|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 17, 2018 13:06:48 GMT -8
I think it would be more correct to say I have faith in the physics and automation involved. I already came just short of saying that I thought AMHS management was disingenuous in how they sold the ships to us.
Even so, we should see improvements as the ACF is designed for a crew of 9 or 10. Run her with 2 crews, and you get 20 crew members on the run. Right now, we are running the Mal with 42 or 44 crew members (can't remember the precise number). Even with 2 crews, this is a significant reduction.
The ship itself is much smaller than the Mal, should displace less, and has both a bulbous bow which should reduce the drag by something north of 10%, more fuel efficient main engines, and the new RR system for reducing drag and cavitation.
So... I don't have a lot of faith in what management says, but I do still suspect the ship will be an operational improvement over the current arrangement.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Sept 17, 2018 16:18:03 GMT -8
Right now, we are running the Mal with 42 or 44 crew members (can't remember the precise number). Even with 2 crews, this is a significant reduction.
The ship itself is much smaller than the Mal, should displace less, and has both a bulbous bow which should reduce the drag by something north of 10%, more fuel efficient main engines, and the new RR system for reducing drag and cavitation.
I'd forgotten what a terrible match the Malaspina is for that run. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 14, 2018 21:04:32 GMT -8
It looks like Tazlina may head to Prince William Sound to act as a running mate to Le Conte. The Hubbard, if she is delivered with crew quarters, would then take the Lynn Canal run with 2 crews based out of Auke Bay, mimicking what the Mal is doing now. AMHS proposes new plans for Upper Lynn Canal service |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Feb 15, 2019 20:25:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 16, 2019 8:35:32 GMT -8
I true hope that they study what happened to BC Ferries when it was privatized decide not do because it a lot worse than the current problems. There is a very recent study that does just that (along with Washington State, the Block Island Ferries, and pretty much every other public/private system in North America). There is still confusion as to whether the Dunleavy administration has read it. When they say they are "in the process of hiring" a marine consultant, it kind of implies that they are completely ignoring the work of the Elliot Bay Design Group who completed that study, and want to start anew. Considering they recently offered a private company a no-bid contract for the takeover of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute with apparently no public oversight or transparency, it's hard to argue that we can really know what they are up to, or who they are talking to. |
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Feb 16, 2019 16:34:34 GMT -8
I true hope that they study what happened to BC Ferries when it was privatized decide not do because it a lot worse than the current problems. There is a very recent study that does just that (along with Washington State, the Block Island Ferries, and pretty much every other public/private system in North America). There is still confusion as to whether the Dunleavy administration has read it. When they say they are "in the process of hiring" a marine consultant, it kind of implies that they are completely ignoring the work of the Elliot Bay Design Group who completed that study, and want to start anew. Considering they recently offered a private company a no-bid contract for the takeover of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute with apparently no public oversight or transparency, it's hard to argue that we can really know what they are up to, or who they are talking to. ANY and ALL provincial and state governments must make a reasonable? contribution to marine services that affect so many of their citizens. As we sometimes view the administrative set-up with BC Ferries, with its Ferry Commissioner et al, and given that the current provincial administration has seen fit to view the ferry system as a much-needed service to meet the needs of our coastal communities, along with funding, the current state of affairs with BCFS would appear to be operating with some success. Yes, we have taken the position of having our new-builds built offshore which runs counter to the American edict of "Buy American/Build in America etc. In practical purposes, neither Washington State nor the State of Alaska have large ship-building yards that can produce vessels in a relatively short time span. Surely the 'construct-time' for vessels adds to 'system-costs' somewhere along the line and while 'America-first' is an admiral ideology, I wonder if a re-jigging of the Jones Act would save some time and money in the time frame of vessel construction/delivery? And, I should probably save my breath on this whole dialogue as I AM aware of the occupant of the big chair in the Oval Office.  |
|
|
|
Post by ancflyer on Feb 21, 2019 1:34:51 GMT -8
www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-Marine-Highway-System-not-scheduling-services-past-Oct-1--506118511.htmlDisconcerting news piece from Anchorage Channel 2 news regarding AMHS funding past October 2019 "The Alaska Marine Highway System is not scheduling sailings past Oct. 1 amid funding uncertainty in the governor’s budget proposal for FY2020. Sen. Mike Shower, R - Wasilla, told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that he had received a letter from the Department of Transportation that “they are planning zero ferry transports from October to June.” If the budget is passed, the governor’s office confirmed funding would continue through summer, but no sailings would be scheduled from Oct. 1, 2019 until June 30, 2020. Shower said that lack of service could “strangle” communities over the winter that rely on ferries for goods and services". Disturbing to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Feb 23, 2019 18:27:19 GMT -8
