|
Post by ruddernut on Jan 31, 2008 14:52:37 GMT -8
Won't work on Pt. Townsend-Keystone (draft is too deep). WSF would have to get a waiver to the Jones Act (might be able to get a temporary waiver, but permanent one is more or less out of the question). Running them on the international route to get around the Jones Act isn't really an option since none of the 4 vessels are SOLAS compliant. They're forty-something vessels, so you don't want to put them to permanent use anyways. They should hold up long enough to carry you through till the replacements have been built. How extensive a modification would be needed for SOLAS compliance? Though putting it on the International route probably doesn't help it get around the Jones Act, since it makes stops on the San Juans anyways.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jan 31, 2008 14:52:44 GMT -8
None of WSF's ferries or docks are double-decked, though, so only the Tsawwassen would truly useful in any way without hauling a lot of dead weight around. Have you done the Queen of Tsawwassen up in WSF colours yet Whidbeyislandguy?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 1, 2008 13:49:33 GMT -8
Running them on the international route to get around the Jones Act isn't really an option since none of the 4 vessels are SOLAS compliant. How extensive a modification would be needed for SOLAS compliance? Though putting it on the International route probably doesn't help it get around the Jones Act, since it makes stops on the San Juans anyways. It took over a year to bring the 1967 Elwha up to SOLAS compliance back in 1991; another four months or so in 1999 to get it up to current standards.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 2, 2008 14:18:23 GMT -8
www.heraldnet.com:80/article/20080202/NEWS01/814676473&news01ad=1=================== Kalakala owner has a vision for old ferries He wants to turn the Steel Electrics into floating museums.By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Writer OLYMPIA -- The owner of the star-crossed Kalakala wants to add four more mothballed ferries to his fleet. Steve Rodrigues wants to meet privately with Washington Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond before divulging too many details about his vision to buy the state's Steel Electric-class ferries. "They want to know my plan. They want to see my plan. We're not going to give them proprietary information," he said this week. Rodrigues did share that he'd like to outfit the boats with new hulls and deploy them as ferries powered by wind and solar technologies. "We have a new ferry design that the state of Washington does not have," he said. Another option is to station them at existing state-owned terminals -- he doesn't say which ones -- and converting them into museums. "They can represent 100 years of our maritime history," he said. "We are doing the same thing with the Kalakala that we propose to do with the Steel Electrics." The Kalakala, with its storied past, isn't there yet. First christened the Peralta, it carried its first passengers in 1927 in San Francisco Bay – just like the Steel Electrics. In 1933, the Black Ball Line bought the Peralta, brought it north and it was re-engineered and renamed the Kalakala. The same ferry line acquired the Steel Electrics. From 1935-67 the Kalakala ferried cars and people between Seattle and Bremerton. The Kalakala was known for its unique streamlined Art Deco design. For the past 40 years, its restoration into a tourist attraction has been the unfulfilled dream and financial undoing of several owners. Rodrigues bought the Kalakala in 2003 in a bankruptcy sale. Since then it's been evicted from moorings in Seattle and Neah Bay and is now parked in waters off Tacoma awaiting a 2010 date in dry dock for work on its hull and superstructure. It's going to be a while before state ferry officials decide how to unload any or all of the Steel Electrics, even longer before they consider Rodrigues' pitch. "Right now we're focused on vessel replacement for the Steel Electrics and focused on making sure the rest of our fleet operates safely," said acting ferries director Steve Reinmuth. "When time allows we'll look at the best ways to dispose of the Steel Electrics," he said. Rodrigues isn't the only one pursuing the vessels. Washington Scuba Alliance wants to sink them and turn them into artificial reefs. Reinmuth said the state will be looking to make as much money as possible in disposing of the 80-year-old vessels that were pulled from service in November because of concerns about their safety. None would be sold for use in a private venture that is not environmentally sound or conflicts with ferry system operations, Reinmuth said. Of Rodrigues' plan, he said: "We'd have to listen carefully. Unless he was willing to pay a whole lot of money to make it work with our system, I don't see that as a starter." Rodrigues is as patient as he is impassioned. "These Steel Electrics deserve respect for the service they have given the state," he said. "They deserve to receive a historic landmark designation. They deserve the respect of the people." Reporter Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623 or jcornfield@heraldnet.com. ====================
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 3, 2008 16:14:18 GMT -8
Wasn't Rodrigues' plan for the Kalakala to try to get the state (WSF) to pay for the renovation and turn it into a museum? I'm going to have to say I'm not taking him seriously on this venture, either. WSF, I would gamble, doesn't want anything to do with those boats any longer than possible.
|
|
tom98250
Deckhand
Life doesn't get better than this...
