind you), but not marine highways, because the latter should be private enterprise, while the former is... somehow different. The rate of return on State investment is not an issue. The more we scream about it, the more we are simply missing the point. Cliffnotes from the latest McDowell report from their informational session with the Alaska HouseThe full report, for those as geeky as me.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 19, 2019 8:10:29 GMT -8
TLDR: US border patrol can't be armed in Canada, as they don't have the sovereign authority. Apparently, the just realized this, and gave AMHS 30 days to get them armed protection. AMHS got an extension, and so the issue will come to a head on October 1. Thanks for posting this; this is a very interesting item to me. If this becomes a stale-mate between AMHS and Prince Rupert and threats are made about closing the ferry terminal, I wonder which side needs the ferry terminal more? Do Alaskans need it more for the close road-link and the gateway for tourism? Or does Prince Rupert need it more for its hotel/hospitality local economy? The best way to win a game of chicken is to make sure the other driver sees you take the steering wheel out of your car, and throw it to the side of the road. If the other driver thinks you literally cannot swerve, well... it's their move. The ferry system is getting increasingly less slack room in it's budget. The current budget number in the legislature is $47 million, which is about a $40 million cut from last year. The really sad thing is that I have friends in Coastal Alaska who are cheering this, because it means we may actually HAVE a ferry system this winter. We've passed the point where it's a matter of what Alaskans want with regards to a closer road system. If a port needs to be cut, well, Bellingham and Prince Rupert are the two ports in the system that are not directly associated with votes for the Alaska legislature, and the Bellingham run is one of the few that actually make money. This thread started with the understanding that the Prince Rupert terminal needs to be completely rebuilt. The Marine Highway has had to fight to get money from the vessel maintenance fund put back into the fund from other capital projects around the state, and has not managed to get a nose-in berth built in Haines for the new ACF ferries. With the AMHS capital budget so dear, and with the operating budget cut in half, I think the steering wheel has been thrown out of the vehicle. As much as I despise this sort of negotiation (we throw a tantrum, and you need to buy us a pacifier), I don't see AMHS being able to put much more money into keeping the Prince Rupert terminal open. That being said, Prince Rupert has options that are not simply "pay or loose connections." Phase 2 of the port expansion would provide no small amount of jobs, and there is a potential "third way" with regards to keeping some of the tourism revenue from Alaska. A non Jones-Act feeder ship (read any SOLAS compliant second-hand ship) could run from Prince Rupert to Ketchikan and back. If that's all it did on the Alaska side having customs in Ketchikan (or onboard during the transit) would be workable, as anyone who was rejected at the border could be sent back fairly easily (not an option for a weekly or twice weekly trip on the AMHS). Such an arrangement would not require a customs area in Prince Rupert, bypassing the need to rebuild the 50 year old dock, or might be able to bypass US Federal procurement rules for steel. I don't argue that as a likely scenario, just a reminder that this is not a binary choice. Alaska could well throw the steering wheel out of the car, and Prince Rupert simply decide it's a stupid game to play, and go find someone else to play with.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 18, 2019 7:43:58 GMT -8
We have not resolved the steel issue, and now the US Federal Government is making the terminal a much more expensive prospect for the AMHS. (US) Feds demand armed officers to keep Prince Rupert ferry terminal openTLDR: US border patrol can't be armed in Canada, as they don't have the sovereign authority. Apparently, the just realized this, and gave AMHS 30 days to get them armed protection. AMHS got an extension, and so the issue will come to a head on October 1.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 21, 2019 16:22:53 GMT -8
Well... we've found the $27 Million that the AMHS could not use to add crew quarters to the ACF: Alaska DOT considering proposal for Berners Bay ferry terminalI have this under the general thread, not the ACF thread, because this has a system-wide impact. A terminal at Berners Bay would make transfers between other ships and the Lynn Canal boats impractical. The map of the new terminal that was sent out with the memo does not include a building, so there is no shelter for walk-on passengers to wait after the cab or bus that takes them to the terminal has left them ( See page 6). And, as an added bonus, the money spent on the terminal is not making the two new ACF ferries an effective substitute for the Aurora or Le Conte for maintenance lay-ups. Fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 4, 2019 4:27:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 31, 2019 21:16:17 GMT -8
It's worth mentioning that the House Finance Committee today simply gave up on the Governor's budget. They announced that they are starting with last year's budget, and will be making amendments to it rather than the Governor's. It's also worth noting that their starting point is actually smaller than the Governor's by half a billion dollars, and that unlike the Governor, they are not relying on one time draws into savings or taking money that is traditionally in the hands of local government. They are also planning on giving each Alaskan a $900 dividend instead of the Governor's $3,000 "vote for me" bribe. What does this resurrected budget from last year mean for the future of the Alaska Marine Highway? Is ferry service going to be limited or? That $3,000 'vote for me' bribe is an election tool that is a bit 'foreign' to us folks in this part of the world. Honestly, there are too many balls in the air to know what it means. The two new ACF ferries will be in revenue service (without the crew quarters for more than 12 hr runs), and the Fairweather will be out of service, probably never to sail again in revenue service for the State. We will have the Mat out of midlife overhaul, and she will be cheaper to run than the Columbia, but who knows what surprises are in store for the Mal when she goes into layup. As for bribes to voters, if it turns out that it works for our Governor, I'd suspect the concept will be only as foreign as Alberta's heritage fund all too soon. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." The Governor of Alaska took that warning as a playbook.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 28, 2019 20:35:20 GMT -8
It's worth mentioning that the House Finance Committee today simply gave up on the Governor's budget. They announced that they are starting with last year's budget, and will be making amendments to it rather than the Governor's.
It's also worth noting that their starting point is actually smaller than the Governor's by half a billion dollars, and that unlike the Governor, they are not relying on one time draws into savings or taking money that is traditionally in the hands of local government.
They are also planning on giving each Alaskan a $900 dividend instead of the Governor's $3,000 "vote for me" bribe.
|
|