|
Post by roeco on Dec 20, 2008 22:19:05 GMT -8
wow..the Queen of Burnaby sure had a pretty major upgrade...
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Dec 21, 2008 2:32:01 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. More info on my above posting. At the time the QPR was subbing for the MAGGIE, Captain Douglas Adlum was at the bridge aboard the Seattle-Victoria run. He did virtually all of the initial reports to the VTS while the officer was on the pier, directing cars "into the hole" as he often said. This officer wore a different style of officer's cap than what we normally see. It was sort of "off-style" British or Scottish kind that may have been worn by military people. The officer always said when calling the Seattle VTC: "EH, SEATTLE TRAFFIC, SEATTLE TRAFFIC, THE PRINCESS MARGUERITE". We continue on: "PRINCESS MARGUERITE, SEATTLE TRAFFIC". "WE HAVE REDUCED SPEED, NO POINT AREA, WE'LL RESUME SPEED SHORTLY". "PRINCESS MARGUERITE, SEATTLE TRAFFIC, ROGER, REQUEST A CALL WHEN RESUMING SPEED, OVER". "EH, THE MARGUERITE, ROGER". All ships creating wakes are required to slow down when passing Point No Point to reduce property damage there. The MAGGIE created royal sized wakes. Can't remember if the QPR did this too. As said in the above box, he substituted the MAGGIE's name with VICTORIA PRINCESS in 1980. Captain Adlum, on the other hand, had a very authoritative voice. It was very neat to hear him calling the Montlake Bridge to tell the bridge tender the MAGGIE was on her way down Lake Washington returning to Puget Sound from a visit to Sand Point for a special dinner engagement there, which I and my family attended. I watched her go through the locks on her way into the Ship Canal earlier that day. She caused quite a traffic slow down on SR 520 as she was a rare sighting on Lake Washington. A news report showed her with Husky Stadium in the background, a sight you would never see regularly. This was just before her season started in the early 1980s. Another thing you might be interested in. After the VTC gave well respected Puget Sound pilot Philip Luther traffic info, his typical reply was: "GENTLE RIVER ACKNOWLEDGE!". His calls to the VTC always went typically like this: "ARCO SAG RIVER TO SEATTLE TRAFFIC". He piloted mostly freighters on Puget Sound and BC and was my favourite pilot to listen to on the VTS channels!! Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming, in progress, of the chatting about the QUEEN OF BURNABY's visit to Colman Dock here in the Emerald City (right now under a blanket of nature's dandruff).
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 21, 2008 13:53:55 GMT -8
WOW, we can plan again.........a great way not to do anything .
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Dec 21, 2008 17:21:11 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. BC Ferries recovers about 80% of its costs from passenger revenue, and that's after some pretty drastic fare increases. This 'Plan B' provides for 97% of costs to be recovered at the farebox. I think that's a ridiculous requirement for an essential public transportation system. 'Plan A' entails only modest capacity improvements, with essential fleet maintenance, and recovers 87% of costs. A very good return. Americans aren't as highly taxed as many think they are, compared to most other wealthy western nations. Sometimes you just have to recognize an essential expense, and pony up.
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Dec 22, 2008 9:24:56 GMT -8
By The Associated Press
BREMERTON — The state Department of Transportation has officially told Seattle-Bremerton ferry riders what they can expect when a car ferry is "borrowed" from their route to serve another route in an emergency.
Two car ferries serve the route, but one of them is sometimes diverted to serve elsewhere if another boat unexpectedly has to be pulled from service.
The new "emergency service disruptions" plan calls for Washington State Ferries (WSF) to contract two passenger-only vessels, with a capacity of 149 passengers each, to take up the slack if one of the car ferries is temporarily pulled from the Bremerton-Seattle route.
But the plan also contains a caveat.
"While WSF will make every effort to provide two-boat passenger-only service as soon as possible ... there may be times when we will continue to operate service for a period with only one vehicle ferry," the plan states.
The plan says the Bremerton route is often the one that has to give up one of its boats in an emergency, because it has more walk-on passengers and more connections to other transit systems compared with other ferry terminals.
Joan Dingfield, a member of the Bremerton Ferry Advisory Committee and the Ferry Advisory Executive Committee, said it was positive to have a plan in place, but she added that the Bremerton- Seattle run is just one piece of the ferries puzzle.