Posts: 85
|
Post by tom98250 on Feb 19, 2008 8:09:27 GMT -8
I wish Mr. Rodriques would do something with the Kalakala before he saddles himself with four more vessels...
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 19, 2008 18:55:04 GMT -8
No doubt. I have tremendous difficulty taking him seriously.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Feb 29, 2008 8:46:55 GMT -8
www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2008-02-28-aging-ferries_N.htmNation's fleet of ferries has some old-timers at workAn article in this morning's USA Today discusses the problem of old and deteriorating ferries all over the US. Of course, our own Steel Electrics are mentioned in the article. Also of interest to ferry fans are the two sidebars which list how many ferries are operating in each state and another listing them by age.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 3, 2008 19:58:35 GMT -8
Old ferries at heart of Martinac's feud with state
Company alleges state delayed building new boats because of leases on the Steel Electrics.
By Scott North Herald Writer
SEATTLE -- Questions about the legality of obscure leases that for two decades turned Washington's oldest ferries into floating tax shelters remain a source of friction as lawyers for the state and a Tacoma shipbuilder begin trying to negotiate an end to a messy federal lawsuit.
Lawyers for the J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. and the state are scheduled Thursday to meet with federal mediators, said Bryce Brown, chief assistant attorney general in the state's transportation and public construction division.
The attorneys will explore whether a resolution can be negotiated to a 2006 lawsuit Martinac filed out of frustration with Washington State Ferries' handling of long-delayed construction contracts for new boats.
Although Martinac is now part of a consortium of shipyards in line to build up to six new ferries, Martinac's case against the state remains alive but stayed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
If no agreement can be reached to end the case, "we'll lift the stay and proceed with the lawsuit," Martinac attorney Jed Powell said.
The shipbuilder has alleged ferry officials cost the company millions of dollars and engaged in conduct that amounted to civil racketeering in how it earlier managed competition for boat-building contracts.
A key Martinac allegation -- hotly disputed by the state -- is that ferry officials deliberately delayed construction of new boats because of tax shelter agreements reached with private investors in the 1980s, and secured by continued operation of four 1927-vintage Steel Electric-class vessels.
State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond pulled the Steel Electrics in November, citing safety concerns about corrosion and cracks in their 80-year-old hulls.
Ferry officials initially thought the state would have to pay at least $3 million to compensate two investment companies with Safe Harbor Leases. The money would cover lost tax credits based on the value of the vessels' depreciation.
A review of the leases by the Attorney General's Office has the state now convinced that they can be transferred from three of the vessels -- the Illahee, Quinault and Nisqually -- and instead attached to another ferry, the Kittitas. Those leases expire in 2014.
The lease on the remaining Steel Electric, the Klickitat, is set to expire in 2010, and the state is proposing no action at this time.
Powell said he's convinced the leases were improperly entered into by the state in the 1980s, and that they can't now legally be shifted to other vessels without exposing Washington taxpayers to significantly greater liability than the $3 million likely owed if the agreements were terminated.
The attorney has spent years poring over documents related to the transactions, and he said he's long anticipated grilling state officials about the paper trail.
Among other things, Powell said, he wants to know why the state over a period of weeks entered, then amended, leases for these transactions, and why the reported value of the Steel Electrics during that time shot up millions of dollars on each vessel without any obvious improvements being made.
Documents Washington State Ferries provided under public records laws confirm the existence of two versions of the leases. The amended version recalculates, by millions of dollars in the state's favor, the amount of money taxpayers would be required to pay lease holders if the agreements were suddenly terminated.
Tim McGuigan, an attorney and director of legal services and contracts for the ferry system, said he's noticed the differences between the original and amended versions of the leases, but has no explanation.
Is it a case of somebody earlier correcting a significant error?
"You might surmise that, that somebody caught something," he said.
The state received close to $25 million for Safe Harbor Leases entered into on the Steel Electrics and other vessels in the fleet. The tax shelter program was designed to direct private investment into public transportation systems and reward corporations with tax write-offs. The federal law authorizing such agreements expired in the late 1980s.
