|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jul 30, 2014 21:35:27 GMT -8
I am also in my 30s, and I hate the thought of not having the freedom of getting in a car and driving. There's too much loss of freedom when you're forced to solely rely on public transit.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jul 30, 2014 21:42:17 GMT -8
It depends on age. Generation Y as they call it (your typical Amazon or Microsoft worker in the 30s are the type of people that don't want to drive. Also, freedom with a car? You sure don't live in the city... a bike or your feet are the things that give you the most freedom there. I would have to disagree. For one, you can't go very far on a bike or your feet - at least very fast. You can't go to places like Mt. Rainier or the coast on a bike, living in Seattle, if you want to visit on the same day. Two, I don't live in a city for a reason. I lived in south Tacoma when I was in middle school and hated it. For one, I like my views of the Milky Way too much, and two, I hate the noise. All right then, we're not on the same frequency. Let's just end this discussion. But I have to say that I had a great trip out to Port Townsend today, only using my bike and transit, and not having to worry about ferry backups or breakdowns - even though I fell in the middle of the Tokitae's. Combining biking and transit gives me everything I need as far as freedom goes...
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 30, 2014 21:56:52 GMT -8
BY SUMMER 2028By this time, the Coup eville ferry terminal should be moved out of the harbor, and much larger vessels assigned to the route. Or just dredge the harbor... In addition, the Triangle should be broken up into the following routes: Southworth-Vashon, Fauntleroy-Vashon, and Southworth-Seattle. Seattle doesn't have the capacity to handle a third route, and there's nowhere to extend the terminal. Also, a massive class of new ferries should be built to replace the Supers. These ferries should be based on the design of the Olympics, lengthened by 40 feet, for a vehicle capacity of 162. (I subtracted one car from 4 lanes to allow more gently-sloped gallery deck ramps.), as well as an upper passenger cabin level to accommodate more passengers for busy routes such as Bremerton. Or you can just widen the Olympics by ~10 ft to allow for one more lane in the middle which bumps your capacity to 161 cars. Just sayin' Also, it should be taken into account that driving is decreasing per-capita in the US and that 15 years from now WSF will probably need more passenger capacity but not necessarily more vehicle capacity. (except for bikes, since biking is on the rise ) Well there is nowhere to expand the terminal except into the water but of course we can't do that anymore due to "environmental concerns". I really have a hard time buying off on that one to a certain extent. Should we build like Mexico City did over a lake, no. But I do believe there should be reasonable terms where overwater coverage is the only practical way of doing things. When it comes to future ferry designs, mechanically speaking after this incident on the Tacoma, given that we had a failure of power, a big question that I didn't consider is why was an emergency generator not switched over to within a few minutes? What is the process of that? Barnacle or EGFleet can answer that one hopefully. Also of course, someone needs to make sure the specs have a limit on the ramp grades so we don't have to repeat the Tokitae. The standardization of the fleet while asethetically it makes things seem quite dull, it can help with ship familiarity. I do think however from the passenger deck, that is where you can change up the design a little bit. How do you do that with the two staircases and pickle fork requirements? I am not sure if the USCG would allow for a central stairwell given that their are MES chutes for full capacity on the newer vessels.
|
|
|
Post by maximase86 on Jul 30, 2014 22:30:01 GMT -8
The emergency generator isn't used for propulsion. It's meant to redundant power source if the generator covering ship vital services goes down. For propulsion, Tacoma has 4 main propulsion generators, but she doesn't need all 4 to operate. Just only 2-3 depending on the load. She has redundancy there. However the problem from what I've read doesn't appear to be a problem with those generating power, but instead with her switchboards, which apply the power to propulsion and ship service.
S
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 31, 2014 5:29:45 GMT -8
When it comes to future ferry designs, mechanically speaking after this incident on the Tacoma, given that we had a failure of power, a big question that I didn't consider is why was an emergency generator not switched over to within a few minutes? What is the process of that? Barnacle or EGFleet can answer that one hopefully. I wouldn't detail the process even if I could; that could be perceived as security-sensitive information and it's more than my job's worth. You'll notice I don't answer a lot of the technical questions about the boats' inner workings on here. Specific information about a boat's operating equipment could potentially be used against it by the wrong people; as I never know how easily something can be found on the internet, I try to at least not have it be able to be tied to me. Paranoid? Probably. Employed? Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 31, 2014 8:18:18 GMT -8
I am also in my 30s, and I hate the thought of not having the freedom of getting in a car and driving. There's too much loss of freedom when you're forced to solely rely on public transit. Agreed totally!