"I am not as concerned about this plan as much as the long-range plan," she told the Kitsap Sun newspaper. That plan predicts that without changes in its current operations, the ferry system will be $3.5 billion short of what it needs to replenish its fleet by 2030.
She said she expects the state will propose a major adjustment to the system, including cutting service and raising fares.
"They have to," Dingfield said. "There's no money."
Raising fares and eliminating runs on some routes still would not fill the hole, the report concludes.
The draft plan also suggests the state postpone construction of new 144-car boats until at least 2013 and build smaller ferries instead.
"It's the day of reckoning that's been coming for some time," Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said. "We have a lot of difficult discussions ahead with the Legislature."
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2009 10:32:34 GMT -8
The Vashon dudes might be interested in this one...it sounds like disorganization and failure to read a contract sunk a couple of business-people. seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008585665_ferrysuit03m.html================= Ex-Vashon Island restaurateurs sue state over canceled contract to offer ferry foodBy Susan Gilmore Seattle Times staff reporter The former owners of a Vashon Island restaurant, who provided food service on the Vashon Island ferry, have filed a lawsuit against the state for terminating their contract. Bill Dorn and Norman Vork, who owned Sound Food, filed the suit Wednesday and are asking for more than $525,000 in damages. Sodexho, the company that held the ferry concession contract for six years, pulled out in January 2004, saying it wasn't making enough money. The state put the food concession out for bid, and the state signed a 10-year contract with Sound Food in 2004. But there was a provision in the contract, which Dorn said he didn't realize was in there when he signed it, for an eight-month trial period. During the spring of 2006, the state put a ferry on the route (which runs between the Fauntleroy dock in West Seattle to Southworth on the Kitsap Peninsula with a stop at Vashon) that didn't have a galley; Dorn said he lost $20,000 for the 63 days he couldn't provide food on the ferries. He said his company would reduce its concession fees paid to the state until the $20,000 was made up. According to the suit, the state provided $1,000 a month to compensate for employee meal allowances, but Dorn said it was costing him $2,500 a month for workers' food. "This serious underestimate by Washington State Ferries resulted in lost revenue of approximately $1,500 per month, or $39,000 for the 26-month duration of Sound Food's performance under the contract," according to the suit. Dorn asserts that the state planned to cancel the contract for months, but didn't notify him until it officially terminated the contract. Service ended Dec. 31, 2006. In April 2007, Dorn filed a $82,000 claim with the state for terminating the contract, but Dorn said the state walked out of a mediation conference on that claim. That precipitated the lawsuit. The state said at the time that Sound Food violated its concession agreement when it tried to recover the lost $20,000. The state said even though food service was not available for that 63-day period, it was not liable. The state also claims there were accounting problems with the Sound Food contract. According to the termination letter sent by Tim McGuigan, director of legal services for the ferry system, it became clear early on "that Sound Food's accounting practices were deficient and needed prompt improvement to ensure the accuracy of reported sales and concession fees." According to the lawsuit, Dorn and Vork lost their restaurant on Vashon Island because of the financial crisis it faced and had to close it in May 2007. He, and Vork, also filed for bankruptcy. "That was our entire life savings that was lost in that process," said Dorn. "We're hoping to at least be made whole again." Dorn and Vork are asking for nearly $300,000 for the investment Sound Food made on the ferries and the termination of the contract, $225,000 for the loss of their Vashon restaurant and unspecified damages for the value of the contract. Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com ==================
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 3, 2009 13:39:12 GMT -8
Islanders skeptical about new ferry plan By JEFF VANDERFORD South Whidbey Record Sports, Port of S. Whidbey Today, 9:04 AM South Whidbey ferry riders expressed uncertainty about proposed changes to the way the system is run Wednesday. “A fuel surcharge? What’s that all about?” asked Jason Saunders of Greenbank as he waited in line for the Kittitas. In a report on long-range planning just released, the Department of Transportation is considering options to reduce the $3.5 billion budget shortfall expected over the next 20 years. Those options include asking riders to make reservations to curtail lines during times of heavy usage, adopting an automatic fuel surcharge whenever diesel prices spike, raising the basic rates on both vehicles and passengers, and cutting back capacity on selected routes, including