FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Jul 18, 2007 14:33:58 GMT -8
Ahhh the Kulshan. It has a kind of narrow hull and, at least when WSF had it, very small rudders. The rudder issue would be a problem at the entrance to Keystone. When we had strong tides at Southpoint (Hood Canal days) it was really hard to land the Kulshan. Spring lines and lots of waiting for it to come over against the dolphins. Nah, the Kulshan is not one we want back. Here is what her hull looks like. I think her rudders required locking pins. Don't know if SSA still use these on this vessel today. All info were taken from original blueprints I copied at the San Diego Maritime Museum and photos of her current configuration. This museum has a scale model of this vessel in a display case on the Main Deck of the STR BERKELEY along with other San Diego ferries. We may get another KULSHAN soon. On a bigger hull and superstructure. For the Mukilteo run.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 19, 2007 18:47:22 GMT -8
D'oh!
Yes, the Steel-Electrics were given the WW2 surplus GM's... 278s, I think--same as the Evergreen State. Late 1940s, not early 1940s as I indicated.
And I agree, there are better candidates for the Keystone run. I'd hate to have to build a new class of boat exclusively for the run, but it's looking like that is what WSF will have to do since the terminal issues are deadlocked and, ultimately, dead.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 19, 2007 21:00:26 GMT -8
I'd just let the route die out since they are asking for it. If they don't want expansion, I would just say fine and later they can re-evaluate their decision.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jul 19, 2007 22:23:47 GMT -8
I agree, screw em. They have already pulled two Steel Electrics from service, how long until they pull all of them?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 20, 2007 10:27:21 GMT -8
I'd guess by the end of August...
|
|
|
Post by Dane offline on Jul 20, 2007 16:31:18 GMT -8
I agree, screw em. They have already pulled two Steel Electrics from service, how long until they pull all of them? ERYKGDT which SEs were pulled from service?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 20, 2007 18:22:43 GMT -8
ERYKGDT which SEs were pulled from service? The Illahee and the Quinault. What does ERYKGDT stand for?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 20, 2007 19:59:06 GMT -8
I wonder what she's doing there
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 20, 2007 20:42:00 GMT -8
I wonder what she's doing there Taking over for the Hiyu.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 21, 2007 10:40:33 GMT -8
ERYKGDT which SEs were pulled from service? The Illahee and the Quinault. Has a schedule been set yet for their return to service? Are they now in commercial yards or at Eagle Harbor?
|
|
|
Post by Dane offline on Jul 21, 2007 16:38:26 GMT -8
It was my security check... I obviously typed it in the wrong spot!
Are the vessels permantantly pulled? is there a thread somewhere I missed about this? I am working FT right now and may have missed the post
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jul 21, 2007 17:40:53 GMT -8
With all the recent problems with the Steel Electric's hulls the Coast Guard has made WSF pull them from service to get additional hull repairs. In addition to the Klickitat's problems earlier in the year, the Illahee had hull problems on the southern Vashon run just after getting back from refit. So it looks like WSF is going to rotate the Steel Electrics until they get the inspections the Coast Guard is mandating done. WSF also has to remove the concrete ballast added to their hulls so the hull can be completely inspected. This can't be a fast process.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 21, 2007 19:41:17 GMT -8
Can I put my wager for them going out of service to mid August? Like any old boats, at some point they have to go. With frequent breakdowns, this will show the need but I am also afraid this will delay the process if the men in suits start pointing fingers at each other and getting some lawyers to deal over something frivolous. We will just have to see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jul 22, 2007 7:33:37 GMT -8
I probably missed this, but where are the Steels being inspected and worked on?
I would imagine that this kind of work only a couple of the yards can handle.
|
|
|
Post by harold on Jul 22, 2007 8:05:12 GMT -8
Everett, Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published: Sunday, July 22, 2007
Are old, rusting ferries still fit?
By Scott North and Kaitlin Manry, Herald writers
Time and corrosion gnaw at the riveted steel hulls of the four oldest salt water ferries in the nation.
