|
Post by whitieiii on Mar 19, 2015 13:46:24 GMT -8
Ya... Idk
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 8, 2015 13:42:58 GMT -8
Post by SS San Mateo on May 8, 2015 13:42:58 GMT -8
The latest maintenance schedule (updated 05/06) now has the Hiyu listed as being on "Standby" status through the end of June.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 9, 2015 10:29:56 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 9, 2015 10:29:56 GMT -8
HIYU has been chartered to Pierce County for the first three weeks of June to back up the Christine Anderson while the Steilacoom II goes to dry-dock.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 9, 2015 12:30:30 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on May 9, 2015 12:30:30 GMT -8
HIYU has been chartered to Pierce County for the first three weeks of June to back up the Christine Anderson while the Steilacoom II goes to dry-dock. At least she will get running time this year!
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 16, 2015 15:29:10 GMT -8
Post by Elwha on the Rocks on May 16, 2015 15:29:10 GMT -8
Having relatives that live on Lummi Island, I can say that I've heard nothing about the Hiyu going to Lummi Island, and personally I'm really happy about that. I never liked the idea of her going to Lummi, as we now have three sailings an hour, and with the Hiyu we might be able to manage two at best. Also, if we did get the Hiyu, I can say that the county would sell the Whatcom Chief for 99% sure, there's no way they can afford to maintain two ferries, especially if one is only going too be used for three weeks of the year.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 18, 2015 9:48:51 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 18, 2015 9:48:51 GMT -8
Boy, your relatives must not be paying too much attention. There is a locally produced 22 page report (edited down from 39) on the HIYU's application here. It is backed up by about 40 pages of locally recorded interviews and conversations with the Industry, the State and others. More backup is in the form of about 500 pages of published reports from Industry, the Counties paid for reports since 2001, and others. The HIYU will run less expensively, carry more vehicles in a given time, be able to carry all legal sized vehicles, cost less to maintain, run with the same crew (after re-classification), has space for an ADA deck cabin, can positive cash flow in high season, farther emergency port access, and has enough lane space to provide legal auto egress, all things the Whatcom Chief cannot. Runs would be twice (x2) an hour for a legal carry capacity of about 72 cars (the State under-rates it's capacity) instead of the usually illegal carry capacity of 60 cars in three runs the Whatcom Chief carries. Further, in a 2005 study by Elliot Bay Design Group said the Whatcom Chief's maximum capacity, placed the Whatcom Chief at 100 cars per two hours, for 50 cars per hour, as it can't consistently maintain a 3 runs per hour, the HIYU can maintain 2, although at current passage rates it would not have to. The big elephant in the room is the Whatcom Chief's being overcrowded to be able to try to keep up with the traffic, legal load would be 10-14 cars, not 20. One of these days there will be either an accident or the Coast Guard will enforce the CFR. When that happens costs skyrocket, and capacity plummets, you think we have trouble now? Two runs per hour instead of three, with more capacity, big whoop, most will probably get on the first one and certainly on the second one, with 10 minutes less waiting on average. A local group survey said 68% of responders thought 2 trips were just fine. Right now the Whatcom Chief cost about 600K a year to maintain, it's age is making it a money pit. Currently yearly Dry-Dock costs about 200K, not including the cost of the work on the boat. By sharing the spare Ferry with Skagit County alone, it would pay for itself and give immediate back up for both Counties in case of ferry failure. San Juan may want to use the boat for Public Works uses, another plus. Then maintenance could be changed to do most of the work outside the shipyard, we have a place to do it out here, similar to what the WSF does. This is a win all the way around, more capacity, less cost, it just takes a change in purpose. The State wants to basically give us the HIYU, as one of the County Council said, "at that, let's get two (HIYU's)", at the Committee's presentation to the County Council's Public Works Committee. The