the Clinton-Mukilteo run. For example, one plan calls for two 144-car vessels in summer, then a single 144-car and one 124-car in the fall, winter and spring. The alternate scenario would have the route served by two 124-car ferries year around. That’s a net loss of 20 cars that won’t make it onto the ferry each sailing, each way. The biggest proposed change is called Plan B by ferry officials. It envisions the state taking responsibility for the core marine highway system while a locally-funded entity would take on a new marine transit system. Local governments would assume the task of maintaining docks and terminals. The budget shortfall for the state is less under Plan B, but still significant at $1.3 billion. Currently, the state subsidizes 30 percent of ferry operations in Puget Sound; rider fares pay for the balance. Since 2000, the cost of taking a ferry has increased between 37 and 122 percent, and the difference between revenue and expenses continues to widen. The system already has a seasonal 25-percent surcharge that targets riders during peak times, mainly the summer tourist season. Since ridership fluctuates wildly between winter and summer sailings, ferry officials are considering a reservation program to guarantee a spot on board during the busy season. The idea of asking asking riders to guarantee a spot through advance reservations drew mixed reviews from passengers. “They can kiss Whidbey goodbye if they do that,” said Jerry Sullivan of Coupeville. “Folks would rather head north over Deception Pass than reserve a spot, whether it was free or not.” The report stressed that reservations would be free, but some questioned if that would work and whether people would show up or not. “It’s a real concern,” said Beth Benson of Greenbank. “I like the way it’s set up now. I don’t like the idea of reserving space if it means I can’t get across.” Sanders said that making people pay for reservations makes more sense. “If they don’t show, that money is lost to them and gained by the ferry system,” he said. Inge Roberts from Langley enjoys the current service provided by the ferries but doesn’t much like planning ahead. “That is why I live on an island,” she said. “I can understand rates going up, but it would seem a fuel surcharge could end up being an administrative nightmare.” Dan Schlangen from Clinton was skeptical on the proposed changes. “Ferry management is going to have to eat something for the way they’ve mismanaged the whole system,” he said. “With the new train service in Mukilteo and population going up here, anything that decreases capacity is a recipe for disaster.” He added that he didn’t think a realistic solution was on the horizon. “They need to be creative and progressive in their thinking, but I don’t see that happening any time soon,” he said. “Clearly, something has to change.” Nan Roth of Freeland uses a commuter ticket to save money and doesn’t feel a reservation system is justified. “You just have to know when to hit the lines,” she said. “If rates go up, I won’t like it but I understand the need.” Waiting in line to catch a South Whidbey High School basketball game in Mount Vernon, Stephanie Thornley from Greenbank said she travels on the Clinton ferry a minimum of four times a week. “We already pay a significant amount and I believe commuters should get a break,” she said. South Enders who want to know more about the state’s long-range plan are invited to a meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 6 at Useless bay Country Club. A copy of the report can be viewed online at www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/planning/ESHB2358. Jeff VanDerford can be reached at 221-5300 or jvanderford@southwhidbeyrecord.com.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jan 12, 2009 16:53:14 GMT -8
From the Kitsap Sun, some legislator is trying to query folks to see what might be involved in a "Plan C", as some happy medium between Plan A (reasonable replacement and retention of services) and Plan B (gutting WSF as we know it). =================================================== Legislator Asks Riders to Come Up With Plan C for State Ferries
By Ed Friedrich Thursday, January 8, 2009 BREMERTON Rep. Larry Seaquist invited riders Thursday night to design their own long-range ferry plan that he can sell to the state Legislature. The Gig Harbor Democrat, testifying at a public hearing on long-range plans for the Washington State Ferries, challenged the standing-room-only crowd to improve upon the state's Plan A and Plan B. Under Plan A, the state would build 10 new boats to replace retiring ones, slightly increasing capacity. But that would cost the state $3.5 billion more than is available over the next 22 years. Plan B, which parallels the governor's proposed ferry budget, would cut the Bremerton-Seattle route from two boats to one, eliminate night trips and rely on passenger-only ferries run by local governments to pick up the slack. There isn't money to pay for it, either, but the deficit would be a more manageable $1.4 billion. "Unfortunately, neither one is something that gives us a set of choices we can consider," Seaquist said. "We need a plan in the Legislature we can vote on. You have the expertise to design