In late July, when ferry officials were quietly preparing for the possibility that the Steel Electrics might be abruptly pulled from service, McGuigan wrote an e-mail to others in the ferry system saying he didn't "see any possibility" the lease agreements could be transferred to other boats in the fleet.
McGuigan said subsequent legal analysis by tax lawyers hired to advise state attorneys now supports attempting to transfer the leases, and potentially saving the state millions of dollars.
Brown said the state sought expert help from tax attorneys when it made a similar lease transfer in the mid-1990s involving leases on other ferries. He declined to respond in detail to questions about the proposed lease transfers involving the Steel Electrics, citing attorney-client privilege and the litigation involving Martinac.
While there always is some risk in attempting a transaction involving potential tax liability, Brown said the lawyers the state consulted believe there is a reasonable basis to move ahead.
"I think you have to take (Martinac's lawyer's) non-tax-attorney analysis for what it is worth and his vested interest in the issue," Brown said. "The state hired an independent law firm to take a look at the exchange."
Reporter Scott North: 425-339-3431 or north@heraldnet.com
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 3, 2008 20:56:15 GMT -8
Will they just get rid of the f***in legal mumbo jumbo standing in the d*** way of building these new boats before I send a letter to the state to send work to BC cause these two won't stop b****in. If they want their workers to be unhappy, I will start writing my legislators to send the work to B.C.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 4, 2008 20:25:15 GMT -8
What two? Only Martinac's complaining. And they still can't wrap their fat heads around the notion that their design still doesn't meet spec.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 4, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -8
Well then you got Todd also wrapped in this, and didn't they want to just get on with the building and say tough luck to Martinac?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 5, 2008 7:36:34 GMT -8
As they should have done.
But they've entered into a joint operating agreement on the topic; what's Martinac's beef?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 5, 2008 19:31:40 GMT -8
All I know is that I am growing impatient over the slow progress of "getting the job done". People are tired of the high fares, as a matter of fact, talking to my history teacher today, WSF has cut as much off as possible considering cuts to service and higher fares are needed to stay afloat. I keep telling people, you voted I-695, you have got ferry troubles now. I wonder how this has spared Eastern Washington from paying taxes on the new boats?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 13, 2008 10:18:30 GMT -8
Letter: Re-hull Klickitatwww.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=20335&TM=3642.264Editor, Leader: Producing another new Steilacoom for upper Puget Sound has proven an embarrassing waste. The once-touted Snohomish and Chinook are headed for eBay. Is Port Townsend next? The best compromise may be to re-hull the Klickitat. Only the hull needs replacing. The existing superstructure is modern; engines, according to marine engineers, are modern and overpowered. Fuel economy, excellent - proven for the Keystone harbor and seas. Minimal sea trials, zero risks, no "new design" problems, dock rebuilding, harbor dredging. Save on management all around. If another Steilacoom can be built by next March, why not just craft a new Klickitat hull in Seattle in one-third that time, or less? By common sense, stamping out a minimally modified Klickitat hull - this time simply double-hulled with an outer steel skin - might offer a great new ferry, serviceable all over the fleet for decades. Any Steilacoom will soon be an eBay throwaway. Washington needs a utility backup ferry, not another mistake to scrap after a couple of years. Not a wobbly trail of questionable decisions. Indeed, why not simply finish the Klickitat skin overhaul, which was essentially completed weeks ago in January. Paint it this time. Add 4- to 6-inch stringers outside the original hull; weld a new second hull over them. Some extra rust prevention on the inside of the original hull - no longer exposed to saltwater pressure outside - should keep a double-hulled ferry in shape for decades. Political assertions that "it is not worthwhile" to spend a few million dollars on double hulls for boats like the Klickitat seem more and more ironic to intelligent voters. What then is worthwhile? We are told three new $100 million ferries are the answer, all three dedicated to PT in summer. Had the Steel Electrics not rusted, a third Steel Electric would have been added, likewise in summer, a wonderfully flexible, efficient 1/2/3 fleet option. Summer ferries every 30 minutes on weekend and holidays. Think of how much more business would come down from Canada with more predictable, demand-appropriate scheduling. Why not get something for our taxes? PT survives or subsides on sales and taxation. Rebuilding one or two Steel Electrics in just a few months, for a few million dollars each, might not be such an unthinkable compromise after all. Show us, the deciders, the real, un-spun cost figures. Come on, let's have a democratic, transparent discussion about all this, eh? RAY GREEOTT Port Townsend
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 13, 2008 11:12:06 GMT -8
Mr. Greeott seems to be unaware of a few things, however:
(1) Port Tonwsend-Keystone, while important, is not the only run in the fleet. The Steilacoom III (whatever it turns out to be called) will be sent to Point Defiance-Tahlequah once its term at PTK is complete.
