|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 30, 2008 8:58:45 GMT -8
I, for one, think it's time to take a bulldozer to the politics of the Sidney situation, and dump the run. It's an economic decision at this point, and Sidney is not essential service. At a time when WSF badly needs ferries, Chelan is one extra ferry that could be absorbed 100% back into the domestic fleet - I say 100% because Chelan does do a few domestic sailings, but that run to Sidney eats up most of the day.
That point aside, I would love to see the Anacortes terminal re-done. It badly needs it, but I, like Bryan K, am wondering how much of a priority this project really should be given, especially with the lack of ferries and other issues facing the system. The only reason I can think of for keeping this project, is because it's not as intensive as some of the other terminal relocation / expansion projects - ie. Mukilteo, Edmonds, Colman Dock, Bainbridge. That's especially true if the scope of the Anacortes project gets limited to just the terminal building itself, and, I suppose, the vehicle circulation route and short-term parking area, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 30, 2008 9:01:04 GMT -8
People spend a lot of time at the Anacortes dock in the summer. There are often back ups in the summer (though I didn't notice any this year, frankly) and people are often forced to sit around at the terminal for a while. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem the rest of the year, though. The biggest problems most of the year are the people who show up at (or five minutes after) sailing time, needing to buy a ticket, and expecting to get on the boat. If THOSE people would get their act together, the crowd waiting would be about two-thirds its size. ;D
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Nov 5, 2008 23:12:20 GMT -8
I have been thinking a bit about a quote from a recent David Moseley interview that was on a variety of subjects. In that interview, one of the things he brought up was: Currently, I am aware of the following transit options among the traditionally commuter routes: - Kitsap Transit offers many routes to the Bremerton and Bainbridge Island ferry terminals.
- Kitsap Transit offers some limited service to the Kingston ferry terminal.
- Seattle is, of course, served by any Metro route that heads downtown, as long as you are willing to walk uphill to get there.
- Edmonds has good commuter service via Community Transit to Seattle and UW and other locations. Edmonds also has a Sounder stop.
- Mukilteo has CT service to Seattle, the UW, and elsewhere, and also a Sounder stop.
- Island Transit runs trips to the Clinton terminal from Oak Harbor and other places on Whidbey Island.
The above options all have one thing in common. All of them involve getting off the bus, traveling on the ferry, then getting on another vehicle on the other side. There is also: - A whole lot of options for vanpools. These target a group of people who live in Place A and work in Place B, and drive them the whole way, including across on the ferry.
And, no, I haven't forgotten Vashon Island. Vashon has Metro Transit service on both sides of the ferry, and also three trips a day each way that actually get on and off the ferry. OK, given all of that information, I have a bunch of questions I have been trying to think my way through, and I'm wondering if anyone here can offer some opinions. - What the heck is Moseley talking about, anyway? Are there really not enough options now? Or do they need coordinating?
- Other than issues involving frequency or timing of service, there seems to be a lot of options on the Seattle/Edmonds/Mukilteo side of the Sound. Does anyone disagree?
- Is there ANYONE on the Kingston side who thinks there would be more people commuting by transit, if only there were more options? (That's the one I'm least familiar with.)
- Is there a market for transit service that actually boards the ferry? Does anyone think that there are any commuters out there that would use transit, if only there weren't all that transferring from bus to ferry to bus again?
- Conversely, does that 118 Express (or whatever the thru bus to Seattle is called to distinguish it from the one that stays on Vashon) actually do anything? In other words, is there really any advantage to having the SAME vehicle on both sides of the ferry route? Is it a service that folks everywhere would crave?