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jul 31, 2014 8:36:38 GMT -8
[ When it comes to future ferry designs, mechanically speaking after this incident on the Tacoma, given that we had a failure of power, a big question that I didn't consider is why was an emergency generator not switched over to within a few minutes? What is the process of that? Barnacle or EGFleet can answer that one hopefully. Also of course, someone needs to make sure the specs have a limit on the ramp grades so we don't have to repeat the Tokitae. The standardization of the fleet while asethetically it makes things seem quite dull, it can help with ship familiarity. I do think however from the passenger deck, that is where you can change up the design a little bit. How do you do that with the two staircases and pickle fork requirements? I am not sure if the USCG would allow for a central stairwell given that their are MES chutes for full capacity on the newer vessels. Well from the video it seemed that Tacoma had failed over to some type of power, her radars were still working and the like as well as there being interior lighting from the pics I saw. A lot of it is going to come down to whether that generator has to be started manually or is automated to start upon detecting power loss. My employers data center's backup generators are very very similar to the mains that are used in the WSF ferries. We also have a few smaller ones for other purposes that very similar to the backup generators. Mechanically speaking these start in about 30 seconds. Actually then switching over the power is another matter and depends on whether it's an automated or manual process (i.e does someone have to flip a switch). That's something that I have no idea how the ferries handle it and as barnacle noted is going to be kept close to the vest for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by whitieiii on Apr 13, 2015 20:43:50 GMT -8
one of my idea's is one 210 car ferry based on the olympic class
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 15, 2015 12:25:16 GMT -8
one of my idea's is one 210 car ferry based on the olympic class It's called a Jumbo Mk II.
|
|
|
Post by whitieiii on Apr 15, 2015 13:06:31 GMT -8
one of my idea's is one 210 car ferry based on the olympic class It's called a Jumbo Mk II. I know that we already have 210 car ferries, but what I meanb to say is take a ferry from the olympic class and make just one exactly the same, with 210 (or more) cars instead of 144.... it would be nice to have 4 real big ferries... tacoma and wenatchee on seattle, puyallup and this new 210 olympic on kingston with the 2 jumbos at brem....
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Apr 15, 2015 14:45:43 GMT -8
Now I realize such would add to the overall budget, so such is probably DOA with regards to reality, but what I think would be better for Bremerton than additional 144 or 188 car boats would be a third boat. Frequency at Bremerton is terrible compared to the other runs, and Bremerton is big enough that I think ridership might improve if frequency were to go up(and perhaps it would relieve other lines a bit more).
|
|
|
Post by whitieiii on Apr 17, 2015 8:09:14 GMT -8
Would you think Brem could handle 3 boats... it would be nice to have 4 144 Olympic class ferries but with the budget we have, I don't think that would ever happen.... plus it take about 3-4 years to build a ferry if i'm not mistaken....
|
|
|
Post by Cascadian Transport on Apr 17, 2015 22:07:46 GMT -8
I have re-thought my fantasy fleet, and have come up with this:
The Evergreens, Supers and KDT's should be sold, and thirteen new vessels divided into three classes should be built to replace them. Also, new routes should be established to improve access across the sound.
>The pier directly to the south of Colman Dock should be purchased, and the dock itself should be greatly expanded to make room for parking, and two new routes.
>Three new classes should be constructed. 1. A class of Six 162-car vessels. These vessels would be based on the Olympics, with an upper cabin incorporated into the design. 2. A class of Three 90-car vessels based on the Issaquah class 3. A class of Four 64-car vessels based on the E-State class
>Terminal construction 1. Several new docks: Olympia, Longbranch (Key Peninsula), Harper, and Indianola 2. Several terminal relocations: Coupville, Mukelteo >New Routes 1. Olympia-Longbranch: This route would provide a direct link between the mainland and Key Peninsula 2. Seattle-Indianola: This route would alleviate traffic on the Bainbridge&Kingston routes and provide a link between the city and North Kitsap Peninsula. 3. FVS Breakup routes: Harper-Vashon, Vashon-Fauntleroy, Southworth-Seattle.