(2) Replacing the hull on the Klickitat would cause a bunch of problems--not the least of which being it would lose any grandfather status it might have. This means that the new hull would be considerably more compartmentalized, the auto deck clearance would have to be raised, ADA standards would have to be met, changes in safety requirements owuld have to be met, the vessel would have to probably be widened to keep its capacity or have the lanes widened and reduce capacity... all of which would be extremely expensive and we'd still be stuck with 80-year-old drive motors that require custom-manufactured parts.
Please tell me nobody is taking this man seriously.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 13, 2008 11:18:53 GMT -8
Hold on to your hats, kids! It's the return of....... Frankenferry! [Add Ominous monster-movie music here.] Yes, as a matter of fact! "For sale -- one outdated town." Of course! No designing needed! Just get one of those "instant Klickitat hulls" from The Home Depot, snap it on, and there you go! And any idiot with opposable thumbs and a welder should be able to knock one of these out in their basement over a long weekend, right? Gee, I'm surprised that the folks over at WSF didn't come up with this idea first. Since it's so easy, we could "stamp out" a whole new fleet in a hurry. Well, yeah. But restating the facts of the case isn't a solution. Paint. Oh my. that was the problem all along. Just weld on a new hull, presume that all things will float given enough wishing, throw a steel band around the whole thing, add a couple of pretty lanterns to the ends so it shows up nice and festive in the dark, and voila! Brand new ferry boat. Of course. An extra coat of paint should solve that problem nicely. Worthwhile. Adjective. Being worth the time or effort spent. I'm not a marine engineer, nor do I play one on TV. But the plan you describe doesn't seem to be "worthwhile". No, a better answer might be to have a proper terminal and harbor at Keystone. But it's too late for that. I can see the look in the faces of those Canadians now. Hey look! The Port Townsend to Keystone ferry runs every half hour now instead of every 45 minutes. Now we can go on that vacation to Port Townsend that we always wanted to do! Of course not. Just as soon as I finish pulling all of these rabbits out of this hat. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss these obvious oversights in solving our ferry problems.
It was just sitting there -- just waiting for a comment or two!
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 13, 2008 11:27:54 GMT -8
Where was this "skin overhaul" done and what exactly was done? I'm assuming this would have to be done in drydock and the Klickitat (which was scheduled for drydocking in December) has never been in drydock since she was pulled from service in November. I wonder if the writer was refering to either the Quinault or Illahee.
Would the 2'nd hull bring the Klickitat into compliance with the safety standards that the steel-electrics have not met since the 1950's? If not, would they still qualify for grandfather status or would that be revoked?
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Mar 13, 2008 14:14:51 GMT -8
Interesting idea from the writer. I wonder what, if any, consideration he gave to extra weight of adding a "second skin"? I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer but I have a feeling that might change the cg just a bit. Those steel plates and ribs he speaks of are not exactly light. Perhaps he has some engineering secrets that I am not privy to. Replacing the existing hull plates is one thing... a second skin sounds like something that came to him in an opium induced epiphany. He is from Port Townsend after all I could be wrong...
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 13, 2008 15:15:36 GMT -8
Here's a reply to that letter which addresses everything:
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2008 Article comment by: Tom Thiersch
The cost of "rebuilding" is really not the core issue here.
While Mr. Greeott's suggestion to rehull the Steel Electrics certainly has some appeal, he has overlooked the many other requirements that the Coast Guard would impose on any such rebuilt vessel.
The most significant of these requirements is that the vessel's interior bulkheads would have to be reengineered to meet the "two COMPARTMENT" standard; this standard means, basically, that two compartments of the vessel could be flooded and the ship would still remain safely afloat. This standard is, unfortunately, often confused with the additional requirement called "double hull" or "double bottom".
For starters, refer to 46 CFR 171.070; the regulations are extremely complex, but the bottom line is that these requirements create some nearly insumountable obstacles to the idea of rebuilding the old boats.
The Steel Electrics only meet the ONE compartment standard. Naval architects have repeatedly stated that the interiors of the Steel Electrics cannot be rearranged to meet the two compartment standard, so just adding a second hull won't make the vessel meet all of the USCG requirements.