It just goes like this: Is there room for improvement? Is it a crisis? Does Moseley even know what he is talking about? Is it all just fine right now? Or should I move in with a couple of buses somewhere and a stack of advertising flyers and get to work? I would like to see a discussion of how commuters coordinate their trips between buses/trains and ferries, and just what kind of changes really need to be made.
|
|
|
Post by Freeland on Nov 6, 2008 19:59:32 GMT -8
One of best Monthly passes is one at Mukilteo for Boeing workers. In my case , I would catch an Island Transit bus at Park and Ride at Freeland. I would get off at Clinton and show them my pass for the Ferry. At Mukilteo I would show the bus driver the same pass. The Boeing Bus would go up to Plaine Field. In my case I worked at Verizon near their Supply center. I would walk 2 blocks to my office. Cost back in 2003 was $90 dollars for the month. Since retiring , I'm not sure what the Cost is now, but it was a easy way to get to work. One thing for sure, you do get to know a lot of people on both buses and the Ferry. I still in contact with some of those comuters today, even after being retire for 5 years..........Emory at Freeland
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 10, 2008 8:50:18 GMT -8
Here's a reader-opinion item from Kitsap Sun re a Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee examination of peak-hour pricing: www.kitsapsun.com:80/news/2008/nov/10/my-turn-peak-hour-fare-hikes-are-costly-and/========================= Letters to the Editor MY TURN: Peak-Hour Fare Hikes Are Costly and ImpracticalAt public meetings around the Puget Sound, state ferries officials explained how losing Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenue had made our ferry system unsustainable. They presented strategies, including peak-hour fares, to address this shortfall. As peak-hour fares would be expensive for Kitsap's commuters they deserve a close examination. "Stasis" refers to the generally accepted questions used to examine a proposition. For public policies the stases are: What's the problem? What's the cause? Will the proposal fix it? Do the benefits outweigh the cost? So here's a Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee examination of peak-hour pricing: What's the problem? WSF: The cost of building ferries. FAC: (More on this assumption later.) What's the cause? WSF: Previously we've built ferries when peak demand exceeded the available capacity. FAC: Today it's the need to replace 60 percent of our ferry fleet by 2030 that drives construction, not demand. Will peak hour fares fix the problem? WSF: Higher peak fares will shift riders to off-peak times and reduce capital needs. FAC: This assumes there are "off-peak" times that riders can shift to. In the summer, our Kingston-Edmonds congestion doesn't taper of off until about 10 p.m. Summer riders will go around across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge rather than take a ferry that late. During the rest of the year, the predominant traffic direction follows the workday. It's eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Peak pricing cannot expect to change these directions or shift riders to night work. Does the benefit outweigh the cost? WSF: Commuters should "expect to pay more for using a scarce resource". FAC. As it's only commuter routes that pay their way, arguably it's the commuters' revenue that provides the ferry "resource" for others to use. Kingston's car commuters pay about $4,500-plus per year in fares. Eliminating their frequent-user fares is a 40 percent increase, even without a peak surcharge. This puts the transportation costs of median-income commuters well above the "red flag" used by budget counselors. Is a ferry system affordable only to workers making over $100K/yr. responsible policy in a $50K/yr. median-income county? Where peak pricing is being used, the fares aren't comparable. The Washington, D.C., Metro commuter train system, with median rider incomes of $99K, adds a $1.25 peak surcharge to an average fare of only $1.85. Washington State Ferries needs to reduce costs, but there are better ways. Reservations would be more effective and less expensive than peak fares in shifting demand. As riders check the ferry space ahead of time, demand will shift to the boats with room. By show-up at the loading time, lines of cars will disappear along with wait times. Our 80-year-old ferries fell apart because the concrete in their bilges allowed hull corrosion to continue unobserved