>Sealth should be upgraded to 124-car capacity and SOLAS compliance.
Upon this being completed, Summer vessel positioning would look like this: Olympia-Longbranch: N90-1, N90-2 Talequah-Point Defiance: N64-4 Vashon-Harper: N64-2 Fauntleroy-Vashon: Issaquah, N90-3 Seattle-Southworth: Samish, Cathlamet Seattle-Bremerton: N162-1, N162-2 Seattle-Bainbridge: Tacoma, Wenatchee Seattle-Indianola: Spokane, N162-6 Edmonds-Kingston: Puyallup, Walla walla Mukelteo-Clinton: Tokitae, Chimikum Coupville-Port Townsend: Kitsap, Kittitas San Juans: Domestic: N162-3, N162-4, N162-5 International: Sealth Interisland: N64-3
Standby: Chelan, N64-1 Retired: Hiyu, Evergreen, Klahowya, Tillikum, Hyak, Kaleetan, Yakima, Elwha, Chetzemoka, Salish, Kennewick.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 28, 2015 18:20:19 GMT -8
OK kids, We all agree that the KDT's are not adequate, either in operation, or capacity. What do we do now? I was pretty accurate in my prognostications way back in 2010 after I visited the Chetzemoka when it was being fitted out at Everett, all has come to pass as I envisioned. a. What do you do about the inadequate coverage at Port Townsend in the summer? Add the third Ferry, then what covers PD/T? Remember the E Stat'rs are soon on their way out with the Supers soon behind them. Sealth is likely going to be the I-I boat. b. Apparently the bottom of Keystone is rock and very hard to further dredge, I see no movement toward changing that terminal, even with MMH gone. c. What about my idea of the TEMPORARY summer try of an E Stat'r at Port Townsend at higher water? --- My idea is to see how the town takes the increased capacity boat, my guess is when they see it, they will like it, your comments please. d. There was no 144 car Ferry until last June, does that mean that no one could envision one, plan for one, get one built, until it suddenly appeared-- Shazzam! The same goes for the extended STII, one could be here in a year and it does have some real application. e. I see a push again toward larger size boats with the big routes, Bainbridge, Edmonds, now overloading, and the fragility and finite number of the JumboII's, perhaps extended Olympic class boats? Your comments please. f. Peabody was not shy of modifying vessels to better serve the public, why the resistance now? It's easy to try to shoot at/down someone else's ideas, now, let's see your solutions to the KDT problem. Following from the Chetzmoka discussion and relooking back here. I think there are a few points of agreement. 1) Probably need something on the 72 car range that can service Port Defiance-Telaquah, Port Townsend-Keystone, and the Inter-Island run in the winter time. (2 vessels at least) 2) I would be afraid of proposing larger vessels than there already are for Bainbridge and Kingston. The main issue I see would be turn around times for the additional loads, would you be able to get more capacity from the larger loads? In any case, if there are more people utilizing the routes infrastructure improvements would need to be made to all the terminals which were needed 10 years ago or see how demand lowers with a reservation system. My fear with a reservation system is there would be a commuter squatting of slots or not enough stand-by space making commute runs very difficult for vehicles where adding capacity might make sense. On Edmonds-Kingston with waits going both ways now at certain hours, a case for a third vessel makes a little more sense than it used to but with directional peaks, it does make it quite difficult to determine whether you could do that or not. At the same time, the sailing schedule could accommodate an additional sailing on Friday and Sunday nights late at night. Larger boats may not be the answer for the length of crossing rather additional service during peak times. 3) As much as I would hate adding a 3rd boat to Port Townsend Coupeville, that maybe the only thing to do given the requirements of Keystone Harbor (unless moved somewhere else) I would still advocate for moving the terminal to allow other vessels to utilize the dock, that would have been a good case for 90 car vessels with the only route not needing it being Port Defiance Telaquah.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jun 29, 2015 20:16:13 GMT -8
Political Incorrectness, your points:
1. I agree, a proper design size to the route.
2. I do agree about the maximum size, I just think we just need more of them, maybe one just a little larger, to get the record back from B.C. If they got another one or two of the JII size boats, it would make a great deal of difference. Perhaps put two JII's on Edmonds/Kingston, use one of the J's as a third boat on Bainbridge and take the other to somewhere else. The other thing to do might be to start plugging in the Isaaquah size vessels as extra boats in these runs.
