In 2010 I directed my office and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) to “defederalize” the new Alaska Class Ferry project.
Back then, I said: If we can build an Alaska ferry with all-Alaska dollars, we’ll have a better shot at building it with an all-Alaska workforce.
The state subsequently returned the federal dollars for the project and embarked on a new approach to get Alaska Marine Highway vessels built at home.
Our challenge now is to get vessels built in Alaska, by Alaskans, while being wise stewards of public dollars.
Recently, it became clear that building a 350-foot Alaska Class Ferry for the budgeted $120 million is simply not feasible. Between design, engineering, project management, and construction, the cost for one ferry of that length will run between $150 - 167 million.
That realization gave us an opportunity to rethink the needs of the system, and look at alternatives for improving ferry service with the dual goals of building ferries at home while also staying on budget.
Last week I announced a new direction to achieve both goals.
I directed DOTPF Acting Commissioner Pat Kemp to have department personnel engage in discussions with Vigor Industrial and the Alaska Shipyard on how more than one ferry can be built with the $120 million appropriated by the Legislature. I requested they look at smaller, more efficient vessels than have been discussed to date.
In fact, we believe we can build at least two smaller ferries, and by doing so, improve service throughout the region while staying within the original budget.
The state has an obligation to be smart with the people’s money, while bringing the very best service and product possible. With declining oil production and, consequently, declining state revenue, Alaska has to be even more careful with available funds.
I have supported and will continue to support the increased service currently scheduled for mainliners from Bellingham all the way out to the Aleutians. However, this desire must be balanced with the reality of increasing costs for the maintenance of our aging fleet.
That’s why we need to expand our fleet strategically. The benefit to this new approach is clear: smaller ferries mean shorter building times, bringing them online more quickly, and allowing the system to run them more frequently, and at a lower cost.
Smaller ferries can reduce port time and provide greater redundancy in the event of a mechanical problem with another vessel. In addition, smaller vessels can be more easily deployed to respond to special community events in Southeast.
This new approach can keep Alaska shipwrights busy for years to come. In the future, we also will need to build a new Gulf-crossing ferry to replace the Tustemena, and we’ll need to continue to modernize our fleet. Growing our workforce capabilities to build and maintain these vessels will provide pathways of opportunity that can grow spinoff enterprises throughout the region.
Since 1963, our Alaska Marine Highway System has traveled these waters, safely transporting hundreds of thousands of Alaskans. My commitment to the system remains strong, and the direction we are taking affirms the importance of our marine highways.
• Parnell is the governor of Alaska.





Comments (37)
Add commentAnd the really bad news:
1. The big boats cannot serve some of the smaller communities either. Some ports require a smaller vessel no matter the season.
2. What ever happened to the road options? Oh, that's right we were told, a "fast ferry" was going to be a better solution. So far, they have been neither better nor cheaper.
Good point, Siderod
Maybe Governor Parnell will build that road for you...after he gives $2 billion per year back to his oil company friends, and then builds the Susitna Dam boondoggle, and then builds a road to Nome (before building a road to the capital).
After all that you'll get your road. In the meantime, enjoy your midget ferries.
Small Ferries
The large ferries in the fleet are the oldest and need to be replaced, and not by two tiny boats that can't serve the same routes.
@velveeta
The smaller villages' best chance (from what I hear) is to have bigger docks built. Of course ferry service is only possible if they have deep enough waters surrounding the village. Otherwise, Lat is right, they just cannot be serviced in winter; small boats will not fare well in Alaskan waters.
You purport that the people commenting in here are anti-village. However, I have never met a Juneau (wo)man that was not for the whole of Southeast. I personally would like to see the road built so that routes could be rescheduled to better accommodate the outlying people of our community. I don't suggest that this is an end all cure, but it would help your plight.
Parnell, please give us the road.
Alaska built ferry:
This was a blatant, and frankly not well thought out blindside. The people that put their time, energy and knowledge of the subject into serving on MTAB should have been in the loop, as well as the AMHS staff before such an important decision was made. From all appearances this proposal comes from one individual who’s expertise is not in ferryboats or the operation of the Marine Hwy System.
Having been on the Mat in a bad storm (nose-diving all the way to Haines) definitely reinforces the need for a substantial ship for the route. Those that believe it can be done with anything less should be required to make the trip under those conditions. I’m sure it would have a positive impact on their thought process.
The Alaska Class ferry needs to be brought back to the table as well as the requirement to build it in Alaska. Anybody that has visited Ketchikan in the last number of years has witnessed firsthand the positive impact the Ship Yard has had on the community. The Ship Yard’s year-round payroll has brought economic prosperity to Ketchikan as well as reestablishing a blue collar workforce that all but disappeared after Ketchikan Pulp Company closed it’s doors. Sure, in the beginning a lot of the employees were from out of state. But over time many of them and their families have moved to Ketchikan. As well over time many of those in the community’s existing workforce are retraining to acquire the skills needed for shipbuilding. It is all quite positive, and it’s certainly refreshing to see a Southeast community that is not sliding backwards. I hope the Governor and his people will reexamine this issue and do what’s right for Southeast.
SEtroller
Thank you for the information on how much the ship yard has helped the blue collar in Ketchikan; I have spent very little time there, but call there all the time for work, as Ketchikan is very important to our company. Admittedly, I was one of the above that thought building ferries in Alaska, would equal the importation of workers from the Lower 48, and subsequently corrected myself in a later post, thanks to another commenter. I hope you are right, and they build the better ferries for Alaskan waters, and do it right here in Southeast. Thank you again for being so informative, I am sure that I am not the only one that has learned from your post.