D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 3, 2010 5:10:54 GMT -8
My kingdom for a legislator who is not afraid to actually make a decision! ;D LMAO! One would hope you have a small kingdom because, in all likelihood, after 3 months said legislator will probably have been converted to indecision or hung out to dry (though, technically, one could still classify political preservation a decision)...I'd hate to see you overpay! ;D
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 3, 2010 10:41:23 GMT -8
I'm still trying to find some information on the proposed Maneuverable Class of boats. I know it was not the one Matiniac proposed, supposedly held about 80 cars, was shallow draft and had conventional a propellor system, not RAD devices. Anyone know anything about this?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 3, 2010 10:47:24 GMT -8
To quote from the WSF web site: "The time line for construction of the 144-car ferries is dependent on the availability of funding." From the sound of things down there, it will be several years before the current financial crisis is solved and new vessels funded. Hopefully financial conditions will improve before 2025 At a minimum, a single 144-car ferry needs to be built by 2014 to replace the Evergreen State, which will be 60 years old by then, and scheduled for retirement per the state's new "vessel retirement" mandate. Either that, or we just simply lose a vessel without replacing it. Beyond that, the state would be in violation of its own rules if they choose to keep Evergreen operating beyond 2014. And, we'll be facing this situation again in 2018 and 2019 when Klahowya and Tillikum reach their retirement ages. I don't think we can afford to lose another ferry without replacing it, so I sincerely hope the state can scrape together some funding for that 1st 144. I'm not counting on it, but hope springs eternal?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 3, 2010 16:53:11 GMT -8
To quote from the WSF web site: At a minimum, a single 144-car ferry needs to be built by 2014 to replace the Evergreen State, which will be 60 years old by then, and scheduled for retirement per the state's new "vessel retirement" mandate. Either that, or we just simply lose a vessel without replacing it. Beyond that, the state would be in violation of its own rules if they choose to keep Evergreen operating beyond 2014. And, we'll be facing this situation again in 2018 and 2019 when Klahowya and Tillikum reach their retirement ages. I don't think we can afford to lose another ferry without replacing it, so I sincerely hope the state can scrape together some funding for that 1st 144. I'm not counting on it, but hope springs eternal? Just wondering who set this 60 year rule? Is it cemented in state law and approved by the Legislature and Governor? Is it a Coast Guard regulation? Is it a DOT Department rule or WSF rule? If it is made at the Department level it is more of a guideline and can easily be broken or changed without it being an important State violation. The reason I ask is that I believe new construction must be built in Washington as a matter of State law and this eliminates the use of Federal funds for these prokects. Repairs, maintenance, upgrading of existing vessels are not restricted under this law and Federal funds can be used for these efforts. This is why WSF can used Federal money for the painting of vessels, etc. Sounds silly? Yes, it likely is, but it is probably wise to plan for necessary repairs, upgrades, etc. for the Evergreen class and forget about this 60 year rule. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Super class vessels with MV Hyak scheduled for a major rebuild in a year or two; will Fed money be tapped for this project? BTW: doesn't the use of Rhody violate the 60 year rule? If the Rhody can run for 60+ years, why not the Evergreens? They are great vessels and likely good for another 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 3, 2010 18:05:15 GMT -8
To quote from the WSF web site: At a minimum, a single 144-car ferry needs to be built by 2014 to replace the Evergreen State, which will be 60 years old by then, and scheduled for retirement per the state's new "vessel retirement" mandate. Either that, or we just simply lose a vessel without replacing it. Beyond that, the state would be in violation of its own rules if they choose to keep Evergreen operating beyond 2014. And, we'll be facing this situation again in 2018 and 2019 when Klahowya and Tillikum reach their retirement ages. I don't think we can afford to lose another ferry without replacing it, so I sincerely hope the state can scrape together some funding for that 1st 144. I'm not counting on it, but hope springs eternal? Just wondering who set this 60 year rule? Is it cemented in state law and approved by the Legislature and Governor? Is it a Coast Guard regulation? Is it a DOT Department rule or WSF rule? If it is made at the Department level it is more of a guideline and can easily be broken or changed without it being an important State violation. The reason I ask is that I believe new construction must be built in Washington as a matter of State law and this eliminates the use of Federal funds for these prokects. Repairs, maintenance, upgrading of existing vessels are not restricted under this law and Federal funds can be used for these efforts. This is why WSF can used Federal money for the painting of vessels, etc. Sounds silly? Yes, it likely is, but it is probably wise to plan for necessary repairs, upgrades, etc. for the Evergreen class and forget about this 60 year rule. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Super class vessels with MV Hyak scheduled for a major rebuild in a year or two; will Fed money be tapped for this project? BTW: doesn't the use of Rhody violate the 60 year rule? If the Rhody can run for 60+ years, why not the Evergreens? They are great vessels and likely good for another 20 years. The 60 year rule was mandated by the legislature after the Steel Electrics were pulled. WSF was ordered to come up with a pull date for the ferries and 60 years was the number they came up with. The Rhody is getting away with it because her replacement is on the way--and, according the the Moseley's weekly newsletter, is now 26% complete. The Salish is 68% complete.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 3, 2010 18:10:56 GMT -8
I'm still trying to find some information on the proposed Maneuverable Class of boats. I know it was not the one Matiniac proposed, supposedly held about 80 cars, was shallow draft and had conventional a propellor system, not RAD devices. Anyone know anything about this? I have a copy of the long range WSF plans which included the "Maneuverable Class" and that dates back about 12 years. They were all on paper--no plans were ever drawn up, just the general specifics were listed--including a car capacity of 110. All of that long-range plan was dumped when I-695 was approved and the WSF funding was cut and never replaced by the legislature. The 144's at that time were being called the "Millennium Class" at that time as had 695 not passed, they anticipated building four and having them in service by the year 2000.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 3, 2010 18:23:44 GMT -8
...but it is probably wise to plan for necessary repairs, upgrades, etc. for the Evergreen class and forget about this 60 year rule. I don't think the 60-year rule should be abandoned, but I do think it should be acknowledged that perhaps a five-year extension should be considered for the Evergreen class while the time is taken to draw up plans for proper replacements rather than buy someone else's design and duct-tape some rub railings on it to make it sort of work for us. I hope so. Or at least that the money comes from somewhere and the project doesn't get cut. The old girl is going to have to make it another fifteen to twenty years as it is, and it will be hard going without that refurb--even if it means, in my eyes, "screwing up" the last untainted Super-class vessel. As addressed by EGFleet, the Rhody was already 60 when the rule was put in place. As for another twenty years on the Evergreens? I'm doubtful. It would take another major cash infusion into each boat, considerable upgrading to meet current regulations, and I really don't think that is a wise investment of taxpayer money. The Steel-Electrics, God love 'em, were dealing with a lot of steel-replacement issues before the maintenance budget got cut back and steel replacement got ignored all around. Think of it this way: A 1947 Packard is a cool ride, no doubt about it. Restoring it is fun and nostalgic, but not practical if you're planning on using it as a daily driver. At some point--usually the end--time and fatigue win. Otherwise, somewhere out there, we'd have not only our beloved Steel-Electrics, but the Vashon too.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 4, 2010 10:00:00 GMT -8
Here we go... Very interesting table #13, Evergreen. Thanks for posting. I am wondering if these proposed 110 vehicle vessels were actually being planned for the current Keystone location or did plans at that time include relocation of that terminal? Perhaps a major handicap of MV Chetzemoka (II) is its small vehicle capacity. This makes use of this vessel class very limited on other routes except for emergencies. 110 vehicle vessels are likely large enough to fill in on most all routes if needed.
|
|
|
Post by steamfan on Dec 4, 2010 10:08:15 GMT -8
I recall reading in the long term service plan put out last year that the Klahowya and Tillikum were slated to work until about age 70. That was with the 144s being constructed on the proposed schedule. With that out the window, who knows what will happen...
My crystal ball has two little ideas that appear from this vantage point...
The Rhody will not immediately disappear from the fleet, at least not until any necessary upgrades have been done to the KdTs and any bugs have been worked out.