for decades. Modern inspection and preservation should extend our 1960s era ferries well beyond their assumed 60-year life. Why shouldn't WSF recover the state taxes paid for ferry construction materials and fuel? What about costly work rules and empty ferry runs? Like barnacles it's all the small costs that drag ferries down. These extra costs are spelled out in innumerable reports. We need a state ferries system that's determined to eliminate them. Now back to the basic problem. After the Legislature repealed MVET, the lost money was subsequently recovered through increased gas taxes. A problem was created when not enough of that tax money was earmarked to sustain the ferries. Taxes and where they go is our political leaders' responsibility. As the governor has pointed out, with a 60 percent fare increase since 2000, ferry riders have already done their part. It's now up to our legislators to do theirs. Walt Elliott Chairman Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee =============================
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 16, 2008 8:08:02 GMT -8
Here's a review from the Kitsap Sun. We can use this thread to do our own reviews too, for those of us who own this book. www.kitsapsun.com:80/news/2008/nov/16/bookmonger-crossings-celebrates-our-affair-with/==================== Crossings Celebrates Our Affair with Ferries Born and raised locally, I have had a lifelong fondness for ferries, and I have always regarded with suspicion those ferry commuters who seem to be blasé about their daily transits across Puget Sound. To have those mountains! Those shorelines! The wind in your face! The ever-changing scene in the shipping lanes! The possibility of an orca sighting! Why some people prefer to huddle inside and do a crossword puzzle or nap is entirely beyond me. Fortunately, Michael Diehl is not one of those ho-hum types. A regular commuter on the Bainbridge Island-Seattle run, Diehl carries his camera with him, and the images he's captured over the last few years first made their appearance as an Internet posting. Now Diehl has compiled a larger selection of more than 375 color photographs into a book called "Crossings: On the Ferries of Puget Sound." Available in both softbound and hardcover versions, the book does not come cheap, but careful attention was paid to production values, and that counts for something. It's hard to take a bad photograph from the deck of a ferryboat with such great subject matter at hand. Diehl includes typically terrific shots of downtown Seattle gleaming in the morning light, and ferries passing by one another on the Sound, and the Cascades and the Olympics in varying moods and, of course, Mt. Rainier. Diehl comments that some people call the Mountain "the Big Mountain." Have you ever heard anybody say that? I haven't. One of my favorite images is a two-page spread of downtown Seattle observed from the middle of Elliott Bay. It looks to be monochromatic — one of those notorious gray-weather days the Puget Sound region is famous for — except for the container ship in the foreground that has just crossed in front of the ferry. The containers it is carrying, stacked five high, present a checkerboard of muted color. Diehl argues that every transit of the Sound aboard a ferry is unique — water, wind, and weather conditions all change, time of day and time of year have a bearing as well. While that is true, some of the images still seemed redundant. The photos of passengers seemed to be dutiful chronicle rather than insightful portraiture. I was sorry, too, that Diehl didn't do much to capture the details of the tasks performed by ferry workers, whose movements sometimes look choreographed. Another criticism is that "Crossings" is pretty much limited to the Bainbridge/Seattle run. While that run is undeniably photogenic, Diehl would have been able to inject more personality of place into the book if he had included other routes. The book contains interesting factual tidbits about our region, ferryboats, and the Washington State Ferry system. But as for the occasional written reflections, I'd advise Diehl to stick with the visuals. A picture is worth a thousand words. There is, however, a wonderful concrete poem that is given an unassuming spot mid-book. It really deserves to be placed upfront, where it can't be missed. ===========================
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 19, 2008 21:38:36 GMT -8
Did I accurately read somewhere on another post that this book has been withdrawn from print already?