investigation of the HIYU has caused a bit of a mini-controversy, those who want it, those who do not. The Ferry Board Committee's split, one going on it's own due to interference by the main board. The data is all over the local blog, with links to the report , the local references and the published ones. Actually, the best option would be to get the HIYU, sell the Chief and buy the 16 car TREK as a back up. The TREK has more legal vehicle capacity straight, wide enough, loading lanes, ADA compliant, and newer with 1/2 its life in fresh water. It's not quite the weather boat, but as a spare it will be fine. We will be putting a complete report and references at the Islander Store and the Library in the next few days. I wish I could put the report on here, but it's too long. The State would like her to keep operating here in Washington, they consider the lack of that to be a loss to the Taxpayers who bought her. Where do you want the HIYU to go, to B.C. like the Rhody, or the rotting at some dock somewhere, or Vietnam, or the scrap yard like the Steel Electrics, ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 15:57:31 GMT -8
So LIFC if the report is too long to post then why not send us a link to it? Personally, I am skeptical that the "Hiyu" will be acquired by Whatcom County and end up on the Lummi Island route. I do think that the "Hiyu" will end up the the Rhody as it will probably be purchased by a company like the one that bought the Rhody before anyone else can even make a decision. I also have serious doubts that the "Whatcom Chief" is being overloaded to the point that there could be an accident or the Coast Guard will intervene. That doesn't make any sense to me that she would be operated in that manner with all of today's rules and regulations especially in North America! Anyways, that being said, here is a forum I found on line that includes a link to a report about the "Hiyu". Is this the same said report?? LUMMI ISLAND FERRY FORUM
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 18, 2015 19:44:05 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on May 18, 2015 19:44:05 GMT -8
Runs would be trice an hour for a legal carry capacity of about 72 cars (the State under-rates it's capacity)... Three trips an hour is 102 cars by the state's rating of 34 cars. I hope the rest of your math isn't this suspect. I'm curious. What does the COI of the Hiyu currently require, and what makes you think that the USCG would be willing to reduce it?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 18, 2015 20:00:14 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 18, 2015 20:00:14 GMT -8
I do not know if it's there or not, I never go there, it's an edited forum. We put most of our postings on Nextdoor Lummi Island. and a fellow out here has a website that stores it on directly. I will post it later tonite for you.
If one believes what the Coast Guard Inspector told us, (which is in the references) it's overloaded, I will see if we can find the original power-point with the photos, and these occurrences are not odd, it happens dozens of times a day. If it didn't the boat would not have a chance of keeping up, the question is can you "freely" get out of your car, the answer is no. The CFR is in the report and the references, read it yourself. Some of the crew is upset that we have brought this up, our legal friends told us we could be liable if we didn't. So far there have been no accidents or complaints, with either the CG will be forced to intervene, the actuarial tables are just not with us. I have personally been holding off some hotheads that want to turn it in, telling them to wait and see. I just want to get the issue fixed before something does happen. The no-growth people are using the ferry as a gate, the County does not want to change anything. The HIYU does that easily and inexpensively and gives us time to figure out what to do next, not have some bad, hasty decision made that will haunt us for years, like the WSF KDT class. It will take the County 3-5 years to get a new boat built, the way they do things. What do you do if the Chief fails, --get the passenger boat? It appears that we would have to keep the HIYU about 3-5 years after the government to government transfer.
I can see the HIYU going somewhere, yes B.C. is one of the possibilities. It's a great boat of a good size with 15+ years left in her. For us it's a question of opportunity. Maybe not what we'd ultimately want, but here now and will do the job, quite well in fact.
