Shutting Down the Keystone Run?

[EGfleet]

Well, it seems that a new terminal is completely dead. I wondered how long it would be before talk of shutting the run down completely would surface.

Published: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Old ferries may have to stay
A proposal for new terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend now appears to be dead. Only small ferries can navigate the waters.

By Kaitlin Manry
Herald Writer


WHIDBEY ISLAND - After six years and at least $5.5 million dollars worth of studies, a controversial proposal to replace ferry terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend now appears dead in the water.

The future of ferry service between south Whidbey Island and the Olympic Peninsula may now have more to do with how long a fleet of aging ferries continues to operate than whether new terminals are built, a state official said Tuesday.

Washington State Ferries now is considering not replacing the Klickitat and three other 80-year-old Steel Electric ferries that are used on the route, said Steve Reinmuth, director of government relations for the state Department of Transportation.

Those vessels - the oldest ferries in operation on salt water in the U.S. - are the only ferries in the state's fleet that are small and agile enough to navigate the existing terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend, ferry officials say.

Instead, the state is pursing plans to build four new ferries that will be too large to use at the existing terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend, Reinmuth said.

If that happens, the state probably would continue to use the Klickitat and its sister ferries on the Keystone to Port Townsend route until the U.S. Coast Guard tells them to stop, Reinmuth said.

After that, he said, it would be up to state lawmakers to decide whether to shut down the route, which now carries only about 3 percent of the state's ferry riders and is losing money.

Talk of enlarging or moving the terminals to accommodate larger vessels has run into stiff opposition from residents on Whidbey Island and in Port Townsend.

"If the community doesn't want a bigger boat then why run bigger boats to that terminal?" Reinmuth asked. "And I think there are some real questions about whether the route is sustainable at the current levels, economically. And those are questions that will have to be addressed by the Legislature and the communities."

Ferry officials had expected this spring to issue environmental impact statements on options for replacing the deteriorating wooden terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend.

The work has been suspended indefinitely, ferry officials said.

One issue is that the future of the ferry terminals is linked with the fate of the Klickitat and the state's other Steel Electric class ferries, the Illahee, Nisqually and Quinault.

The boats are falling apart. Ferry service between the island and Port Townsend was sidelined for two-and-a-half days last week while crews repaired a six-inch crack in the Klickitat's hull.

It was just one of six breaches or holes found in the Klickitat's hull over the last 10 years, state records show. Emergency repairs for those problems, as well work on damaged rudders and decks, have sidelined the ferry 11 times since 1997.

The Legislature in 2001 said the time had come to replace the Klickitat and the other Steel Electric ferries. But six years later, that effort has instead sparked little beyond legal challenges, especially by a Tacoma shipbuilder who claims the state is dragging its feet and overlooking options.

J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. has filed litigation in state and federal courts, including a federal lawsuit alleging state officials have engaged in what amounts to civil racketeering in thwarting their efforts to get a chance to build the new ferries.

Martinac proposed building new ferries that use a different drive system than the state wants. According to the shipbuilder's tests, those vessels could safely operate at the existing Keystone and Port Townsend terminals.

A Thurston County Superior Court judge in February ruled that the state can decide to build new ferries that won't replace the Steel Electric ferries now operating out of Keystone and Port Townsend.

Martinac is appealing the ruling.

Ferry officials have blamed legal challenges by Martinac and others for lack of progress on the new ferries.

The shipbuilder is concerned about safety on the ferry runs and wasted money, said Martinac's attorney, Jed Powell, of the Seattle law firm Cairncross and Hempelmann.

"If (the ferry system) has decided to not pursue the Keystone relocation, it is one more time when they have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on an ill-conceived idea," he said.

Four of the five options that have been considered for the Keystone terminal range in price from $805 million to $1.64 billion over 30 years. Those figures include everything from the cost of new ferries to fuel and salaries for crews.

The actual cost of terminal construction is estimated to range from $30 to $60 million, said Hadley Greene, community relations manager for Washington State Ferries.

A cost estimate hasn't been developed for the fifth option, which would involve moving the terminal somewhere else on Whidbey.

The state has budgeted $31.4 million for the Keystone terminal project.

Since work on the terminal project was put on hold in October, a group of concerned community leaders has met with ferry staff twice, Greene said. The meetings have not been open to the public, but Greene said they've provided people with a stake in the project an opportunity to voice concerns.

A third meeting is scheduled for Monday.

Herald writer Scott North contributed to this report.