www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-Marine-Highway-System-not-scheduling-services-past-Oct-1--506118511.htmlDisconcerting news piece from Anchorage Channel 2 news regarding AMHS funding past October 2019 "The Alaska Marine Highway System is not scheduling sailings past Oct. 1 amid funding uncertainty in the governor’s budget proposal for FY2020. Sen. Mike Shower, R - Wasilla, told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that he had received a letter from the Department of Transportation that “they are planning zero ferry transports from October to June.” If the budget is passed, the governor’s office confirmed funding would continue through summer, but no sailings would be scheduled from Oct. 1, 2019 until June 30, 2020. Shower said that lack of service could “strangle” communities over the winter that rely on ferries for goods and services". Disturbing to say the least. Very disturbing indeed! If such a designation does exist, The State of Alaska should declare a 'state of emergency'! No ferry service for 8 months and during winter months! There is something very wrong with state budget allocations that would preclude funding such a vital public service. |
|
|
|
Post by ancflyer on Feb 24, 2019 5:24:01 GMT -8
www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-Marine-Highway-System-not-scheduling-services-past-Oct-1--506118511.htmlDisconcerting news piece from Anchorage Channel 2 news regarding AMHS funding past October 2019 "The Alaska Marine Highway System is not scheduling sailings past Oct. 1 amid funding uncertainty in the governor’s budget proposal for FY2020. Sen. Mike Shower, R - Wasilla, told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that he had received a letter from the Department of Transportation that “they are planning zero ferry transports from October to June.” If the budget is passed, the governor’s office confirmed funding would continue through summer, but no sailings would be scheduled from Oct. 1, 2019 until June 30, 2020. Shower said that lack of service could “strangle” communities over the winter that rely on ferries for goods and services". Disturbing to say the least. Very disturbing indeed! If such a designation does exist, The State of Alaska should declare a 'state of emergency'! No ferry service for 8 months and during winter months! There is something very wrong with state budget allocations that would preclude funding such a vital public service. My comments on another site, my opinion as I see it, regarding the AMHS issues. Keeping politics out of it, this is pretty much accurate - again in my opinion: AMHS is in trouble. Shortsightedness in the past has lead them to where they are today. Fast Ferries not suitable for their environment. They can't operate in heavy seas in Prince William Sound nor in the Lynn Canal. New Alaska Class Ferries built without crew quarters and side loading doors on the car deck. They cannot be used in HNS, SGY or other ports with only side loading only terminals. Aging main-liners with no viable plan for replacement, Columbia - the youngest main-liner - is 40+ years old and has been plagued with mechanical issues from day 1. Taku is now Budweiser cans (I have a great video of Taku being beached in Alang for scrapping). Mat and Mal will need serious work this year. Tustamena is a scrap yard waiting to happen. Shortsightedness on the part of the Alaska Government to continue to perpetuate the AMHS is going to come back to bite them. AMHS is a necessary entity. They need to re-focus on what they were designed to do, not what they have morphed into Designed to and fielded to serve ports throughout Alaska to support Alaskans and commerce, they are now a tourist attraction. And Alaskans will pay, dearly, for their governments inability to forward think the AMHS for another decade. For reference: I grew up in Skagway, I've ridden every ferry since Chilkat - including Wickersham. Solution: Add the crew quarters to the Alaska Class ASAP, the crew will time out on a bad sea day with a round trip sailing from SGY-(HNS)-JNU. Get the Tusty replacement built ASAP. Replace the remaining main-liners with like boats, not the BS day ferries I have seen advertised. Appreciate your indulgence. |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,295
|
Post by Neil on Feb 25, 2019 21:33:54 GMT -8
Very disturbing indeed! If such a designation does exist, The State of Alaska should declare a 'state of emergency'! No ferry service for 8 months and during winter months! There is something very wrong with state budget allocations that would preclude funding such a vital public service. My comments on another site, my opinion as I see it, regarding the AMHS issues. Keeping politics out of it, this is pretty much accurate - again in my opinion: AMHS is in trouble. Shortsightedness in the past has lead them to where they are today. Fast Ferries not suitable for their environment. They can't operate in heavy seas in Prince William Sound nor in the Lynn Canal. New Alaska Class Ferries built without crew quarters and side loading doors on the car deck. They cannot be used in HNS, SGY or other ports with only side loading only terminals. Aging main-liners with no viable plan for replacement, Columbia - the youngest main-liner - is 40+ years old and has been plagued with mechanical issues from day 1. Taku is now Budweiser cans (I have a great video of Taku being beached in Alang for scrapping). Mat and Mal will need serious work this year. Tustamena is a scrap yard waiting to happen. Shortsightedness on the part of the Alaska Government to continue to perpetuate the AMHS is going to come back to bite them. AMHS is a necessary entity. They need to re-focus on what they were designed to