3. The third boat a PT is just a matter of time before it happens. This is why we need the newer more efficient 72 car for PD/T. For a stop gap would be to wind up the engines in the KDT's and try t shorten the runs with two, these things have the capability of really moving. A fuel v/s car number study needs to be done to see if it's feasible, although I think it may be. I am not sure what the unload capacity of PT is, I would think about 100 cars, this is why I'd like to see a test with an E State for a week or two to see how it works. If it does, then try to get Keystone moved.
It's beginning to look to me that the Issaguaghs may be soon be obsolete, many routes need bigger vessels, a few need smaller boats, this is quite the conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 29, 2015 23:32:35 GMT -8
Political Incorrectness, your points: 1. I agree, a proper design size to the route. 2. I do agree about the maximum size, I just think we just need more of them, maybe one just a little larger, to get the record back from B.C. If they got another one or two of the JII size boats, it would make a great deal of difference. Perhaps put two JII's on Edmonds/Kingston, use one of the J's as a third boat on Bainbridge and take the other to somewhere else. The other thing to do might be to start plugging in the Isaaquah size vessels as extra boats in these runs. 3. The third boat a PT is just a matter of time before it happens. This is why we need the newer more efficient 72 car for PD/T. For a stop gap would be to wind up the engines in the KDT's and try t shorten the runs with two, these things have the capability of really moving. A fuel v/s car number study needs to be done to see if it's feasible, although I think it may be. I am not sure what the unload capacity of PT is, I would think about 100 cars, this is why I'd like to see a test with an E State for a week or two to see how it works. If it does, then try to get Keystone moved. It's beginning to look to me that the Issaguaghs may be soon be obsolete, many routes need bigger vessels, a few need smaller boats, this is quite the conundrum. Main issue with adding any 3rd vessels whether it be to Kingston or Bainbridge is the fact of inadequate road infrastructure. SR 305 would need to be 2 lanes outbound from Bainbridge and probably should be a freeway all the way to Poulsbo (Suquamish tribe won't have it though is my bet let alone the Island). SR 308 would again need two lanes at least to the Hood Canal turn off since I would say 50% of the traffic goes to the Olympic Peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 30, 2015 7:17:55 GMT -8
Main issue with adding any 3rd vessels whether it be to Kingston or Bainbridge is the fact of inadequate road infrastructure I was going to say the same thing yesterday, but decided not to post. You are so correct on that. They tried 3-boat service at Bainbridge one summer 10+ years ago, and while it was great for clearing traffic at the terminals, Hwy 305 couldn't handle the extra demand. I guess if you lived on Bainbridge and didn't rely on 305, that was OK, but for everyone else, it was a pain. Also, the timing on those sailings was critical, and in order to stick to the schedule, boats would leave only partially full, which I guess was frustrating to passengers left at the dock, even though the sailing frequency was greater. It just ended up not working out. I would be very surprised if we ever see 3-boat service at Edmonds-Kingston, or Seatte-Bainbridge. The land-side infrastructure (i.e. highways) just isn't set up for it. This is my 2 cents on what future new-builds should/could look like: IMMEDIATE > When Chimacum enters service, that should allow the retirement of Evergreen and Klahowya, and bump Hyak to standby/reserve status. > Build the 4th Olympic Class vessel and deploy it at Mukilteo, freeing up Kittitas to work the F-V-S triangle, and bumping Kitsap, or Issaquah, into standby/reserve status. This would necessitate building overhead passenger loading at Clinton, which they really need to do anyway, in order for the 144-car vessels to maintain the current schedule there. > Tillikum will either be retired, or will need to get a waiver to allow her to serve beyond the state's mandated 60-year life cycle. If she stays in good working order, there is some merit to keeping her around until the next wave of vessel construction. Sealth will be the only vessel of that size once the Evergreens are retired, and it would be useful to have a ferry that can pinch-hit as the inter-island vessel, or at F-V-S, if need be. MID 2020's > Retire the Supers and Tillikum, if she is still around > Construct 4 new ferries to fully replace the Supers. An extended version of the Olympic Class design should work well. If you were to lengthen it by 36-40 feet, that would accommodate 22 more vehicles for a total capacity of 166. Two could go to Anacortes, and the other two to Bremerton. > Shift Chimacum to