Read the report and the references when I post it and let me know your thoughts.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
MV Hiyu
May 18, 2015 21:12:28 GMT -8
Post by Neil on May 18, 2015 21:12:28 GMT -8
lifc, I think I can assure you that BC Ferries would have zero interest in a forty eight year old ferry. What you haven't told us is if, aside from a report from the Lummi ferry advisory committee, Whatcom County has any interest in it. Do they consider the Hiyu an option?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 18, 2015 23:12:22 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 18, 2015 23:12:22 GMT -8
Runs would be trice an hour for a legal carry capacity of about 72 cars (the State under-rates it's capacity)... Three trips an hour is 102 cars by the state's rating of 34 cars. I hope the rest of your math isn't this suspect. I'm curious. What does the COI of the Hiyu currently require, and what makes you think that the USCG would be willing to reduce it? The first line has a typo I have corrected, it's twice an hour for 72 cars. State crews say they often got 38 on it, legally, depending on the car size. so we picked 36. Yes, the HIYU might be able to make three trips with another crew person or electronic ticketing as the HIYU is somewhat faster, although loading/unloading might take just a bit longer. The way they currently load the Whatcom Chief is slow as they work to shoehorn cars into very small spaces, it takes time. With the HIYU, it would be much faster per car. The reclassification came from conversations from EBDG and the Senior Coast Guard Inspector. By tonnage framing the HIYU it can be easily brought in under 100 tonnes. Due to its build date, and as there was no K class in 1967, it would be classified as a T class boat, hence the crew of 3 up to 149 passengers. The Inspector also said we could by pass this with a rider on a Congressional Bill that would re-classify her without modifications. There are thousands of boats re-classified this way, including some of the Seattle area passenger boats. It makes sense, if it can be done mechanically, why spend the money on a older boat that has a limited time left on it. This again is outlined in the report. The only thing we would have to add is engine room cameras viewable by the Master. The SteilacoomII is almost twice the size of the HIYU, it's an under 100 tonne vessel. Read the report and the References, it's all in there. Currently the HIYU is rated for five, Master, three Deck Crew and an Engineer. This came from her last assignment as the Inter-Island boat. WSF considered that she was a long way from Eagle Harbor so they needed an Engineer, even though they didn't have one most of the time she was at PD/T, it was built to run without one. Then they needed three Deck Crew to handle the San Juan Spin. We don't need the Engineer, passage is very short and a simple drive on drive off. Three is the size for a T Class boat in this situation, we have very well researched this. now if they carry more than 149 passengers, up to 199, like for a big event on the Island, or on an emergency run to Bellingham, it would need a Crew of four. If there are that many passengers, why not, the boat has a positive cash flow and the forth Crew cost is small compared to the fare box increase. Now, let's talk about LIFAC. In three years their total output has been a sign change, gotten free fares for the person accompanying the primary school children, and successfully advanced the ability to now take Credit Cards on the boat. The last item was started by the very successful temporary Lummi Island Ferry Task Force in 2011, although LIFAC was unwilling to push for the whole Electronic Ticketing Package LIFTF proposed. Basically they argue, try to prevent any new ideas and take a non controversial view of everything Ferry, try not to upset the County. The Council, who chartered them is getting tired of this. A couple of the people on LIFAC are great, but they get out-voted. For most of us who tried to work with them, the LIFAC experience has been very frustrating. I will say they have been working on a fare reduction package which is long overdue, I hope it works. Mostly they want to study things to death, and not recommend. The "Independent" Report on the HIYU is the most significant document brought forth since the LIFTF report in 2011. Yes, we did our homework and covered all contingencies. By the way the County Council is very interested in the HIYU possibility, and they make the final decision and write the checks. Here's the links to the report, you must paste it directly and not use the search engine. savetheferry.com/Citizens%20committee%20report%20on%20Hiyu%2003082015s.pdf Here's the link to the Committee Initiated References. savetheferry.com/References%20for%20Hiyu%20Report%20March%202015.doc Published references are listed on the last pages of the main document. 8 to 9 very involved and intelligent people made this report possible.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 19, 2015 9:52:59 GMT -8
Post by EGfleet on May 19, 2015 9:52:59 GMT -8