do, not what they have morphed into Designed to and fielded to serve ports throughout Alaska to support Alaskans and commerce, they are now a tourist attraction. And Alaskans will pay, dearly, for their governments inability to forward think the AMHS for another decade. For reference: I grew up in Skagway, I've ridden every ferry since Chilkat - including Wickersham. Solution: Add the crew quarters to the Alaska Class ASAP, the crew will time out on a bad sea day with a round trip sailing from SGY-(HNS)-JNU. Get the Tusty replacement built ASAP. Replace the remaining main-liners with like boats, not the BS day ferries I have seen advertised. Appreciate your indulgence.How can you keep politics out of it? We never could, in B.C., when it came to the ferry system, and the direction of the system is rooted in what party controls the legislature. Is there a difference in Alaska in how Democrats and Republicans see the role of the marine highway system? Could Alaska survive without ferries? I'm not asking that rhetorically... I actually don't know, as an outsider. Hawaii is an island state, and all transportation there is by air, with freight haulers doing the rest. Is the threat to not have any service as of October just posturing? Alaska is a really difficult place to serve with ferries. Take the panhandle, or south east Alaska; almost three times the size of Vancouver Island, but with only 76,000 people, spread out among about fifteen ferry ports, counting the Inter Island ferry. Long runs, in many cases, and pretty high fares. Haines to Skagway, a one hour trip, currently $131 Canadian, compared to about $75 for a two hour crossing from Tsawwassen to Duke Point, car and driver. Is this part of the reason for the rather shocking drop in ridership on AMHS? Tustumena carries a crew of 38, with capacity for only 160 passengers and 34 cars. Mind bogglingly expensive to operate. Americans have this weird notion that they're over-taxed, even though comparisons with other democracies prove that not to be true... and Alaskans pay no state income tax. Maybe Alaskans have boxed themselves into a dreadful dilemma where they simply don't have the revenue to pay for a transportation system that is absolutely essential. I hope, for the sake of all the cities, towns, and small outposts that depend on AMHS, that a way forward can be worked out. What a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 26, 2019 6:50:38 GMT -8
Neil, you can't keep politics out of it. That being said, you can isolate it from day-to-day politics. ancflyer mentioned the fast ferries, they were purchased under Governor Knowles, first ran under Governor Murkowski, and never really tried on the schedules they where theoretically designed for. The Alaska Class Ferry project has already stretched through three governors, and have not yet seen one revenue mile. They currently face the absurd problem that they were built for a dock in Haines that has not been built, because the AMHS is not responsible for building shore-side improvements, and the rest of the DOT has other priorities. So, again, the ships won't be able to run on the schedules they were designed for. THIS level of politics, you can isolate the AMHS from. We can pull AMHS out of the DOT, create it's own corporation that is isolated form day-to-day politics in Juneau. Such a structure has been roughed out by Elliot Bay and the Southeast Conference. The State has experience with transportation corporations with our railroad. None of this should be scary, new, ore even particularly controversial when compared to the directionless mess the AMHS currently finds itself in. As for could Alaska survive without ferries, the answer is absolutely it could. Southeast Alaska has a well-developed barge system, which could be scaled up pretty quickly (barges and tugs are easier to build quickly than ferries, even with our Jones Act). Parts of Alaska that have much less hospitable environments survive without the ferry system. The question is whether we can thrive. Losing the ferries would hurt, a lot, and might be enough to throw Southeast into recession (although we won't know, because the rest of the cuts in the budget would certainly do so regardless of what happens to the ferries). The ironic part of your question is that in many ways, the parts of Alaska that would hurt the most are the parts of Alaska that don't really know a ferry system exists. While the private sector will step in to meet a lot of the transportation issues in Southeast (not completely, but still), it can't replace the tourist trade, and those are economically the most valuable tourists we have. Unlike cruise passengers, they stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and generally spend a lot more money in ways that stay in Alaska, and their presence is felt a as far inland as Fairbanks. Think of it. Even if the Alcan is much more tame than the mythology surrounding it suggests, if you are on the US West Coast, getting to Alaska either means driving through Bellingham and taking a boat, or driving through Edmonton, which is a much more intimidating trip with regards to miles and time behind the wheel. More than half of the visitors to the state that use the AMHS end up in Anchorage, which does not even have a terminal.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,295
|
Post by Neil on Feb 26, 2019 20:43:57 GMT -8
