|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 22, 2006 12:21:48 GMT -8
There has been a lot of interesting discussion of the Port Townsend-Keystone Route. This includes the use of the "steel Electrics" on the route, their possible replacements, and the proposed rebuild of the Keystone landing. Could someone explain the current traffic pattern on the route. From what I can see from the WSF site, summer traffic seems to be busy in both directions on both Fridays and Sundays (unlike other routes that are busy one way depending on the day). Is this true? From what I could see, the 2nd vessel on the route during the late spring-summer, should clearly have longer hours of operation. There has also been significant disagreement over what to do about the Keystone Landing. Has anything been decided? I remember that a few years ago WSF Planning Documents contained a option of "doing nothing" and continuing to upgrade the "steel electrics." Is this option still listed?  One more question: How much rebuild of the Keystone Landing would be needed to use "Evergreen Class" vessels on the route? |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 22, 2006 18:31:48 GMT -8
No decision has been made yet and the "doing nothing" option (referred to as the "no action" option) is still being considered. They may be required to consider that option even if it's not an option.
As for modifying Keystone Harbor to handle Evergreen Class vessels, it's probably would have to be same as what would be needed to handle the new vessels.
|
|
|
|
Post by zman on Oct 23, 2006 8:27:54 GMT -8
There are sometimes in the summer when WSF sends out the "8:45 from Keystone Full" message at 7PM. You would think that there could be an extra sailing arranged, on account of the fact that it frequently happens on those busy summer weekends. I do not have the facts as to why WSF does not extend vessel #2s hours or why #1 doesnt do an extra trip. There may be a valid reason to that which I do not know.
**This is my personal opinion right now. Again, there may be some reason as to why WSF does what they do.
What I see is a dock that is completely filled up two hours prior to the last sailing, and WSF saying "sorry, we have to tie up our boat because the schedule says so".
If anybody knows about a reason as to why WSF does this, I would love to hear it. I do know that there are some things that do have reasons and do not make sense to the outsider, so I am totally open to hearing them.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 23, 2006 23:25:35 GMT -8
WSF is still studying what to do with Keystone. The newest option is to build out of harbor south of the current terminal. This would provide direct access to SR 525 which would solve a lot of resident complains about traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 24, 2006 18:20:46 GMT -8
There are sometimes in the summer when WSF sends out the "8:45 from Keystone Full" message at 7PM. You would think that there could be an extra sailing arranged, on account of the fact that it frequently happens on those busy summer weekends. I do not have the facts as to why WSF does not extend vessel #2s hours or why #1 doesnt do an extra trip. There may be a valid reason to that which I do not know. **This is my personal opinion right now. Again, there may be some reason as to why WSF does what they do. What I see is a dock that is completely filled up two hours prior to the last sailing, and WSF saying "sorry, we have to tie up our boat because the schedule says so". If anybody knows about a reason as to why WSF does this, I would love to hear it. I do know that there are some things that do have reasons and do not make sense to the outsider, so I am totally open to hearing them. Thanks Why? Because a major source of $$$ for WSF was cut. To save costs, WSF was forced to trim schedules. Keystone and Bremerton really got it in the shorts. The islands to a lesser extent. The Keystone run is the one where it is most painfully obvious. To overcome the problem you first have to get around Mary Margaret Haugen, the state legislative rep from Whidbey who doesn't want big boats at Keystone and doesn't want to see service expanded. She's gone on record as saying she didn't want to see the Whidbey Island "overrun by cars" and has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything larger than a Steel Electric from coming to Keystone. The problem is, she really hasn't presented any solutions to the Keystone issue, and seems to turn a blind eye to the fact that as of next March and April those boats will be 80 years old. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 24, 2006 18:51:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 24, 2006 21:05:23 GMT -8
There has been alot of discussion about what to do with this route. Due to the fact that both the Port Townsend and Keystone areas do not want any changes at this point, I think the State needs to re-examine this issue.
Obviously something has to be done. It is a complicated problem with no easy solution. No one party is going to happy, no matter what is decided.
Like it or not this region is growing and there is no way to curtail it. This route is going to have to expand to meet the demands of an ever increasing population.
WSF recognizes this and is trying to formulate improved service for each community.
Since this issue is now complicated by lawsuits over the design/building of the new ferries, the only logical short term solution in my opinion is to dredge Keystone harbor so other vessels could use the ferry slip as is.
It is a fact that the tides and currents around this landing make it difficult to land a ferry but dredging should allow the use of one of the Evergreen class boats.
My only question is that the steel-electrics are highly manuverable and seem to do very well at Keystone. Would another vessel with a deeper draft be able to navigate into that landing even with dredging the harbor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Oct 24, 2006 21:24:08 GMT -8
If none of them want change, the reality is not everyone will be satisfied. There is a growing demand, supply must be expanded and old vessels must go.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 1, 2006 18:12:27 GMT -8
According to a e-mail issued yesterday by WSF, Port Townsend-Keystone route planning has been placed on hold. There had been many concerns related to such matters as traffic, size and scale of terminal expansion, holding areas, larger sized vessels. It became clear that additional time would be needed to address the volume of concerns received. Hmmm, perhaps some work for MV Nisqually  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 1, 2006 19:27:27 GMT -8
Time to start a rant. You have seen many times of hesitiation right? Well WSF is doing it again. WAITING TILL THE LAST SECOND TO DEAL WITH AN ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO BITE EM IN THE BEHIND IN TIME! If they keep doing this, they are going to have some issues with PR very soon. STUPID DOT!
