Members of the public, including the mayors of Haines and Skagway, who testified Tuesday afternoon on the concept design report released last week for the updated Alaska-class ferry expressed unhappiness with aspects of the design and raised concerns about the proposed ships’ capabilities.
The public was invited to testify at a joint meeting of the House and Senate Transportation committees, at which legislators also questioned Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities officials, who maintain the new ferries will operate safely and efficiently while being built for less than $50 million apiece.
Mike Korsmo of Skagway, a tugboat captain who is also a member of the Marine Transportation Advisory Board, was the first to testify.
Korsmo kept his remarks brief, but said he has “some issues with the new plan” and does not believe that operating two of the “day boats” proposed by the state on Lynn Canal will increase capacity or improve service in the communities of Juneau, Haines and Skagway, where the proposed ferries would operate.
Another ship captain, former Juneau Assemblymember Don Etheridge, testified that he believes an open-deck design will lead to icing inside the ship, due to sea spray, precipitation and freezing conditions that are common on Lynn Canal and other Southeast Alaska waterways during wintertime.
“The icing conditions, many times during the winter, that is going to build a tremendous amount of ice in the stern of that boat,” said Etheridge. He suggested the ferries would need large heaters to prevent icing.
The design concept report for the “Day Boat ACF” calls for design teams to consider a partially open aft deck, which DOT&PF Deputy Commissioner Reuben Yost said last Thursday would cover 33 of the 53 vehicle spaces, going by the “Roadmap” concept design included in the report as an example of how the ship could be designed.
DOT&PF officials said at that Thursday hearing that the partially open deck would provide cost savings for both construction and operation of the Alaska-class ferries.
Concerns over the idea of even a partially open deck were a theme throughout the public testimony, with Haines Borough Planning Commission Chairman Rob Goldberg and Skagway Mayor Stan Selmer suggesting the DOT&PF should cover over the proposed opening.
“I’ve not heard anything from DOT as to how they could put in a roof over this open aft area that would then eliminate some of the hue and cry that we’ve heard from operators, captains, users, et cetera,” said Selmer.
Alaska Marine Highway System General Manager John Falvey said at last Thursday’s hearing that a lightweight covering may also be considered for the deck opening.
Malcolm Menzies of Juneau, a former appointed member of the Borough Assembly, was one of the few members of the public who did not criticize the DOT&PF concept design report in his testimony Tuesday. He said he welcomes efforts to reduce AMHS operating costs.
“The one thing I do know about sailing the Lynn Canal, whether it’s Juneau-Haines or Juneau-Skagway and back, we do not need staterooms,” Menzies said. “We do not need fancy meals. We just need to be able to get there.”
Haines Mayor Stephanie Scott defended the public process that led to the Alaska-class ferry concept’s earlier transformation from a “shuttle ferry,” similar to the Day Boat ACF now under consideration, to a 350-foot ship with amenities that would be capable of serving routes throughout Southeast Alaska, rather than being tailored for Lynn Canal day boat service.
“The mission crept, and the design morphed into a broader mission, a better design,” said Scott. “I submit that the thing to do is to go back to the Alaska-class ferry design, for which we’ve already spent $3 million, and attempt to publicly tweak it.”
Fellow Haines resident Kathleen Menke agreed.
“I’m not sure what the problem was with the 350-foot, midsize Alaska-class ferry,” Menke said. “We were hoping for it. We wanted it.”
State officials, including Gov. Sean Parnell, who directed the DOT&PF to pivot away from the 350-foot concept back to the original shuttle ferry concept last fall, have contended that the result of the public process on the Alaska-class ferry was undesirable due to cost overruns.
One hundred twenty million dollars were budgeted for the Alaska-class ferry project. DOT&PF officials have said the cost estimates for the ferry last year, before that design was scrapped, were as high as $170 million.
Scott and Menke suggested that if the 350-foot ferry can be built outside Alaska for less money, it should be, or else the state should shoulder any additional cost for the larger ferry. Parnell and the DOT&PF have expressed a desire to see the ships built in Ketchikan.