Neil , you can't keep politics out of it. That being said, you can isolate it from day-to-day politics. ancflyer mentioned the fast ferries, they were purchased under Governor Knowles, first ran under Governor Murkowski, and never really tried on the schedules they where theoretically designed for. The Alaska Class Ferry project has already stretched through three governors, and have not yet seen one revenue mile. They currently face the absurd problem that they were built for a dock in Haines that has not been built, because the AMHS is not responsible for building shore-side improvements, and the rest of the DOT has other priorities. So, again, the ships won't be able to run on the schedules they were designed for. THIS level of politics, you can isolate the AMHS from. We can pull AMHS out of the DOT, create it's own corporation that is isolated form day-to-day politics in Juneau. Such a structure has been roughed out by Elliot Bay and the Southeast Conference. The State has experience with transportation corporations with our railroad. None of this should be scary, new, ore even particularly controversial when compared to the directionless mess the AMHS currently finds itself in. As for could Alaska survive without ferries, the answer is absolutely it could. Southeast Alaska has a well-developed barge system, which could be scaled up pretty quickly (barges and tugs are easier to build quickly than ferries, even with our Jones Act). Parts of Alaska that have much less hospitable environments survive without the ferry system. The question is whether we can thrive. Losing the ferries would hurt, a lot, and might be enough to throw Southeast into recession (although we won't know, because the rest of the cuts in the budget would certainly do so regardless of what happens to the ferries). The ironic part of your question is that in many ways, the parts of Alaska that would hurt the most are the parts of Alaska that don't really know a ferry system exists. While the private sector will step in to meet a lot of the transportation issues in Southeast (not completely, but still), it can't replace the tourist trade, and those are economically the most valuable tourists we have. Unlike cruise passengers, they stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and generally spend a lot more money in ways that stay in Alaska, and their presence is felt a as far inland as Fairbanks. Think of it. Even if the Alcan is much more tame than the mythology surrounding it suggests, if you are on the US West Coast, getting to Alaska either means driving through Bellingham and taking a boat, or driving through Edmonton, which is a much more intimidating trip with regards to miles and time behind the wheel. More than half of the visitors to the state that use the AMHS end up in Anchorage, which does not even have a terminal. I think you make a very good point when you say that some of the people who would be most significantly hurt by the demise of the ferry system might not even understand their connection to the issue... as in, people and businesses in Anchorage and Fairbanks. I think it's true with all coastal provinces and states with a long established ferry system that the benefits of that system extend far beyond the communities hosting terminals. Governments that don't recognize the value of their coastal communities sometimes make narrow accounting decisions that look sensible at first glance, but in the long run, can cause financial harm in a way not obvious to people who avoid a macro-economic perspective. What are the other budgetary aspects that you alluded to that could throw the southeast into recession? And is 'recession' really the right word? Although, as you say, freight companies could pick up a lot of the slack, and perhaps air travel could deal with the loss of passenger service, wouldn't we be talking about more than recession? Wouldn't this be a permanent diminishment of southeast Alaska's economic base? Tourism is so important to both Alaska and B.C., and the ferries facilitate so much travel to where tourists want to go. Those folks are spending discretionary dollars; make it hard for them to get around, and they can easily go somewhere else. Alaska's loss could be B.C.'s gain. Do you have a sense as to whether Alaska can afford the ferry system that allows coastal communities to actually thrive? |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2019 7:31:45 GMT -8
Neil, It's probably worth understanding both the scope of the Governor's budget, and his authority in this. Governor Dunleavy wants to cut $1.6 billion USD from the State budget. That's 40% from our university, that's $1,000 USD per student for K-12, that's 30% from our Department of Health and Social Services, that's completely eliminating the Senior Benefits program which provides living assistance to the elderly who live in our absurdly expensive State, that's slashing the subsidy for our Pioneer's Home (elderly assisted care) system, that's eliminating the subsidies the State pays to reduce the cost of rural electricity, that's a lot more than just our marine highway. In the process, he wants to shift revenue from local governments to pay for what's left of the state. That's reducing or eliminating cost-sharing of funds from local fish taxes, or oil extraction. Somewhere around $450 million USD in revenue would be shifted from local governments to the State. Essentially, it's requiring local governments to raise taxes, but claiming it's not the Governor doing so, so he gets to have a tax increase without owning it. He wants to do this, while increasing the Permanent Fund Dividend (think our version of the Heritage Fund) by $1.6 billion USD. Interestingly, his budget would also increase for both the governor's office and (despite the AMHS cuts) the Department of Transportation. And, while we're at it, maintain all of the "tax incentives" for big oil. The budget is, in a word, insane. There is no part of the state's economy that won't be impacted, and in such big ways we can't really predict how. The loss of State jobs, the loss of Healthcare jobs, the increased cost of electricity, the need for our elderly to move to somewhere less expensive, the loss of all of their retirement income, the loss of our Marine Highway in the winter, the loss of our university system as an economic driver (and magnet for Federal research money)... a recession is the right word to start off with. What happens in the medium term, we could not responsibly say. I would speculate