The Evergreens will all work beyond their 60 year retirement age by a not insignificant margin.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 4, 2010 10:09:23 GMT -8
Perhaps a major handicap of MV Chetzemoka (II) is its small vehicle capacity. This makes use of this vessel class very limited on other routes except for emergencies. 110 vehicle vessels are likely large enough to fill in on most all routes if needed. That's the biggest problem with the Kwa-Di-Tabil vessels, and one that was identified very early on. A 64 vehicle capacity is simply too small for any of the routes WSF serves, and certainly does not accommodate future growth at PT-KEY, which will happen.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 4, 2010 10:22:07 GMT -8
Perhaps a major handicap of MV Chetzemoka (II) is its small vehicle capacity. This makes use of this vessel class very limited on other routes except for emergencies. 110 vehicle vessels are likely large enough to fill in on most all routes if needed. That's the biggest problem with the Kwa-Di-Tabil vessels, and one that was identified very early on. A 64 vehicle capacity is simply too small for any of the routes WSF serves, and certainly does not accommodate future growth at PT-KEY, which will happen. ...which is what prompted most of my snarky remarks about a certain senator protecting the Whidbey/Port Townsend Gated Communities. The story goes that Port Townsend didn't want the bigger boats because of the 'large amounts of traffic' that they would bring; my speculation is that they actually just like the hostages on the dock and their ice cream-and-latte dollars.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 4, 2010 11:05:25 GMT -8
I go to Port Townsend at least once a month, sometimes more and have gotten to know many in their Business Community. The Ferry problem has been devastating to business there, costs in the tens of million dollars of lost revenue. I do not think the feelings are the same as they were in 2007.
First response was to just get things back to normal, hence the desire for the staus quo, now there is likely to be buyer's remorse when the effects of the small boats really comes to bear. To most of them anything was better than the pitiful 54 cars every hour and a half they had.
At the Chetzemoka's ceremony, I heard comments like "only another 10 cars, for this big thing"! Remember, it's not necessarily who claims to be the town's spokesman, who really holds the pulse of the community.
In reality, after all this, very few would complain about a 100 car boat.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 4, 2010 11:16:41 GMT -8
I go to Port Townsend at least once a month, sometimes more and have gotten to know many in their Business Community. The Ferry problem has been devastating to business there, costs in the tens of million dollars of lost revenue. I do not think the feelings are the same as they were in 2007. First response was to just get things back to normal, hence the desire for the staus quo, now there is likely to be buyer's remorse when the effects of the small boats really comes to bear. To most of them anything was better than the pitiful 54 cars every hour and a half they had. At the Chetzemoka's ceremony, I heard comments like "only another 10 cars, for this big thing"! Remember, it's not necessarily who claims to be the town's spokesman, who really holds the pulse of the community. In reality, after all this, very few would complain about a 100 car boat. Well, a bit late for that now, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 4, 2010 13:09:43 GMT -8
I go to Port Townsend at least once a month, sometimes more and have gotten to know many in their Business Community. The Ferry problem has been devastating to business there, costs in the tens of million dollars of lost revenue. I do not think the feelings are the same as they were in 2007. First response was to just get things back to normal, hence the desire for the staus quo, now there is likely to be buyer's remorse when the effects of the small boats really comes to bear. To most of them anything was better than the pitiful 54 cars every hour and a half they had. At the Chetzemoka's ceremony, I heard comments like "only another 10 cars, for this big thing"! Remember, it's not necessarily who claims to be the town's spokesman, who really holds the pulse of the community. In reality, after all this, very few would complain about a 100 car boat. Well, a bit late for that now, isn't it? Well, yes. And even getting to say 'we told you so' is only a hollow victory. We've reached the 'now what?' stage. And a modified Steilacoom II wouldn't really be of much use either--the theoretical design might be larger than the Chetzie, but still not adequate. Oh well. We told you so. The bed is made.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 4, 2010 13:33:58 GMT -8
This whole thing shows a lack of foresight and leadership, we cannot let this happen again. While we may be stuck with the results for a while, there will be a demand for changes.
What now? I don't think there is any way anything will get built soon, things will continue to fall apart and the constituents and riders will get so vocal that there will be reform, which will be opposed at every turn by the system. There will be investigations and panels, I am not sure how they will turn out. On thing that the STII tenure will bring up and held as a benchmark is the much better fuel efficiency of the propulsion package.
I predict that at least one of the KdT's will be sold or traded off, at enormous cost loss, or they will be modified to hold more cars. This will not happen until all three are in service and shown to be lacking. Another scandal point will be the damage when the first one goes aground, oh the repair cost of fixing one of the feathering prop models.