Meanwhile, Douglas resident Sandy Williams said he is concerned by the prospect of “design by committee.”
“What I’m seeing here is what got us into trouble in the first place,” said Williams, concluding that he believes safety concerns over the ships should be left to the U.S. Coast Guard. Like Menzies, he praised AMHS officials for their approach to the ferries’ design.
Later in the meeting, as Yost and Falvey were questioned by committee legislators, Sitka Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins pressed them on whether the DOT&PF was including “captains and masters” in the design process for the ferries.
“Not at this point with this design concept,” Falvey said, adding, “We will be taking input, and I’m sure we’ll be getting input from captains.”
Rep. Lynn Gattis, R-Wasilla, expressed concern that the public process for this roughly 280-foot version of the Alaska-class ferry is less robust than the process that led to the 350-foot concept.
“I’m kind of almost getting the feel that because we took too much public comment and reacted to it, that … we’re a little bit fearful of taking as much this time,” said Gattis, adding that she believes it is “imperative” to listen to marine captains.
After Falvey responded that DOT&PF administrators will meet with ferry personnel as part of the process, Kreiss-Tomkins spoke up again.
“I’d just like to echo Rep. Gattis’ comment,” Kreiss-Tomkins said. “I’ve lost count how many captains, masters and marine engineers … have contacted me privately to express their concerns, which would suggest that there’s no forum for them to do so through the ferry system. And it seems like there’s a lot of operational and institutional knowledge that could be tapped into.”
Yost said at the beginning of the meeting that the DOT&PF is taking public comment on the design concept report all month.
Sen. Dennis Egan, D-Juneau, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, suggested the DOT&PF use that time to pitch its concept to Juneau, Haines and Skagway.
“Since D-Day has been moved back a little bit, I think that affected communities would love to have someone from DOT make a presentation to the affected communities and the councils and assemblies before you make an ultimate final decision,” said Egan. “It’s very important. It’s our highway.”
“That’s a very good point, and we will take that under advisement,” Falvey replied.
Juneau Mayor Merrill Sanford attended Tuesday’s public hearing, but he did not testify.
Asked afterward for his thoughts, Sanford said he has some concerns about the open-deck concept and is drafting a letter expressing his concerns over the proposed vessels’ safety.
“I’m concerned about ice buildup and snow and freezing spray,” Sanford said. “I wouldn’t want … my car out there in the open-deck area on Lynn Canal during wintertime.”
But Sanford voiced confidence in the DOT&PF.
“I don’t think DOT and the engineers and the design people are going to give us a boat, a ship, that is unsafe,” said Sanford. He added, “I think it’ll function well, if we can get some of these other design things taken care of.”
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 586-1821 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (30)
Add commentThe Juneau "Access" Road Team is in the saddle. Get it?
The Empire should have disclosed, if he didn't in his testimony, that Mal Menzies is a former SE Region Director of DOT, and has been a long time promoter of the $1,000,000,000 "access" road- along with Mr. Kemp and Mr. Yost and the gang.
It's interesting that he said "he welcomes efforts to reduce AMHS operating costs."
What about reducing costs throughout DOT, including by making tough decisions about projects that don't make financial sense and stopping all expenditures on them?
A Coincidence?
Seems those in favor of the new ferry plan are the same folks who are advocates for a road past the mine to the new ferry terminal at the new dead end.
This is how DOT saves money?
Hmmmm.....
If...
...it's so important to Parnell to keep Alaskan dollars in Alaska, a la building the ferry in Ketchikan, then he should welcome the idea of an Alaskan State oil company to take over the leases from the big oil companies if they won't develop their leases.
This would retain the billions in profits within the state, as well as all of those executive/administrative jobs. And the company would be answerable to the Alaskan people, not board members in Houston or London.
wonder who will benefit
from this boondoggle idea....2 ships that are inadequate for the task, untold millions to be spent on terminal modifications etc. Sounds like a good chance for the good ol boy network to make some serious cash. Leaving out input from Capt., mates and crew of vessels that deal with the ferries day in and day out is a recipe for disaster.