Three trips an hour is 102 cars by the state's rating of 34 cars. I hope the rest of your math isn't this suspect. I'm curious. What does the COI of the Hiyu currently require, and what makes you think that the USCG would be willing to reduce it? The first line has a typo I have corrected, it's twice an hour for 72 cars. State crews say they often got 38 on it, legally, depending on the car size. so we picked 36. Yes, the HIYU might be able to make three trips with another crew person or electronic ticketing as the HIYU is somewhat faster, although loading/unloading might take just a bit longer. The way they currently load the Whatcom Chief is slow as they work to shoehorn cars into very small spaces, it takes time. With the HIYU, it would be much faster per car. The reclassification came from conversations from EBDG and the Senior Coast Guard Inspector. By tonnage framing the HIYU it can be easily brought in under 100 tonnes. Due to its build date, and as there was no K class in 1967, it would be classified as a T class boat, hence the crew of 3 up to 149 passengers. The Inspector also said we could by pass this with a rider on a Congressional Bill that would re-classify her without modifications. There are thousands of boats re-classified this way, including some of the Seattle area passenger boats. It makes sense, if it can be done mechanically, why spend the money on a older boat that has a limited time left on it. This again is outlined in the report. The only thing we would have to add is engine room cameras viewable by the Master. The SteilacoomII is almost twice the size of the HIYU, it's an under 100 tonne vessel. Read the report and the References, it's all in there. Currently the HIYU is rated for five, Master, three Deck Crew and an Engineer. This came from her last assignment as the Inter-Island boat. WSF considered that she was a long way from Eagle Harbor so they needed an Engineer, even though they didn't have one most of the time she was at PD/T, it was built to run without one. Then they needed three Deck Crew to handle the San Juan Spin. We don't need the Engineer, passage is very short and a simple drive on drive off. Three is the size for a T Class boat in this situation, we have very well researched this. now if they carry more than 149 passengers, up to 199, like for a big event on the Island, or on an emergency run to Bellingham, it would need a Crew of four. If there are that many passengers, why not, the boat has a positive cash flow and the forth Crew cost is small compared to the fare box increase. Now, let's talk about LIFAC. In three years their total output has been a sign change, gotten free fares for the person accompanying the primary school children, and successfully advanced the ability to now take Credit Cards on the boat. The last item was started by the very successful temporary Lummi Island Ferry Task Force in 2011, although LIFAC was unwilling to push for the whole Electronic Ticketing Package LIFTF proposed. Basically they argue, try to prevent any new ideas and take a non controversial view of everything Ferry, try not to upset the County. The Council, who chartered them is getting tired of this. A couple of the people on LIFAC are great, but they get out-voted. For most of us who tried to work with them, the LIFAC experience has been very frustrating. I will say they have been working on a fare reduction package which is long overdue, I hope it works. Mostly they want to study things to death, and not recommend. The "Independent" Report on the HIYU is the most significant document brought forth since the LIFTF report in 2011. Yes, we did our homework and covered all contingencies. By the way the County Council is very interested in the HIYU possibility, and they make the final decision and write the checks. Here's the links to the report, you must paste it directly and not use the search engine. savetheferry.com/Citizens%20committee%20report%20on%20Hiyu%2003082015s.pdf Here's the link to the Committee Initiated References. savetheferry.com/References%20for%20Hiyu%20Report%20March%202015.doc Published references are listed on the last pages of the main document. 8 to 9 very involved and intelligent people made this report possible. Just for the heck of it, I went to check out the last meeting minutes from the county on the Hiyu issue. I didn't realize they've got Elliott Bay Design looking into the feasibility of using the Hiyu. The county must have published the minutes as the PDF file contained the news clipping below: April's meeting minutes have not been posted yet.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 19, 2015 10:00:16 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on May 19, 2015 10:00:16 GMT -8
Currently the HIYU is rated for five, Master, three Deck Crew and an Engineer. This came from her last assignment as the Inter-Island boat. WSF considered that she was a long way from Eagle Harbor so they needed an Engineer, even though they didn't have one most of the time she was at PD/T, it was built to run without one. Then they needed three Deck Crew to handle the San Juan Spin. We don't need the Engineer, passage is very short and a simple drive on drive off. Three is the size for a T Class boat in this situation, we have very well researched this. now if they carry more than 149 passengers, up to 199, like for a big event on the Island, or on an emergency run to Bellingham, it would need a Crew of four. I can't conceive of WSF ever running a ferry without an engineer of some sort aboard, nor can I find any evidence of that occurring. And as for needing three deckhands to handle the "San Juan Spin," I can tell you with absolute authority that it was a two deckhand boat for years in the islands, having been one half of a duo a time or two. The fourth crew member was an engineer. And Harre Demoro's The Evergreen Fleet reproduces a WSF document from 1970 indicating that the crew size was four, even then. I think if you do your research a little more closely, the third deckhand was required as a result of the additional lifesaving equipment placed on board. I'm pretty sure the USCG doesn't give a wet slap about how many people it takes to load a boat effectively, just how many it takes to evacuate the boat in an emergency.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
May 19, 2015 10:53:44 GMT -8
Post by lifc on May 19, 2015 10:53:44 GMT -8
The HIYU has all controls, gauges and alarms going to the Pilot house. Captn. Jack told me it was first operated with three deck crew and no engineer at PD/T, his dad was the Master. I think the WSF has a culture of having an engineer for quite some time, all boats now have at least one, just something they do, the Counties do not. Jack's interview in the Committee Initiated References is a real eye opener.