Mukilteo-Clinton > Tokitae, or Samish, could be retrofitted for the International crossing, replacing Chelan. Chelan would probably go into standby/reserve status at that point. EARLY 2030's > Construct 2 new ferries based on the Jumbo Mark II platform to replace Walla Walla and Spokane. As has been noted by others, I don't think it would be of great benefit to make the Mark III vessels much larger than the Mark II's. What might be better is to build a ferry with the same auto capacity but with an expanded enclosed cabin on the upper deck for greater passenger capacity. Assign the new vessels to Bainbridge where that passenger capacity is needed, and shift Wenatchee up to Kingston to serve alongside Puyallup, with Tacoma going into reserve for when any of the Jumbos are out for maintenance and/or repairs.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 30, 2015 12:25:11 GMT -8
I think adding landside infrastructure at Kingston would not be too much of an issue given most traffic again splits toward Hood Canal, with plenty of right of way, adding the extra lane from the dock to the turn-off would not be as much of an issue and I do not see a political issue there either. Probably adding an additional signal and improving some signal timings would be in order but again, an easier sell than most things. The 3 boats I would only use on Friday-Sunday and have developed a schedule for that a while back.
However in terms of holding capacity, that might present an issue where the Edmonds Master Plan might need a 2nd look since SR 104 queueing can be excessive in the summer. If the at grade rail crossing is still present, that would present challenges for keeping schedule. Other than that, it would be easier to do that.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 30, 2015 16:01:10 GMT -8
> Build the 4th Olympic Class vessel and deploy it at Mukilteo, freeing up Kittitas to work the F-V-S triangle, and bumping Kitsap, or Issaquah, into standby/reserve status. This would necessitate building overhead passenger loading at Clinton, which they really need to do anyway, in order for the 144-car vessels to maintain the current schedule there. > Tillikum will either be retired, or will need to get a waiver to allow her to serve beyond the state's mandated 60-year life cycle. If she stays in good working order, there is some merit to keeping her around until the next wave of vessel construction. Sealth will be the only vessel of that size once the Evergreens are retired, and it would be useful to have a ferry that can pinch-hit as the inter-island vessel, or at F-V-S, if need be. That 4th Oly would not work very well at Mukilteo/Clinton until the new terminal is done, I don't know that you need overhead in Clinton just Mukilteo, though sure I'd take Clinton too. :-) Every busy weekend I've ridden this summer (sometimes as many as 4 trips a weekend unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view) they were short loading at both Clinton and Mukilteo by 10 to 20 cars and still losing time with each crossing. As much as I love the boats and having something new and shiny I'd be fine giving up Tokitae to Bremerton for a few years until the new terminal is done, it would be a better use of her.
A 4th Olympic should probably go to Bremerton during the winter and the islands during the summer to allow a fuel guzzling and tired Super to be pulled out and put into reserve.
I've been increasingly thinking that depending on needs after Tillikum retires we should look at building shallow draft 100 car boat. It could serve as a backup for Sealth on the inter-island and it could be used to pinch in more capacity at Port Townsend or Pt. Defiance depending on how the capacity needs there shake out over the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 30, 2015 18:28:17 GMT -8
That 4th Oly would not work very well at Mukilteo/Clinton until the new terminal is done, I don't know that you need overhead in Clinton just Mukilteo, though sure I'd take Clinton too Well, yes, of course. I assumed, though did not state, that an additional 144 at Mukilteo would have to be precipitated by the completion of the new Mukilteo terminal. I would think that overhead loading at Clinton would also be a requirement to allow the 144's to meet the current 30 minute schedule. Do both of those terminal upgrades, and I think the Olympics would work out well on that route.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 30, 2015 20:17:18 GMT -8
I think that possibly equal to the walk-ons at Mukilteo is the is the stop sign and intersection... That's why I think that just moving the terminal and getting the overhead there will be enough. Regardless in two years we will know if Clinton needs to be done also.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jul 1, 2015 11:23:55 GMT -8
It looks to me that the whole transportation system is lacking, anything we do is like Wack-A-Mole, fix one thing, another pops up.