Reporter Kaitlin Manry: 425-339-3292 or [e-mail].

[Barnacle]

The only good thing about this maneuver is that it gives the ultimate smackdown to J.M. Martinac, if only they were intelligent enough to realize it.

[old_wsf_fan]

I read that article with great amusement. "These boats are falling apart". Boy I can guess who might have said that comment. I get really tired of the media putting only one side of a given arguement when reporting on a given subject. I call it sloppy journalism.

Yes the boats are old, yes they need to be replaced and should be as soon as possible but the CG would not allow those boats on the water if they were unsafe. I think the people at WSF deserve all the credit for keeping these old girls in service as long as they have. I have the utmost confidence in those old boats.
Lets see how many other ferries make it to 80+ years.

Something better be done for the people that use that PT/Keystone route. Shutting it down should not be an alternative.
The closure of this route will hamper tourism and economies in the area.

[hergfest]

I hope that the Whidbey Island residents who have been fighting this have fun when they have to drive all the way around to get to Port Angeles. What stupidity.

[Political Incorrectness]

Whidbey is somewhat turning into Bainbridge Island, they want something but don't want something else and the two don't work

[brassman]

Now everybody here seems down on Martinac, even I don't like their design, but you all are letting WSF off the hook way too easy.

WSF's original plan was to build two boats to replace the Steel-Electrics on the PT/Keystone run, this was dubbed the "Maneuverable Class". These boats could fit into Keystone and were what WSF went to the Legislature to fund, ie: boats to replace the aging Steel-Electrics.

Somewhere these boat got bigger. The plan was to relocate the Keystone Terminal to the other end of the spit. This was shot down for political reasons. WSF could of went back to the Maneuverable Class--the already had drawn plans.

Instead they decided a massive rework of Keystone was the plan. It should of been obvious that this plan would meet stiff opposition.

...,and the boats got even bigger!

So here we are with the DOT saying that they are going to shutdown a ferry run. Are not any of you going to ask why?

[EGfleet]

brassman said:

Now everybody here seems down on Martinac, even I don't like their design, but you all are letting WSF off the hook way too easy.

WSF's original plan was to build two boats to replace the Steel-Electrics on the PT/Keystone run, this was dubbed the "Maneuverable Class". These boats could fit into Keystone and were what WSF went to the Legislature to fund, ie: boats to replace the aging Steel-Electrics.

Somewhere these boat got bigger. The plan was to relocate the Keystone Terminal to the other end of the spit. This was shot down for political reasons. WSF could of went back to the Maneuverable Class--the already had drawn plans.

Instead they decided a massive rework of Keystone was the plan. It should of been obvious that this plan would meet stiff opposition.

...,and the boats got even bigger!

So here we are with the DOT saying that they are going to shutdown a ferry run. Are not any of you going to ask why?

I thought the article made that pretty clear:

"After that, he said, it would be up to state lawmakers to decide whether to shut down the route, which now carries only about 3 percent of the state's ferry riders and is losing money."

In addition, I know WSF has been striving to make the vessels work on any run, which was the reasoning behind moving the Keystone terminal in the first place--no specialized equipment for one run.

[brassman]

It's a special run. If that guy who videotaped the 5 cars muscled around by the green water over the bow on 3/20 posts that clip you'll see (one car was left hanging on the blkhd w/ 1 tire on the deck!)

[SS Shasta]

Why would anyone at WSF or DOT have the authority or stupidity to suggest such an idea? Perhaps it is time for some management heads to roll at those agencies. They should be ordered to maintain the "good old steels" in 1st class condition as they have been over the years..........end of story!!!

We have a similar problem here in Alaska. Every once in a while, top AMHS management feels they can run the system in almost any way that they see fit. Fortunately we elect a Governor who has the power to make changes in top management and that is exactly what she did last December.

BTW: there are two "fast ferries" up here that might also be available at a fire sale soon. Anyone interested? They are new, overpowered, expensive to operate, breakdown frequently, and often stay in port when the wind blows and the snow flies

[Barnacle]

shasta said:

Why would anyone at WSF or DOT have the authority or stupidity to suggest such an idea? Perhaps it is time for some management heads to roll at those agencies. They should be ordered to maintain the "good old steels" in 1st class condition as they have been over the years..........end of story!!!

