|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 27, 2019 20:21:43 GMT -8
Here is a picture of a poster that I saw on Monday (March 25th) pasted up in a shop window in Cow Bay, Prince Rupert. It seems pretty obvious to me that shutting off state funding to AMHS would have disastrous consequences in ferry-dependent communities in Alaska. It will also hurt Prince Rupert. Further, it will discourage tourism in the state. What are these politicians thinking? We've seen some pretty strange sights this legislative session. The Governor has imported several people from the failed Kansas experiment to try again with our budget. We've seen people who have spent less than 6 months in the state trying to tell legislators what is meant by the laws the legislators themselves wrote. We've seen a budget director blithely propose a school funding scenario that is stunningly un-Constitutional (and has been to the Supreme Court last time it was tried). We've seen a budget from the Governor that could not be implemented without additional laws which, half way through the session, no one has bothered to file for consideration. Just today, we saw the Governor back down from an un-Constitutional attempt to block a judge from being seated, after having the Chief Justice explain the Alaska Constitution to him in an open letter. That is to say, someone had to explain to the Governor his Constitutional role in public, because none of his advisors apparently noticed it before it got that far. Frankly, it's almost as if the entire administration has no sense of history about Alaska, and no foundational knowledge of Alaskan law. Weird. How could that happen? Right now, the Governor is on a trip through Alaska selling his ideas directly to the people. Well... some of them, anyhow. The trip is being completely funded by Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers), and you can't get into the meetings without signing all sorts of disclaimers and waivers. It's not a public process, and not public meetings. It's a dog and pony show that is being run by an outside organization. One that, frankly, does not understand the nuts and bolts of how this state works. Ferries are apparently not that important in Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2019 7:31:45 GMT -8
Neil, It's probably worth understanding both the scope of the Governor's budget, and his authority in this. Governor Dunleavy wants to cut $1.6 billion USD from the State budget. That's 40% from our university, that's $1,000 USD per student for K-12, that's 30% from our Department of Health and Social Services, that's completely eliminating the Senior Benefits program which provides living assistance to the elderly who live in our absurdly expensive State, that's slashing the subsidy for our Pioneer's Home (elderly assisted care) system, that's eliminating the subsidies the State pays to reduce the cost of rural electricity, that's a lot more than just our marine highway. In the process, he wants to shift revenue from local governments to pay for what's left of the state. That's reducing or eliminating cost-sharing of funds from local fish taxes, or oil extraction. Somewhere around $450 million USD in revenue would be shifted from local governments to the State. Essentially, it's requiring local governments to raise taxes, but claiming it's not the Governor doing so, so he gets to have a tax increase without owning it. He wants to do this, while increasing the Permanent Fund Dividend (think our version of the Heritage Fund) by $1.6 billion USD. Interestingly, his budget would also increase for both the governor's office and (despite the AMHS cuts) the Department of Transportation. And, while we're at it, maintain all of the "tax incentives" for big oil. The budget is, in a word, insane. There is no part of the state's economy that won't be impacted, and in such big ways we can't really predict how. The loss of State jobs, the loss of Healthcare jobs, the increased cost of electricity, the need for our elderly to move to somewhere less expensive, the loss of all of their retirement income, the loss of our Marine Highway in the winter, the loss of our university system as an economic driver (and magnet for Federal research money)... a recession is the right word to start off with. What happens in the medium term, we could not responsibly say. I would speculate that it would be bad. That being said, this is the Governor's budget. The way our political system is structured, it's the starting point. The governor is required to submit a budget to the legislature, but it's the legislature that makes appropriations (including the Governor's signature PFD bribe-for-votes). The legislature is also made up of people who will have to go home to their constituents, and explain why we can give a billion dollars a year to oil companies, but we can no longer give Grandma her old-age assistance. Needless to say, behind the headline grabbing numbers form the Governor, there is a lot of skepticism. Budget hearings have become must-see-tv for policy wonks, as the Governor's budget director, who has been in the State for less than 4 months, tries to explain to legislators who have been in the legislature for 20 years that her policies don't actually violate the laws they wrote. Needless to say, the budget is only a starting point. The Governor has a line-item-veto, so we're going to get cuts, and it's going to hurt, but they won't be the marquee numbers that he is calling for. We will still have a ferry system after October. I won't speculate on how much service we will have.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 26, 2019 6:50:38 GMT -8