Washington State Ferries planners say they want to replace the boats, and have spent more than $80 million and six years trying to build replacements.
Still, they put their faith in the 80-year-old Klickitat, Quinault, Illahee and Nisqually to move people across chilly Puget Sound.
The four vessels have never met Coast Guard safety standards that have been in place for all ferries since the 1950s.
In the places passengers can't see, the ferries are falling apart.
Crews scraping paint off the Quinalt's hull early this month opened a quarter-inch- diameter hole below the waterline.
The Klickitat's hull developed a 6-inch crack in March.
As far back as 2000, tests found places where rust thinned the Klickitat's hull by up to 70 percent.
The ferries, the last of a type called Steel Electrics, have been springing leaks for years.
Why the state hasn't replaced the Steel Electrics is a complicated and often contentious tale with chapters touching on planning, politics, Northwest maritime history, the federal tax code - even allegations of racketeering.
State officials, from Gov. Chris Gregoire on down say they believe the boats are safe.
They point to the Coast Guard's continued willingness to allow the vessels to operate.
"The crews who maintain the Steel Electrics do so with loving care," state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said. "They feel they have custody of some wonderful old piece of machinery."
How much longer love and care will keep the boats afloat is anyone's guess.
Washington State Ferries was ordered on June 26 by the Coast Guard to take immediate steps to correct the frequent leaks on the Steel Electrics.
The problems are "serious in nature" and reflect insufficient maintenance for vessels this old, the Coast Guard said.
The action came after four leaks on Steel Electrics this year, said Mike Anderson, executive director of the state ferry system.
He characterized the leaks as "small incidents," but acknowledged the problems are serious enough to require the state to spend $2 million meeting Coast Guard maintenance demands.
Getting to the bottom of whether the vessels are truly safe isn't easy.
Year after year, the Coast Guard has approved the Steel Electrics for operation on some of the busiest shipping lanes and roughest waters in the state.
But when it comes to safety, "there's no more guarantee than any other ship out there," said Lt. Cmdr Todd Howard, assistant chief of inspections for the Coast Guard in Seattle.
The Herald attempted to inspect the Coast Guard records that document the problems with leaks on the four ferries.
After months of being assured the Freedom of Information Act request was being processed, the Coast Guard this month said the request had somehow become lost.
Others also have had trouble trying to get answers about the ferries' safety, including State Auditor Brian Sonntag.
In 2004 Sonntag received a state whistle-blower complaint about ferry safety.
The auditor's probe was cut short by ferry officials who said they had "serious questions" about state auditors poking around vessels and exploring safety first-hand, records show.
State attorneys told Sonntag he was powerless to force cooperation, that the ferry system had the power to deny his office access to the vessel for independent inspection.
Sonntag considered writing a report criticizing the ferry system for operating vessels that don't meet current safety standards.
But he said he retreated when ferry officials produced Coast Guard waivers and assurances.
"You feel safe until all of a sudden you're not," Sonntag said. "People felt safe on the Titanic."
From the Roaring '20s
The Klickitat, Quinault, Illahee and Nisqually launched in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh made the first solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean.
The boats were designed with technology prevalent just 15 years after the sinking of the Titanic. They had steel engines that drove electric propulsion systems, which gave them the name Steel Electrics.
Their job was to carry passengers, Model-Ts and horse-drawn carriages across San Francisco waterways.
They became surplus in the 1930s after the Golden Gate Bridge and other Bay Area spans opened.
In 1940, a private company running ferries across Puget Sound paid $300,000 for six of the San Francisco Steel Electrics.
Washington State Ferries inherited them when it took over the ferries in 1951.
Today the Steel Electrics are used in the San Juan Islands and on the Keystone-Port Townsend run. Last year, that run alone carried 767,000 people, including many tourists.
The state retired two Steel Electrics 40 years ago.
The old Enetai, now named Santa Rosa, is back on the San Francisco waterfront, permanently installed at Pier 3. It's rented out for parties, and its owner has offices there.