it. You folks know so much about ferries, and there's so much on the line." Seaquist called it Plan C — he said the C stands for citizens — "a workable ferry system that delivers for us what we need." He passed around a signup sheet to the 120 people who overflowed the seats at the Harborside Conference Center and spilled against its walls. Judging by the public testimony, Plan C won't look anything like Plan B. Thirty-six people signed up to speak. Not one had a nice thing to say about the bare-bones plan that ferry system planning director Ray Deardorf called the smallest ferry system possible without cutting an entire route. Riders stepped up to the mike, facing Deardorf and ferries director David Moseley, and blasted the plan as unworkable, unconscionable, unacceptable, ludicrous, inequitable and humiliating, among other things. Ferry officials quietly sat through 90 minutes of verbal lashing about an option they don't like any more than the riders do. They prepared Plan B for the likelihood that the Legislature, facing a $5.7 billion budget deficit, fails to raise their revenue. It was the best they could do without totally tearing apart the system, Deardorf said. Plan B would cut other routes besides Bremerton. Southworth-Vashon Island-Fauntleroy would lose one of its three boats. Port Townsend-Keystone would get one boat instead of two. There would be 22 total ferries under Plan A, including a backup boat, just 17 under Plan B. Although many Bremerton riders loved passenger-only ferries when the state was running them, they seem uneasy about putting the onus on local governments. "How are they going to be funded, by raising Kitsap County taxes?" asked Cindy Halliburton. "I live over here because that's where I can afford to live." Matt Ryan of Brownsville said if the state got out of the passenger-only ferry business because it wasn't viable, why does the state think it would be viable for the county? Bremerton Mayor Cary Bozeman said the existing level of service should be maintained until the state figures out an appropriate way to fund the ferry system. "They're trying to throw the burden back on local taxpayers because they didn't have the courage to deal with the issue," he said. "There's no way we're supporting an unfunded mandate or a reduction in service in Plan B."
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jan 13, 2009 12:22:13 GMT -8
From the "Remember When" section of the Kitsap Sun... www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/jan/11/remember-when/In 1984 (25 Years Ago) — More than 100 ferry riders have signed petitions protesting poor heating systems on the Issaquah-class boats. It was so cold last month, as low as 8 degrees, that some commuters went to their cars and started their engines so their heaters could run. That's against ferry regulations, no matter how cold it gets. "Only by running heat ducts at the bottoms of all walls can we get the maximum heat," the petition states. "This would be forcing the heat up, not down. At the present, only the ceilings are being heated."
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 13, 2009 15:37:50 GMT -8
From the "Remember When" section of the Kitsap Sun... www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/jan/11/remember-when/In 1984 (25 Years Ago) — More than 100 ferry riders have signed petitions protesting poor heating systems on the Issaquah-class boats. It was so cold last month, as low as 8 degrees, that some commuters went to their cars and started their engines so their heaters could run. That's against ferry regulations, no matter how cold it gets. "Only by running heat ducts at the bottoms of all walls can we get the maximum heat," the petition states. "This would be forcing the heat up, not down. At the present, only the ceilings are being heated." Well, speaking of heat, I paid a visit to the MV VASHON one day in the winter of 1985-86. She was moored to a dock in West Seattle that date. The people, who owned her then, had just installed a forced air oil furnace in her Saloon Deck cabin. The burnt oil joined the uptakes and went up her stack. I have never felt a warmer ferry cabin than what was inside the VASHON that day. And, it was quite a cold day. Had they used better judgment and safely landed her at her intended moorage on Miora Sound, Alaska, this would have came in handy up there.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 13, 2009 17:13:07 GMT -8
Southworth riders blast WSF plans
By JUSTINE FREDERIKSEN Port Orchard Independent Staff Writer Today, 4:33 PM · UPDATED
A decidedly frustrated group of Southworth ferry riders shared some decidedly strong opinions of two options for future service presented by Washington State Ferries officials Monday night.
“This is baloney. Neither of these options works and you know it,” said Jane Bedinger, a member of the Southworth Ferry Advisory Committee, addressing WSF director David Moseley and planning director Ray Deardorf in a packed room at South Colby Elementary School. “The first one is way too expensive, and the second is too stupid. This is incompetent.”
Bedinger was referring to “two visions” of the ferry system the Washington State Department of Transportation’s mapped out for the next 22 years.