Neil, you can't keep politics out of it. That being said, you can isolate it from day-to-day politics. ancflyer mentioned the fast ferries, they were purchased under Governor Knowles, first ran under Governor Murkowski, and never really tried on the schedules they where theoretically designed for. The Alaska Class Ferry project has already stretched through three governors, and have not yet seen one revenue mile. They currently face the absurd problem that they were built for a dock in Haines that has not been built, because the AMHS is not responsible for building shore-side improvements, and the rest of the DOT has other priorities. So, again, the ships won't be able to run on the schedules they were designed for. THIS level of politics, you can isolate the AMHS from. We can pull AMHS out of the DOT, create it's own corporation that is isolated form day-to-day politics in Juneau. Such a structure has been roughed out by Elliot Bay and the Southeast Conference. The State has experience with transportation corporations with our railroad. None of this should be scary, new, ore even particularly controversial when compared to the directionless mess the AMHS currently finds itself in. As for could Alaska survive without ferries, the answer is absolutely it could. Southeast Alaska has a well-developed barge system, which could be scaled up pretty quickly (barges and tugs are easier to build quickly than ferries, even with our Jones Act). Parts of Alaska that have much less hospitable environments survive without the ferry system. The question is whether we can thrive. Losing the ferries would hurt, a lot, and might be enough to throw Southeast into recession (although we won't know, because the rest of the cuts in the budget would certainly do so regardless of what happens to the ferries). The ironic part of your question is that in many ways, the parts of Alaska that would hurt the most are the parts of Alaska that don't really know a ferry system exists. While the private sector will step in to meet a lot of the transportation issues in Southeast (not completely, but still), it can't replace the tourist trade, and those are economically the most valuable tourists we have. Unlike cruise passengers, they stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and generally spend a lot more money in ways that stay in Alaska, and their presence is felt a as far inland as Fairbanks. Think of it. Even if the Alcan is much more tame than the mythology surrounding it suggests, if you are on the US West Coast, getting to Alaska either means driving through Bellingham and taking a boat, or driving through Edmonton, which is a much more intimidating trip with regards to miles and time behind the wheel. More than half of the visitors to the state that use the AMHS end up in Anchorage, which does not even have a terminal.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 16, 2019 8:44:57 GMT -8
Does the state have options on more vessels in this class, if so what could be different length? The initial contract for the ACF was for the two hulls, no options. That being said, ownership of the blueprints lies with either the State or Elliot Bay Design, not with Alaska Ship and Drydock. The State can take the plans to any Jones-Act compliant builder they want to build more. As for length, per memory, the plans are built with one section that would be relativity easy to add a plug in. I could well be wrong, I have read a lot of documents over the years that describe three fairly major revisions of the ACF concept. If true, Elliot Bay certainly could modify the plans to suit. Most of our long-range plans imagine that we would need more of this class of ship, but it's assumed that some minor changes will be made once AMHS has real-experience with the ships themselves. Now, long-range plans don't actually mean anything for an organization that is so susceptible to a shift in the political winds, but the design of these ships reflect that as well.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 16, 2019 8:35:32 GMT -8
I true hope that they study what happened to BC Ferries when it was privatized decide not do because it a lot worse than the current problems. There is a very recent study that does just that (along with Washington State, the Block Island Ferries, and pretty much every other public/private system in North America). There is still confusion as to whether the Dunleavy administration has read it. When they say they are "in the process of hiring" a marine consultant, it kind of implies that they are completely ignoring the work of the Elliot Bay Design Group who completed that study, and want to start anew. Considering they recently offered a private company a no-bid contract for the takeover of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute with apparently no public oversight or transparency, it's hard to argue that we can really know what they are up to, or who they are talking to.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 8, 2019 22:05:12 GMT -8
Anyone know how the repower is going?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 5, 2019 12:30:32 GMT -8
You know, it's way too soon to call this a boondoggle.
Given the reality of the politics of the situation, it appears AMHS has navigated this project pretty well. Since the beginning of the project, we've had 4 governors, 3 fairly major shifts in priorities for the program, and an utter collapse of state finances.
At the end of the day, the system will have 2 vessels that are as capable as the Le Conte and Aurora, with the ability to run 24 hour crews and, if tank tests are to be believed, have the sea-keeping abilities of the Taku.
Despite the State's budget, the AMHS has the money on-hand to complete the crew quarters for both vessels, albeit in a budget that requires legislative approval to access. Had the legislature been able to move a bit more quickly, Hubbard would have had the modifications done before she launched, which indicates the plans are in hand, with a marine engineer's stamp.