The other boat, once called the Willapa, is for sale in Stockton, Calif.
Dave Parker, a marine construction consultant, was paid more than $100,000 to take the ferry off the hands of its previous owner. He hopes somebody will turn the boat into a museum. If not, it is destined for scrap, he said.
Parker was surprised to learn that his ferry's sister ships are still carrying people through Washington waters.
"It's a miracle," he said.
Safety concerns
None of the state's remaining Steel Electrics meets federal safety requirements, in effect since the mid-1950s.
The rules require ferry hulls to be divided into multiple, water-tight spaces and to be able to remain afloat even if more than one of those compartments fills with water.
Vessels that don't meet the standard are at greater risk of sinking or capsizing.
Twenty-six years ago, as the Klickitat was undergoing major renovation, the Coast Guard inspector told the state to retrofit the boat to meet the higher watertight standards.
Ferry officials complained that the work would be prohibitively expensive.
The Coast Guard relented, and instead required the vessel to undergo stepped-up hull inspections.
The extra attention hasn't stopped deterioration.
Emergency repairs have sidelined the ferry 11 times since 1997. The crack found in the Klickitat's hull in March was just one of six breaches or holes discovered over the past 10 years, according to ferry system maintenance records.
When problems are found, the state replaces the aging steel hull plates. That's created "a bit of a patchwork quilt, if you will," out of the Steel Electrics' hulls, said Anderson, the ferry system chief, who has been working for the ferries for 34 years.
Age, not neglect, is the reason for the hull problems with the Klickitat and other Steel Electrics, ferries communications director Marta Coursey said.
"The reality is that these boats are old," she said.
So is much of the rest of the fleet.
More than a third of Washington's 28 ferries are at least 52 years old. In comparison, the oldest ferry in the BC Ferries system in neighboring Canada is 51. The average age of that 36-vessel fleet is 25.
Six years ago, state lawmakers voted to build four new ferries. The idea was pitched as an opportunity to retire the Steel Electrics.
Now, ferry officials are saying the Steel Electrics will stay in service for several more years.
That's because they are the only boats small enough, and agile enough, to maneuver in and out of old ferry terminals at Keystone on Whidbey Island and Port Townsend on the Olympic Peninsula.
The state plans to build four new 144-car ferries, more than twice the size of the old ones. Ferry officials say they may be able to retire two of the Steel Electrics sometime after 2009.
The ferry system plans to continue using the remaining two Steel Electrics indefinitely.
Progress 'so slow'
MacDonald became the state's transportation chief in April 2001 and is leaving at the end of this month.
He regrets the lack of progress in building new ferries. He'd hoped to have the first new ferry on the water by next year.
"One of my greatest disappointments in the last six years is that the progress has been so slow," he said.
During his tenure, the state spent about $15 million on ferry planning and design.
The state also spent $67 million buying four big diesel engines that it hopes will one day be installed in new ferries.
The move generated controversy, because the ferry system bought the new engines without having precise designs for new vessels. It didn't even have a contract with a shipbuilder.
The state's handling of the $348 million ferry construction contract drove one of the region's top shipbuilders to file a federal lawsuit accusing state officials, including MacDonald and Anderson, of civil racketeering.
The lawsuit was brought last fall by the J. M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. of Tacoma. In 2005, a judge ruled that the state at one point had unlawfully eliminated Martinac from the bidding.
The suit is pending even as state officials - at Gregoire's insistence - have been negotiating with Martinac to play a role in building new ferries.
The plan now calls for Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. of Seattle to take the lead in building the ferries. Martinac and Whidbey Island's Nichols Brothers Boat Builders Inc. are to be the primary subcontractors.
The state hopes to see the first of the new boats by 2009.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Josh Reynolds said that in spite of leaks there is no reason to believe the Steel Electrics aren't up to the job.
"When we post that certificate of inspection on it, that's us saying they're safe," Reynolds said. "I firmly believe in our inspection program. We're making a difference. It's a lot better to prevent something than to have to respond to it."