The first, Plan A, would continue the current level of service and eventually “upsize” certain routes while incurring $3.5 billion worth of debt by 2030.
Plan B calls for “shrinking the fleet” of vessels and cutting back on routes, such as having only two boats serve Southworth-Vashon-Fauntleroy and one serve Bremerton, yet still leaving the agency $1.4 billion in the red.
“We are not recommending Plan B,” said Moseley. “Hopefully we have teed that up in such a way that the Legislature can effectively deal with this (funding issue) this year.”
Deardorf said the two plans should be looked at as if they were two “goal posts,” with Plan A on one side and Plan B on the other, and neither considered ideal.
Of the more than 100 riders who attended, none who spoke said they approved of either plan, and many accused WSF officials of not adequately performing their jobs.
One attendee, who said she had commuted on the WSF for 24 years, said she felt Kitsap County residents had a case for a class-action lawsuit for not being provided adequate access to the state’s marine highway system.
Still others, including 26th District State Sen. Derek Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor), said they wanted a third option.
“We need a proposal that respects our commuters, our community and our taxpayers,” said Kilmer, explaining that he hears his constituents saying they want more service, not less.
“We ask you to hear us,” he said, “really hear us, and come up with something that respects (us).”
A representative from 26th District Rep. Larry Seaquist’s (D-Gig Harbor) office then announced to the crowd that the lawmaker was “very concerned” about the two plans presented and was organizing a citizens’ group to “write a new plan” to present to the Legislature.
She said the group plans to meet at 9 a.m. on Saturday at the Norm Dicks Government Center in Bremerton, and the public is invited.
After Monday’s meeting, Deardorf and Moseley had five more meetings to attend in Bainbridge Island, Kingston, the San Juan Islands, Anacortes and West Seattle.
After collecting public input, Deardorf said WSF would be presenting their plans to the legislature “at the end of this month.”
In response to attendees who expressed concern about not being allowed to ask questions Monday night, Moseley said he “responds to every e-mail” and all questions will be posted on the agency’s website. Email questions to: moseled@wsdot.wa.gov
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 13, 2009 21:07:08 GMT -8
I just attended the meeting at Bainbridge Commons tonight, and the citizens there echoed many of the same comments we've been hearing from Southworth and Bremerton. Although Bainbridge itself will not see drastic service cuts in either plan, the ripple effect, if the state goes with Plan B, will probably see significant increases in Bainbridge ferry traffic with the resulting impact on Hwy 305 and Agate Pass Bridge. We would probably also see huge increases in traffic driving around, via Hwy 16, and utilizing the Narrows Bridge. While the twin bridge spans have eased congestion there, the infrastructure on both sides still has not caught up. Tonight, Moseley called the two plans "goalposts" which represent both extremes, and that the state is not favoring one or the other right now. Those statements didn't do much to quell the emotions of the attendees, and he got an earful. I didn't stay for the entire public comment period, but it was interesting to hear what people are thinking.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 2, 2009 12:51:31 GMT -8
More than 1,000 ferry workers agree to no raise
By Associated Press OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - More than 1,000 state ferry workers will voluntarily forego raises they negotiated with Gov. Chris Gregoire last year because of the downturn in the economy.
At a news conference Monday morning, Gregoire was joined by leaders from the five unions to announce the agreement. She says that the agreement will save the state $18 million over the next two years.
The unions were the first to come forward and ask that their contracts be renegotiated. Gregoire said several other unions have stepped forward and asked to do the same, but would not say who.
Gregoire is being sued by four other unions, including nurses and other state workers, because her proposed budget doesn't include money to pay for new labor contracts.
