|
Post by Name Omitted on May 18, 2019 7:43:58 GMT -8
We have not resolved the steel issue, and now the US Federal Government is making the terminal a much more expensive prospect for the AMHS. (US) Feds demand armed officers to keep Prince Rupert ferry terminal openTLDR: US border patrol can't be armed in Canada, as they don't have the sovereign authority. Apparently, the just realized this, and gave AMHS 30 days to get them armed protection. AMHS got an extension, and so the issue will come to a head on October 1.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 18, 2019 9:12:30 GMT -8
TLDR: US border patrol can't be armed in Canada, as they don't have the sovereign authority. Apparently, the just realized this, and gave AMHS 30 days to get them armed protection. AMHS got an extension, and so the issue will come to a head on October 1. Thanks for posting this; this is a very interesting item to me. If this becomes a stale-mate between AMHS and Prince Rupert and threats are made about closing the ferry terminal, I wonder which side needs the ferry terminal more? Do Alaskans need it more for the close road-link and the gateway for tourism? Or does Prince Rupert need it more for its hotel/hospitality local economy?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 19, 2019 8:10:29 GMT -8
TLDR: US border patrol can't be armed in Canada, as they don't have the sovereign authority. Apparently, the just realized this, and gave AMHS 30 days to get them armed protection. AMHS got an extension, and so the issue will come to a head on October 1. Thanks for posting this; this is a very interesting item to me. If this becomes a stale-mate between AMHS and Prince Rupert and threats are made about closing the ferry terminal, I wonder which side needs the ferry terminal more? Do Alaskans need it more for the close road-link and the gateway for tourism? Or does Prince Rupert need it more for its hotel/hospitality local economy? The best way to win a game of chicken is to make sure the other driver sees you take the steering wheel out of your car, and throw it to the side of the road. If the other driver thinks you literally cannot swerve, well... it's their move. The ferry system is getting increasingly less slack room in it's budget. The current budget number in the legislature is $47 million, which is about a $40 million cut from last year. The really sad thing is that I have friends in Coastal Alaska who are cheering this, because it means we may actually HAVE a ferry system this winter. We've passed the point where it's a matter of what Alaskans want with regards to a closer road system. If a port needs to be cut, well, Bellingham and Prince Rupert are the two ports in the system that are not directly associated with votes for the Alaska legislature, and the Bellingham run is one of the few that actually make money. This thread started with the understanding that the Prince Rupert terminal needs to be completely rebuilt. The Marine Highway has had to fight to get money from the vessel maintenance fund put back into the fund from other capital projects around the state, and has not managed to get a nose-in berth built in Haines for the new ACF ferries. With the AMHS capital budget so dear, and with the operating budget cut in half, I think the steering wheel has been thrown out of the vehicle. As much as I despise this sort of negotiation (we throw a tantrum, and you need to buy us a pacifier), I don't see AMHS being able to put much more money into keeping the Prince Rupert terminal open. That being said, Prince Rupert has options that are not simply "pay or loose connections." Phase 2 of the port expansion would provide no small amount of jobs, and there is a potential "third way" with regards to keeping some of the tourism revenue from Alaska. A non Jones-Act feeder ship (read any SOLAS compliant second-hand ship) could run from Prince Rupert to Ketchikan and back. If that's all it did on the Alaska side having customs in Ketchikan (or onboard during the transit) would be workable, as anyone who was rejected at the border could be sent back fairly easily (not an option for a weekly or twice weekly trip on the AMHS). Such an arrangement would not require a customs area in Prince Rupert, bypassing the need to rebuild the 50 year old dock, or might be able to bypass US Federal procurement rules for steel. I don't argue that as a likely scenario, just a reminder that this is not a binary choice. Alaska could well throw the steering wheel out of the car, and Prince Rupert simply decide it's a stupid game to play, and go find someone else to play with.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 19, 2019 13:10:49 GMT -8
Thanks 'Name Omitted' for detailing the terrific mess the AMHS finds itself dealing with at present. Once again we see how inept 'politicians' are at managing an entity that provides a vital range of services to the people of Alaska.
