Keystone Landing

[SS Shasta]

There has been some interesting discussion about the "famous" Keystone Landing on the Port Townsend/Keystone run. It appears that much of the challenge of this run is based on several natural factors such as weather, tides, fog, storm, etc.

Considering this long and sometimes heated discussion, I was wondering if the State had ever considered "doing nothing." The steel electric vessels now serving the run seem to do fine most of the time. One problem seems to be that the 2nd vessel that is assigned to the run during the late spring, summer, and early fall has very short hours of operation. Often it shuts down with long lines of cars still waiting at the dock. The hours of operation for this vessel should be increased and perhaps it should be placed on the route earlier in the spring.

One additional comment: According to the draft state plan, once a larger vessel is assigned to this route, it will become a single vessel run for the "next 20 years" or so. This is a dumb idea in my opinion that shows a lack of consideration for the riding public. Long waits at the ferry dock caused by having only one vessel assigned is a major source of frustration!!!!

[hergfest]

The Steel Electrics were built in the 20's and HAVE to go, there is no question about that. The Keystone route's hours were cut back after I think it was I-695? passed, which cut funding for the ferry system, and they haven't put the funding back. The Steel Electrics hold ~64, the Issaquahs hold 124, which is about double so that would make up the capacity. Plus the Issaquahs are faster than Steel Electrics so that can make one or two runs a day.

[EGfleet]

hergfest said:

The Steel Electrics were built in the 20's and HAVE to go, there is no question about that. The Keystone route's hours were cut back after I think it was I-695? passed, which cut funding for the ferry system, and they haven't put the funding back. The Steel Electrics hold ~64, the Issaquahs hold 124, which is about double so that would make up the capacity. Plus the Issaquahs are faster than Steel Electrics so that can make one or two runs a day.

You're absolutely correct, they have to go. Next year the boats will turn 80 years old.

The hours were cut back as a direct result of I-695. I do believe that once an Issaquah is on the route they'll probably redo the schedule to provide more service.

And, well, yes, techinically they are 124 car boats...however, we managed to get 144 on the Chelan the other day...

[northwesterner]

shasta said:

There has been some interesting discussion about the "famous" Keystone Landing on the Port Townsend/Keystone run. It appears that much of the challenge of this run is based on several natural factors such as weather, tides, fog, storm, etc.

Considering this long and sometimes heated discussion, I was wondering if the State had ever considered "doing nothing." The steel electric vessels now serving the run seem to do fine most of the time. One problem seems to be that the 2nd vessel that is assigned to the run during the late spring, summer, and early fall has very short hours of operation. Often it shuts down with long lines of cars still waiting at the dock. The hours of operation for this vessel should be increased and perhaps it should be placed on the route earlier in the spring.

One additional comment: According to the draft state plan, once a larger vessel is assigned to this route, it will become a single vessel run for the "next 20 years" or so. This is a dumb idea in my opinion that shows a lack of consideration for the riding public. Long waits at the ferry dock caused by having only one vessel assigned is a major source of frustration!!!!

I agree that simply putting on a larger boat and halving the frequency would be a huge mistake.

The riding public has gotten used to a two boat schedule on that route from May-October - which has been the standard for 25-30 years. Simply increasing the capacity and having the trips is a cost saving measure but it will also scare away many riders.

Perhaps a better idea would to be use an Issaquah in the winter and two Evergreen States in the summers.

[Political Incorrectness]

northwesterner, the Evergeens need to be heading for the graveyard, they have been here since the fifties and by that time they will be Steel Electric age. They should have one of the new Issaquahs and maybe have it as a 144 car ferry which would be the equivalent of two Steel Electrics and maybe have the Sealth or an Issaquah do duty during the summer season.

[hergfest]

Two of the Evergreens will be staying put when the new boats are put into service and the Steel Electrics are retired. The Evergreen State will be retired, and the Klahowya and Tillikum will be going to Port Defiance and the San Juan Inter-Island. That will expand capacity on both routes, plus the Rhody will be retired or put on the new Southworth/Vashon route.

[SS Shasta]

It would be a definite mistake for WSF to retire any of the Evergreen class vessels including MV Evergreen State. These vessels are the size we need to serve many of the smaller runs or possibly be used as a 3rd vessel on popular runs during the summer. The Keystone route should have a 2 vessel operation during the summer.