that it would be bad. That being said, this is the Governor's budget. The way our political system is structured, it's the starting point. The governor is required to submit a budget to the legislature, but it's the legislature that makes appropriations (including the Governor's signature PFD bribe-for-votes). The legislature is also made up of people who will have to go home to their constituents, and explain why we can give a billion dollars a year to oil companies, but we can no longer give Grandma her old-age assistance. Needless to say, behind the headline grabbing numbers form the Governor, there is a lot of skepticism. Budget hearings have become must-see-tv for policy wonks, as the Governor's budget director, who has been in the State for less than 4 months, tries to explain to legislators who have been in the legislature for 20 years that her policies don't actually violate the laws they wrote. Needless to say, the budget is only a starting point. The Governor has a line-item-veto, so we're going to get cuts, and it's going to hurt, but they won't be the marquee numbers that he is calling for. We will still have a ferry system after October. I won't speculate on how much service we will have.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,295
|
Post by Neil on Feb 27, 2019 21:12:48 GMT -8
Neil , It's probably worth understanding both the scope of the Governor's budget, and his authority in this. Governor Dunleavy wants to cut $1.6 billion USD from the State budget. That's 40% from our university, that's $1,000 USD per student for K-12, that's 30% from our Department of Health and Social Services, that's completely eliminating the Senior Benefits program which provides living assistance to the elderly who live in our absurdly expensive State, that's slashing the subsidy for our Pioneer's Home (elderly assisted care) system, that's eliminating the subsidies the State pays to reduce the cost of rural electricity, that's a lot more than just our marine highway. In the process, he wants to shift revenue from local governments to pay for what's left of the state. That's reducing or eliminating cost-sharing of funds from local fish taxes, or oil extraction. Somewhere around $450 million USD in revenue would be shifted from local governments to the State. Essentially, it's requiring local governments to raise taxes, but claiming it's not the Governor doing so, so he gets to have a tax increase without owning it. He wants to do this, while increasing the Permanent Fund Dividend (think our version of the Heritage Fund) by $1.6 billion USD. Interestingly, his budget would also increase for both the governor's office and (despite the AMHS cuts) the Department of Transportation. And, while we're at it, maintain all of the "tax incentives" for big oil. The budget is, in a word, insane. There is no part of the state's economy that won't be impacted, and in such big ways we can't really predict how. The loss of State jobs, the loss of Healthcare jobs, the increased cost of electricity, the need for our elderly to move to somewhere less expensive, the loss of all of their retirement income, the loss of our Marine Highway in the winter, the loss of our university system as an economic driver (and magnet for Federal research money)... a recession is the right word to start off with. What happens in the medium term, we could not responsibly say. I would speculate that it would be bad. That being said, this is the Governor's budget. The way our political system is structured, it's the starting point. The governor is required to submit a budget to the legislature, but it's the legislature that makes appropriations (including the Governor's signature PFD bribe-for-votes). The legislature is also made up of people who will have to go home to their constituents, and explain why we can give a billion dollars a year to oil companies, but we can no longer give Grandma her old-age assistance. Needless to say, behind the headline grabbing numbers form the Governor, there is a lot of skepticism. Budget hearings have become must-see-tv for policy wonks, as the Governor's budget director, who has been in the State for less than 4 months, tries to explain to legislators who have been in the legislature for 20 years that her policies don't actually violate the laws they wrote. Needless to say, the budget is only a starting point. The Governor has a line-item-veto, so we're going to get cuts, and it's going to hurt, but they won't be the marquee numbers that he is calling for. We will still have a ferry system after October. I won't speculate on how much service we will have. Well... that's a pretty discouraging response. Your post makes it clear that this goes well beyond just an attempt to cut back on ferries. It sounds depressingly familiar; a certain brand of politician appealing to a certain segment of the electorate by establishing his bona fides as an adamant defender of the public purse. The way to do that is to cut expenses, wherever possible. If that eventually burdens those in another election cycle, or perhaps, in another generation, when the true harm of the cuts becomes too clear to ignore... well, that's someone else's problem. I can't help but reflect, though, that this isn't just a situation where we bash politicians. Some of those politicians are avid observers of focus groups, polls, and other sampling methodologies that reflect what the public is thinking. I don't know whether we're getting dumbed down as a society- whatever side of the border we're on- or if we're being manipulated, but I think people need to reflect on where our political decisions are leading us. We need to be much more perceptive than just making reactive decisions based on some superficial accounting parameters... which can lead to shortsighted measures such as you've described. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 28, 2019 10:26:38 GMT -8
AMH isn't the only one scheduled for cuts.