EGFleet.---- Yes, EBDG has been brought on board, they have released a report on the dock issue, which says our docks have enough depth to operate the HIYU there. They do cite dolphin improvements that are needed. They also used the worst draft figure of 11' 3". I think the County sent out a crew and measured the dock depth, we used the depth we got from the Crew and therefore were more conservative, although we think the boat will easily scour its way to adequate draft. We have prepared a response to the EBDG Report, citing four different draft reading that could be attached to the boat. I have had trouble getting the wing-wall drawings attached to our response, hope to get that today. All in all we agree with EBDG findings, and have some suggestions to contain costs.
On four different occasions, starting with County paid for reports in the mid 2000's, the Ferry Task Force, etc, increasing the dolphin widths to accommodate larger vessels has been proposed to be done to the docks at renovation times. In fact in the 80's the Mainland dock was expanded to be able to land, "a State Ferry" probably the HIYU, Rody or Olympic, according to the drawings it was wide enough. In 2014, over protests, it was narrowed to berth only the Whatcom Chief. Despite calls from the Community, and our then LIFAC Subcommittee, the main group refused to recommend the County keep the berth wide enough to land a HIYU size boat, they said they didn't know enough to recommend that! One of the problems with the County Public Works people is that they have no institutional memory, they didn't even know that there are multiple reports, the County paid for, on Bottom Studies, Ferry Capacities, Pile tests, Safety etc. until we found them, they didn't know they existed and have duplicated the processes on several occasions.
The EBDG report shows that docks can be configured to work a variety of different sized vessels. Our take is that the docks ought to be wide enough to berth a Steilacoom II or KDT size boat, for emergency purposes.
The press release you see above, was from LIFAC and did not represent the feelings in the room. All the people who voted against the report, did not read it and admitted so. The report was sent to them a week before, talk about a lack of due diligence! We prepared the report exactly as we were told to do. The Committee members were so upset they decided we would go on own after that. That's why we went directly to County Council Public Woks committee and got a great reception.
The details are all in the References, take time to read them.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 19, 2015 19:00:41 GMT -8
Post by Kahloke on May 19, 2015 19:00:41 GMT -8
Bump to notify that I have moved several posts in the General Discussion Thread to the Hiyu Thread since they pertain to this vessel.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
May 20, 2015 7:33:50 GMT -8
Post by SS San Mateo on May 20, 2015 7:33:50 GMT -8
I can't conceive of WSF ever running a ferry without an engineer of some sort aboard, nor can I find any evidence of that occurring. It has happened before. During the April 1980 ferry workers strike (it think it was just the engineers, IIRC), the Hiyu was moved to the north end of Vashon and operated (without an engineer) between Fauntleroy and Vashon only during the strike.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
May 29, 2015 22:17:37 GMT -8
Post by FNS on May 29, 2015 22:17:37 GMT -8
It's penciled in. HIYU is chartered for the first three weeks in June. Then two weeks back on standby, and decommissioned in July as per the Maintenance Update 265: LARGE SIZELARGE SIZE
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
May 31, 2015 11:40:00 GMT -8
Post by FNS on May 31, 2015 11:40:00 GMT -8
Here is part of a news release by Pierce County on the chartering of the HIYU for their services: Posted on: May 13, 2015 Pierce County ferry to undergo biennial checkupJust as doctors recommend annual physicals for their patients, the U.S. Coast Guard also insists on ferry boat inspections every two years. One of Pierce County’s two ferries, the M/V Steilacoom II, will motor into dry dock on June 1 for its biennial inspection, which will last three weeks. The county’s other ferry, the M/V Christine Anderson, will handle the full schedule. The inspection and maintenance of the ferry is a routine procedure. In the unlikely event that the Christine Anderson encounters problems while the Steilacoom II is in dry dock, the County would implement a Ferry Operations Contingency Plan – which includes options such as chartering the M/V Hiyu from the State of Washington, if needed.Coast Guard regulations require the ferries to ... The rest of this release can be read at:www.co.pierce.wa.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2295(The full release is also on the Pierce County thread on this forum.)