IF I am right about this, it does mean that they may have been a bit disingenuous with the public in planning for a different vessel than the political class was asking for, but that does not make this a boondoggle in the slightest. Indeed it rather appears that, despite the political influence, the AMHS will end up with two ferries that meet a proven need within the system, very unlike the situation with the fast ferries.
That the Haines dock was not completed has more to do with the state budget and capital funds than it does the ACF program.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 29, 2018 22:27:33 GMT -8
Tusty replacement. Has anyone laid the keel yet? They should get started. In fact, that could be - in a fashion - a decent replacement for the Mal and Mat with some modifications. Funding for the Tusty replacement has been allocated, but the State cannot yet proceed. The State cannot put it out to bid until it acquires a few (74?) wavers to "by American" requirements for parts that are not actually available in America. Last I heard, President Trump has not filed the position that has the authority to issue such waivers, meaning authorizing the wavers requires his signature. If I am remembering correctly, replacement for a mainliner begins around 2025, after the system has some experience with the new technologies in the ACF and Tusty replacement. Of course, as the article indicates, that's assuming the priorities don't change again with the new administration.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 16, 2018 6:34:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 14, 2018 21:04:32 GMT -8
It looks like Tazlina may head to Prince William Sound to act as a running mate to Le Conte. The Hubbard, if she is delivered with crew quarters, would then take the Lynn Canal run with 2 crews based out of Auke Bay, mimicking what the Mal is doing now. AMHS proposes new plans for Upper Lynn Canal service
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 17, 2018 13:06:48 GMT -8
I think it would be more correct to say I have faith in the physics and automation involved. I already came just short of saying that I thought AMHS management was disingenuous in how they sold the ships to us.
Even so, we should see improvements as the ACF is designed for a crew of 9 or 10. Run her with 2 crews, and you get 20 crew members on the run. Right now, we are running the Mal with 42 or 44 crew members (can't remember the precise number). Even with 2 crews, this is a significant reduction.
The ship itself is much smaller than the Mal, should displace less, and has both a bulbous bow which should reduce the drag by something north of 10%, more fuel efficient main engines, and the new RR system for reducing drag and cavitation.
So... I don't have a lot of faith in what management says, but I do still suspect the ship will be an operational improvement over the current arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 16, 2018 14:06:28 GMT -8
If I understand this correctly, the ACF cannot make the Juneau, Haines, Skagway run (in winter) without an overnight run/crew quarters? Why?
The argument for designing the ACF with an time-efficient bow/stern loading system was that a shore crew could warm the ship and load the passengers, then just before departure hand the vessel off to the running crew. The running crew could do the Lynn Cannel in just under 6 hours, turn the boat around in a half hour, and do just under 6 hours home, giving the ship over to the shore crew at the end of their 12 hour shift, the shore crew would unload the ship and bed her down for the night. This is why a second vessel was needed for the Haines-Skagway run. Why that second vessel was a full ACF instead of, say, a sister to Lityua which would have been a much less expensive alternative? I suppose that it makes sense that such a tight schedule would be absurd with the winter winds in the Lynn Canal, but considering how much of the selling points for these new vessels were their seaworthiness, it does seem a bit disingenuous to suddenly realize this now. It is *very* convenient that the designers just happen to have the ability to add crew quarters into the design, and can get the change order certified and to Vigor within 6 weeks, a change that can be retrofitted into the Tazlena? Suddenly we have an answer to the question I posed earlier. Instead of one larger ACF that would have essentially been a replacement for Taku, we get two smaller ones that can pitch-hit for the Aurora, Le Conte, Lynn Cannel or a winter replacement for the mainliners. The cabins would be missed, but then, the larger ACF did not have cabins either, so... I agree with your assessment earlier that an expanded TRF would not replace the mainliners, being somewhere in size between Taku and her sisters, but I'm not convinced here. There were some significant regulatory differences between the size of these vessels and the larger ACF, which is why that vessel could, in theory, be swapped out for these two for the same cost. As it turns out, that was not the case, since these vessels will be modified for to add crew quarters, but I'm pretty sure that will be discussed a lot as the process goes further. While I use the mainliners more than the feeders, the feeders are actually more important. Last year, without the Taku, there was a month when the villages did not get service. If we had lost the Le Conte when she ran aground (and my understanding is that we were a lot closer to loosing her than was publicly discussed), we would have been scrambling for awhile for a long term solution. I am quite happy to have replaced the much more comfortable looking large ACF with the redundancy provided by having two of the smaller ACF vessels. That being said, this is an acknowledgement that they made a mistake in forgoing crew quarters in the vessels. That the mistake is apparently so easily remedied with a time-line that seems like an off-the-shelf solution is already available for an otherwise custom design indicates that rather than a mistake, it may well have been a somewhat disingenuous sales job.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 14, 2018 6:14:31 GMT -8
