|
Post by Mike C on Mar 5, 2012 18:42:28 GMT -8
I may not be speaking for a majority of Washington taxpayers, but being one anyways I hold the firm conviction that my taxpayer dollars better be used to keep jobs in Washington in terms of new vessel construction. And the notion Todd builds inferior ferries is absurd. Todd, Vigor builds exceptionally well-built and very reliable ferries for Washington. The KDT "teething issues" right now are just that. Are you telling me that they're the world's best?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 5, 2012 21:56:54 GMT -8
As far as I am concerned, yes, and WSF just won a few recent awards in ferry design and operation. And the new Kwa-di-tabil class was a factor in winning that award.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Mar 5, 2012 23:13:19 GMT -8
I may not be speaking for a majority of Washington taxpayers, but being one anyways I hold the firm conviction that my taxpayer dollars better be used to keep jobs in Washington in terms of new vessel construction. I agree, but the problem that you, me, and everyone else of the 'build locally' persuasion faces is that there has never been, to my recollection, a comprehensive analysis of the benefits to the local economy overall in keeping shipbuilding at home. People who point to simple minded cost comparisons can say, "It costs X dollars to build here, and only 75% of X dollars to build overseas, therefore, the state/province is better off building overseas." To counteract that simplistic, somewhat reactionary view, we need to be able to compare the dead loss in sending money elsewhere to all the benefits in jobs both in the shipyards and all associated employment, taxes paid here, infrastructure improvements, improved technical expertise, and probably several other measurable factors that come with home based industry. I'm not aware of that ever being done properly. It would take a fair bit of investment for research, and would perhaps best be done by a coalition of union, shipyard, and perhaps a progressive based advocacy group, in concert with a legitimate accounting firm. Until that happens, the annoyingly shallow argument of simple cost comparison will probably hold sway, because people understand simple numbers, and numbers are something our side doesn't have enough of... not properly documented, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 6, 2012 7:30:06 GMT -8
What's not seen in those supposed cost savings is the unseen costs of fuel in bringing the new vessel home. Especially at the suggestion they be built out-of-country. With today's obscenely high fuel costs as things stand now, any suggestion they be built elsewhere is ridiculous.
And as far as experience goes, it's safe to say our current builder has pretty good experience building world-class ferries for WSF.
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 6, 2012 12:00:16 GMT -8
I disagree. Build in Washington means that the state must pay 100% of the cost of the new ferry. A national advertisement means the project qualifies for 80 to 90% federal funding. A 230 million dollar project like KDT would have put over 200 million back in the hands of WSF if it went nation wide. With 200 million in hand the state could have also purchased several 144s also advertised nation wide with federal money.
The local shipyard you speak of is a maintenance shipyard. That is what they do. They only build vessels when they have an exclusive sole bid contract to do so, only WSF does this. That is not sustainable for the shipyard which drags the WSF down with it.
Build in Washington is a waste. That class of 144s is the most fuel efficient ferry WSF has ever produced. They would have instantly reduced operating costs through lower fuel and labor costs. They require very low maintenance relative to the Supers.
Keeping the "build in Washington" legislation is the single most detrimental policy the Washington State Ferries must abide by.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 6, 2012 13:10:51 GMT -8
I'm not aware of that ever being done properly. It would take a fair bit of investment for research, and would perhaps best be done by a coalition of union, shipyard, and perhaps a progressive based advocacy group, in concert with a legitimate accounting firm. The local shipyards are really too small for this, though Vigor is not exactly a small operation when you take into account the navy work they do at Bremerton. Though any "study" is always debatable a few have been done independently about big local firms which show that for every headcount they have they are responsible for between 3 -4 jobs and all the attendent tax revenue associated with them compounded. There's a reason why people aren't that up in arms about the multi-billion dollar projects in which all roads and rails lead to Microsoft that wouldn't be needed if the campus wasn't there. And that's the reason why "build in washington" hasn't been a particularly sensitive thing (at least politically) thus far. And that's before you consider that shipbuilding is a "charismatic" industry (to use a term from environmental movement) with strong ties to the Northweset.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 6, 2012 13:13:17 GMT -8
What's not seen in those supposed cost savings is the unseen costs of fuel in bringing the new vessel home. Especially at the suggestion they be built out-of-country. With today's obscenely high fuel costs as things stand now, any suggestion they be built elsewhere is ridiculous. And as far as experience goes, it's safe to say our current builder has pretty good experience building world-class ferries for WSF. The fuel cost of delivering the ships is insignificant compared to the potential savings. Fuel is expensive... but not that expensive. The Coastals bunkered 3 times between Germany and BC. They carry approximately 420 cubic metres of fuel, and at approximately $1000 per cube, that works out to $1,260,000 in fuel. Now, this assumes they burned until empty on each leg, which they didn't even come close to doing, so the actual cost could be half that. Also, they are MUCH bigger ships with 21,000 HP so they will burn much more fuel than a KdT or 144 for that matter. EDIT: Fixed listed fuel capacity. 420 cubic metres rather than 200.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 6, 2012 13:15:00 GMT -8
While I agree that lowest bid in the US is the best option, I do not think the complete abandonment of in-State procurement is politically viable. Therefore, perhaps the compromise of the the positive handicap allowance for the in-State bidders should be done. This method is used extensively by many jurisdictions and has been attested to be legal. This could give us all the best we could get, good out-of-State pricing, and the option of our local yards to be competitive. Let us lobby for this.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 6, 2012 13:17:22 GMT -8
I disagree. Build in Washington means that the state must pay 100% of the cost of the new ferry. A national advertisement means the project qualifies for 80 to 90% federal funding. A 230 million dollar project like KDT would have put over 200 million back in the hands of WSF if it went nation wide. With 200 million in hand the state could have also purchased several 144s also advertised nation wide with federal money. Federal tax dollars doesn't mean "free". All you've done is pushed the cost around, somewhere someone is getting shorted. If you are lucky you are shorting another project in another state, but most likely that money is coming from another Washington State project. Perhaps getting $200M to the ferries means that Sount Transit or Cascades or someone else does't get rail money or so on.
