Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2008 19:40:21 GMT -8
So here's a question that I thought of today waiting to board the Kitsap at Bremerton. If the public is not allowed to smoke anywhere on a Washington State Ferry then what does the crew do when they need to smoke? Are they not allowed to smoke while at work or do they smoke when the vessel is unloaded and waiting to reload? Maybe someone that works for WSF can help me on this one as I am curious about this. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 11, 2008 20:36:39 GMT -8
So here's a question that I thought of today waiting to board the Kitsap at Bremerton. If the public is not allowed to smoke anywhere on a Washington State Ferry then what does the crew do when they need to smoke? Are they not allowed to smoke while at work or do they smoke when the vessel is unloaded and waiting to reload? Maybe someone that works for WSF can help me on this one as I am curious about this. Thanks! The law is that crew are not allowed to smoke on board the ferries either.
|
|
|
Post by zman on Jan 12, 2008 17:01:54 GMT -8
People have to be 25 feet from doors or air intakes, which is nearly impossible on the ferries. It is not allowed on the car deck, according to "federal regulations"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 11:36:58 GMT -8
Yes I know of the regulations but are the laws they enforced when only the crew is on board the ferry and there are no passengers. Can WSF actually make the crew not smoke during their shift? I am just wondering?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 13, 2008 12:03:57 GMT -8
Yes I know of the regulations but are the laws they enforced when only the crew is on board the ferry and there are no passengers. Can WSF actually make the crew not smoke during their shift? I am just wondering? Yes, they can. Crew can be and have been written up for smoking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 12:32:54 GMT -8
Wow! Good to know. Thank you for helping me out with this question. It solves my curiousity.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jan 13, 2008 13:51:53 GMT -8
People have to be 25 feet from doors or air intakes, which is nearly impossible on the ferries. The ends of the pickle forks on the Evergreen State must qualify.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 13, 2008 14:43:45 GMT -8
People have to be 25 feet from doors or air intakes, which is nearly impossible on the ferries. The ends of the pickle forks on the Evergreen State must qualify. It's possible they might, but in order to comply with the law and create less confusion, WSF banned smoking from all vessels, terminals and holding lanes. I think they gave up on the holding lanes. The cost of violating the law on the upper decks is a $200 to $300 fine. Defying the ban and lighting up in a vehicle on the auto deck, is a federal crime penalized by up to a $10,000 fine.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 13, 2008 15:09:27 GMT -8
People have to be 25 feet from doors or air intakes, which is nearly impossible on the ferries. The ends of the pickle forks on the Evergreen State must qualify. It's likely that they do, but rather than dealing with some yahoo standing out on the end of the picklefork armed with a tape measure, a cigarette, and extravagent hand gestures as he stabs at a regulation on his clipboard, it's easier just to do an across-the-board ban.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 10, 2008 10:56:33 GMT -8
I just picked up the March 8 edition of The Economist magazine out of my mailbox, and the first random page I turn to happens to be on Washington State Ferries. Nothing new to us, and it was probably written by one of the local newspaper reporters working as a stringer, but this is how the world see us this week:
Ferries The Rusting Armada
Mar 6th 2008 | PORT TOWNSEND From The Economist print edition Washington state's ferry system is in dire straits
WASHINGTON state runs the largest ferry system in America. Each year 24m commuters, tourists and others board picturesque green-on-white boats and travel between islands in the state's north-west reaches, or across the miles-wide fjord called Puget Sound that faces the city of Seattle.
But the ferry system has sprung some leaks—literally. In November 2007 four 80-year-old boats were yanked from service because their hulls were rusting. That left small towns such as Port Townsend on the Olympic Peninsula without tourists and shoppers. A small ferry borrowed from a nearby county has entered into stopgap service, but the craft is no match for the rough seas of late winter and must often stay in port.
Since then, one more ferry has been taken out of service on a route into Seattle, again because of rust; four more need hull work; two inadvertently collided with berths; and one was hit by a large wave that submerged the bow, knocked out a watertight door and flooded the passenger area. Some of this is bad luck, but it is difficult to ignore the fragility of the system. At present there are no backup boats, which means the fleet is pushed to its limit.
Ferry officials hope to replace 18 of the current 21 boats over the next 30 years, but that will cost billions. Ferries already hoover up a disproportionate 11% of petrol-tax revenue dedicated to the state Department of Transportation, which spends $400m a year operating them. But even with that the system is cash-strapped, because voters in 1999 threw out a tax on car-licence plates that had put $67m a year towards the ferries. Higher fares have not made up the shortfall. Money to replace the rusting boats has been voted, but must come from other ferries' budgets.