It doesn't take a psychic to
It doesn't take a psychic to tell that they aren't building to actually replace the Malaspina, they're building to suit the road to the Katzahein River terminus. It's the DOT equivalent of putting the cart before the horse. Why build a ferry to serve a road that doesn't and may never exist?
The fast ferries may end up being a huge boondoggle, but at least they served a verifiable purpose. If we end up with two ferries that can't service a run greater than five hours in length, they won't do much for the people that rely on ferry service when the aging fleet starts to conk out.
Unsafe Design
Sanford says that DOT wouldn't give us an unsafe design. DOT has done just that. If we can build two 280 foot vessels with the funds available, surely we could build one 350 foot day boat similar to the Taku, but without a galley and state rooms.
follow the bouncing ball
First you chose the yard and then you modify the plans to fit the capability of the yard. This is what I see going on. Most of the time you get the design down and then find yards that can build the vessel. However that might have meant the Ketchican yard would not be guaranteed the contract.
This is the same kind of issue as the most recent issues with the yard in Seward and the work on the Tustimena. The Tusty is now sitting in the yard and will be two month late in having the work completed to replace part of the bottom plates. The ship sat in the yard for three months before the AMHS announced the work was becoming more extensive than previous thought. How do these problems keep happening for the AMHS? I say its the politics of using Alaska yards to do the work over choosing the yards with adequate experience.
Just build a road
Ferry systems across the nation are going broke. Why not just build the road? Yes, a huge upfront cost but after that its just a little maintenance and some occasional resurfacing. It could be made a toll road to help with the cost. As for the ferries, maybe we won't need more than one, the cost of riding the things will keep most people off.
ferries for the road
freezing spray aside, i can hardly wait to watch these things riding in the trough from katzahin to haines in southeast or northeast 40+. expect days at a time of delays with the road option.
The road is fine for Juneau .
The road is fine for Juneau . But every other town in southeast is on a Island. The ferry system is a necessity for them. We need to start replacing our 50 year old ships now not later with taku class ships. This boondoggle of two smaller boats is only about building the Kahtzahein river road and downsizing crews.
Funny
How Haines and Skagway can poo poo the road to Skagway, and it will go to Skagway, since they have one?? The funding for our SE road system (ferries) is drying up. Legislators from up North could care less about SE AK's transportation issues so we need to wake up, build as many hard links as possible and reduce the costs of operating our aging fleet
I am not wild about an semi open deck, it shouldn't be a huge deal to have them enclosed, but we cannot sustain the old system. Sell the Knowles/ayers fast ferry ,German powered, fuel hogs, get these new ones rolling and get the road built!!
a disaster in the making....
First turn away free money, then pick a small yard that has never built a ship this large, next change strategies and objectives in mid-stream, don't consult or even advise the state appointed panel with appropriate expertise - then put out a sub-standard design with obvious flaws, don't include the costs for terminal modifications in the "savings" projections, and rush the public comment process to limit "bad" inputs......I can't think of a more ineffective way to make good choices for the future of "our" ferry system. Is this the best we can do for a PUBLIC process to come to a decision to wisely spend OUR money....after all, oil money is decreasing - we're told again and again we must spend wisely....what a joke !! Falvey and Yost admitted that they haven't even consulted the senior leaders on the ships...because they would have laughed at this idea. This is a disaster in the making....way worse than the fast ferries debacle....oh yeah, we got lucky in that lawsuit - standby for those pesky fuel bills......
dan-carlene
"But every other town in southeast is on a Island." - ?????
Are you forgetting that both Haines and Skagway already have a road out?? Or maybe you're just new here?
Thanks DOT!
Thank you, DOT, for these two new ferries that will mean both cheaper and faster transportation in the Lynn Canal region! I'm looking forward to finally being able to travel to Haines and Skagway and spending my "local tourist" dollars there, while also being able to drive anywhere in the continent!
I'm glad that DOT has chosen to build these two ferries, and I will be very happy with the much more convenient travel times and what should be lower travel prices. Haines and Skagway will get a boost in economic activity with more people travelling from Juneau to their towns or picking up supplies as they travel on the intercontinental highway.