The question becomes who do you upset the least? I vote with the Ferry riders.
For the near future, on the large routes, I would take the least consequential method, add a third smaller vessel. As loading queuing is a fair constant, a relatively few more cars, in the real world sense, will hardly be noticed. The problem becomes with the unload pulse, with the smaller boat, like an Issaquagh, will not create the congestion that the big one will. This is how I would start until the road infrastructure is repaired.
On Port Townsend/Keystone, I'd still try the E State'r for a high water week or two this year, just to see if it helped and for future planning. Next year add on the Chetzy for a third boat service in high season, or at least the largest part of high season.
Take an E State'r to PD/T for the time the Chetzy is at PT/K, and rent the STII from Pierce for a day or two, to see how it works, or,,, see below.
My near future Ferry replacement/refurbishment:
1. Finish the Chimicum
2. Fast Track purchase a design/build extended 72 car, STII variant for PD/T so the Chetzy can go to PT/K in the summer, or send it there, use for I/I in the winter.
3. Build a forth Olympic Class, extend it 40-50 feet as a proof of concept, use it in the Islands.
4. Keep the E State as long as we can, for spare. Not my idea to keep old boats, but considering the situation, it's the best option.
5. Keep the Klahowya as long as we can.
6. Re-engine the KDT's with more fuel efficient 4 stroke engines.
7. Build another JII, or JIII (to 20+ more cars) asap, as one always seems to be down and is already needed, even if it wasn't broken.
We have to face the fact that the demand for Ferry riding is once again growing.
More later... Your take please.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 1, 2015 12:17:01 GMT -8
I think that possibly equal to the walk-ons at Mukilteo is the is the stop sign and intersection... That's why I think that just moving the terminal and getting the overhead there will be enough. Regardless in two years we will know if Clinton needs to be done also. Clinton should be done, the passengers are getting off there as well and that would allow the maintaining of the turn around time or reducing it. It takes about 30 seconds-1 minute per loading/unloading of passengers when I timed it at Fauntleroy. Those two minutes on each run do add up, especially for Tokitae.
|
|
|
Post by waterlogged72 on Mar 20, 2016 20:48:34 GMT -8
I've just finished reading through this thread, and I had a thought that I'd like to throw out there, as impractical as it may seem.
The idea that I bounced around in my head would involve building a couple of Chetzemoka-sized vessels that would be configured for passenger-only use. If I were to take a wild guess, these vessels would handle about 2,000 passengers, give or take a few. They would be able to load and unload from the picklefork and from what would normally be the car deck simultaneously, keeping dwell time down.
They could be used between the major foot passenger routes, and maybe the folks over in Bremerton would FINALLY let the failed idea of small PO boats be laid to rest!
Now, there are obviously some flaws to this idea.
-There's the issue of the boats running empty on return trips after a commuter run. -Locations to tie up the vessels when not being used (I'm seeing them as being used during peak travel hours only).
I'm sure there are other issues with this idea, I just figured I'd throw this out there to the ferry aficionados and see what you think.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 21, 2016 3:36:47 GMT -8
I've just finished reading through this thread, and I had a thought that I'd like to throw out there, as impractical as it may seem. The idea that I bounced around in my head would involve building a couple of Chetzemoka-sized vessels that would be configured for passenger-only use. If I were to take a wild guess, these vessels would handle about 2,000 passengers, give or take a few. They would be able to load and unload from the picklefork and from what would normally be the car deck simultaneously, keeping dwell time down. They could be used between the major foot passenger routes, and maybe the folks over in Bremerton would FINALLY let the failed idea of small PO boats be laid to rest! Now, there are obviously some flaws to this idea. -There's the issue of the boats running empty on return trips after a commuter run. -Locations to tie up the vessels when not being used (I'm seeing them as being used during peak travel hours only). I'm sure there are other issues with this idea, I just figured I'd throw this out there to the ferry aficionados and see what you think. Cheers! Interesting premise, a la Staten Island, but do we have the passenger demand? How often does a ferry overload on passengers--often enough that this would be practical? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck; I know literally nothing about the passenger flow on the high-volume runs.
|
|