Martinac executives figure they've spent a decade and $2.5 million trying to help build new ferries.
Yet the Coast Guard and ferry officials seem content to continue operating the deteriorating Steel Electrics, said Martinac attorney Jed Powell, of the Seattle law firm Cairncross and Hemplemann.
Talk that the vessels are safe sets Powell's teeth on edge.
"How can a Coast Guard commander say that with a straight face?" he asked. "The laws of safety are clear - and these boats, flat out, are not in compliance with U.S. rules and regulations for vessel safety."
His investigation since 1999 left him wondering why the state continues to use its oldest ferries on the route between Keystone and Port Townsend, a crossing exposed to rough winter storms and powerful swells from the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The ferry system plans for potential catastrophes on that route by carrying enough rafts to evacuate every passenger. It also knows survivors likely would be on their own for hours, because the route is off the beaten path, Powell said.
Why wasn't the state as concerned as he became, Powell wondered. Then he came across the only answer that seemed to make sense.
The Steel Electrics aren't just ferries.
They are floating tax shelters - and the state has to keep them on the water until 2014, Powell said. By then the Steel Electrics will be 87 years old.
The obscure arrangement happened in the the 1980s, when the ferry system sold the depreciation value of the Steel Electrics to investors around the country seeking tax breaks.
The goal was to bring private investment to public transportation systems, and resulted in an immediate $8.2 million for the ferry system.
It works sort of like selling your family car to a wealthy neighbor. The neighbor needs a tax write-off, and pays you cash up front; you keep using the vehicle under a lease, Powell said.
The program requires the state to keep the Steel Electrics active in the fleet or face millions of dollars in penalties, Powell said. The tax shelter deal figures prominently in Martinac's lawsuit.
State officials angrily deny the lawsuit's assertions. The depreciation deal was done decades ago, before the system's current problems, and was part of a federally-approved program, state officials say.
Transportation Secretary MacDonald and others in state government say they are ready to defend themselves in court, yet remain hopeful the lawsuit will simply go away as Martinac negotiates for ferry work.
Herald writers Jim Haley and Jerry Cornfield contributed to this report.
Reporter Scott North: 425-339-3431 or north@heraldnet.com.
© 2007The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Jul 22, 2007 16:36:22 GMT -8
Steel engines driving electric motors? I think not... Steel hulls with diesel Electric propulsion. I know so... It took three writers to to get that wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 22, 2007 16:46:39 GMT -8
I just have one question, will Martinec JUST DROP IT SHEESH! WHOEVER OWNS IT JUST NEEDS TO GET OVER IT AND MAKE LIFE FOR THE BETTER OF OTHERS THAN OF THEIR BANKS!
I'm just a little bit annoyed since anyone who doesn't get their way thinks the only solution is to sue the pants off the other guy. If they don't get there way, just keep the lawsuit on them. Can't we learn to forgive and forget?
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 22, 2007 20:19:55 GMT -8
Steel engines driving electric motors? I think not... Steel hulls with diesel Electric propulsion. I know so... Nice catch there. The first thing through my mind when I read that was, if that really WAS the definition of a steel-electric, then what would they have thought about something called a wood-electric??? Now THAT would have been a sight to see.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 24, 2007 12:46:25 GMT -8
Ferry solutions mired in blame
By Scott North and Kaitlin Manry, Herald Writers
There are many theories to explain why Washington State Ferries has been unable to retire four leaking 80-year-old boats.
Some blame politics.
Some blame leadership.
Some blame poor planning.
So state officials have come up with an answer that they've turned to before.
They've ordered a study.
Longtime ferry system supporter State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said there's something amiss in the ferry system.
It's time for some "readjustments," said Haugen, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee.
She's convinced ferry officials are making replacement of the Steel Electrics difficult by relying on "ridiculous" financial projections and poor planning.
"You have to depend on the people who you pay a lot of money to make those decisions," she said.