Here's how it works in the real world: Build the road! If the road can't be built all the way, build a terminal as close as possible! Until then, use these day boats that have much less amenities than a full-scale "Alaska class" ferry. I do understand the need for a covered deck on certain days, but not every day of the year. If needed, there could be a type of temporary covering - strong enough to hold off the wind and spray, but easy enough to assemble and disassemble (maybe this takes away a run, every now and then). There's no need for a galley, staterooms, or any other fluff. Not only does this lead to less ship weight and lower vehicle operating costs, there's also less crew and wages/benefits. This is a few hour trip...there's no need for fluff. If you want all the extras, there's plenty of charter companies that would love to take you on a pleasure cruise on YOUR dime. If you want the State to take you to/from Juneau/Haines/Skagway, then don't expect the State to pay for the extras. The funds for the AMHS are slowly going away, and it needs to look to the future about ways to bring more efficient travel in this region. This is a good start!
Thank you DOT!!!
So DOT builds two ferries
intended to primarily serve one community: Juneau. These ferries are open car deck boats, so obviously they aren't intended for Southeast Alaska... so what are they intended for? A road, of course. And the road... only serves one community: Juneau. I'm sure the rest of Southeast Alaska is super stoked on this... way to go AKDOT... which stands for Alaska Department of Transportation... not Juneau Road Access Department. The letters aren't there for nincompoops too slow to figure this scam out.
Build the road ferries, then what. When the ferries suck in general, after investing a hundred million dollars, obviousy the logical solution is to invest more to provide infrastructure to rationalize building these useless ferries. So we get a road and a ferry terminal that's further out the road, that costs Alaska hundreds of millions, and serves one community. Good luck.
Zero Federal Dollars
There isn't any money for the Juneau access pipe dream. By next year, after the Parnell give-away to Big Oil, the state will be taking money for transportation from the budget reserve. There will be no federal money for a road either. The Ted Stevens Era is over. These vessels are designed for a route that does not and will not exist.
AMH is a road, a highway--the most beautiful and safe highway on
the planet. That was before the fast ferries and before these proposed shuttle ferries--neither good concept for Upper Lynn Canal--never have been, never will be.
It will likely be decades before anyone sees a ferry terminal at the Katzehein. Those 70+ knot winds and 14 foot waves will remain a problem. And avalanches on "the road". There will be worse delays. And ongoing safety issues. Then what? Hotel Katzehein? Emergency road service at Seal Rock? Who's going to pay for all that?
In the meantime, DOT should be providing for transportation that is safe, reliable and serves the health and economic needs of the communities of SE and SW Alaska.
The 350-foot, mid-size, Alaska-class ferry was a good compromise. It had no staterooms, but it had everything else that is needed for safe and comfortable travel in the Inside Passage. It could serve to back-up other ferries in the system when maintenance is needed.
For folks in Juneau, this is just a summer trip out of town. For everyone else, it is access to airport and hospitals for family emergencies; it is travel from Ketchikan, Craig, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, to and from Juneau, Skagway, Haines for school sports teams. Try to schedule a regional tournament in SE with unreliable ferry service, alternating buses and ferries between avalanches and open deck ferries that cannot run safely in the wind and freezing spray.
Food service is necessary and desirable in the Inside Passage. A spacious comfortable solarium is necessary. The Lynn Canal is the most scenic and attractive part of the entire Inside Passage. And brings in the most income to DOT from travelers. The State wants to destroy this tourist attraction and compromise the health and safety of residents?
The 12-hour turnaround is not likely to be achieved and should not be driving the process. Back-room deals with certain Alaska contractors should not be driving the process. Safety, comfort, flexibility, reliability, and input from communities and AMH captains should be driving the process.
A safe, reliable, affordable AMHS is an investment in Alaska's people and Alaska's commerce and economy. It's also a great lifestyle. We need to keep quality and reliable ferry service in Alaska.