|
|
M/V LeConte
Chief Steward
~ I believe in Ferries! ~
Posts: 147
|
Post by M/V LeConte on Feb 3, 2009 11:49:10 GMT -8
From the Marine Log www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009feb00022.htmlFeb 2, 2009 Washington State rolls out new draft plan for ferries Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division (WSF) has released a revised draft Long-Range Plan. The plan highlights a need for $1.3 billion to $3.3 billion in new funding over the next 22 years to maintain the ferry system. WSF faces a significant fleet recapitalization requirement over the next 22 years. The fleet is among the oldest of any major ferry operator, with an average vessel age of more than 35 years (with oldest vessel being 62 years old, and the newest being 11 years old). The needs are significant over the next 22 years, as WSF will continue to invest in the ongoing preservation of its aging fleet as well as invest in a significant new vessel construction program to replace retiring vessels. WSF's problems with its aging fleet became inescapable on November 20, 2007, when four, nearly 80 year old Steel Electric Class ferries had to be dramatically removed from service because of concerns with hull integrity. They were ultimately retired because the cost of repairs was prohibitive. Since then WSF has been struggling to come up with an affordable solution to its capacity probelms. The just-released revised draft long range plan defines two very different scenarios for the state ferry system. Scenario A would make minor improvements to the system, but it would also require $3.3 billion of additional funding over the next 22 years. Scenario B would cut back some service and pare the system to its bare essentials, reducing the funding need to $1.3 billion. Scenario A would see the purchase of 11 new vessels to replace retired and retiring vessels. The bare bones Scenario B would see the purchase of just five new vessels and would also replace a Super Class vessel (144-car capacity) with a small vessel (between 40 and 50 vehicles capacity). In both scenarios, the Hyak (144-car vessel) would be refurbished, for approximately $20 million, to extend its life until 2032. Vessel Procurement Plans SCENARIO A 2010 Island Home No.1 Replace a Steel Electric (Port Townsend) 2011 Island Home No.2 Replace a Steel Electric (Port Townsend) 2011 Hyak reinvestment Invest in the Hyak to extend life 20 years 2012 Island Home No.3 Replace the Rhododendron (go to Point Defiance) 2013 144-car vessel No.1 Replace the Evergreen State 2015 144-car vessel No.2 Restore standby/reserve capacity; Hyak moved to standby 2017 144-car vessel No.3 Replace the Tillikum 2019 144-car vessel No.4 Replace the Klahowya 2021 144-car vessel No.5 Replace the Elwha 2023 144-car vessel No.6 Replace the Kaleetan 2025 144-car vessel No.7 Replace the Yakima 2027 Small Vessel No.1 Replace the Hiyu SCENARIO B 2010 Island Home No.1 Replace a Steel Electric (Port Townsend) 2011 Hyak reinvestment Invest in the Hyak to extend life 20 years 2021 Small Vessel No.1 Replace the Elwha 2023 Small Vessel No.2 Replace the Hiyu 2025 144-car vessel No.1 Replace the Kaleetan 2027 144-car vessel No.2 Replace the Yakima The revised draft plan updates a draft document released on Dec. 19, 2008 for public review and comment. WSF accepted comments on the draft through Monday, Jan. 26. During the 38-day comment period, WSF conducted a total of 10 public hearings in ferry-served communities to present the draft plan and to listen to public testimony. More than 1,300 individuals attended the public hearings, and hundreds in attendance testified. In addition, WSF received more than 800 written comments. To access the revised plan or read the public comments submitted between Dec. 19, 2008 and Jan. 26, 2009, visit www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/planning/ESHB2358.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Feb 4, 2009 11:07:46 GMT -8
More than 1,000 ferry workers agree to no raise By Associated Press OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - More than 1,000 state ferry workers will voluntarily forego raises they negotiated with Gov. Chris Gregoire last year because of the downturn in the economy. At a news conference Monday morning, Gregoire was joined by leaders from the five unions to announce the agreement. She says that the agreement will save the state $18 million over the next two years. The unions were the first to come forward and ask that their contracts be renegotiated. Gregoire said several other unions have stepped forward and asked to do the same, but would not say who. Gregoire is being sued by four other unions, including nurses and other state workers, because her proposed budget doesn't include money to pay for new labor contracts. What are the workers getting in return? An ironclad promise that there will be no layoffs, I would hope. Makes a mockery of the whole collective bargaining process. Why bother? Why not just say, "Well, if you can afford to give us a raise, fine, but if it's inconvenient, we'll just keep working for what we're getting now." Freezing peoples' pay is false economy. People just feel threatened and more tight laced financially, they spend less, and the whole economy is impacted. We seem to be living in an era where, more and more, people are made to feel like it's a privilege to have a job, and where they don't dare ask for more. This mindset will continue after the present downturn, and if you want to read how delighted the corporate world is at that prospect, check out Naomi Klein's book, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 5, 2009 9:05:16 GMT -8