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 7, 2012 8:46:40 GMT -8
We are not shorting another Washington project anymore than an over pass, sound barrier or on ramp shorts WSF.
We run the worlds oldest ferry fleet, the ships have in some cases rusted to death. It is the logical time and the turn of the ferries to utilize the same mechanisim that built the nation's highway system.
The WSF pays tax on fuel into the highway construction fund. Should it not have a seat at the table when that money is redistributed?
You have hit on the real problem. Ferries are a stepchild of government.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Mar 7, 2012 9:55:09 GMT -8
It would be interesting to see if some of the other shipyards like Austral USA would do for WSF.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 7, 2012 22:42:32 GMT -8
We are not shorting another Washington project anymore than an over pass, sound barrier or on ramp shorts WSF. We run the worlds oldest ferry fleet, the ships have in some cases rusted to death. It is the logical time and the turn of the ferries to utilize the same mechanisim that built the nation's highway system. The WSF pays tax on fuel into the highway construction fund. Should it not have a seat at the table when that money is redistributed? You have hit on the real problem. Ferries are a stepchild of government. Still the point being you are robbing Peter to pay Paul in some form. I'm not gonna argue that WSF needs money but you aren't saving $200M for our state as a whole. You are saving whatever the construction cost difference is and any back scratching money our delegation gets from say Louisiana's delegation because they can bid on our contracts now. State and Local government entities (and many non-profits) are exempt from paying the federal fuel excise tax. They must still purchase the dyed or undyed fuel as appopriate but they can apply for a refund. Unless they are being bit by some other law somewhere (which wouldn't surprise me as there are many marine specific laws) I certainly hope for all our sakes that WSF does this.
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Mar 7, 2012 23:30:03 GMT -8
Chokai Federal tax money certainly isn't free, we are all paying the federal motor fuel excise tax to provide those funds. I would love to see those funds go to provide the greatest benefit for the buck. If our gas tax dollars go to transit let it be the most efficient form of mass transit. Without a doubt WSF is the most efficient mass transit agency in the pacific northwest and has the highest percentage of its operating expenses paid by its patrons. If that means less for Sound Transit it would be to all or our benefit. Never before have so few been moved for so much as by Sound Transit. And we can't even park our tax paying cars on a Sound Transit train. The argument for "built in Washington" as offering the benefit of an undetermined economic multiplier effect overlooks the fact that the millions in excessive profit paid by the state goes to out of state shipyard owners. So much for local benefit. Chief put it plainly... After spending over 200,000,000 "built in Washington" dollars WSF has three boats that don't fit in well anywhere in the system and burn $1,000,000 more fuel per boat, per year when compared to the 1927 vessels they replaced. There are no funded replacements in sight for the 55 year old Evergreens or the 45 year old Supers. For half of the Washington tax dollars spent on the tub toys plus the federal match we could have purchased versatile and fuel efficient replacements for the Steel Electrics, had the 144 program well underway to replace the evergreens and had the Hyak instead of the Hiyu for a standby vessel. This is unsustainable and it is sinking the system!
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 11, 2012 20:38:19 GMT -8
Suburbanite, I think you are being a little optimistic in your cost assessments. Chetzmoka cost almost $80M due her emergency construction, Salish and Kennewick on the other hand each cost in the low $60M's. Island Home was built for $33M in 2007, with inflation she would likely bid at at close to $40M now and that's before taking into account that steel and materials are 20 to 30% higher now. I think a reasonable price for an out of state bid on a KdT would have come in at between $44 and $50M heavily weighted towards the lower end, so we'd save a lot but not quite 50%, more like 25 to 30%, not chump change though by any means. Of course if people had been on the ball and had a replacement design largely ready to go with less "fluff" we would have saved a great deal more money in intial capital and later operations.
In the be careful what you wish for world, whilst there are significant pre-qualifiers for all WSF bids and many other controls in place I am leery of the possibility of having a little known, but apparently qualified, out of state yard bid on a contract and having the state be obligated to award it to the lowest bidder. I believe Todd did not make much money on the Chetzemoka. Revenues for her were booked when they were still public and there was negligable profit to them after thier labor and construction expenses. If they made much profit it was distributed to employees. Kennewick and Salish on the other hand were booked by Vigor so we'd have to rely on insider knowlege on that one. I wouldn't be surprised if they are making bank off of the single source Jumbo and Jumbo Mark II maintenance work though.