State officials propose adding Alaska Class Ferry crew quartersNot exactly new, but more explicitly stated. What is new is that the AMHS has the funds to add crew quarters to the Hubbard now, should the Legislature give them the authority to use those funds, and apparently that the ACF without crew quarters does not have the ability to do the Lynn Canal run in the winter without a road north from Juneau. That's a bit of the shock, and certainly not how I had been understanding the situation up to this point.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 12, 2018 18:38:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 5, 2018 6:07:24 GMT -8
Policy geeks may enjoy spending some time on the AMHS Reform website: www.amhsreform.com/
The project is being pushed by the Southeast Conference with Gubernatorial support. At the end of the last session, a bill was submitted that would create a State Corporation along similar lines to the Railroad (although with much less of a likelihood of recouping operating costs), and the current governor has given his support to commissioning the studies, but it is an election year, so...
Cliff-notes on the coalescing fleet recommendations are as follows:
- Alaska Class Ferry (ACF) Day Boats (Such as the Tazlena).
- 24/7 Feeder ferries, based on the ACF: these would be the ACF with additional crew quarters to allow them to run on a circuit such as we have traditionally run the Aurora and Le Conte. If asked to do so, Elliot Bay Design implied they could have revised plans soon enough to allow for a change order that would make Hubbard the lead ship of this class.
- Tustumena Replacement Vessel (TRV), currently designed and awaiting "buy America" waivers before putting out a request for bids from shipyards
- Mainliners with their designs taken from the TRV, without the stabilizers or the vehicle ramp. As I understand from reading something within all of the documents I have read over the years, the TRV was designed with one point where all of the lines were intentionally parallel, making a stretch a relatively easy prospect. Additionally, the accommodation decks could extend aft over where the TRV has the elevator, creating a ship that is much more similar to the Mat or Mal then the current TRV.
This standardized fleet would mean that AMHS would essentially have 2 propulsion systems to maintain crew training and spares for.
A fairly good primer about the current political status of the project: Effort to transform ferry system a lift for next Legislature. It is, of course, an election year, and we don't know the makeup of next year's legislature, nor do we know who will be our governor. Then again, that kind of outlines the need to create a mechanism by which the AMHS is somewhat isolated from the political winds of Juneau.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 6, 2018 14:04:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 6, 2018 14:02:41 GMT -8
The article is mostly about the Tazlina (and I am posting it there), but there is an important throw-away line that confirms the Tusty replacement is still being held up over buy-American waivers.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 10, 2018 8:57:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 22, 2018 9:01:02 GMT -8
The State of Alaska has released more pictures. MV Tazlina Project Home PageAs with earlier updates, click on the picture on the page for a slide-show.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 22, 2018 8:28:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 18, 2018 5:11:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
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 Name Omitted on May 1, 2018 18:56:33 GMT -8
She's long been my favorite, so please understand that I come to this from a place of great respect for Taku, but really, this is not a bad end. Two years after she is effectively retired by the State of Alaska, she still has the wherewithal to go halfway across the world. She get's there safely, under her own power to the end.
With no disrespect to our Canadian members, she was spared the fate of the Queen of Sidney, and that is, to me, a blessing.
It could have been so much worse, even as far as scrappers go. As only Stan Rogers could describe...
"They dragged her down, dead, from Tobermor, too cheap to spare her one last head of steam. Deep in diesel fume's embrace, rust and soot upon the face of one that was so clean..."
|
|
|
MV Taku
Mar 16, 2018 14:21:46 GMT -8
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 16, 2018 14:21:46 GMT -8
Interesting story & it is indeed sad to see the Taku go ... But, was she ever assigned to the Bellingham route? I've ridden her to Bellingham. It was awhile ago, I don't remember if she was relieving another mainliner, but she certainly did the run on occasion.
|
|
|
MV Taku
Jan 24, 2018 9:27:03 GMT -8
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 24, 2018 9:27:03 GMT -8
|
|