Ordered by whom? The Coast Guard already keeps pretty good tabs on WSF about those boats, because I suspect the USCG would love to pull them. I defy you to point out areas where WSF has deliberately not maintained the vessels and can point to something that was the result of malicious neglect rather than cuts in the preventive maintenance budget or, in the recent instance concerning the Crackitat, simple old age. At some point the deterioration simply gets ahead of available resources to maintain it.

Your statement sounds like you are dangerously close to forgetting that WSF has twenty-four other boats and twenty terminals to maintain and operate in addition to these four antiques, and only so much funding to go around. Consider the return on investment... these boats are the most expensive in the fleet that are still operated on a regular basis. (Well, maybe the Rhododendron. I haven't see figures on her.)

I love the Evergreen State dearly--my favorite boat--but I'm not blind to the fact that a $15-20 million overhaul including new engines would be impractical for a boat that hauls maybe 92 cars a trip, is slow, and moreover, is 53 years old. I think any such pot o' gold that could theoretically be dumped into such limited-use vessels as the Steel-Electrics is much better spent on planning for replacements. God know WSF is trying, if it weren't for the Tacoma obstructionists... but that's another thread.

[SS San Mateo]

Those vessels - the oldest ferries in operation on salt water in the U.S. - are the only ferries in the state's fleet that are small and agile enough to navigate the existing terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend, ferry officials say.

Why can't larger vessels use the Pt. Townsend dock? Super and Jumbo class ferries were able to use the old dock.

Ferry officials had expected this spring to issue environmental impact statements on options for replacing the deteriorating wooden terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend.

The "deteriorating wooden terminals" part is misleading. The Pt. Townsend dock is concrete (the only wood parts are the towers and navigation dolphins and wingwalls in the main slip). Keystone doesn't even have a trestle (except for one dolphin, all of the navigation structures and towers are wood).

Martinac proposed building new ferries that use a different drive system than the state wants. According to the shipbuilder's tests, those vessels could safely operate at the existing Keystone and Port Townsend terminals.

Did this test assume there would be no modifications to the harbor at all (like dredging or widening the entrance)?

[Barnacle]

vashondude said:

Those vessels - the oldest ferries in operation on salt water in the U.S. - are the only ferries in the state's fleet that are small and agile enough to navigate the existing terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend, ferry officials say.

Why can't larger vessels use the Pt. Townsend dock? Super and Jumbo class ferries were able to use the old dock.



The "deteriorating wooden terminals" part is misleading. The Pt. Townsend dock is concrete (the only wood parts are the towers and navigation dolphins and wingwalls in the main slip). Keystone doesn't even have a trestle (except for one dolphin, all of the navigation structures and towers are wood).

Martinac proposed building new ferries that use a different drive system than the state wants. According to the shipbuilder's tests, those vessels could safely operate at the existing Keystone and Port Townsend terminals.

Did this test assume there would be no modifications to the harbor at all (like dredging or widening the entrance)?

Rumor has it the environmental movement won't allow dredging... something about salmon habitat.

The Port Townsend terminal is, as you observe, fine. Keystone's main issue is lack of parking; the "navigability" of the terminal has more to do with the harbor than the terminal.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about Martinac's proposal is that they call it a 'Turn-key' operation. From what I recall in business class, that is a lease operation, not an outright purchase. If this is the case, who would continue to own the boats?

[In Washington]

One big reason the Port Townsend/Keystone run is not likely to go away soon is even stronger strong than it was in the 70's when WSF bought it. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

Through years of watching runs go into depression and having people question why a ferry run was not eliminated I have learned at least one thing. The Armed Services (Federal Government) has a little pull, okay a lot.

When the Bremerton/Seattle run was in a slump in the early 80's having Puget Sound Naval Shipyard as a neighbor saved it. Port Townsend/Keystone provides the easiest access to Naval Air Station Whidbey from Marrowstone Island (a USN base), Bangor (a USN/Marine base) and PSNS (a USN base).

Tourism is now obviously a big factor as well but lest we forget why President Eisenhower set up the infrastructure we in the US now call freeways. It was done for the military to transport weapons and goods. We car drivers just got lucky. The Port Townsend/Keystone run is important to the Feds. Maybe they will chip in a little extra to get us the terminal and/or boats we need.

Wow. That was a mouthful.

[EGfleet]

Future hazy for Whidbey ferry service
Losing the old boats would have a chilling effect on tourism.

By Kaitlin Manry
Herald Writer


WHIDBEY ISLAND - The impact could be dramatic.