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Jun 18, 2015 12:30:44 GMT -8
Thursday greetings! The MV HIYU, affectionately known to one of our forum mates as "The Flying Saucer", was seen on ship trackers doing a rare spin on Puget Sound yesterday. She did a trip over to Colman Dock and back to the VMC at Eagle Harbor. Here are some photos of her at Colman Dock and in Eagle Harbor as provided by ferrycam.com (please visit their site): The posting of these photos was recommended by "Flugel Horn". ENJOY!
RECENT EDIT: This shows you how tiny the HIYU is. All her bigger cousins can touch the side dolphin. Take a KDT, the next size up, as an example. That's the SALISH on a visit to the Bremerton run, about a couple of years ago. 162 feet vs 274 feet. When the HIYU leaves WSF, the KDT will be the "smallest" in the fleet. Quite big to have that distinction, though. The OLYMPIC, RHODODENDRON, VASHON, and the Wooden and Steel Electrics were big ferries to me in my growing up years in the 1960s through the 1970s. Man, have things changed through these current years!
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Jun 18, 2015 18:41:47 GMT -8
Post by maximase86 on Jun 18, 2015 18:41:47 GMT -8
Hiyu looks cute in slip 1 there.
S
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
Jun 21, 2015 22:12:03 GMT -8
Post by FNS on Jun 21, 2015 22:12:03 GMT -8
Hiyu looks cute in slip 1 there. S The HIYU definitely looks cute in that slip. I wished the STEILACOOM II used that slip so we could have seen if that 216-foot ferry would have touched the side dolphin. I think she would have anyway. She was seen on ship trackers at Colman Dock, after arriving from her complete post-lease renewing at Dakota Creek, for most likely the "change of operatorship ceremony" that ended WSF's lease of her as a stand-in at Keystone and her return home to Pierce County in 2011.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Jun 22, 2015 9:53:18 GMT -8
Post by crashlament on Jun 22, 2015 9:53:18 GMT -8
Its a bummer that the HIYU is going so quickly. She isnt a very useful boat but in a crisis 34 cars moved across the water is far better than no cars moved across the water. So WSF should hang on to the Hiyu until the fall
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Jun 22, 2015 13:13:15 GMT -8
Post by EGfleet on Jun 22, 2015 13:13:15 GMT -8
Its a bummer that the HIYU is going so quickly. She isnt a very useful boat but in a crisis 34 cars moved across the water is far better than no cars moved across the water. So WSF should hang on to the Hiyu until the fall Intersting...this was on the Lummi Island Ferry Forum page: Audio: Public Works Report to County Council on Ferry Replacement JUNE 1, 2015 Here’s the audio of the Public Works (PW) report to the County Council about the Hiyu option, based on the marine engineering consultants’ feasibility and cost reports to the County.B ased on those reports, PW and Jack Louws’ recommended not bidding on the HIYU.
Council members had many questions and comments. Jim Dickinson, island resident, questioned differences between his group’s information and costs that marine engineering consultant reports estimated. He requested a special meeting with Public Works to ‘work things out,’ supported by Greg Brown (LIFAC member). Louws questioned the increasing cost ( ~$10,000) of prolonging the investigation of the Hiyu, another half-century old ferry like the Chief. Initially he was optimistic about the M/V HIYU having minimal costs, but changed his mind after reading the reports — even if final cost was only a quarter of the consultant estimates. He prefers to move forward and spend taxpayer funds and staff time on replacing the Chief with a new ferry. Long-term population planning for Lummi Island is needed to determine the ‘right sized’ new ferry. Louws and the Council want LIFAC to be strongly involved in that planning. In the meantime, Louws thinks the TREK might be an appropriate second ferry option. Louws commented on opportunities to work with Lummi Nation on the new marina and build/rebuild of LI and Gooseberry terminals and new ferry. The next step is to see if they can apply jointly for TIGER (Transportation Information Generating Economic Recovery) federal grant funds. lummiislandferryforum.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/audio-public-works-report-to-county-council-ferry-replacement/
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Jun 24, 2015 12:17:44 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Jun 24, 2015 12:17:44 GMT -8
While I realize the audio is ‘”real time”, you must realize that the Lummi Island Ferry Forum is an edited site by a person who desires no changes. Often times differing opinions are not allowed to post on this forum.