Mary Margaret Haugen, a state senator who chairs a transport committee, notes that in 1959 legislators narrowly defeated a proposal to build one or more long bridges across Puget Sound that could have cut out the need for most of the ferries. Those bridges would probably have been floated on pontoons, the only feasible design for spanning wide, deep bodies of water. In 1979 a similar bridge in the state sank in a storm. At least the ferries have not achieved that dubious distinction.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 10, 2008 22:23:28 GMT -8
I fail to see a significant relationship between the age of a vessel and its classification as a "rustbucket." It's a matter of upkeep and maintenance rather than age in my opinion. When maintenance budgets are kept at minimum levels and upkeep delayed or cancelled, a crisis can develop regardless of a vessels age.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 12, 2008 17:24:56 GMT -8
The relationship is thus: the older a vessel, the more corrosion accumulates if left untended.
Tending it will slow it down, but it can never completely be eradicated without replacing the steel--only to have the problem begin anew.
Eventually, you get to the point where the corrosion and fatigue in the metal from years of flexing simply get ahead of the maintenance, and it becomes more practical to replace the boat.
While you raise the accurate point that maintenance must be continued, there comes a time when you're simply jacking up the smokestack and slipping a new boat underneath it. We've pretty much reached that point with the Steel-Electrics.
You wouldn't buy an eighty-year-old car and run it on the road as a taxi for sixteen hours a day, would you?
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 18, 2008 7:23:07 GMT -8
You wouldn't buy an eighty-year-old car and run it on the road as a taxi for sixteen hours a day, would you? Of course not! Much too pretty to use daily! ;D "If a Steel-Electric were a taxicab" -- 1922 Checker Cab
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 18, 2008 7:31:26 GMT -8
From The Island Guardian, a Friday Harbor based online news "paper", concerning a visit by new WSF director David Moseley with San Juan County government leaders: www.islandguardian.com/archives/00001877.html 03/17/2008: "“Normal” Service Will Resume -WSD Director Moseley"David Moseley has been the Washington State Ferries Director for only eight days, but he made time on Wednesday (3-12-08) to come to San Juan County to answer questions from the County Council, invited members of the Friday Harbor Town Council, and members of the SJC Ferry Advisory Committee. Moseley made note In his introductory remarks that while he comes to the job with over thirty years of public administration and management experience, he is without any prior maritime experience, but indicated he was selected for the position based on Secretary of Transportation Paula Hammond’s goal of bringing leadership and management abilities “to move the ferry system forward and restore the public trust and confidence in the ferry system.” . (continued from front page) Like all good managers, Moseley had already drawn up a list of priorities, which he shared with the assembly. The first was to build new boats; a process that is already underway; but under some direct questioning, Moseley said the first boat new boat that will be ready for service in San Juan County is now only in the design stage, and will not sail for at least two, or three, years. His second priority is the maintenance of the existing boats, with a goal of resuming normal service by early fall of this year. The Council did not ask for a definition of “normal”, so it was not clear if the fall will bring steady and consistent service, or only that there will be the normal number of boats with the normal amount of capacity assigned to the SJC runs. The third goal is to continue to work with the various state committees and commissions to meet the goals set out in the passage of the so-called “ferry Bill” by the state legislature; goals that are to be met by 2009. Related to this is his forth goal of meeting and working with local communities and groups; a process he said that his type of management style. The Council had prepared two “action needed” requests, the first was to “fund an independent economic analysis of the relationship and impact of ferry fares…and allow no increases until the analysis is completed.” The second was to have more of a say in how WSF actions affect SJC. Councilman Alan Lichter express concern that too often decisions have been made that affect the community without consulting with the community. Moseley said he would “love to hear how we can do better. That is exactly what we want to do.” Moseley promised to consider ways to involve the County planning and policy discussions. He also promised to be a frequent visitor to the County, with his first return visit in just three weeks when he attends the April 2nd meeting of the San Juan Ferry Advisory Committee. A question was about the future of passenger only ferries, and Moseley said WSF will no longer be involved, that “will reside in county government”. He said it will be up the counties to create and fund such programs The Council asked if there was a contingency plan for SJC if ferries broke down. Moseley said up “until Fall, we will have no vessels in reserve so we have very little flexibility,” he said. If any other boats have to be taken out of service, the problems will “ripple throughout the system.” The system has had a succession of service and maintenance problems since the four 1927 vintage steel electric ferries were permanently taken out of service last November because of safety concerns. Councilman Howard Rosenfeld brought up the subject of the spot checks by the Border Patrol in Anacortes. Moseley said they too were concerned, but there was nothing they could do.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Mar 18, 2008 7:32:52 GMT -8
You wouldn't buy an eighty-year-old car and run it on the road as a taxi for sixteen hours a day, would you? Of course not! Much too pretty to use daily! ;D "If a Steel-Electric were a taxicab" -- 1922 Checker Cab Now, Mr. Sound Man, I could only wish I can place my pointer over the picture of that classic cab and hear the horn! BEEP BEEP!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 18, 2008 13:51:38 GMT -8
Beep beep? Wouldn't ahooooga be more appropriate?
