|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 6, 2008 20:32:10 GMT -8
If we were trying to conserve fuel, we'd have cut the link to the San Juans immediately.
I will have to go back to a point I have brought up numerous times in the past. Why does our run get abused so much?
|
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on May 6, 2008 23:35:48 GMT -8
Anyways, it seems the most sensible solution is to widen the highways leading to the ferry terminals to four lanes, if traffic is so bad on them even during off-peak hours. Or, we could just leave the ferry part of the highway system alone and not widen the highways. I will have to go back to a point I have brought up numerous times in the past. Why does our run get abused so much? Actually, I was originally hoping that I was explaining why the poster's suggestion didn't seem to be a practical one to me. On reflection, I probably should have noticed that it was so impractical that it might have been a troll. Just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, I guess.  |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 0:58:49 GMT -8
If we were trying to conserve fuel, we'd have cut the link to the San Juans immediately. I will have to go back to a point I have brought up numerous times in the past. Why does our run get abused so much? It's probably not liked by WSF very much because it's almost twice as long a sailing as the Bainbridge ferry, but they can only charge the same fares for it. As for the San Juans, they probably could reduce the car ferries to a couple of sailings per day, and have smaller passenger ferries circulating between the islands throughout the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 6:35:30 GMT -8
If we were trying to conserve fuel, we'd have cut the link to the San Juans immediately. I will have to go back to a point I have brought up numerous times in the past. Why does our run get abused so much? Your run doesn't get abused any more than any of the others, except the three money-makers: Seattle-Bainbridge, Edmonds-Kingston, and Mukilteo-Clinton. Vashon gets knocked down to two-boat service periodically; South Vashon went without altogether earlier this year; the San Juan Islands are currently running with the Hiyu as the interisland boat, which is not only playing hell with the interisland traffic but overloading the other boats which are trying to pick up the slack and falling off schedule as a consequence; and Port Townsend, of course, has its own set of problems. It isn't always about Bummertown, Dan. The most practical solution would be to build a bridge from the south end of Bainbridge Island to the foot of Sylvan Way and run the boats every 35-40 minutes, but the Gated Community of Bainbridge Island wouldn't have it. A third boat might be an eventual practical alternative, but the number of spare boats held by WSF currently is sitting at zero, so not this week. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 11:54:30 GMT -8
It isn't always about Bummertown, Dan. The most practical solution would be to build a bridge from the south end of Bainbridge Island to the foot of Sylvan Way and run the boats every 35-40 minutes, but the Gated Community of Bainbridge Island wouldn't have it. I've been wondering just that. Having to share with the surrounding communities should be the price they have to pay for getting the best ferry service in the entire system. |
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on May 7, 2008 13:09:35 GMT -8
Don't hold your breath for a bridge. That idea has been around long before Bainbridge became populated with the NIMBY contingent.
Bremerton ridership is not as low as people might think. Does the run need another boat? I think not at this point. Bremerton, in my history, has been a "build it and they will come" route. It is also a "take it away and they will leave" route.
My experience goes back to the Issaquah class replacing the Supers. The vehicle overloads that were expected lasted a week or so and then the displaced found other alternatives. When WSF puts the Walla Walla here, ridership increases, take it away and the riders (in vehicles) adjust. No other route does this quite like Bremerton.
Throwing the vehicles at Southworth (no room for growth in vehicle traffic) and Bainbridge (same as Southworth) during the commute hours would require more vessels on those respective routes. Believe me, it has all been considered.
WSF has stats available that show Bremerton's ridership to be pretty stable. Who knows, it may even grow if Bremerton gets as fancy as they want it to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 7, 2008 14:17:53 GMT -8
A bridge is in anyone's dreams. I think we just need boats that can do the crossing in 45 minutes to flex the schedule to running the boats every hour at best, every hour and 15 at worst.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 14:35:14 GMT -8
Would Bremertonians be willing to pay a higher fare for improved service (fairly pro-rated to distance and expenses, of course)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 14:37:11 GMT -8
A bridge is in anyone's dreams. I think we just need boats that can do the crossing in 45 minutes to flex the schedule to running the boats every hour at best, every hour and 15 at worst. I was always under the impression that the Supers could do the run in 45 minutes, if you cranked 'em up hard enough, but the sucking sound from the fuel tanks and the vibration of the vessel kind of put that to an end in the early seventies. The bridge thing has never been a serious consideration, and never will be. I'm just suggesting that it was the most practical solution, at least on a straight-line-thinking basis. Kind of like moving the Keystone ferry terminal.  |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 14:41:22 GMT -8
I was always under the impression that the Supers could do the run in 45 minutes, if you cranked 'em up hard enough, but the sucking sound from the fuel tanks and the vibration of the vessel kind of put that to an end in the early seventies. There are also wave issues in running a big vessel at high speed through a narrow water passage. I don't know how big an issue it would be in this particular case though, but it was something that was learned from the BC Fast Ferry fiasco. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 14:45:08 GMT -8
The Supers are the only WSF class that doesn't have to slow down in Rich Passage.