|
|
M/V LeConte
Chief Steward
~ I believe in Ferries! ~
Posts: 147
|
Post by M/V LeConte on Nov 30, 2008 6:25:46 GMT -8
An article from the MarineLog. www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMVII/2008nov00282.htmlWSDOT set to accept Todd bid for one ferryAlthough it's not yet been made official, Washington State Ferries will accept Todd Pacific Shipyard's bid to build one 64-car ferry for the Keystone-Port Townsend route, State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen told the Island County Council of Governments Nov. 26, according to the Whidbey Examiner. "The bid has not been [made official], but the decision was made yesterday; we will be going ahead with one boat," Haugen said, adding that the announcement had not yet been made public. On Nov. 13, Washington State Ferries opened the bids for the construction of two new 64-car ferries based on the Island Home design. WSDOT received one bid from Todd Pacific Shipyards. Bids were solicited for construction and delivery of one or two 64-auto ferries. Todd's proposed bid price is $124,450,559.00 for two vessels and $65,487,328.00 for one vessel. The WSDOT engineer's estimate is $95,943,865.00 for two vessels and $49,452,894.00 for one vessel. According to the Whidbey Examiner, Senator Haugen said state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond contacted her Nov. 25 to inform her that Governor Christine Gregoire had given the O.K. to accept Todd's bid to construct just one vessel. The newpaper says that Haugen insisted that two vessels will ultimately be built for the route. Money that has been set aside for the construction of 144-car ferries will likely be used for the construction of at least one more ferry based on the Island Home design, she said. Governor was reportedly unwilling to accept Todd's bid to build both Island Home vessels since its quote may have been inflated because it was the sole bidder. According to the Whidbey Examiner, Haugen said Gregoire was only willing to accept Todd's bid to build one ferry because a replacement vessel is needed on the run as soon as possible. Under state law, only Washington State shipyards may bid for WSDOT ferry contracts in the case of vessels carrying up to 100 motor vehicles. That would seem to open the door for WSDOT to look further afield for a builder of the 144-car vessels.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 30, 2008 12:11:10 GMT -8
An article from the MarineLog. www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMVII/2008nov00282.htmlWSDOT set to accept Todd bid for one ferryAlthough it's not yet been made official, Washington State Ferries will accept Todd Pacific Shipyard's bid to build one 64-car ferry for the Keystone-Port Townsend route, State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen told the Island County Council of Governments Nov. 26, according to the Whidbey Examiner. "The bid has not been [made official], but the decision was made yesterday; we will be going ahead with one boat," Haugen said, adding that the announcement had not yet been made public. On Nov. 13, Washington State Ferries opened the bids for the construction of two new 64-car ferries based on the Island Home design. WSDOT received one bid from Todd Pacific Shipyards. Bids were solicited for construction and delivery of one or two 64-auto ferries. Todd's proposed bid price is $124,450,559.00 for two vessels and $65,487,328.00 for one vessel. The WSDOT engineer's estimate is $95,943,865.00 for two vessels and $49,452,894.00 for one vessel. According to the Whidbey Examiner, Senator Haugen said state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond contacted her Nov. 25 to inform her that Governor Christine Gregoire had given the O.K. to accept Todd's bid to construct just one vessel. The newpaper says that Haugen insisted that two vessels will ultimately be built for the route. Money that has been set aside for the construction of 144-car ferries will likely be used for the construction of at least one more ferry based on the Island Home design, she said. Governor was reportedly unwilling to accept Todd's bid to build both Island Home vessels since its quote may have been inflated because it was the sole bidder. According to the Whidbey Examiner, Haugen said Gregoire was only willing to accept Todd's bid to build one ferry because a replacement vessel is needed on the run as soon as possible. Under state law, only Washington State shipyards may bid for WSDOT ferry contracts in the case of vessels carrying up to 100 motor vehicles. That would seem to open the door for WSDOT to look further afield for a builder of the 144-car vessels. Where does this 100 vehicle limit come from? For some reason, this does not make good sense.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 30, 2008 14:04:19 GMT -8
Where does this 100 vehicle limit come from? For some reason, this does not make good sense. It's news to me. I've never heard of it before.
|
|
|
Post by anomie on Nov 30, 2008 21:33:22 GMT -8
The up to a hundred-car ferry was in the law passed to build the Steel Electric replacement ferries.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Dec 1, 2008 3:16:22 GMT -8
I think there are a couple of different laws being talked about here: From 2008. The term "for service on routes that require a vessel that carries no more than one hundred motor vehicles" would refer to the replacement ferries for the Steel-Electrics. Therefore, this would require these boats to be built in Washington: RCW 47.56.780 New ferry vessel construction for service on routes that require a vessel that carries no more than one hundred motor vehicles — How constructed — Warranty work.
(1) The department shall construct one or more new ferry vessels for service on routes that require a vessel that carries no more than one hundred motor vehicles. The department shall include in the procurement of the new vessels a requirement that the vessels be constructed within the boundaries of the state of Washington, except that equipment furnished by the state and components, products, and systems that are standard manufactured items are not subject to the in-state requirement under this subsection.