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Mar 18, 2008 14:13:26 GMT -8
Ahooooga! Now, that's more like it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 24, 2008 16:08:05 GMT -8
Some *good* news for once: Ferries ace their audit -- for first time in 21 years
By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Writer
OLYMPIA -- For 21 straight years, the state auditor has criticized Washington State Ferries officials for not knowing exactly how many tickets are sold and how much money is collected from riders.
That streak is over.
The latest audit issued this month concluded the troubled state agency had "corrected" the problem with its electronic fare system.
"We're thrilled we got through a fiscal audit without any findings on ticket sales and revenue collections," said Lloyd Brown, communications director for the state Department of Transportation.
State Auditor Brian Sonntag sounded almost as pleased to not have to scold the agency again.
"I'm thrilled. They've been working on this for awhile. I think they are on to something," he said.
The good news for the ferry system is in the financial audit of the state Department of Transportation from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. In that period, Washington State Ferries, a division of the Transportation Department, reported receipt of $146.8 million in fare revenue.
Since 1986, state audits have found the department unable to reconcile with certainty the number of tickets sold and amount of money received.
Last year's report stated "progress is being made" with installation of the new gear at some of the 14 terminals but the lack of adequate fiscal control had not been eliminated.
"No system is in place to ensure that all sales are recorded," that audit found. "Neither our office nor the Ferries Division can estimate how much is lost due to unrecorded sales."
Former Transportation Secretary Doug McDonald predicted then that the streak of critical findings would end as soon as the new fare collection equipment was fully deployed.
He proved to be right.
"The condition reported during our 2006 audit (issued in March 2007) has been corrected," according to the audit. "The new electronic fare system has been implemented with controls in place to monitor ticket sales and revenue collection."
McDonald last year chided Sonntag for what he considered an overly harsh report, given the department's forward progress.
Sonntag said he had no problem moving on.
"For us, it's always about accountability and the fact that they are able to provide that necessary oversight of these public transactions," he said. "It's equally important that we are able to acknowledge the progress."
Fare revenues were not the only concern raised in last year's audit.
The auditor issued a finding that the Transportation Department lacked adequate internal controls on use of gasoline credit cards and state-owned vehicles.
According to the earlier audit, credit cards reported missing or stolen from the department were used to buy $9,000 worth of fuel. Incomplete mileage logs for agency vehicles meant employees could have driven them for personal use -- something Brown said last year did not occur.
This year's audit does not repeat that finding. It notes the department "partially corrected" the problem with stricter monitoring of who receives and uses the credit cards and ensuring workers log in all miles traveled in state vehicles.
"We did make changes to improve," Brown said. "The result is we've had a clean audit report for the first time in 21 years."
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Mar 27, 2008 13:17:02 GMT -8
Ferry Replacement Bid Comes in High By Ed Friedrich (Contact) Originally published 12:29 p.m., March 27, 2008 Updated 12:29 p.m., March 27, 2008
The lone bid to build a 50-car ferry for the Port Townsend-Keystone route came in more than $9 million higher than expected.
In a bid opened Thursday morning, Todd Pacific Shipyards of Seattle proposes to construct a boat based on the Steilacoom II design for $26 million.
Department of Transportation engineers estimated the cost at $16.8 million.
“While I am disappointed that the bid came in higher than our estimate, we will take a close look at the bid and keep moving forward to build a new 50-car ferry,” said Washington State Ferries director David Moseley.
The new ferry is expected to be built in 12 months, and begin service in May 2009.
The ferries system is building six new ferries over the next four years.