I have the feeling that the WSF draft plan does not stress the need for 3rd vessels on several of these runs during the summer season. Several routes could use them NOW!; not in 10 or 15 years. It also seems like the very large vessels take a much longer time to load and unload; such delays become quite frustrating to the traveling public.


PS: Just made a wonderful trip to Southworth Friday morning on MV Evergreen State. She needs a bit of paint and some TLC, but she is a very nice vessel.

[Mike C]

shasta said:

I have the feeling that the WSF draft plan does not stress the need for 3rd vessels on several of these runs during the summer season. Several routes could use them NOW!; not in 10 or 15 years.

I agree. There need to be 2 vessels year-round on Port Townsend-Keystone, and maybe a third in the summer.

Same with, possibly, the San Juans. I think they should have one vessel going to Sidney-Friday Harbour, and one Friday Harbour-Anacortes. Passengers going from Anacortes-Sidney or vice-versa, would transfer at Friday Harbour.

[northwesterner]

ferrymaniac101 said:

northwesterner, the Evergeens need to be heading for the graveyard, they have been here since the fifties and by that time they will be Steel Electric age. They should have one of the new Issaquahs and maybe have it as a 144 car ferry which would be the equivalent of two Steel Electrics and maybe have the Sealth or an Issaquah do duty during the summer season.

I understand that the capcity will be equivalent to what is there (1 large boat vs. 2 smaller ones).

But that does not mean it will be the best way to serve the public.

On a route like that, where many may be coming from the Clinton Ferry and continuing on ... there should be a two boat schedule in the summer. Period.

Passengers on all kinds of public transit value frequency of service ... individuals derive great utility by having the ferry coming frequently enough that they don't really need to plan ahead of time ... and halving the schedule will change it.

[northwesterner]

shasta said:

It would be a definite mistake for WSF to retire any of the Evergreen class vessels including MV Evergreen State. These vessels are the size we need to serve many of the smaller runs or possibly be used as a 3rd vessel on popular runs during the summer. The Keystone route should have a 2 vessel operation during the summer.

I have the feeling that the WSF draft plan does not stress the need for 3rd vessels on several of these runs during the summer season. Several routes could use them NOW!; not in 10 or 15 years. It also seems like the very large vessels take a much longer time to load and unload; such delays become quite frustrating to the traveling public.


PS: Just made a wonderful trip to Southworth Friday morning on MV Evergreen State. She needs a bit of paint and some TLC, but she is a very nice vessel.

This is all very true. There has been a need for third boats on summer weekends for over ten years on many routes. I would have thought that, for instance, putting Jumbos on Edmonds-Kingston would have alleviated the need for the third boat, and I think WSF was thinking that too.... But how bad are backups up there in the summers? Just as bad as they were in the mid-90s with the Hyak and Yakima plying the route.

So far, a main hinderance to using third boats is lack of availability ... Steel Electrics can't cross shipping lanes, so they are out. Seems like a lot of maintenance is being done in the summers these days, knocking out any Issaquah availability. That leaves the Evergreen State, which would be much better utilized plying Edmonds-Kingston on Fri-Sat-Sun than sitting in Eagle Harbor. Plus - its small size means it can have a quick turn around time which would offset its low speed.

[Political Incorrectness]

northwesterner, they have a Jumbo and a Jumbo 2 on Edmonds to Kingston. Backups cause 1-2 sailling waits during the summer especially weekends and fridays from edmonds. They need a third boat and the Issaquahs provide somewhat of a solution but is 104 going to be able to handle extra demand because of that merge after the terminal?

[hergfest]

I believe they don't run any three boat schedules due to terminal capacity. Edmonds and Mukliteo both have one boat slips, and they really need two boat slips in order to run the three boat schedule. Both terminals will be rebuilt in the coming years, but until that is done you won't see any three boat schedules.

[northwesterner]

ferrymaniac101 said:

northwesterner, they have a Jumbo and a Jumbo 2 on Edmonds to Kingston. Backups cause 1-2 sailling waits during the summer especially weekends and fridays from edmonds. They need a third boat and the Issaquahs provide somewhat of a solution but is 104 going to be able to handle extra demand because of that merge after the terminal?