Other major issues would include rearranging the layout to be ADA compliant (wider, less steep stairs, etc.); these are not trivial, or necessarily even possible, changes.
I don't think that anyone (except maybe the owners of the shipyards) is happy about this situation, but, according to every authoritative source that we've heard, the safety requirements that are set by the Federal government will not be waived. And think about it -- would you really WANT them to be waived?
I agree that building a copy of the Steilacoom II is not a great choice; the legislature has recognized that in the current budget and has made it clear that the Island Home design is the preferred future solution.
The Steel Electics will not see service again. The best future for the Quinault is probably to fill its hull with foam and have it moored as a permanent landmark for our town. As for the 3 other boats, well, scrap steel is currently about $350 per ton and rising...
Please note: Even though I am a member of the Jefferson County Ferry Advisory Committee, the above are my personal opinions, not those of the FAC.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 14, 2008 14:25:56 GMT -8
Translation: 'you can't get there from here.' ;D But then, as I become a salty, seasoned (lemon pepper, most likely) veteran of the Washington State Ferry System, I know for a fact that absolutely everyone out there knows how to run WSF better than the peopl who actually are. Just ask around.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Mar 16, 2008 17:32:18 GMT -8
I will toss in my two cents in. I think that the WSF system works pretty darn well. Most of the current dilemas stem from a loss of funding. WSF planned on replacing the Steels, the Rhody and eventually the Evergreens and Hyak. Terminals were going to be renovated, upgraded or replaced. It is all in the Master Plan of 1999. The funding got cut by the State so the maintainence and operating budget got slashed as well.
So here we are today with the public screaming, routes with reduced or no service, and the Legislature pointing fingers at WSF. The Legislature needs to accept responsibility for its' actions or inactions as it maybe, for the current mess. If the ferry system does not have sufficient funds to operate properly, within the guidelines laid down within the budget written for it by the Legislature, they in fact must accept responsibilty.
Yes there can and should be improvements to the ferry system, as there are problems to deal with sytem-wide. I just get really tired of hearing our elected officials passing the buck when they know good and well that it happened right in front of their eyes but they were looking the other way.
I do have one question. Has anyone ever pointed out to our elected officials that the current mess is a direct result of the funding cuts?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 17, 2008 9:05:21 GMT -8
The folks on Whidbey Island were apparently pretty quick to nail Mary Margaret Haugen... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 17, 2008 14:21:04 GMT -8
I wonder if she will be the new "Bloody Mary" to the system.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 18, 2008 7:59:52 GMT -8
Here's a reply to that letter which addresses everything: Article comment by: Tom Thiersch The Steel Electrics will not see service again. The best future for the Quinault is probably to fill its hull with foam and have it moored as a permanent landmark for our town. As for the 3 other boats, well, scrap steel is currently about $350 per ton and rising... OK, putting on the ferry hobbyist geek hat here: Let's say the state decides to forego making $350/ton on the ferry for scrap value -- donates the Quinault to Port Townsend under the guise of economic development. I know. But I'm just thinking out loud here. Forget opportunity cost. A business owner in an urban area might put $100,000 - $200,000 into a building to turn it into, say, a nightclub or restaurant that would be an attraction to get people to come in. A similar amount might turn the boat into the "Quinault Restaurant and Visitors Center" if an entrepreneur were to invest a similar amount into this boat. That would probably work IF that person didn't have to put an unusually large amount into the boat just to keep it floating in saltwater for a long time. At that, the place would have to be bringing in quite a large number of paying customers to pay back this investment. As in, the kind of business that a popular Seattle-area restaurant would do. I think that, at best, it would be really borderline that something like that could be done. If you REALLY marketed Port Townsend around it, it might be justifiable. But the renovation would have to go REALLY smoothly to be done for that price, and the locals would have to give more than just "lip service" to making something of the project. OR, they could just park the thing at a pier and charge folks a buck a piece to tour a historic ferry. Get the guy who owns the Kalakala to finally do something with his boat and bring it on up, and they could line the town with old ferries. ;D We just might get that ferry museum yet! Or, they could just paint the thing one more time and let it sit out there somewhere as a statue/monument to ferry history. Eventually, it will look just like the San Mateo does now in the Frasier River. But that will just add to the sense that it is old. Sounds like a long shot to me..........
|
|