Later this year, the state will begin a separate procurement process for two more ferries that can carry between 60 and 80 cars. They will replace the retired Steel Electric-class ferries and could be in service by June 2010 and December 2010.
New 144-car ferries will be under construction by next year. The first one is expected to be in service by early 2011.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 8, 2008 9:09:47 GMT -8
The opinion of Todd Shipyards appears as an opinion response piece in this morning's Seattle Times. If I can add my own response here, I understand this guy is defending his company and trying to convince us that his bid is perfectly reasonable, there is still only one side of a story here. But he's got it right that the state needs to come up with a plan for just exactly what they need and want to do to solve the current need for ferries. Yes, we are going to go through some bad times where it will be truly difficult to cross the Sound in certain places before this is all over. That doesn't mean we can afford to build boats that are not part of a longer range plan. Do we need to just grit our teeth and start building a couple (or 3) Island Home clones, knowing that ferry service just might be out on that route for a year or so? Well, time to make the tough decision and do it. Or decide to do a Steilacoom clone, but understand that needing a new boat in a hurry will cost extra money. Doesn't the WSDOT need to make similar decisions about roads and bridges all the time? ================================================== seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004333377_ferry08.html State's ferry estimate doesn't add upBy Steve Welch Special to The Times It was disappointing news for the maritime industry that Washington state elected not to award a contract for a new 50-car ferry for the Port Townsend-to-Keystone run because the price came in $9 million more than the state's estimate. The only thing worse for our industry would have been if any shipyard had agreed to build the vessel for what the state's consultant estimated it "should cost" — as that estimate was surely based on little more than guesswork and hope. The number was so far off it lacked credibility. In contrast to a consultant's estimate, as a shipyard we have to live with our bid numbers. If we can't, our business is lost. How could a bid be so far off the consultant's estimate? To answer that we would need to see the analysis behind the Washington State Ferries' estimate, and that has not been released. I am certain it is much closer to a back-of-the-envelope calculation than the detailed bid documents Todd Pacific Shipyards prepared. Todd prepared not one, but two independent estimates after a careful review of the state's specifications and contract. For the two main components of the price — materials and labor — we prepared detailed estimates. For materials, we obtained specific quotes from suppliers of steel, engines, generators, the propulsion system and other components. For labor, we started with the actual labor used to build the Pierce County ferry, Steilacoom II, and then adjusted for specific changes in labor content of the new boat. It has been asserted that the vessel the ferry system wants is essentially a copy of the Pierce County ferry, and therefore it should be less expensive to build than a new design. While it is similar, the state has required significant design changes, each of which adds to the cost of the vessel. But physical changes are a fairly modest percentage of the overall increased cost. The most significant difference comes from the changing circumstances under which the state wants this vessel built. These include greatly inflated material costs, a compressed schedule, more extensive state administrative requirements and other conditions that did not apply to construction of the Pierce County ferry. For example, the state now requires 10 percent of the hours worked to be performed under an apprenticeship program. We support the training of a skilled work force for the future, but this is the first state ferry project to be built with this requirement and it carries a cost related to productivity, especially with a compressed schedule. Essentially, our difference of opinion with the state's estimate is either in material or labor. We have received conflicting information on what the consultant assumed for hours of labor necessary to build the ferry. Let's assume the consultant used the higher of the two amounts we have heard, 140,000 hours. This is well below the actual labor-hour content of Pierce County's Steilacoom II. It also means the consultant's estimate of material in the ferry differs from our market quotes by millions of dollars, which is difficult to understand since there is no discount superstore to buy steel at below market prices or magic process to remove the necessary steel and other materials required to build the boat. It is a total mystery to us how the consultant who did the estimate came up with the number. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't compute. We have been more than open with the state in explaining the complexities created by its various requirements. This includes a list of ideas which, if the state chooses to implement them, could save millions of dollars. Our hope remains that we will work with the ferry system to build the best possible vessels to meet the needs of Washington citizens. Todd, our suppliers and other Northwest shipyards have given the ferry system tens of thousands of hours of free time over the past six years trying to find a way to build boats for a system that desperately needs new vessels. There has been a lot of talk and a great many ideas, but not a single boat has been built. This cancellation is just one more unfortunate step on that long road. The history of ferry construction in Washington is littered with shipyards promising more than they can deliver. This is followed by years of litigation and finger pointing. Todd is not interested in continuing that history. From the beginning, our intent has been to build a quality vessel, recover our costs and earn a modest and fair profit. We are neither asking the ferry system for a free lunch nor are we willing to provide one. Steve Welch is CEO of Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle. Todd has operated shipyards in the U.S. since 1916.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 8, 2008 10:06:55 GMT -8