It's actually not the replacement of the Evergreens that worries me. I am worried that when the supers really need to start to be replaced in 15+ years that the lessons learned regarding getting an early start will be forgotton by the legislature and we will learn another tough lesson. Fortunately if that happens there will be a "ready to go design" this time.
But the real news that is directly pertinent to this thread, is that the 2nd 144 is fully funded in the just passed supplemental budget. That's huge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 13:26:54 GMT -8
I believe that one issue WSF had with the replacement of the SE is that they had planned on moving the ferry terminal from keystone harbor to a location with a deeper docking area so that a larger portion of the fleet could be used for the crossing, thus not needing a route specific vessel. As such a lot of time and money were put toward finding a location for the new dock. Then the local residence did not want the terminal relocated, and that put WSF back to the drawing board, only to have the SE removed from service, thus putting them in immediate need for a vessel that will work on this route.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 13, 2012 17:20:58 GMT -8
I believe that one issue WSF had with the replacement of the SE is that they had planned on moving the ferry terminal from keystone harbor to a location with a deeper docking area so that a larger portion of the fleet could be used for the crossing, thus not needing a route specific vessel. As such a lot of time and money were put toward finding a location for the new dock. Then the local residence did not want the terminal relocated, and that put WSF back to the drawing board, only to have the SE removed from service, thus putting them in immediate need for a vessel that will work on this route. And I still maintain that would've been the best solution. From what I've been led to believe, the "locals" were fine with it until a certain senator agitated them against it. However, I also know a dead horse when I see one.
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Mar 14, 2012 5:27:29 GMT -8
Chokai
WSF went out for bids in 2008, the year after the Island Home was built. 100% inflation in one year is absurd. And the Island Home was built for a public agency in Massachusetts, not exactly a state renown for government efficiency. We really shouldn't be less efficient or harder and more costly to work with than Massachusetts. That we are really says something and it isn't flattering.
The same holds for the Steilacoom II. It was built for Pierce County in 2006. When WSF went out for bids on a boat based on that design in 2008 the single bid they received was for about 100% over the price Pierce County paid. The what is defferent between the state and another Washington State governmental agency? Washington only bidding is the common denominator between the bids for the two designs.
Thanks for the links to the 144 drawings. They look like they will be very nice boats for the crews and the passengers. And they will provide the revenue generating capacity that the ferry system badly needs.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 14, 2012 12:49:25 GMT -8
You are correct 100% in one year is crazy. I did not proof that post very well. :-) Whilst Island Home was completed 'in '07 she was bid out in nov 2004 at $32M and in service in March 2007. Chetzemoka was bid out in nov 2008 and completed in late summer 2010 but wasn't in service until November. While Chetzemoka was completed faster and supposedly at a premium cost for that, Halter lost a lot of time on Island Home due to Katrina so comparing the construction times is probably impossible. Had Katrina not happened they may well have finished Island Home faster than our local yards built Chetzemoka or even Salish and Kennewick. I think WSF paid as much as $10M, possibly more to get that boat built faster and in the end they didn't actually get it that much faster.
Over four years the average inflation rate for the last 100 years that would add 3M to the price, and inflation during '05 to '08 was higher due to the irrational nature of the US economy at the time, it would actually be closer to 4m taking the actual rates into account. I have no doubt we would have recieved a hefty discount on labor costs due to things being in the tank by '08/09 so that's why I feel it would have been weighted to the low end despite materials cost being higher.
There are multiple reasons why the lets call it STII 2.0 bid was so expensive. Similar to the Chetzemoka the state demanded very fast construction, in this case 12 months from bid award. STII was built in about 18 months from the time the bid was awarded and that was with delays when it became apparent things were taking longer, she was supposed to take year actually. Just imagine the amount of OT involve in pulling a schedule in by that much on a major project, and the premium charged by the yard when they know another yard already tried and failed to accomplish the schedule requested. It makes me cringe. The state also had additional quality requirements, crew quarters and other design changes or so claimed the yards during the press hubub about it. Personally I think it's a pretty good thing that the state said no to that offer, I suspect if they hadn't shown they were willing to reject a bid they would've been price gouged even more for the KdT's and subsequent boats. They showed that although they are bound by the law there are limits.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Apr 25, 2012 16:03:04 GMT -8
If WSF was run like BC Ferries, you would be replacing 88 car boats with new 88 car boats... which would be really stupid. Up here, the 50 car Denman Island ferry, which is severely overloaded in summer, is slated to be replaced with a 50 car cable ferry. The Queen of Nanaimo and Queen of Burnaby may actually be replaced by smaller vessels. Insane. Other criticisms aside, at least you got a slight upgrade in capacity from the Steel Electrics to the kwa-boats, and your ferry gods have shown more foresight in replacing the Evergreen class with these larger vessels. Building just to handle today's traffic is nuts, and in this case Washington is ahead of BC.
|
|