I know they have a Jumbo an a Jumbo 2. I guess I wasn't specific enough.

My point was - when Supers ran the route in the mid 90s, there were 1-2-3 sailing waits.

Upsizing to the Jumbos helped for a little while, but development over on the Peninsula has increased the demand for service. It seems like its time for a 3 boat service.

I understand the single slip problem... but - they used to run 3 boat service in the 60s and 70s ... how did they do it then?

[northwesterner]

hergfest said:

I believe they don't run any three boat schedules due to terminal capacity. Edmonds and Mukliteo both have one boat slips, and they really need two boat slips in order to run the three boat schedule. Both terminals will be rebuilt in the coming years, but until that is done you won't see any three boat schedules.

Mukilteo - I can see there being a problem w/ a 3 boat schedule and only one slip because the crossing time is so short. Edmonds - less of a problem.

[SS Shasta]

While growing up on the sound in the 1960's, I remember that the 3 boat summer schedule worked very well on most routes. The Bremerton run always had 3 vessels running (ENETAI, WILLAPA, KALAKALA) as did the Winslow run (TILLICUM, ILLAHEE, SAN MATEO).
On busy summer weekends, as many as 4 vessels operated out of Mukilteo (RHODODENDRON, OLYMPIC, CHETZEMOKA, LESCHI or VASHON). The Edmonds/Kingston run was not as busy until the Hoods Canal Bridge was built, then three vessels were used there on week ends.

During the very busy traffic hours which were usually Friday nights westbound and Sunday afternoons/evenings eastbound, the problem of only one dock was solved by having one of the vessels ride empty except for foot passengers in the direction with light traffic. It could then be available immediately after the previous vessel pulled away from the dock. From what I remember, these methods worked very well and wait lines were kept at reasonable sizes most of the time.

I believe that the 3rd vessel concept is a good one and should be restarted by WSF.

[northwesterner]

shasta said:

While growing up on the sound in the 1960's, I remember that the 3 boat summer schedule worked very well on most routes. The Bremerton run always had 3 vessels running (ENETAI, WILLAPA, KALAKALA) as did the Winslow run (TILLICUM, ILLAHEE, SAN MATEO).
On busy summer weekends, as many as 4 vessels operated out of Mukilteo (RHODODENDRON, OLYMPIC, CHETZEMOKA, LESCHI or VASHON). The Edmonds/Kingston run was not as busy until the Hoods Canal Bridge was built, then three vessels were used there on week ends.

During the very busy traffic hours which were usually Friday nights westbound and Sunday afternoons/evenings eastbound, the problem of only one dock was solved by having one of the vessels ride empty except for foot passengers in the direction with light traffic. It could then be available immediately after the previous vessel pulled away from the dock. From what I remember, these methods worked very well and wait lines were kept at reasonable sizes most of the time.

I believe that the 3rd vessel concept is a good one and should be restarted by WSF.

Thanks for the details.

I remember some point in the early 90s there was a third boat (the Olympic or a steel electric) on maybe Seattle-Winslow for a few days... I don't remember the details - perhaps a break down caused a downsizing of the primary vessel.

[SS San Mateo]

A few years back (possibly late 90's), there were 3 boats on the Bainbridge route (Summer schedule IIRC), 2 Jumbo Mark IIs and one Jumbo. One problem was that the ferries had to leave on schedule even if there was still room. Reason for this was that 2 ferries can't pass each other in the harbor at Bainbridge. If a car either got left on the boat or broke down, there was a possibility it would have to stay on for one or more sailings (I bet current security rules wouldn't allow that now).

-- LB

[EGfleet]

vashondude said:

A few years back (possibly late 90's), there were 3 boats on the Bainbridge route (Summer schedule IIRC), 2 Jumbo Mark IIs and one Jumbo. One problem was that the ferries had to leave on schedule even if there was still room. Reason for this was that 2 ferries can't pass each other in the harbor at Bainbridge. If a car either got left on the boat or broke down, there was a possibility it would have to stay on for one or more sailings (I bet current security rules wouldn't allow that now).

-- LB

Not to mention the traffic back ups across the Island, which, at times, nearly stretched clear to the Agate Pass bridge. I got caught in that a time or two and it was flat out miserable.