AMHS is not going away
no matter how many posters believe it will. First and foremost there are many communities that are not served by either roads or ferries today. Those communities need some level of service. Perhaps after some roads construction into/out-of Juneau the ability to serve other locations will become a propriety. There is a factor for the tourist dollar brought into communities by the ferry system. Not all those communities are going to be served by tour ships. Tourist do not come to Alaska just to visit Juneau and then go back home. Then there is a factor where from some communities there is no direct way to get a vehicle and lots of other equipment from one location to another without a ferry system that keeps the cost livable. Without a ferry system many of the communities existing today would become abandoned or small in population.
@KMKMCI
Yep it's a road alright.... a damn expensive one at that...."drive" your car to Haines and back? car plus the four passengers plus lunch is going to cost three or four hundred dollar for a round trip. It's a grand total of 140 miles to make a round trip. Oh by the way... what should only take about three hours driving time is not possible to do in one day on this 'road'.
Ever traveled with an infant or sick elder Mr. Menzies?
Obviously not - because you would know that some people really DO NEED STATEROOMS or somewhere to lie down.
Sure, in good weather it's a 4-5 hour trip - but I have been on the Taku to Haines where it took 7 hours in 12 footers with freezing spray. The only way it works to not have a quit place for the elderly, young and/or sick folks is if it is a 2 hour trip like the Fairweather....otherwise we need those accomodations - and it's not so we can pretend we are on a pleasure cruise either...try getting your 90 year old grandmother who has a colostomy bag and recent hip replacement to sit in a chair next to a crying baby for 5 hours - NOT GOING TO WORK!
As for the open deck, did anyone think of an in-floor heating system to eliminate the chance of freezing spray/rain on the deck? Seems like a good $50K add-on if you ask me.
Joe
SOS is very appropriate here...
I wonder how many of these 'opinions' have even ever seen or ridden on a open deck ferry. In Washington State, there are open deck ferry's that have run for many decades. I can still go down there tomorrow and go on a trip with the same boat I was on as a little child, many decades ago. And YES, Washington does have really bad weather and conditions just like Lynn Canal. Both Washington State and British Columbia have awesome ferry boats and systems that work. The problem I have with this article is the SOS. (Look up Urban Dictionary - SOS: #4 definition.)
No matter what anybody says in Alaska, there is a army of people going to argue about it. I swear, there are people here who would argue with a stump. It is amazing anything gets done.
Look to the Future! Quit Daydreaming of the Past!
Sounds like there are still too many people on here that think the State should pony up extra cash, just so they can keep their Lynn Canal pleasure trip going, and saying screw the people that can't afford it!
@cheesypoof - " the road... only serves one community: Juneau" Every road that I've ever been on, unless marked "One Way", has traveled in both directions! Haines and Skagway might have something to say about your statement, especially if they are trying to get to medical facilities or other important services that they don't have. Also, the entire North American continent might have something to say, since they would all be able to go to Juneau, and vice-versa.
@kmkmci - With your scare tactics and mistruths, yours is on e of the worst posts on this board. "And avalanches on the road. There will be worse delays. And ongoing safety issues." Generalize much? I never hear of any avalanches between town and Katzehein...I hear of them in Thane, but not north of town. Maybe, on the north side of Katzehein where it truly gets steep right out of the water, but not anywhere on the current road north. And many mid-European countries might have something to say about driving in avalanche territory and how it's not a problem. I don't understand your "There will be worse delays. And ongoing safety issues." Sounds like your just making dramatic statements with no back-up.
Then you say, "Food service is necessary".....no, it's not!!! Food service is not necessary for a few hour trip! If the ferries have to be put into emergency service elsewhere, people can pack food for a day or two (campers around the world do millions of times a day) and vending machines will be available...once again, don't expect the State to pay for your amenities.
"A spacious comfortable solarium is necessary"...no, it's not!!! Once again, this is a few hour trip...buses, airplanes, and trains don't have solariums!
"The State wants to destroy this tourist attraction".....The ferries are not meant to be tourist attractions! They are meant to be roads, nothing more! Once again, DOT is not in the pleasure cruise business, they are in the efficient transportation business!!!
"We need to keep quality and reliable ferry service in Alaska." Well currently, we don't have reliable ferry service! How many times have the ferries been cancelled, and the next one is anywhere from three days to a week away. With these two new boats, the ferries should become much more reliable, and any cancellations should only mean a partial or full day wait!