Our group did a tremendous amount of work on our HIYU report. We examined every contingency we could think of, including those negative, about it, and the currently operating Whatcom Chief. We read every report we could find, including at least five the County, ordered, paid for, which had been forgotten or lost. These reports cost the County over 1 million dollars and have answers to most of the questions at hand. The more we investigated, the better the HIYU looked, and the worse the current vessel appears. We received no assistance, not even one document, from the regular channels, including via LIFAC. All documents found were from internet searches, remembering they were done, and through Freedom of Information requests.
From what we heard at the June 1 meeting was that the County Executive had not read our document and got his information from someone with a predetermined negative bias. I am pretty sure that most of the Public Works people have not read the report certainly and not the references. Further, they had not read the previous reports and are only now aware of them, due to our efforts.
All in all, we expected that we would be able to present our findings and calmly and respectively discuss them with the County. That was not the way it turned out.
When our group was a subcommittee of the LIFAC group we were told to severely edit the report and as such we removed a great deal of information and transferred it to the references.
The first consultant report the County ordered on the HIYU docking use was fairly neutral. It saw no problem with using the boat at the Island. Later reports were obviously ordered with a predetermined direction.
We knew there were three issues about the HIYU running at Lummi Island:
1. The first was re-rate from 498 tones to under 100. Our initial contact with the boats residual designers was positive, yes, it could be done.
We need this because our crew has 100 tonne licenses and we cannot afford the two additional crew the WSF has on the boat.
Our next contact on this was with the Senior Coast Guard Inspector, he told us to get a legislative re-rate, as it could be done mechanically, and since it was an older boat, to save as much money as we could for its remaining life. We projected its remaining life to be 15 years, which he thought was appropriate. He went on to explain that there were a number of inspected passenger vessels in Puget Sound that have these re-rates and it was easily done, and in fact, he would help us. He saw no reason the HIYU could not be safely operated with a crew of three and later sent us the re-rate language on the historic Bellingham Schooner Zodiac. We even contacted our local Federal Representative who also offered help.
Our next stop was a the shipyard where the owner agreed with the CG Inspector and gave us a back-up tonnage frame quote of 250K. He was more emphatic about the vessels great condition and thought it could last 25 plus years.
So, we thought we had that well in hand, did not expect being attacked on this point.
2. The second was the HIYU’s deeper draft. We were very conservative on our draft projections and used the figure we got from the Ferry Crew. We were under the impression that the HIYU could run right up to a -1 tide, with a foot under it, and only have to cancel at the lowest tides. From an expensive County ordered Bottom Study in 2006, we found the bottom is soft and there are no rocks or harder material, in the affected areas, for at least 15 feet down from the bottom.
We knew the current ferry scoured out at least 4 feet before it could land in the current Island dock, so why could not the HIYU scour out two feet, or more, during usual operations? We saw no long range problem here.
First the Executive told us at a meeting on the Island that the boat could not even stay over night in the slip, it would ground and tip over. Our group found that rather amazing as the HIYU would hardly lean at all at that level and could easily drive out of the dock as only the inner end would be barely aground. The we found out the recent quoted study had made a mistake in the HIYU’s depth, they used the maximally loaded depth of 11.3’ instead of the design depth of 10 feet or the observed empty loaded depth of 9.8 feet, you don’t tie up the boat for the night, fully loaded. In fact in the first neutral dock and depth study, they thought the slips were deeper than we had projected and the boat would work with the 11.3’ draft at the lowest tides. They also quoted the number of low tides, again the Executive seized upon this figure as not being to operate then at all, something the study did not say.