I hope the Legislature somehow finds the money to build at least one 144, however I doubt it right now, this is going to be a mess, hold on.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 4, 2010 14:01:59 GMT -8
This whole thing shows a lack of foresight and leadership, we cannot let this happen again. While we may be stuck with the results for a while, there will be a demand for changes. What now? I don't think there is any way anything will get built soon, things will continue to fall apart and the constituents and riders will get so vocal that there will be reform, which will be opposed at every turn by the system. There will be investigations and panels, I am not sure how they will turn out. On thing that the STII tenure will bring up and held as a benchmark is the much better fuel efficiency of the propulsion package. I predict that at least one of the KdT's will be sold or traded off, at enormous cost loss, or they will be modified to hold more cars. This will not happen until all three are in service and shown to be lacking. Another scandal point will be the damage when the first one goes aground, oh the repair cost of fixing one of the feathering prop models. I hope the Legislature somehow finds the money to build at least one 144, however I doubt it right now, this is going to be a mess, hold on. Oh come on now. Seriously? People's attention spans aren't that long. The Kwi de Tubtoys will take their place on Puget Sound and all anyone sees is three shiny new boats. If there wasn't huge outrage and scandal or hearings over the Issaquah Class debacle--which I assure you was worthy of far more attention than these three boats are--then nothing will come of this. History is not on your side here. There might be a letter to the editor to two but more important--and expensive issues, like say the continuing fight over the Alaska way viaduct or the 520 bridge replacement--will garner far more attention. The bone-weary truth of the matter is, not that many people care.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 4, 2010 14:11:48 GMT -8
...things will continue to fall apart and the constituents and riders will get so vocal that there will be reform, which will be opposed at every turn by the system. Of course there will be reform. Absolutely everyone who has ever raised their voice "knows" how to run the system better than the system does. Just ask them. Especially the San Juan FAC, who wrote last summer's sailing schedule. Their 'wonderful new idea' ended up costing the state thousands in overtime because they didn't actually know what they were doing. A ferry system is a mighty expensive playtoy for the idealistic, don'tcha think?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 4, 2010 14:43:22 GMT -8
Like I said, I have no idea what will come out of this, but it will happen, there is just too much money on the line in a very visible target. The three very expensive brand new Ferries that do not work too well will be Flagships of discontent. I remember the Issaquah class debacle, it was a major scandal, on the radio every day. However, face was saved by the system as the problems were deflected onto the builders, here there is no way out. With this last effort, the leaders deserve the bricks that will come their way, maybe something good will ultimately come out of it, let's hope.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 4, 2010 15:22:36 GMT -8
I think it's a trifle premature to declare the boat to not work very well, don't you? Of the three, only one is even complete and has less than a month of service under its belt.
Interesting to note that you also insist on blaming the system entirely for the new boats... that is treating the symptoms and ignoring the cause, which is that the legislature foisted these boats off on WSF (not unlike the Issaquahs, but that's old history too). Are you a representative of the media, by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Dec 4, 2010 18:49:39 GMT -8
Like I said, I have no idea what will come out of this, but it will happen, there is just too much money on the line in a very visible target. The three very expensive brand new Ferries that do not work too well will be Flagships of discontent. I remember the Issaquah class debacle, it was a major scandal, on the radio every day. However, face was saved by the system as the problems were deflected onto the builders, here there is no way out. With this last effort, the leaders deserve the bricks that will come their way, maybe something good will ultimately come out of it, let's hope. Yes but the problem with Issaquah class was mechanically they didn't work well. That changed and they have been fine since. Here there is No mechanical issues. Also, If people like it or not this is what we have now and there is no problem with them, aside from the fact that there isn't room for growth, but when neither side of the people wanted bigger then , you have to say that the "people" got what they asked for, and there for the government listened to the people where this boat is!
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 4, 2010 19:04:52 GMT -8
First, let me say that I do not entirely blame the WSF, my complaint is with all those who made these decisions, whether they are from the Governor’s Office, the DOT, the Legislature or the Admirals of the WSF, from what I see, all are complicit. You can bet if any of these people had any of their own money invested here, the outcome would have been very different.
If there had been one or two mistakes had been made, I might not be so concerned, unfortunately, the mistakes are rampant.
Part of what makes us successful is the ability to envision what is needed in the future by looking to the past and adapting that knowledge to what we see coming. I do not see that process being implemented here. What we got is a political mess that took into account the wishes of the Special Interests to the determent of the citizens. The boats we are getting do not have near the utility or versatility of the old ones they replaced, this is unacceptable.
If the new boats would:
Use less than 800 Gallons a day at Keystone Not have extensive damage to the Propellers, shafts and rudders upon their contact with the bottom Perform the San Juan Spin timely and easily Have at least some of the increased Car capacity needed in the future Have cost 2/3 of what they did Could be run with the same crew the former boats did
I would support their acquisition
It does not take a rocket scientist to know they fail in all the above requirements, especially in light of where they are intended to run. I and many others who have done even a modicum of investigation know this.