(2) For purposes of this section, "constructed" means: The fabrication, by the joining together by welding or fastening, of all steel parts from which the total vessel is constructed including, but not limited to, all shell frames, longitudinals, bulkheads, webs, piping runs, wire ways, and ducting. "Constructed" also means (a) the installation of all components and systems including, but not limited to, equipment and machinery, castings, electrical, electronics, deck covering, lining, paint, and joiner work required by the contract and (b) the interconnection of all equipment, machinery, and services, such as piping, wiring, and ducting.
(3) The procurement of the new ferry vessels must also include a requirement that all warranty work on the vessels be performed within the boundaries of the state of Washington, insofar as practicable. [2008 c 4 § 2.]
================================================ A different set of laws from 2001 seems to require "Design-build" ferries to be built in the State of Washington. A discussion of design-build projects is described in this Seattle P-I article from May 2001, but is a process where the same company designs and builds the ferry. The article seems to be describing Issaquah-type ferries that are "four midsize ferries, each capable of carrying 100 to 110 vehicles plus passengers." From 2001: RCW 47.60.814 Design-build ferries — Issuance of request for proposals.
Subject to legislative appropriation for the procurement of vessels, the department shall issue a request for proposals to interested parties that must include, at least, the following:
(1) Solicitation of a proposal to participate in a design and build partnership with the department to design and construct the auto ferries;
(2) Instructions on the prequalification process and procedures;
(3) A description of the modified request for proposals process. Under this process, the department may modify any component of the request for proposals, including the outline specifications, by addendum at any time before the submittal of bids in phase three;
(4) A description of the design and build partnership process to be used for procurement of the vessels;
(5) Outline specifications that provide the requirements for the vessels including, but not limited to, items such as length, beam, displacement, speed, propulsion requirements, capacities for autos and passengers, passenger space characteristics, and crew size. The department will produce notional line drawings depicting hull geometry that will interface with Washington state ferries terminal facilities. Notional lines may be modified in phase two, subject to approval by the department;
(6) Instructions for the development of technical proposals in phase two, and information regarding confidentiality of technical proposals;
(7) The vessel delivery schedule, identification of the port on Puget Sound where delivery must take place, and the location where acceptance trials must be held;
(8) The estimated price range for the contract;
(9) The form and amount of the required bid deposit and contract security;
(10) A copy of the contract that will be signed by the successful proposer;
(11) The date by which proposals in phase one must be received by the department in order to be considered;
(12) A description of information to be submitted in the proposals in phase one concerning each proposer's qualifications, capabilities, and experience;
(13) A statement of the maximum number of proposers that may be selected in phase one for development of technical proposals in phase two;
(14) Criteria that will be used for the phase one selection of proposers to participate in the phase two development of technical proposals;
(15) A description of the process that will be used for the phase three submittal and evaluation of bids, award of the contract, and postaward administrative activities;
(16) A requirement that the contractor comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations including but not limited to those pertaining to the environment, worker health and safety, and prevailing wages;
(17) A requirement that the vessels be constructed within the boundaries of the state of Washington except that equipment furnished by the state and components, products, and systems that are standard manufactured items are not subject to the in-state requirement under this subsection. For the purposes of this subsection, "constructed" means the fabrication, by the joining together by welding or fastening of all steel parts from which the total vessel is constructed, including, but not limited to, all shell frames, longitudinals, bulkheads, webs, piping runs, wire ways, and ducting. "Constructed" also means the installation of all components and systems, including, but not limited to, equipment and machinery, castings, electrical, electronics, deck covering, lining, paint, and joiner work required by the contract. "Constructed" also means the interconnection of all equipment, machinery, and services, such as piping, wiring, and ducting; and
(18) A requirement that all warranty work on the vessel must be performed within the boundaries of the state of Washington, insofar as practical. [2001 c 226 § 6.]=============================================== So, in summary, there is a law that says the Steel-Electric's replacements must be built in Washington. But another law pretty much says that any other ferry must be built in Washington, too. I think. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by blackballsghost on Dec 4, 2008 20:38:37 GMT -8
Hello All,
First time post but have been reading here silently for a bit.