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Dec 1, 2006 21:20:25 GMT -8
How many times has the state studied this issue? Seems like anytime someone complains they restart the process. They can't make everyone happy.
I am still in favor of the out-of-harbor plan. It solves most of the problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 1, 2006 22:21:55 GMT -8
Completely agree hergfest. The out of harbor option seems to be the best due to getting rid of draft problems and tide issues. There is also room for expansion if necessary and road access problem is avoided.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 2, 2006 5:01:11 GMT -8
I' mnot a huge fan of government playing the 'eminent domain' game, but this seems like it might be a situation where it's warranted... the terminal needs to move out of the harbor. Stupid thing's man-made anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 2, 2006 18:18:25 GMT -8
And once again I have to state again that there is a LOT of opposition to expanding service on the Keystone route by Whidbey Islanders and by their representative in Olympia, Mary Margaret Haugen, who also sits on the transportation committee and who has gone on record numerous times as saying that she does NOT want larger boats going into Keystone and traffic "over running the island."
Don't blame WSF for this one completely. They've been trying to come up with options for the route only to be screamed at by residents of the Keystone area and one of the people controlling the purse strings on the transportation committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 3, 2006 11:49:28 GMT -8
I keep wondering if this problem has a simple answer, at least for the short term............. Why not return to running the 2nd vessel assigned to the route 12 or 14 hours instead of the current 8 during the busy summer season. The 8 hours might be enough for late spring & early fall. A bit of positive PR would certainly be of help even if more expensive/disruptive longer term solutions are needed sometime in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by zman on Dec 4, 2006 9:47:48 GMT -8
How about later trips too, that would avoid the "Last trip from Keystone sold out" mayhem. It would be great to have the current boats have more service.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 4, 2006 18:20:39 GMT -8
How about later trips too, that would avoid the "Last trip from Keystone sold out" mayhem. It would be great to have the current boats have more service. I'm all for this. Now get the legislature to pony up the money for it. This is why service was cut in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 4, 2006 18:38:11 GMT -8
Then let us start charging people who use I-5 instead of the ferries  . Wait, that costs more to put toll booths along and Washington State is anti-toll. Seriously, pay for what you use, or stop complaining about excess gas tax. They'll get ya one way or the other no matter what. Some people are not willing to "pony up" yet they are forced to and don't care in the end from what it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 4, 2006 22:17:50 GMT -8
How about later trips too, that would avoid the "Last trip from Keystone sold out" mayhem. It would be great to have the current boats have more service. I'm all for this. Now get the legislature to pony up the money for it. This is why service was cut in the first place. I agree with this up to a point.............but all too often government service organizations will make budget cuts in areas that are the most visible and have the most negative impact on the public. In too many cases management positions are protected or shielded from these cuts. During the 25 years I was on the faculty of a public university, I saw this happen over and over again. Several friends who work on AMHS vessels describe a very similar pattern. When budget cuts are made, ships and crews serving the public are the first to be cut or reduced with few, if any, cutbacks in management staff. Is this what we call bureaucracy? |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Feb 11, 2007 12:28:00 GMT -8
What is this about reservations on the Port Townsend-Keystone Route next summer? There was something on the Seattle news about allowing reservations for an extra fee of $10 or something like that. Whatever it was, it certainly sounded like a stupid idea  . Who comes up with this xxxx!! Wonder what would happen on a busy summer week end with long waits when folks see others (with reservations) crowding in line in front of them. Extra police might be needed to cool down the anger  . Common sense would tell me that a simple solution to the Keystone problem is to restore full time 16 hr service to the second vessel on the run and also restore the late evening runs on the route. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 11, 2007 13:01:13 GMT -8
What is this about reservations on the Port Townsend-Keystone Route next summer? There was something on the Seattle news about allowing reservations for an extra fee of $10 or something like that. Whatever it was, it certainly sounded like a stupid idea . Who comes up with this xxxx!! BC Ferries. Common sense would tell me that a simple solution to the Keystone problem is to restore full time 16 hr service to the second vessel on the run and also restore the late evening runs on the route. When have you ever known WSF to have common sense? Besides, the reservation fee is a way to generate revenue without any additional outlay. |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Feb 12, 2007 7:55:54 GMT -8
Common sense would tell me that a simple solution to the Keystone problem is to restore full time 16 hr service to the second vessel on the run and also restore the late evening runs on the route. Until the good ol' boys down in Oly provide funding for that, it's not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 12, 2007 17:17:04 GMT -8
BTW, tell the good ol' boys down in Oly, STOP TALKING START ACTING! forward that to DC
|
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Feb 12, 2007 20:51:25 GMT -8
Just a guess here or wishful thinking but with the current political makeup of Olympia right now, WSF stands a good shot at getting some operational funds restored.
With a budget surplus and a governor not afraid to spend tax money, maybe a return to improved service just might happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 13, 2007 8:16:12 GMT -8
Just a guess here or wishful thinking but with the current political makeup of Olympia right now, WSF stands a good shot at getting some operational funds restored. With a budget surplus and a governor not afraid to spend tax money, maybe a return to improved service just might happen. Since no one in Olympia appears to be looking for a way to return the funding to the ferries cut off by 1-695, I'm not holding my breath. |
|
? 
. Wait, that costs more to put toll booths along and Washington State is anti-toll. Seriously, pay for what you use, or stop complaining about excess gas tax. They'll get ya one way or the other no matter what. Some people are not willing to "pony up" yet they are forced to and don't care in the end from what it seems.
. Who comes up with this xxxx!!
.