We weren't actually asked.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 19, 2009 10:55:58 GMT -8
I actually think this isn't a bad idea. Maybe then we'd have our state reps and our guv quit denying that the ferry system is part of the highway system in this state. Angel proposes changing WSF's nameToday, 10:35 AM · UPDATED A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but a ferry system by another name could be in line for additional state funding. Or so goes the thinking behind a bill sponsored in Olympia this week by 26th District Rep. Jan Angel (R-Port Orchard) that would rename Washington State Ferries the Washington Marine Highway System. "Citizens throughout the Olympic Peninsula rely on ferry service for their livelihoods,” said Angel. “It's an integral part of our economy in Western Washington. Yet, when there's a shortfall in the state's transportation budget, it seems the first place lawmakers look to cut is service for Washington State Ferries." Angel said she got the idea from the state of Alaska, where she formerly lived. “No one would dream of removing a highway simply because funds are short,” she said. “Yet when you remove or curtail ferry service, that's exactly what you’re doing – removing a marine highway. We need to begin thinking of it as such. The best place to start is by changing the name to reflect the real purpose of our ferry system.” The measure has been referred to the House Transportation Committee for further consideration. “Alaska has the Alaska State Marine Highway System,” Angel said, “and everyone thinks of it that way. People in Alaska understand the importance of their marine highway in the movement of cars, people and freight. “I'm very concerned that because we think of the boats here in Washington as the ‘ferry system,'’ the priority of funding gets placed on the back burner,” Angel said. “We need to be looking at the bigger picture of what this system really does, and why it is so vital to our state's economy. This legislation would give credibility and accountability to the importance and function of our state ferries. We have a marine highway system in Washington, and that's how we need to consider it.”
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Feb 19, 2009 12:46:54 GMT -8
Let's keep the name MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM here in Alaska!!!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 19, 2009 12:55:32 GMT -8
Let's keep the name MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM here in Alaska!!! You don't have exclusive rights to it. It's how the Hawaii legislature refers to theirs. ;D
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Feb 19, 2009 13:02:33 GMT -8
Let's keep the name MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM here in Alaska!!! You don't have exclusive rights to it. It's how the Hawaii legislature refers to theirs. ;D I agree people think different when it is a MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. since you Said Hi and AK both have that wouldn't be a bad idea here..
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Feb 19, 2009 13:17:06 GMT -8
And how much money would it take to rebrand the system? How many signs would have to be changed? New brochures? Repainting? We are already cash strapped, why spend even more when the name we have already works.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 19, 2009 13:26:34 GMT -8
I don't see where any repainting would be involved, at least not more than usual. Just because WSF wold change to WSMHS, doesn't mean we have to change the colors of the boats. It isn't like we're joining with Alaska.
Brochures, etc., can simply be changed when the existing supply runs out. Signage, whenever it's 'gotten around to'--i.e., when the maintenance on the signs occurs, or they get damaged. And the 'Flying T' is DOT, so it wouldn't go anywhere. It's mostly a reminder that we are a piece of the highway system, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Feb 19, 2009 16:05:08 GMT -8
I would think that if they changed the name, they would have to change the whole brand, a la BC Ferries. Which means repainting the entire fleet.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 19, 2009 16:44:27 GMT -8
BC Ferries was attempting to separate BCF from the government. The rebranding was done so people would think of it as a completely separate entity. It sounds like all that would be done for WSF is to change the name so that it resembles a CLOSER relationship to WSDOT. As Barnacle says, the logo wouldn't change, and neither would the paint scheme.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Feb 19, 2009 18:50:37 GMT -8
I actually think this isn't a bad idea. Maybe then we'd have our state reps and our guv quit denying that the ferry system is part of the highway system in this state. I don't disagree that this could be a helpful step toward recognizing the state ferry system as an integral part of the state highway system as a whole. The sad part is that by merely relabeling the system, it probably WILL get our state reps thinking about the ferries differently. Something inside me just wishes that we (and our representatives) had the brains to see what something is and does without the need to relabel it so precisely. Next week: The legislature proposes to rename my alma mater "Washington State Place Where Young People Study Quite a Few Subjects". Perhaps if they understand the importance of what is done there at a university, they would not be as likely to cut it's funding. Go WSPWYPSQAFS Cougars!
|
|