No, I am not a member of the Press, if I was, more people would know about their deficiencies. We need to do better than this.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 5, 2010 5:08:00 GMT -8
First, let me say that I do not entirely blame the WSF, my complaint is with all those who made these decisions, whether they are from the Governor’s Office, the DOT, the Legislature or the Admirals of the WSF, from what I see, all are complicit. You can bet if any of these people had any of their own money invested here, the outcome would have been very different. You'd hope, but having a personal stake in something doesn't necessary increase one's knowledge. Lots of people bought tech stocks for companies that had no product back in the 1990s. Fair enough. Unfortunately, what we are looking at here is a classic rush job. Unfortunately, I have to agree on this as well. I won't bother to scream the chief special interest's name yet again. I think just plain keeping them off the bottom is a better idea. I agree about the 'SJ spin' and the vehicle capacity. Unfortunately, the special interest groups won out on that. Cost: see 'rush job.' There are three kinds of jobs: good, cheap, and fast. A good, fast job isn't cheap; a good, cheap job isn't fast; and a fast, cheap job isn't good. Design issues aside, I hear TODD did a very nice job on the actual construction. I think there is only one additional crew member on the new boats as compared to the old boats. And remember that the old boats' crewing levels were determined LONG before all the fancy evacuation gear was added to the S/E's. Besides, wasn't the crew level determined by USCG?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 5, 2010 9:56:07 GMT -8
From what i understand is that the additional crew is in the engine room, 3 instead of 2. This is required by the USGC due to the high horsepower of the engines, which for a boat this size was not needed. This cost of the third person in the engine room would go a long way to paying for a proper set of power plants, over the life of the Vessel, another uninvestigated, unforeseen consequence.
I could have gulped and paid the increased costs if the other problems had not been built in. The State wastes so much money on bureaucracy that does nothing but causes problems for the citizens and business by unnecessary regulation and mandates. In the end all we have left of this process is bad memories and lost opportunity. At least with an overpriced Ferry, we still end up with a green and white beast that moves people and cars across the water.
Yes, Todd did a beautiful job on the boat.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 5, 2010 10:48:31 GMT -8
The State wastes so much money on bureaucracy that does nothing but causes problems for the citizens and business by unnecessary regulation and mandates. In the end all we have left of this process is bad memories and lost opportunity. At least with an overpriced Ferry, we still end up with a green and white beast that moves people and cars across the water. OH SO VERY VERY TRUE. It reminds me so much of my 30 years at the University of Alaska.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Dec 5, 2010 15:32:57 GMT -8
So far, the ferry itself seems to be running just fine. It is, so far, doing exactly the job that it was designed to do. Unless something comes along to change that opinion (and, admittedly, it very well could), then the construction or operation of the ferry is not really a problem. (IMHO! ) The main issue here is with the cost to build the craft. While, certainly, a lot was spent to build the boat, a huge chunk of the costs were related to the fact that we waited so long to address the problem and build the boat. In other words, (as a state) it was our own darn fault. It really isn't fair to blame this on the ferry system, but on the "leaders" who are supposed to be making the decisions. We knew that we needed replacement ferries years ago, just as we know right now that we will need to start replacing current ferries in the near future. A better example, same department, but keeping the ferries out of it. We have now spent more money studying what we should replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with, than what would have been the cost of just making a decision, replacing the thing, and living with the results. A similar statement could be made about the new SR 520 bridge project. We have chosen to spend our money endlessly studying the options for every proposed project. If we really wanted to save money, we would make a timely decision and follow through with it, rather than waiting until the options narrow themselves down to the most urgent and expensive of options. We could have chosen to replace older ferries on a regular schedule and on a consistent basis. We chose not to. It is at THAT time that we decided to spend a greater amount of cash on an "emergency" basis when replacement time came. We have now been put on notice that our ferries are old and will need replacing. It is no longer a surprise to anyone that the Rhody will need to be replaced soon and that the Evergreens will need replacements in the relatively near future, too. We already saw with the Steel-Electrics that it is very possible that these ferries will fail at some point and that there might not be an economically-viable repair available. Is this a controversial point? Please tell me if it is not! Given that knowledge, our leaders have decided not to replace this aging infrastructure until around 2025, or wait until something breaks down, and build another expensive-yet-quickly-built ferry. We can't complain about the costs now. We have already made that decision to wait. We have likely chosen the costlier option again.
|
|