Sometime ago well trawling on the web I came across a picture of a BC Ferry docked at one of the slips at WSF's terminal in Seattle.
I can't seem to locate nor recall where exactly I came across it (perhaps this forum). As I recall the photo dated from the 1980's and the BC vessel was docked as part of some trial regarding loading configurations or equipment or something of the sort.
Does this ring a bell with any of you people?
I would appreciate a pointer as it has been driving me batty that I failed to bookmark the site or grab the photo.
Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Dec 4, 2008 20:57:55 GMT -8
This was the MV QUEEN OF BURNABY and was in the early 1990s. She was, in disguise as MV ROYAL VICTORIAN, testing out the WSF dock for use as a backup in case if Pier 48 could not be used (for whatever any reasons on any trip) in her Victoria Line service between Seattle and Victoria.
I emailed WSF after seeing this on a TV news report with the above result.
She did this just prior to her first public trips on the Seattle - Victoria run (after the then new Spirit-Class ferries released her for the Seattle service).
|
|
|
Post by blackballsghost on Dec 4, 2008 21:04:36 GMT -8
That point aside, I would love to see the Anacortes terminal re-done. It badly needs it, but I, like Bryan K, am wondering how much of a priority this project really should be given, especially with the lack of ferries and other issues facing the system. The only reason I can think of for keeping this project, is because it's not as intensive as some of the other terminal relocation / expansion projects - ie. Mukilteo, Edmonds, Colman Dock, Bainbridge. That's especially true if the scope of the Anacortes project gets limited to just the terminal building itself, and, I suppose, the vehicle circulation route and short-term parking area, as well. Actually, currently on the Terminal Engineering side of the Budget; Anacortes and Mukilteo are the only Terminals that are going to be programmed for full-blown replacement as 'Multimodal' facilities. The rest are 'dead' for all intents and purposes. In some ways I agree with you that it may not be a priority considering other pressing needs but since these two projects have Federal matching funds they probaly will go onward. Right now we are trying to get Anacortes's design in shape to hopefully start construction in 2009 but we will see. Out of all the 'Taj Mahal' terminals that were envisioned five or so years ago it is the only one that is close to final design status right now (90%). Next is Mukilteo with design strung out for four or so years and a completion planned for 2019. As far as the Edmonds relocation some of us internally are convinced it will never be built. Lots of uncertainty in what form the budget will evetually take but it seems likely that 100+ million to relocate the Terminal to the Unocal pier location will be sacrificed on the chopping block of fiscal priorities.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 5, 2008 17:38:21 GMT -8
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Dec 5, 2008 18:39:10 GMT -8
All operations of the QPR in Seattle, during the Summer of 1980, was at Pier 69 along the northern waterfront.
By the way, I was listening to this ship on the VTS channel here. The ship was manned by the same crew who usually ran the PRINCESS MARGUERITE. One officer usually replied after receiving traffic information "EH, THE MARGUERITE, ROGER". Well, he said this same reply once on the QPR! He later corrected himself and said "EH, THE VICTORIA PRINCESS, ROGER".
As said in another thread, the QPR docked alongside piers on the SEA-VIC run. She had no side doors for cars like the MAGGIE had. Therefore, no car service on this run in 1980. A barge was moored at these docks so bicyclists could board on her tongue and ride through her "mouth". She gobbled up bikes and human beings, not cars, in 1980. A Boeing Jetfoil, built in Renton nearby, was used as supplement.
|
|
Scott2
Voyager
Missing everyone. Glad to see some newer members on here.