IFA’s state subsidy also cut in governor’s proposed budget
Posted by Leila Kheiry | Feb 27, 2019 Serving Prince of Wales Island and Ketchikan, the Inter-Island Ferry Authority is a financial success story, relatively speaking. But, public transportation rarely, if ever, pays for itself, and the IFA’s state subsidy, like the larger state ferry system, has been targeted for a cut. Dennis Watson is general manager of the IFA. He said the service’s success stems from its simplicity. “We have two boats and we only run one at a time, and we run a point-to-point route, which means that we begin at one point, go to another, and go back to the point where we started,” he said. “And we’re able to do this within a 12-hour day, which allows us to use one crew per day, so we can operate relatively efficiently.” At the end of the day, though, the IFA still needs a subsidy of about $250,000 a year to operate. Watson said the IFA earns about 75 to 80 percent of its budget from fares. That’s far better than the approximately 33 percent the Alaska Marine Highway System was able to pull in from fares last year, and some have suggested the IFA should be a model for the larger system. But Watson said comparing the two services is like comparing apples and oranges. “It’s our simplicity that allows us to do what we do and do it economically,” he said. “The Marine Highway is very complex, with some routes having several stops and larger boats, and some 24/7 boats that are expensive to operate. The closest thing they have to what we do is the ferry to Metlakatla.” The state ferry Lituya provides daily round-trip service between Ketchikan and nearby Metlakatla. That service, along with all state ferry runs, is due to end Oct. 1st if a 75-percent cut to the Alaska Marine Highway System proposed in Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s budget stands. The IFA’s subsidy also is on the governor’s chopping block, and Watson said that could seriously affect the independent ferry service. He said they ran the numbers about six years ago. It showed that without the subsidy, they wouldn’t be able to operate. “Because it is six years later, we are going to run these figures and check them out with today’s data and see what it looks like,” he said. “I don’t have a whole lot of hope for it right now, but maybe we will find a silver bullet there somewhere.” In addition to the state subsidy, Watson said other funding is at risk. State funding is used as a match for federal highway money for maintenance. And, he said, it’s unclear whether the IFA would be able to continue using state-owned ferry terminals on both ends of its route if the state system shuts down. “We operate and pay for everything in Hollis. In Ketchikan, we’re kind of mixed and matched with the Marine Highway System because the Lituya uses the same dock that we do, so we share facilities over there,” he said. “We don’t know exactly what things would look like if there’s a divestiture.” And, Watson said, the IFA depends on the Alaska Marine Highway System for part of its customer base. In the summer, especially, independent tourists travel from the mainland by ferry. He said many of them make side trips to Prince of Wales on the IFA, and that boosts revenue considerably. POW residents, too, use the IFA to connect to the larger state system. Just recently, for example, several high school basketball teams ferried to Juneau for the Region 5 tournament. They started on the IFA, then transferred to the Malaspina. Janelle Wehrman is athletic director for Southeast Island School District, which serves many smaller communities on Prince of Wales. She said the IFA is significantly less expensive that flying, and more reliable if the weather turns. So, what would cutting or ending service mean? “Ultimately, worse-case scenario, it could mean that we would not be able to participate off island,” she said. “At least, not as much as we do currently.” Wehrman said the broader implications for POW are also a concern. “Here’s the thing, for us on Prince of Wales, many of us have to go to Ketchikan regularly for medical care because we have such limited resources for that here on the island,” she said. A round-trip ticket on the IFA is about $100 for a walk-on passenger. A flight, she said, can be three to four times