The tourism dollars that help sustain the economies of Coupeville and Port Townsend likely would shrivel. Naval officers stationed on Whidbey Island with homes on the Olympic Peninsula would have to move or face impossible commutes. Port Townsend residents would no longer be able to catch a ferry to visit a friend or see a play on Whidbey Island, and vice versa.

The sense of community that has existed between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend for decades would be severed.

Though there are no immediate plans to cancel ferry service between Keystone and Port Townsend, a state Department of Transportation official last week acknowledged the ferry route now may not receive new ferries and upgraded terminals. The state has spent six years and at least $5.5 million planning for the new terminals alone.

Without the new boats and docks, the routes eventually could be shut down, he acknowledged.

The terminal projects have been put on hold indefinitely - and if they are never completed, the Legislature may have to decide whether ferry service is financially sustainable between Keystone and Port Townsend, said Steve Reinmuth, director of government relations for the state Department of Transportation.

The route serves less than 3 percent of the ferry system's riders, and it is losing money, according to state officials.

Concern on Whidbey

The possibility that the route may shut down is creating concern on Whidbey Island and in Port Townsend.

"It's a lifeline to go to the peninsula as well as an avenue for visitors to be able to visit the Olympic National Park and be able to come over and visit Whidbey Island," said Mary Alice Sterling, a regular on the ferry and owner of Spin Cove Gallery in Coupeville. "It's lifeblood for the island."

State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, acknowledged Wednesday that the four new ferries the state plans to build almost certainly won't wind up on routes now being serviced by the fleet's four 80-year-old Steel Electric ferries.

The Steel Electrics are the oldest ferries operating in salt water in the U.S. They also are the only ferries in the state's fleet small and agile enough to navigate Keystone Harbor and the terminals at Keystone and Port Townsend.

No money to move

The ferries the state wants to build are too big for the route, said Haugen, D-Camano Island. The state had been looking at moving the Keystone ferry terminal to accommodate bigger boats, but Haugen said that's no longer a viable option.

"The fact of the matter is, we don't have the money to move the terminal site," she said.

Haugen said that doesn't necessarily mean the route will be shut down when the Steel Electrics are gone. The state may be able to borrow ferries or buy new ones to fit Keystone, she said. However, Haugen acknowledged there is no money set aside for that sort of expense, and she doesn't know where the money would come from.

"The ferry system in this state has done a really great job, but they're facing a financial crisis," she said. "We're looking at everything. Everything is on the table."

The Steel Electric ferries are falling apart. Over the last 10 years, six breaches, or holes, have been found in the hull of the Klickitat, the Steel Electric ferry currently operating the Keystone to Port Townsend route, state records show. Emergency repairs for those problems, as well work on damaged rudders and decks, have sidelined the ferry 11 times since 1997.

The Legislature in 2001 said the time had come to replace the Klickitat and the other Steel Electric ferries.

Yet six years later, little progress has been made. Officials have blamed legal challenges for lack of progress on the new ferries.

That's simply not true, said Jed Powell, of the Seattle law firm Cairncross and Hempelmann. Powell noted that it wasn't until this summer that he filed a federal lawsuit, alleging state officials engaged in civil racketeering against J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. of Tacoma. The company has been fighting for a chance to build the replacement ferries. It has a related civil case on appeal in state court, an action started late last year.

Martinac has proposed building ferries that use a different, more maneuverable drive system than the state wants. According to the shipbuilder, the ferries could safely operate at the existing Keystone and Port Townsend terminals.

The state earlier sought bids from shipbuilders for vessels that could truly replace the Steel Electrics, Powell said.

The state's acknowledgement that the new ferries likely won't be capable of working out of Keystone and Port Townsend just makes Martinac's case stronger, the attorney said.

"It's an admission that our lawsuit is right," Powell said. "They never intended to replace the Steel Electrics."

'Very grave impact'

Oak Harbor Mayor Patty Cohen is concerned about the uncertainty that surrounds the route and its ferries. Many people who work at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor live on the Olympic Peninsula and commute on the Klickitat.

Cohen said she's willing to go to Olympia and lobby to make sure state lawmakers protect ferry service between Whidbey and Port Townsend.

Closing down the route "would have a very grave impact" on people stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, she said. "We certainly hope there's a way to solve and answer and address this issue. It's critically important to the Naval Air Station."

Last year, nearly 767,000 passengers rode state ferries between Whidbey Island and the Olympic Peninsula.

Port Townsend Mayor Mark Welch said the ferry route is of national interest because of its proximity to several military bases - and he doesn't think the federal government will allow it to close.