Well, the Evergreens probably don't either, but that's mostly because they're doing about 14 knots with the tide behind them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 7, 2008 14:50:55 GMT -8
I was always under the impression that the Supers could do the run in 45 minutes, if you cranked 'em up hard enough, but the sucking sound from the fuel tanks and the vibration of the vessel kind of put that to an end in the early seventies. There are also wave issues in running a big vessel at high speed through a narrow water passage. I don't know how big an issue it would be in this particular case though, but it was something that was learned from the BC Fast Ferry fiasco. That is mixing apples with oranges since Rich Passage is a much narrower channel than Howe Sound by a long shot. The only thing we've learned is that residents living near ferry passages like to complain and put the blame on the company instead of their own maintenance for their location. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 15:00:18 GMT -8
There are also wave issues in running a big vessel at high speed through a narrow water passage. I don't know how big an issue it would be in this particular case though, but it was something that was learned from the BC Fast Ferry fiasco. That is mixing apples with oranges since Rich Passage is a much narrower channel than Howe Sound by a long shot. It should be an even greater problem then, shouldn't it? Don't know if there are any low lying property owners, small craft or sensitive ecological areas in its wake though. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 7, 2008 15:07:24 GMT -8
Sorry ruddernut but I disagree on your viewpoint that it is a great problem. I believe that the residents were overexagerating the wake of the vessels. I remember back in 2001 of the residents accusing the wake as being as high as a wind storm which I believe was a total exaggeration. Second of all, wouldn't the auto boats create more last wake due to pushing alot more through the passage in terms of cargo since they carry 10 times more than the passenger boats along with the fact that they are 10 times the size?
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 15:22:04 GMT -8
Sorry ruddernut but I disagree on your viewpoint that it is a great problem. I believe that the residents were overexagerating the wake of the vessels. I remember back in 2001 of the residents accusing the wake as being as high as a wind storm which I believe was a total exaggeration. Second of all, wouldn't the auto boats create more last wake due to pushing alot more through the passage in terms of cargo since they carry 10 times more than the passenger boats along with the fact that they are 10 times the size? You mean the boat you are speaking of is a passenger ferry? |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 7, 2008 15:23:24 GMT -8
No, I am speaking of the regular auto boats that have been there since the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 18:13:55 GMT -8
You'd think that the auto boats would push more water aside, wouldn't you? But the Chinook and Snohomish had bigger wakes than the Supers by a long shot. (I won't swear to the Issaquahs.) But the biggest waves were made by South Bainbridgers (who reportedly have their bulkheads maintained by the state anyway), which I suspect were simply put out about Bremerton getting the shiny new boats that Bainbridge didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on May 7, 2008 19:18:27 GMT -8
The Supers can go Full Ahead through Rich Passage, even the real Full Ahead they came from the factory with. 45 minutes was about as fast a crossing as was ever made but Bremerton was able to maintain an "on the hour" schedule.
The wake issue is a non-issue with the Supers thanks to a narrow beam they are like a canoe. The Issaquahs are wide and almost bargelike. The Jumbos, well they are just jumbo.
The Chinook was supposed to leave less wake at top speed and it did to the naked eye. When the Southern Bainbridge folks had to put up with PO boats their complaint started with the Tyee's (Express) wake. The Kalama/Skagit had noisy generators and the Snohomish went by too fast for them to read her name (they are hooked on phonics).