This article showed up in a local newspaper last week: Questions at the ferry docksFranny White Skagit Valley Herald April 03, 2008 - 03:40 PM www.goskagit.com/index.php/news/article/questions_at_the_ferry_docks/Summary: The US Border patrol is blocking the roadway leading from the ferry 3 times per week and questioning people before they can continue. Doesn't this seem like an unreasonable action by law enforcement be law enforcement, just stopping people to see whether they have committed a crime? I think the comments posted at the paper's site are missing the point, too. Sure, law enforcement should catch people who are breaking the law. But what happened to a need for reasonable suspicion before a person is stopped? Does arriving from San Juan Island make a person suspicious? (Note: This is NOT the ferry from Sidney that is being discussed here.) My blog entry on this is here: cascadiajournal.com/archives/5I don't want to get too off-topic or political here on the ferry forum, but can someone please please please tell me what I am missing here?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 8, 2008 11:25:04 GMT -8
I found Mr. Welch's comments refreshing. I'll explain why: - I work in an industry where we also have some fixed-fee contracts. My job is to do the work, usually that someone else in my firm has bid on. I know what it's like to have a fixed-fee that we discover in hindsight is too low. It takes the fun out of the work. But it's the nature of the beast (or the industry). So with that as my lens, I'm happy with Mr. Welch's comments. Re the applicability to the WSF situation: Todd's refusal to enter into an unrealistically low contract means that they won't be promising something that they can't deliver. I've also seen local governments who have similar situations (but not for ferries, instead for other capital projects), of all the bids coming back over the budgeted amount. This just delays projects as they have to do the bids again, and re-think the project parameters.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 21, 2008 16:32:56 GMT -8
Published: Monday, April 21, 2008 Ferry system's deputy director to resignwww.heraldnet.com/article/20080421/NEWS01/687077091&news01ad=1#Ferry.systems.deputy.director.to.resignBy Scott North Herald Writer SEATTLE — The deputy director of the state ferry system has announced her resignation. Traci Brewer-Rogstad resigned Monday in a letter to her new boss, David Moseley. She came to the ferry system in 1997 after managing operations for a small cruise line. In her letter to Moseley, Brewer-Rogstad wrote that she is proud to have helped lead Washington State Ferries "during some of the greatest challenges that WSF has ever faced. It is a good time for me to transfer my watch to others." Her last scheduled day is May 30. Brewer-Rogstad was appointed about two years ago to serve as second-in-command under former ferry chief Mike Anderson. He retired in December, amid turmoil after four 80-year-old Steel Electric-class ferries were pulled from service after a year of leaks, cracks and questions about the safety of their aging hulls. Anderson announced his retirement shortly after state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond was appointed. Moseley took over in March as assistant state transportation secretary in charge of the ferry system. He said it was entirely Brewer-Rogstad’s idea to leave her job, and that he respected her "tough, courageous decision." A search will be launched within the ferry system for a new deputy director, with preference for somebody with maritime experience, Moseley said. That’s something that Moseley lacks — as was the case for Anderson. "I’m looking for somebody who can help me manage the system," Moseley said. In her resignation letter, Brewer-Rogstad said the ferry system has struggled since 1999 because of reduced funding, the result of voter support for anti-tax initiatives. She said she wants to spend the summer with her family before starting another job search, possibly again in the maritime industry. "I’ve been here 11 years and that is a long time," she said. "At least eight, if not nine of those years has been in this environment of funding crisis."
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on May 19, 2008 17:16:11 GMT -8
There's an article in the Seattle Times that has a lot of ferry graphics and charts today. Nothing too new for ferry fans, but there is info on which ferries are on which routes (as on May 12) and which routes carry what proportion of WSF's total passengers. Sure, there are details in there that we can nitpick on their incorrectnesses. Coleman Dock got moved about 4 piers to the South. But who's counting. Typical fact checking in most any report.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 20, 2008 3:37:47 GMT -8
Coleman Dock got moved about 4 piers to the South. But who's counting. Typical fact checking in most any report. Actually, only one pier. Piers 49 and 51 don't exist any more, and Pier 50 is the passenger-only end of Pier 52, the real address of Colman Dock. ;D
|
|