"It certainly wouldn't help the tourist economy," he said. "There's a fair amount of cross pollination, so that would be very damaging."

He said he's been frustrated with the state at times during the ferry terminal project. But, like many here, he's hopeful a solution will be found.

Herald writer Scott North contributed to this report.

[EGfleet]

Interesting to note that (shock!) the lawyer lied.
Martinac filed a lawsuit (granted, not federal) that had the first contract award of the Steel E replacements (to Todd Shipyard) overturned, something that set the whole process back by at least two years.

That's all been well documented and it was pretty stupid of him to contend they had nothing to do with it.

Secondly, I don't see how his claim that this latest proves their lawsuit...WSF/DOT fully intended to place one of the new boats on the route...with a new terminal. The fact that they spent 5.5 million developing plans for that would hardly indicate to me that "they had no intention of replacing the boats."

[brassman]

Though when WSF originally went to the Legislture is was to specifically replace the Steel-Electris.

Martinac might be guilty of slowing down the new construction of boats that would not replace the Steels.

Maybe that is a good thing.

[EGfleet]

brassman said:

Though when WSF originally went to the Legislture is was to specifically replace the Steel-Electris.

Martinac might be guilty of slowing down the new construction of boats that would not replace the Steels.

Maybe that is a good thing.

I dont' think so. Regardless of what they replace, those four boats are needed.

The Steel E's are 80.
The Rhody is 60.
The Evergreens will all be 50 in two years.
The Supers are 40 this years.
Practically speaking, that's a total of 12 vessels that will all have to be replaced fairly soon, fully one half the fleet.

I'll take those four new boats, whatever they're replacing. WSF is going to be hurting for new vessels, and sooner than later.

[Barnacle]

brassman said:

Though when WSF originally went to the Legislture is was to specifically replace the Steel-Electris.

Martinac might be guilty of slowing down the new construction of boats that would not replace the Steels.

Maybe that is a good thing.

A good thing? Pff.

These boats were to replace the Steel-Electrics concurrent with the construction of a new dock at Keystone. The Keystone terminal has been bogged in red tape, and Martinac has seen to it that WSF is now a full boat-building cycle behind. The Steel-Electrics should've been replaced by now, and these boats would've done it had the plan come together successfully. By now we should be working on replacing the Evergreens. Instead we have nothing to show for the taxpayer dollars that went toward litigation.

Thanks a lot, Martinac.

[Brassman]

Doth thy not use Matinac for a convienent strawman?

Why not WSF protest when Politico says no to move East?

Is it all questions & the strut of one who walks in the barnyard too much?

[Political Incorrectness]

Let's just say that I wish we had a law that says if whoever is suing lost the lawsuit, they get to pay all fees, lawyers, judges, attorneys, and perhaps delay of project costs.

[Brassman]

Still--no answer to questions.

[Political Incorrectness]

Mr. Brassman, feel free to join our forum if you'd please but I also ask of your patience.

1. Martinec wants their design and their design only

2. I don't get what you are saying

3. sarcasim or satire?

[Barnacle]

Brassman said:

Doth thy not use Matinac for a convienent strawman?

Why not WSF protest when Politico says no to move East?

Is it all questions & the strut of one who walks in the barnyard too much?

Perhaps there was a lack of answer because this was a trifle patronizing.

Perhaps there was a lack of answer because I didn't visit the board during the half-hour between your posts.

Perhaps there was a lack of answer because I feel that this topic has become rather belabored and nothing I can do will convince you that perhaps Martinac isn't the best answer.

Mary Margaret Haugen killed the move of the terminal, and that is frustrating. What will happen to the terminal now, I don't know; just because it isn't being allowed, doesn't mean that it wasn't the fundamentally most viable option. Now we apparently need to build specialized equipment, with new design costs, for a specific run, and the cost of having a "spare" boat that will be idle eight months of the year. How practical is that?

If Martinac's lawsuits aren't delaying the construction of the new ferries, what is?

[Political Incorrectness]

Our system of government where we must listen to everyone and just one person can shoot down an entire project. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE HAPPY AND WE MUST FACE THAT FACT!

[Brassman]

I apologize for my post last night,
though it is a measure of my frustration.

I am not a proponet of Martinac. I believe that their design is inappropriate for Keystone Harbor.

Nor am I against the 144 car new-builds.

What I am is an advocate for a replacement vessel on the Port Townsend/Keystone route--after all, isn't that what the orginal appropriation was for?