They always have something to complain about.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 8, 2008 5:40:23 GMT -8
You'd think that the auto boats would push more water aside, wouldn't you? But the Chinook and Snohomish had bigger wakes than the Supers by a long shot. (I won't swear to the Issaquahs.) But the biggest waves were made by South Bainbridgers (who reportedly have their bulkheads maintained by the state anyway), which I suspect were simply put out about Bremerton getting the shiny new boats that Bainbridge didn't. The year long study on the wake of the Chinook and Snohomish showed that their wake did indeed erode the beach along both sides of Rich Passage at its narrowest point--Point White and Glover Point. This was due to the fact that the wake did not have time to flatten out like it did in the rest of the passage. (The PO boats put out a completely different kind of wave than the car ferries...I've got two four inch notebooks full of all the articles when all this was going on.) That being said, the problem was completely exacerbated by the fact that the property owners on either side of the passage had concrete bulkheads which caused the waves to smash up against them and drag everything on the beach back into the water. In one case, the beach was scoured down to the hardpan. The study did indicate that if the concrete bulkheads had not been present and there had been a natural shoreline, the waves would have lost their energy and not have had such a dramatic effect on the beach. Now, big surprise! Everyone found out about all that back in about 1910 when the Indianapolis replaced the regular vessel on the Bremerton run and guess what! Islanders complained about the huge wake the Indy put out, eroding their beach. It's amazing they have to rediscover this every few decades.  |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 8, 2008 6:07:15 GMT -8
Now, big surprise! Everyone found out about all that back in about 1910 when the Indianapolis replaced the regular vessel on the Bremerton run and guess what! Islanders complained about the huge wake the Indy put out, eroding their beach. It's amazing they have to rediscover this every few decades. Well, some people just won't be told... |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 9, 2008 6:23:14 GMT -8
Don't hold your breath for a bridge. That idea has been around long before Bainbridge became populated with the NIMBY contingent. According to Wikipedia: Bainbridge Is. has 20,308 people. Bremerton has 37,259. Crush them! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 9, 2008 15:55:35 GMT -8
Not to mention we have the mighty support of Silverdale to support us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 9, 2008 18:51:40 GMT -8
I actually have mused in the past what a bridge from Bainbridge to East Bremerton would look like, and where it would go. If you did it at the narrowest part of the channel, that would put it north of Illahee, between Illahee and Brownsville on the Bremerton side. You could somehow connect up with Hwy 303, and at that junction, it's about the halfway point between East Bremerton and Silverdale. On the Bainbridge side, it wouldn't be that long of a connection to link up with High School Road, which is already kind of a main road on the island, and that would feed nicely into Hwy 305, right by the McDonald's, and Chevron gas stations there. The Bainbridge ferry terminal would have to at least double in size. They would have to build a transit deck to accommodate 30+ busses, and the holding lot would need to grow to accommodate at least 500 cars at a time. But, you could then run a 3-boat schedule because not all of the traffic would be funneling up Hwy 305 and creating a huge backup. You would have another way off the island. Ferry service to Bremerton would naturally be eliminated, although passenger-only service to downtown Bremerton during the commuter hours might still be sustainable. Such a scenario wouldn't affect my commute much. I'd still be taking a bus from Poulsbo via 305, as I do now. The ferries might be a little more crowded, but with 3 of them running, that would alleviate some of that. Ahh - to dream!
Alas, none of this will ever happen. Between the NIMBY's on Bainbridge, the overwhelming environmental hurdles, the huge expense of building a bridge, and then the road/street network on both sides to accommodate the traffic, plus the massive overhauling of the Bainbridge terminal, there are just too many obstacles to make this even a likely possibility. It's still fun to speculate the "what-ifs", even if you know it's not going to happen. But, having said that, if they could do this, it would make for one less run for WSF to deal with, possibly a couple of fewer ferries, and one less facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 9, 2008 19:18:16 GMT -8
Alas, none of this will ever happen. Between the NIMBY's on Bainbridge, the overwhelming environmental hurdles, the huge expense of building a bridge, and then the road/street network on both sides to accommodate the traffic, plus the massive overhauling of the Bainbridge terminal, there are just too many obstacles to make this even a likely possibility. It's still fun to speculate the "what-ifs", even if you know it's not going to happen. But, having said that, if they could do this, it would make for one less run for WSF to deal with, possibly a couple of fewer ferries, and one less facility. Speaking of which, which side are the environmentalists on? Less new roads or less fuel burned by ferries? (NIMBYs paying lip service to the environment don't count.) |
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on May 9, 2008 21:38:35 GMT -8
The Navy won't allow a bridge there. If it gets sunk, there will be no access to the Naval Base.
|
|