that. The governor’s office has said they plan to bring in a consultant to look at the state’s ferry system and come up with a plan to privatize it. Southeast Conference has been working toward just that kind of plan for several years, and Watson heads up the steering committee. He said there are aspects of the IFA’s operations that could be adopted by the state ferry system to make it more efficient. More roads could shorten some ferry routes, for example. And, he said, there are almost always ways to cut a budget. “But there’s a difference between cuts and finality. The way it looks to us, once we get to the end of September, that’s the end of it,” he said. “And everybody worries that even if there’s some thought of reorganization, that (if) you shut down a massive operation like that, it’s very hard to start back up.” Watson said he hopes there’s more to the governor’s plan for Alaska’s overall marine transportation system than what’s been revealed so far. www.krbd.org/2019/02/27/ifas-state-subsidy-also-cut-in-proposed-governors-budget/ |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 27, 2019 9:05:40 GMT -8
Here is a picture of a poster that I saw on Monday (March 25th) pasted up in a shop window in Cow Bay, Prince Rupert. It seems pretty obvious to me that shutting off state funding to AMHS would have disastrous consequences in ferry-dependent communities in Alaska. It will also hurt Prince Rupert. Further, it will discourage tourism in the state. What are these politicians thinking? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 27, 2019 20:21:43 GMT -8
Here is a picture of a poster that I saw on Monday (March 25th) pasted up in a shop window in Cow Bay, Prince Rupert. It seems pretty obvious to me that shutting off state funding to AMHS would have disastrous consequences in ferry-dependent communities in Alaska. It will also hurt Prince Rupert. Further, it will discourage tourism in the state. What are these politicians thinking? We've seen some pretty strange sights this legislative session. The Governor has imported several people from the failed Kansas experiment to try again with our budget. We've seen people who have spent less than 6 months in the state trying to tell legislators what is meant by the laws the legislators themselves wrote. We've seen a budget director blithely propose a school funding scenario that is stunningly un-Constitutional (and has been to the Supreme Court last time it was tried). We've seen a budget from the Governor that could not be implemented without additional laws which, half way through the session, no one has bothered to file for consideration. Just today, we saw the Governor back down from an un-Constitutional attempt to block a judge from being seated, after having the Chief Justice explain the Alaska Constitution to him in an open letter. That is to say, someone had to explain to the Governor his Constitutional role in public, because none of his advisors apparently noticed it before it got that far. Frankly, it's almost as if the entire administration has no sense of history about Alaska, and no foundational knowledge of Alaskan law. Weird. How could that happen? Right now, the Governor is on a trip through Alaska selling his ideas directly to the people. Well... some of them, anyhow. The trip is being completely funded by Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers), and you can't get into the meetings without signing all sorts of disclaimers and waivers. It's not a public process, and not public meetings. It's a dog and pony show that is being run by an outside organization. One that, frankly, does not understand the nuts and bolts of how this state works. Ferries are apparently not that important in Kansas. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 28, 2019 20:35:20 GMT -8
It's worth mentioning that the House Finance Committee today simply gave up on the Governor's budget. They announced that they are starting with last year's budget, and will be making amendments to it rather than the Governor's.
It's also worth noting that their starting point is actually smaller than the Governor's by half a billion dollars, and that unlike the Governor, they are not relying on one time draws into savings or taking money that is traditionally in the hands of local government.