Her solution: a sweeping two-year study of the ferry system, including all 28 boats, the routes and its roughly $200 million-a-year budget.
Once that's completed, lawmakers will have reliable information to figure out how best to finally retire the nation's oldest ferries still running in salt water, Haugen said.
* * *
Ferry officials have ignored the communities they serve, Haugen said.
They've left lawmakers in the dark, she said, and pushed projects with no chance of success - including a plan to build an over-the-water parking lot that would have cost $54,000 a space to construct.
The ferry system's problems have been glaring on the route between Keystone Harbor on Whidbey Island and Port Townsend on the Olympic Peninsula, she said.
There, the state has spent six years and $5.5 million exploring options. Its preferred plan was to rebuild ferry terminals on the run, allowing them to accommodate ferries carrying up to 144 cars.
Yet the state failed to appreciate community resistance to larger vessels, she said. It didn't talk enough with residents on both sides of the run, where people in both towns were fearful of traffic jams caused by the bigger ships, she said.
"There's no question. They never really talked to the communities," Haugen said.
The plan for bigger ferries on that route was scrapped earlier this year, in part because bigger boats would need bigger terminals, and the cost was too high, Haugen said.
Only the Steel Electrics, which carry 64 cars, are small and agile enough to navigate Keystone Harbor.
For now, it appears the Steel Electrics will continue operating indefinitely until the Legislature finishes studying what to do with the ferry system, said Mike Anderson, the man at the helm of Washington State Ferries.
While that's happening, the ferry service is taking another look at what to do with the Keystone-Port Townsend route.
Although the issues are the same as dealt with in previous studies, "very little of that work is throwaway," Anderson said.
* * *
Gov. Chris Gregoire also is convinced ferry officials missed an opportunity.
Conversations with people on Whidbey Island and in Port Townsend might have steered the state toward building two large ferries and two smaller ferries, instead of pursuing four large vessels.
The smaller boats could have helped retire the Steel Electrics sooner and likely would have been welcomed on both sides of the route, she said.
"Why didn't someone talk to them?" Gregoire asked rhetorically. "They didn't check with their clients."
State Auditor Brian Sonntag has frequently raised questions about the ferry system, particularly its handling of money.
In a March audit, he pointed out that the ferry system's accounting methods are so limited it can't prove it collected all the fees for ticket sales.
Although the ferry system said it is trying to fix the accounting problem, Sonntag pointed out in the audit that this is the 21st straight year the problem has been raised with ferry officials.
Sonntag fears something bad may have to happen first in order for state officials make meaningful changes.
"I really believe Olympia is so focused on problem solving in a crisis mode that until there's a crisis it may not get enough people's attention," he said.
The paper trail on the Steel Electrics' history of trouble could be costly in the aftermath of a disaster.
"It wouldn't just be a matter of a smoking gun," said Frank Shoicet, a Seattle attorney who's successfully sued state and local governments in major personal-injury cases. "It would be the smoking gun dropped at the foot of somebody standing there with bloodstains and powder burns on their hands."
* * *
Ferry officials don't like to talk about the possibility of disaster.
They say their ferries are safe. Period.
Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said he's not opposed to stepped-up review of the ferry service. However, he hopes all the studying leads to more than just finger-pointing.
The state needs to concentrate on building new boats, not on assigning blame, he said.
Lawmakers have sometimes stood in the way of progress, he said.
In 2001, politicians told the ferry system to build new boats. But they didn't provide money to get it done.
They also left some critical questions unanswered, he said. The bill set out to shift risks for cost overruns to shipbuilders, but left unclear precisely how that should happen.
The legislation "laid out a Parcheesi board on which there was major difficulties to move your piece around the board," MacDonald said. "We would try something and get blocked. Then we would try something else and get blocked."
The ferry system's planning for new boats also has left observers scratching their heads.
State officials first wanted to build 130-car ferries.
They spent $67 million buying engines for the new boats before detailed plans and construction contracts came together.