Posts: 48
|
Post by Scott2 on Dec 15, 2008 22:20:13 GMT -8
I'm confused on the Queen of Burnaby....was she the Royal Victorian at one point? I remember riding the Princess Marguerite III in the early to mid nineties and I remember seeing a permanent plaque of some type identifying the ship as the Queen of Burnaby. This was in a stairwell to a crew area, possibly the engine room. Did she said to Seattle under two different disguises at different times? I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 15, 2008 22:26:59 GMT -8
She sure did. She was the MV Royal Victorian when she was first used on the Seattle - Victoria route. It wasn't until a little later in the 90's when she was changed to the MV Princess Margueritte III Here's how she is today. www.pbase.com/ferryman/mv_queen_of_burnaby
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 18, 2008 17:55:12 GMT -8
Here's a one-off unique item for this thread. Not the best place for it, but it will do as there's a small mention of Wash-state. For those interested in the lives of mariners, here's an obituary-article for a SF Bay ferry captain.... www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/17/BA1V14P6SS.DTL================ Michael L. Beatie, S.F. bay ferry captain, dies Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, December 18, 2008 Michael L. Beatie, a retired Golden Gate ferry captain and an expert on the tides and currents of San Francisco Bay, died in his sleep of natural causes at the family home in Corte Madera on Dec. 11. He was 67. Mr. Beatie - who was always called "Mik" - spent nearly his whole life on the salt water, working on tugs and ferries and in his spare time as a yachtsman and racing sailor. "He loved being on the water," said his son, Hogan, who sailed with his father as part of the support crew in the St. Francis Yacht Club's challenge for the America's Cup. Mr. Beatie also sailed on boats big and small - from the one-person Laser sailboats to large sailing yachts. He was often consulted by visiting racing yacht skippers because of his exhaustive knowledge of the complex tides and currents on San Francisco Bay. Mr. Beatie was born in Hood River, Ore., in 1941, and inherited his love of the sea from his father, Walter C. Beatie, a naval officer. He was raised in San Diego, Hawaii and Marin County. Mr. Beatie was a member of the first class to graduate from Redwood High School in Larkspur and also attended the College of Marin. When he was 23, he was invited to crew on the famed ketch Orion for an ocean race to Tahiti, which was the beginning of his career on racing yachts. He later pursued a career as a professional mariner, working on oceangoing tugboats. He joined the Golden Gate Bridge District's ferry operation in 1973 as a relief skipper on the San Francisco-Sausalito run and in 1977 became a permanent ferry captain on the Larkspur run. He retired in 2006. Mr. Beatie was known for his ship-handling expertise and he was chosen to deliver new ferries from the shipyard on Puget Sound in Washington to the Bay Area. On one trip, he maneuvered the new 141-foot ferry Mendocino into the tiny Noyo River fishing harbor so the boat could be christened. "Mik Beatie was a mentor to generations of ferry operators," said Bridge District spokeswoman Mary Currie. "He had the rare quality of being liked by people of all ages," said his son, Hogan. "He was my best friend." In addition to his son, who lives in San Clemente (Orange County), Mr. Beatie is survived by his widow, Suzi of Corte Madera, and two sisters, Lucinda Ely of Lafayette and Kren Sivley of Castro Valley. Services will be private. E-mail Carl Nolte at cnolte@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page B - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle ========================
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Dec 19, 2008 16:11:32 GMT -8
By Associated Press
PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. (AP) - When the Hood Canal Bridge closes for reconstruction this spring, commercial truck drivers will have an alternative to driving a more than 100-mile detour.
A special ferry will transport trucks from Port Townsend to Edmonds, so trucks moving products from local paper mills and other businesses can get to their destinations more efficiently.
An Issaquah-class ferry will be used for the special route after it is pulled from normal service on the Kingston-Edmonds route.
State ferry officials say the service will run Sunday through Thursday, leaving Edmonds at 8:40 p.m. and departing Port Townsend at 10:40 p.m.
The ferry will have room for six 82-foot tractor-trailers and 86 passenger vehicles, plus 1,200 foot passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 19, 2008 17:20:15 GMT -8
That totals to 110 vehicle spaces. Not on the Sealth, they won't...
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 19, 2008 20:26:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 20, 2008 10:24:14 GMT -8
I love the part under Plan B of reducing the Bremerton run to one boat starting in 2011. That ought to go over well.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 20, 2008 10:35:33 GMT -8
It seems to me that these options are one extreme to the other. Plan A kind of goes forward with the expansion plans like we are not in a recession, whereas Plan B is a total gut of the system. I sincerely hope we can compromise and find a solution in between.
|
|