@averagejoe - "some people really DO NEED STATEROOMS or somewhere to lie down". Buses, airplanes, and trains don't have staterooms. They all have accommodations for handicapped people or people with special needs, but none of them have staterooms. "try getting your 90 year old grandmother who has a colostomy bag and recent hip replacement to sit in a chair next to a crying baby for 5 hours - NOT GOING TO WORK!" Sorry to hear about your grandma, but if that doesn't work, it sounds like she never travels. Once again, this happens on buses and airplanes all the time, there's no reason for the State to pay for extra ferry space, just so grandma, grandpa, and the rest of the AARP gang can sit in silence and play rummy.
There are way too many posters on here who think that the old way of the AMHS doing things will work in the future...it won't! Too many people want the ferries to remain "pleasure cruises with a purposes". Food services past the basic snack or vending machine is not needed. If you can't make it five hours without something, then pack a snack or meal. A solarium is not needed for a five-hour trip, this is transportation! I cannot currently afford to go to Haines or Skagway, but with these new ferries, myself and many others travelling between Juneau and the rest of the continental road system would be able to afford this route. It could actually bring in more revenue, while also reducing the ferry expenses!
@JNUKara
OK he was wrong on the number of towns accessed by road and serviced by AMHS. But have you forgot about Prince Rupert, or are you only concerned with road access close to Juneau? AMHS services 16 Ports and 4 of them have road access, Bellingham, Prince Rupert, Haines, and Skagway the other 12 are only accessed by air and water. Either you're focused on a mindset of how this affects you in JNU as you're name states or maybe you're just new here. By the way my family has been here since 1894 so don't bother questioning my residency. The rest of the points he makes are valid!
william_derhode
whether these ferries are built or not the Lynn Canal services will still be there. Do you understand what these ferries mean? There will be a ferry terminal, whether the road is extended or not. This isn't magic. This is a pet-project that has been forced through the ranks.
And anyone who needs medical service in Juneau is medevaced to Juneau, not dropped off at a ferry terminal to wait around til the next scheduled ferry takes a voyage. Stop trying to rationalize this with dingbat scenarios. Juneau is the only community served by extending the Juneau road. The entire North American continent wouldn't give one rat's azz about our little pet project.
Who are you trying to fool? Are you Pat Kemp? Are you sitting at your desk thinking you can hoodwink Alaskans with this "Alaska class" open car deck ferry? That the road extension will somehow save Alaska money? Are you a practical joker? Don't quit your day job...
@Spoorprint
Washington State Ferry is in a replace mode after many of their ships were found to have major cracks.
Have you ever rode a ferry in Lynn Canal in the winter? When was the last time you saw Puget Sound with ice or a ship pull in to Bluy J with ice on her?
It routinely gets into the teens or single digits in the winter in Juneau, what is the winter like in Washington state? I ask all these questions rhetoricly as I lived and worked out of Seattle and Ballard for years. And since you mentioned the BC ferry it is important to note that while they run open decks on some of their runs they were prudent enough to have closed decks on others, not due to ice but to weather conditions. And Juneau is the only port you can access in the same day from Haines and Skagway. Kind of hard to compare it to a 30min Bambridge run.
@cheesyproof
Thanks for the laughs, cheesyproof!
"whether these ferries are built or not the Lynn Canal services will still be there." Ummm, no [filtered word], really! I just assumed (ass-u-me) that if these ferries weren't built, then all service up and down Lynn Canal would be eliminated. Whew, that's a relief. Thanks for setting me straight!
"There will be a ferry terminal, whether the road is extended or not." Once again, I must say...umm, no [filtered word], really! I thought they were making these ferries to just do circles out in the water and never dock up!