Then late last year, after half a decade of planning, ferry officials announced they'd changed their minds.
Now, they want 144-car ferries.
Nonetheless, ferry officials have tried to blame others for delays, including J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. of Tacoma.
They brought a federal lawsuit against ferry officials, alleging mishandling of ferry construction contracts.
Steve Reinmuth, government relations director for the transportation department, said he's convinced that the Martinac litigation is the only reason the Steel Electrics haven't been replaced.
The accusation doesn't hold up.
Prior to filing its federal lawsuit in fall 2006, Martinac brought only one other legal challenge of the ferry system. In 2005, the shipbuilder challenged a decision by ferry officials to disqualify it from bidding on the new ferries project.
It took just four months for Martinac lawyers to convince a judge the ferry system's conduct was illegal.
Martinac's federal lawsuit is still pending even as state officials - at Gregoire's insistence - are negotiating with Martinac to now play a role in developing new ferries.
Gregoire says she didn't intervene earlier because she lacked the authority.
When she took office in January 2005, her role was constrained because the state Transportation Commission, not the governor, oversaw ferry operations.
That changed within months, with legislators deciding to give the governor authority over transportation policy.
Gregoire said she's concentrating on building four new ferries - but not necessarily replacing the Steel Electrics.
If all goes according to state plans, in two years, one of those 144-car ferries will be built.
Then state policy-makers will have one more go at studies dealing with questions about how to retire ferries that have been floating around since the Calvin Coolidge administration.
"We don't want to be celebrating the 100-year birthday of the Klickitat in 2027," MacDonald said.
"I don't think the Coast Guard would think that would be a good idea. They'd probably like to see it in a museum by then."
Herald writers Jim Haley and Jerry Cornfield contributed to this report.
Reporter Scott North: 425-339-3431 or north@heraldnet.com.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jul 25, 2007 18:18:03 GMT -8
Boy this is getting to be a real headache for WSF, politicians and commuters alike.
If the Coast Guard does pull the Steels from service there is going to be a firestorm of criticism from all sides.
As I have stated in the past, all sides need to come together to reach the common goal, new ferries for Pt. Townsend/Keystone and possible expansion of the Keystone terminal to allow the larger draft vessels to use the dock.
I hate to see WSF be the punching-bag over this problem. It can be effectively worked out.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 26, 2007 0:12:38 GMT -8
Oh my goodness....... Where to start? So state officials have come up with an answer that they've turned to before. They've ordered a study. Of course. There is no one who really has a handle on what the problem is, is there? Of course there is! But we can't make a decision, so we will study it again. So, does she have any additional comment to back up that statement? I don't know offhand if the projections are ridiculous or not. And, is it really "ferry officials" who are to blame for this? I just think this is more of an attempt to incite a riot than a truly planned-out thought. But that's just me.... A two-year study! Is there really some sort of information out there that takes two years to gather? Is there really anything about the ferry system out there that is so intricate or confusing that it couldn't be completely researched by a couple of graduate students with a semester or two worth of time? No, I have a better idea. By the time a two-year study is completed, the state house and half the state senate, as well as the governor, will have been re-elected or turned over. That's real leadership! Pass the problem off to the next legislature! ...... unless we don't like the results of that study either. Then we can say that the first study was done using outdated information, and commission even another study. * * * I'm not sure of what she's talking about. But I'd bet it was one of several options presented for whatever it is. Besides, are we so sure that it doesn't cost that much per car to build a ferry dock on a pier? In fact, I think that the state representative should be called in to actually represent the constituents in this matter. I think the citizens who are upset about this should go straight to their state senator and demand to know why she has let this matter get to this point! Hummm... I wonder who that is, Sen. Haugen representing Island County? Don't make me look it up....... Alternate choice. Just blame it on the senator representing Port Townsend on the other side. You could just pass the responsibility off to him! OK. Part one of study. Get a good map and see if there is a better place on Whidbey Island to put that terminal. That might take someone