Decisions made by politicians FOR the AMHS, have appeared to be totally divorced from the apparent operational needs of the ferry system. This must be extremely frustrating to the point of madness to the executives at AMHS who are on the front lines of customer/user disaffection.
How, for example does a system become so dysfunctional that new vessels are designed and built without the necessary crew quarters that are required? How do you build vessels knowing that the appropriate shore-side facilities needed for docking etc. are not included in the overall budget picture?
How can the AMHS be held to any reasonable level of public accountability when they are trying to run a system with, I would venture, what seems to be having BOTH hands tied behind their backs?
The Jones Act, building vessels with steel and other necessities made in the USA, all impede AMHS from upgrading/re-building an aging, costly transportation system that is so vital to the entire State of Alaska.
A route that actually makes money, is in operational peril of disappearing and the restoration of service between Prince Rupert and Ketchikan at this point appear to be, but just two examples of the disservice politicians are bestowing upon the Alaskan electorate. Obviously, at the end of the day it is the good folks of Alaska who must decide what the marine transportation system they are willing to support with their tax dollars will look like and as importantly, maybe more importantly, begin an earnest debate as to the possibilities of creating an operational model that is more or totally independent of direct political directives.
Many of us have expressed reservations as to the model created that now operates the BCFS, however as time progresses, it has become apparent that while the current model is not without some debate, I would conclude that the BCFS operation has become a decent model of success.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Sept 4, 2019 18:48:46 GMT -8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 4, 2019 Press Release: 19-0041 AMHS Ending Service to Prince RupertAMHS is unable to meet requirements for U.S. Customs in Prince Rupert. (Juneau, Alaska) – The Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) is ending service to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, effective Oct. 1, 2019. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is requiring AMHS to secure a Canadian law enforcement presence to protect CBP’s personnel in Prince Rupert while inspection tasks are performed. All avenues for local law enforcement were pursued, but AMHS was not able to secure the staff necessary to fulfill this requirement. The new requirement specifies a Canadian law enforcement presence with the ability to make arrests in Canada, which is not a duty that AMHS staff are able to perform. Last spring, CBP began requiring a Canadian law enforcement presence in Prince Rupert. AMHS was granted a waiver through Sept. 30. Over the summer, AMHS worked with the City of Prince Rupert and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to meet this requirement, but neither of these entities have staff available to perform the duties necessary to comply with the new requirement. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities oversees 239 airports, 10 ferries serving 35 communities, over 5,600 miles of highway and 720 public facilities throughout the state of Alaska. The mission of the department is to “Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.”
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 4, 2019 19:06:23 GMT -8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 4, 2019 Press Release: 19-0041 AMHS Ending Service to Prince RupertAMHS is unable to meet requirements for U.S. Customs in Prince Rupert. I really hope this is a just a strategy bluff, and not the actual end of an era.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 5, 2019 9:21:38 GMT -8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 4, 2019 Press Release: 19-0041 AMHS Ending Service to Prince RupertAMHS is unable to meet requirements for U.S. Customs in Prince Rupert. I really hope this is a just a strategy bluff, and not the actual end of an era. I've been remiss on keeping you all appraised of what's going on. It's grim. I'll post an article on the main thread, but in the short term, know that the USD $87 million annual appropriation for the AMHS was cut by $40 Million this year. There are no sacred cows in the system, and, well... Prince Rupert has a 50 year old log pier that has not been replaced yet, so... there are more issues than just the Customs problem. For the time being, this is very real. It is possible that, once sanity returns to Juneau, it will also return to the AMHS. Or, thinking outside the box for anyone who might have the ability to make this happen, the Inner Island Ferry Authority does have an idle ship...
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 6, 2019 14:35:48 GMT -8
Knowing a Mountie in Prince Rupert I also don't doubt the validity of the lack of personnel statement at all. Even if that RCMP was fully staffed, which it isn't, they'd be running tight.
|
|