[SS Shasta]

evergreenfleet said:

vashondude said:

A few years back (possibly late 90's), there were 3 boats on the Bainbridge route (Summer schedule IIRC), 2 Jumbo Mark IIs and one Jumbo. One problem was that the ferries had to leave on schedule even if there was still room. Reason for this was that 2 ferries can't pass each other in the harbor at Bainbridge. If a car either got left on the boat or broke down, there was a possibility it would have to stay on for one or more sailings (I bet current security rules wouldn't allow that now).

-- LB

Not to mention the traffic back ups across the Island, which, at times, nearly stretched clear to the Agate Pass bridge. I got caught in that a time or two and it was flat out miserable.

I remember that summer and traveled to Winslow frequently as a walk on to visit a favorite sea food cafe. I would also sit on a log at the beach next to the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Yard and watch the 3 vessels loading and unloading. What was the cause of the traffic back ups? Were more folks using the Winslow run as a attempt to get away from the back ups on the Edmonds/Kingston run?

Could this problem be solved by having a smaller sized 3rd vessel? I think the 3rd vessel that summer was MV Walla Walla, which seemed too large for the assignment. In the early to mid 1960's, the 3 vessel assignment on the Winslow run seemed to work quite well. Of course, traffic was less then, but expanding. MV Tilicum, MV Illahee were the main vessels along with the 3rd vessel which was usually SS San Mateo and sometimes MV Chetzemoka. During the very busy traffic times SS San Mateo would run empty one way, except for walk on passengers, to save time at the loading dock.

[EGfleet]

Could this problem be solved by having a smaller sized 3rd vessel? I think the 3rd vessel that summer was MV Walla Walla, which seemed too large for the assignment. In the early to mid 1960's, the 3 vessel assignment on the Winslow run seemed to work quite well. Of course, traffic was less then, but expanding. MV Tilicum, MV Illahee were the main vessels along with the 3rd vessel which was usually SS San Mateo and sometimes MV Chetzemoka. During the very busy traffic times SS San Mateo would run empty one way, except for walk on passengers, to save time at the loading dock.

I think it was more of the fact that the highway across the island is a capacity right now, three boats or not. They just need to four-lane it across the island, period. You start getting back-ups during commute hours at the light at the casino and it just backs up from there in both directions.

I'm sure WSF would love to offer more service if 1. they had the vessels and 2. they had the money. They're still recovering from the I-695 fiasco and the fact that some of the state reps in Olympia can't seem to get it through their head that the ferries are part of our highway system.

[SS San Mateo]

And they'll have even fewer vessels once the new vessels are online (assuming that the Rhododendron & Evergreen State are retired along with the Steel-Electrics).

-- LB

[Mike C]

If they're smart, they won't retire the Evergreen State, it has great potential. I could be a regular vessel (i.e. Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth) and do excellent. They need todo some work (i.e. add a galley service) but still, it indeed, can, and should, continue operation once the new ferries are, in fact, online.

[hergfest]

The Evergreen State is also over 50 years old. There is only so much you can do to a boat that old.

[northwesterner]

hergfest said:

The Evergreen State is also over 50 years old. There is only so much you can do to a boat that old.

She's old, but can still do a day's work.

I'm not suggesting the Evergreen State work an 18hr schedule at top speed 52 weeks a year.

What we are saying is that she may be an adequate boat to do 3rd boat service as a slow phase out type retirement.

Her single level car deck with decent capacity has quick load/un-load times, helping to make sure a 3 boat schedule would work.

[SS Shasta]

mainlander101 said:

If they're smart, they won't retire the Evergreen State, it has great potential. I could be a regular vessel (i.e. Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth) and do excellent. They need todo some work (i.e. add a galley service) but still, it indeed, can, and should, continue operation once the new ferries are, in fact, online.

I agree. The Evergreen State class vessels are a nice size to serve lesser traveled routes, yet big enough to fill in on almost any other route if needed. MV Evergreen State was reengined in 1988 and has shown her value this year by filling in on the Vashon/Southworth and San Juan Island inter-island route. As mentioned in another post, she should be used on busy summer week ends as a 3rd vessel rather than keeping her tied up and idle at Eagle Harbor.