a week. And it would get that question answered. Use the old terminal land to expand camping in the state park next door. Win-win! Whatever that means. But it's gonna come down to this: King County seems to come up with the means to buy Metro Transit enough vehicles for replacement as needed. WSF is a transit agency in this day and age. The state should come up with the means to replace WSF's transit vehicles. Same thing. And if the legislature and the people decide that they want to vote against taxing themselves enough to replace those vehicles, then that is the decision made. When the darned things sink, there won't be a replacement, and the decision (or non-decision) of the people will be final. "Bad decisions were made, but it wasn't on my watch!" Is there anyone on the Keystone side who wouldn't want the biggest ferry to get everybody out of there? Is there anyone on the Keystone side who cares? I'm an accountant. This one turns me on! So, for 21 straight years, the state auditor has noted a problem with the WSF books. And for 21 straight years, the state auditor (and his predecessors, presumably) have told them to "shape up or else". But in all that time, the state auditor has never taken the necessary steps to get the agency's books in order. The whole point of the state auditor's office is to find these problems in state agencies, then to ensure that they are fixed. People of Washington: If we are to believe what the auditor is saying, then perhaps he should be replaced! Or at least told to do his job. I'll stop taunting them for now. But the whole article is about our leaders refusing to lead. Quit studying the darned thing and just DO it!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 26, 2007 7:37:42 GMT -8
Boy this is getting to be a real headache for WSF, politicians and commuters alike. If the Coast Guard does pull the Steels from service there is going to be a firestorm of criticism from all sides. As I have stated in the past, all sides need to come together to reach the common goal, new ferries for Pt. Townsend/Keystone and possible expansion of the Keystone terminal to allow the larger draft vessels to use the dock. I hate to see WSF be the punching-bag over this problem. It can be effectively worked out. Therein lies the problem... the two sides want vastly different things. WSF wants to expand the route for what are reported to be over-inflated traffic projections; the locals want enough ferry service for themselves but nobody else, and they want it there when they want to travel without any delay. (Not unlike Bainbridge Island.) In short, each side is clinging to its unrealistic expectations. It's already been determined thoroughly that there will be NO expansion of Keystone to accomodate larger vessels--which, unfortunately, is the best solution. Even if the traffic projections ARE overinflated, I would think the increased operating costs for the run would largely be offset by a significant reduction in maintenance costs by disposing of the 80-year-old boats (at least if you factor in all the havoc they cause with the rest of the maintenance schedule). Come to think of it, if the traffic projections ARE overinflated, then Port Townsend's whining about 'not being able to handle the increased traffic' from larger boats is just that--whining. I don't agree entirely with WSF management's direction on the whole thing, but since I work for them, I'm trying to not bite the hand that feeds.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 26, 2007 7:59:28 GMT -8
Does WSF even have any designs drawn up for replacements for the steel-electrics?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 26, 2007 11:12:15 GMT -8
Not to my knowledge, but it shouldn't be too hard to develop something fairly quickly--I would think an evolution of the Evergreen State-class hull would probably work well, if a six-lane version would be adequate. Remove one fidley, and just have a center divider like the Oly and Rhody. Mind you, there may be regulations prohibiting such a small number of egress points from the cabin; I'm really not up on that. At any rate, a six-lane version of an Evergreen would accomodate... let's see... about 75 cars, on a rough guess. But if it were increased in length to Issaquah-class (bearing in mind beam and draft are the restricting qualities here), something in an 81-car boat could be concocted (make it 80 for ease of math). That would be a considerable upgrade, and I think it could be done without having to make too many allowances for the preposterous terminal set-up at Keystone.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 26, 2007 18:57:49 GMT -8
to Brian K:
...from one accountant to another: Does the State auditor have the authority to order that the accounting be changed?
Up here in Canada, our Provincial & Federal auditor-general's have power to investigate and to report. But the final decisions on how things are reported is up to the Gov't. If the auditor doesn't like it (even after 21 years), all they can do is keep issuing a qualified (ie. non-clean) audit opinion.
|
|