We knew of the less draft figures, the water line is at 10 feet depth after all, and knew the boat would work fine as we were told by a Senior WSF Captain that the 11.3’ number came from the boat carrying 12 fully loaded ten yard dump trucks and a full load of other vehicles at the Inter-Island. He also said they considered normal loading draft to be around 10’. So continued the deceptive cherry picking of the facts by the County.
3. The last item was the widening of the slips to accommodate the HIYU. In July of 2014, the County replaced the dolphins at the mainland dock and narrowed the late 1980’s approach, which previously would have fit “a State Ferry” –HIYU- Olympic- Rhododendron, to only accommodate the Whatcom Chief. This was done over the objections of many Islanders, in contravention of the findings of a previous report, and a local Community Group. Some of us felt this was done on purpose. From what we had been told by the former Ferry Director, we figured, this would have cost then less than a million to widen the slips. From the 2009 Pile Test Report, we also know that the newly driven dolphins and pilings are strong enough to berth the HIYU.
After our first presentation to County Council we were told by Public Works that dock renovation was 3.5 million to accommodate the HIYU. We thought this was a very high figure. A few days later at the Island program, the Executive said it would be 7 million. As you can hear in the audio from the Council meeting, he was then saying up to 11 million, wow.
Upon going thought the figures as provided by the consultants, it became apparent that the consultant had been asked to provide the highest numbers and the quote was to cover demolishing, scrapping and replacing the wing walls, and all but two of the dolphins and outside of the ramp towers! This would be the equivalent of replacing your house to repair a broken window. By relocating all the newer steel parts, which we know can be done, reinforcing the wing-walls, replacing the used up wooden dolphins, and generally adapting most of the existing structure, we came up with 1.1 to 2.4 million to adapt for the HIYU, all from the quoted Consultant’s figures! The idea that all this money would be lost in the new dock at the Lummi Marina again is specious, the new dock would have to be built for the brand new ferry, which would likely be as big or bigger than the HIYU. From the first report and the experience of the WSF, we know landings can be configured to take a wide variety of vessels.
The Executive said that the HIYU, because it was an older boat would be a “sideways” move from what they have and would rather get a new Ferry, with T.I.G.E.R. Grants. While this sounds good to some, it’s not the case. The HIYU is an incredible improvement in carry capacity which is needed now. I would get rid of the illegal vehicle deck overcrowding of the Whatcom Chief, which will one day come to a bad end, and the immense cost of its yearly repair. This year’s shipyard bid for the Chief, is $464,289.00, for something that’s not worth ½ that! They have been putting off the replacement of the deck house for about 7 years, that’s still going to cost a million in the future. The Whatcom Chief is too small, to costly to maintain, and not in compliance with USCG Safety rules. The HIYU is newer, better maintained, in much better condition, uses less fuel, won’t cost as much to maintain, meets safety rules, has some room for growth, as well as having emergency farther port capability. The County just does not want to do anything different than they are doing now. It’s interesting how the County Executive thinks that the Whatcom Chief, which has twice the hours, five times the landing cycles, will not meet safety standards, costs a fortune to maintain, and is in much worse condition is somehow a better option to keep than getting the HIYU.
One of the bad parts of these presentations is the presenter’s only get one chance to talk. Once they have done that, they can no longer explain, defend, or otherwise discuss the topic. Meanwhile the County people can come back and speak multiple times, usually casting doubt on the presenter’s, which effectively ends debate.
On another note, from overall applications, there is a nominal 2% chance of getting a T.I.G.E.R. grant for anything. If the Lummi Tribe gets the 8 million dollar grant they currently put in for, it is doubtful another will be granted in the same area to any entity for some time. The Lummi Marina project is depending on a very large, likely, Federal Grant, no on knows when they might get that, perhaps as much as 20 years in the future. Meanwhile what do we do? The County is trying to build a 110 million dollar jail, it will exhaust almost all their bonding capability, there will be none for a new Ferry. This is all smoke up your pant’s cuffs, might placate some people who do not think, others seem to waking up.
We still think the HIYU would be great here at Lummi Island.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 8, 2015 13:57:56 GMT -8
Looks like retirement may have been delayed again. Status has been changed from "decommissioned" to "pending" for the current (07/08) maintenance schedule.
|
|