They are also planning on giving each Alaskan a $900 dividend instead of the Governor's $3,000 "vote for me" bribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 29, 2019 14:12:14 GMT -8
It's worth mentioning that the House Finance Committee today simply gave up on the Governor's budget. They announced that they are starting with last year's budget, and will be making amendments to it rather than the Governor's. It's also worth noting that their starting point is actually smaller than the Governor's by half a billion dollars, and that unlike the Governor, they are not relying on one time draws into savings or taking money that is traditionally in the hands of local government. They are also planning on giving each Alaskan a $900 dividend instead of the Governor's $3,000 "vote for me" bribe. What does this resurrected budget from last year mean for the future of the Alaska Marine Highway? Is ferry service going to be limited or? That $3,000 'vote for me' bribe is an election tool that is a bit 'foreign' to us folks in this part of the world.  |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 31, 2019 21:16:17 GMT -8
It's worth mentioning that the House Finance Committee today simply gave up on the Governor's budget. They announced that they are starting with last year's budget, and will be making amendments to it rather than the Governor's. It's also worth noting that their starting point is actually smaller than the Governor's by half a billion dollars, and that unlike the Governor, they are not relying on one time draws into savings or taking money that is traditionally in the hands of local government. They are also planning on giving each Alaskan a $900 dividend instead of the Governor's $3,000 "vote for me" bribe. What does this resurrected budget from last year mean for the future of the Alaska Marine Highway? Is ferry service going to be limited or? That $3,000 'vote for me' bribe is an election tool that is a bit 'foreign' to us folks in this part of the world. Honestly, there are too many balls in the air to know what it means. The two new ACF ferries will be in revenue service (without the crew quarters for more than 12 hr runs), and the Fairweather will be out of service, probably never to sail again in revenue service for the State. We will have the Mat out of midlife overhaul, and she will be cheaper to run than the Columbia, but who knows what surprises are in store for the Mal when she goes into layup. As for bribes to voters, if it turns out that it works for our Governor, I'd suspect the concept will be only as foreign as Alberta's heritage fund all too soon. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." The Governor of Alaska took that warning as a playbook. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 21, 2019 16:22:53 GMT -8
Well... we've found the $27 Million that the AMHS could not use to add crew quarters to the ACF: Alaska DOT considering proposal for Berners Bay ferry terminalI have this under the general thread, not the ACF thread, because this has a system-wide impact. A terminal at Berners Bay would make transfers between other ships and the Lynn Canal boats impractical. The map of the new terminal that was sent out with the memo does not include a building, so there is no shelter for walk-on passengers to wait after the cab or bus that takes them to the terminal has left them ( See page 6). And, as an added bonus, the money spent on the terminal is not making the two new ACF ferries an effective substitute for the Aurora or Le Conte for maintenance lay-ups. Fantastic. |
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Apr 21, 2019 21:09:09 GMT -8
Well... we've found the $27 Million that the AMHS could not use to add crew quarters to the ACF: Alaska DOT considering proposal for Berners Bay ferry terminalI have this under the general thread, not the ACF thread, because this has a system-wide impact. A terminal at Berners Bay would make transfers between other ships and the Lynn Canal boats impractical. The map of the new terminal that was sent out with the memo does not include a building, so there is no shelter for walk-on passengers to wait after the cab or bus that takes them to the terminal has left them ( See page 6). And, as an added bonus, the money spent on the terminal is not making the two new ACF ferries an effective substitute for the Aurora or Le Conte for maintenance lay-ups. Fantastic. What is in the water up there? It's like putting a ferry terminal in Squamish to service Comox. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,295
|
Post by Neil on May 26, 2019 13:05:45 GMT -8
'Name Omitted', a while back I made some remarks about the harm that could be done to the Alaskan economy by ending or severely cutting the ferry service. But I'm curious about whether an actual accounting analysis has ever been done to determine the value of AMHS?
I know that when the previous BC government ended the Port Hardy to Bella Coola ferry run, various groups, mostly business oriented, studied the broad implications of the cut, and determined that it cost far more than the $5 million a year that the government said it saved the provincial treasury. Granted, there may have been some bias there; some parties were directly affected. But still, it made a compelling case. I don't know if it figured in the same government changing course late in their mandate and bringing the run back... at ridiculous cost, as it turns out, with a much smaller vessel than what they already had.
One of the wiset cliches is the one about the person who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. The spiel about how much AMHS burns through is easier to peddle if there isn't some kind of contradictory accounting argument. If it's never been attempted, it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 28, 2019 21:55:10 GMT -8
'Name Omitted', a while back I made some remarks about the harm that could be done to the Alaskan economy by ending or severely cutting the ferry service. But I'm curious about whether an actual accounting analysis has ever been done to determine the value of AMHS? There have been several. The earliest I've read dates to the 80's. All of them make it quite clear that the AMHS is a brilliant investment for the State by any economic terms. The ROI is fantastic. The problem is that that's irrelevant. The issue is we are dealing with people who don't think the State should be involved. If the investment is so good, it should be in private hands. I don't have time to find the quote, but the RFP the Governor sent out for a new study on the viability of the AMHS (which completely ignores ongoing studies) flat out states that the study will be difficult to do, because there is no baseline to say what private sector options might have arisen had the AMHS not been in place. In other words, my taxes should maintain roads (not private toll roads, mind you), but not marine highways, because the latter should be private enterprise, while the former is... somehow different. The rate of return on State investment is not an issue. The more we scream about it, the more we are simply missing the point. Cliffnotes from the latest McDowell report from their informational session with the Alaska HouseThe full report, for those as geeky as me. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 24, 2019 21:39:35 GMT -8
|
|