"And anyone who needs medical service in Juneau is medevaced to Juneau, not dropped off at a ferry terminal to wait around til the next scheduled ferry takes a voyage. Stop trying to rationalize this with dingbat scenarios." I won't mention the "Juneau is medivaced to Juneau" part, I'm sure it's just a simple typo that I always do and miss when I proof-read. In any case, these statements made me laugh the most! I didn't know that every person in Haines and Skagway that needs medical services is medivaced to Juneau. That must really add to the MRI bill...the shoulder, knee, elbow, hip, dental surgery bill...the chemotherapy bill...the tissue reconstructive surgery bill...etc., etc., etc. But as you put it, those are "dingbat scenarios"!!! You may think they are "dingbat scenarios", but not the people in Haines and Skagway (or anywhere, for that matter) that need these procedures done...and they sure don't get medivaced out to have it done!
"That the road extension will somehow save Alaska money? Are you a practical joker?" So, you think that a shorter run with a smaller ferry will cost more than it currently does? Sounds like you're the practical joker!
"Don't quit your day job" I can't, if I want to afford a ferry trip to Haines or Skagway and back right now!
Yup, it sounds like you're the practical joker trying to rationalize your argument with dingbat scenarios!
bill_de_road_jr
I'm not sure what you're laughing at. There was no typo, you just misunderstood. Maybe I should have typed slower for you. As for the captain obvious comments, why are you commenting on this article like these two new ferries will make such a grand difference? I pointed out the two important facts of these ferries which you appear to overlook: Lynn Canal Services will still be required and a ferry terminal will still exist, whether in Auke Bay or out the road.
You sound like I stated the obvious, which I did for your benefit. You seem to be making assumptions based on these ferries changing things dramatically. There will be no road connecting Juneau to Haines or Skagway. It's important you understand this. So what changes with people in Haines or Skagway wanting to get to Juneau? You say it's too expensive... compared to what? Do you expect these ferries to be free? What primary assumptions are you making to lead to the conclusion that these two ferries will be the godsend you would have us believe? Any non-life-threatening injuries will still be best dealt with riding the ferry or plane. Since, you know, it will still be the only option...
By the way, for a trip from Haines to Juneau right now it's $75.00 with a vehicle and $37 without. It's around $30.00 for a cab ride from downtown Juneau to the valley, to give you a sense of transportation costs. The ferry is a bargain, as is. If you can't afford it now, you still won't be able to with the new ferries. Anything new is better, right? Like the fast ferries?
C'mon, cheesy
So where exactly did I "overlook" the idea that "Lynn Canal Services will still be required and a ferry terminal will still exist?" Show me, because I'd like to know. Seems to me, every post of mine is defending the new ferry plans.....so that, at the most basic and Captain Obvious level, shows that I'm not "overlooking" that ferry service is needed.
I did say, "Here's how it works in the real world: Build the road! If the road can't be built all the way, build a terminal as close as possible!" But all other parts of my posts are basically realizing that an all-the-way hard link is not an option on the current table, so I'm NOT "overlooking" the need for ferries at this time.
"You say it's too expensive... compared to what?" Captain Obvious says, "Compared to what it could be with a smaller ferry and a shorter run...or compared to what a plane ticket would cost, because the next ferry is four days away instead of one day."
"Any non-life-threatening injuries will still be best dealt with riding the ferry or plane." Did you not read the whole paragraph I wrote about this, where I said that people take the ferry for these procedures instead of being medevaced? A whole paragraph...it's still up there...go ahead, read it (either again or for the first time) and comprehend.
And the cost of a ferry ticket versus the cost of a cab ride is apples to oranges; those are totally different markets, demand requirements, environments, service hours, competition,etc. That is Captain Obvious business and economics. Also, many people can share a cab, while each person has to buy a ferry ticket, even drivers in the upcoming summer months. So, you can't compare:
a $20 (with three people ROUND TRIP) or $30 (with two people ROUND TRIP) cab ride to
the upcoming summer prices of $372 (three people ROUND TRIP, $37/person each way, $75/car each way, drivers aren't included) or $298 (two people ROUND TRIP, $37/person each way, $75/car each way) ferry ticket.
That just blew a hole in your "the ferry is a bargain, as is" argument! And you should state round trip costs, because a road actually does go both ways, even though you seem to think this one will be Juneau-departure only. The hungover person will still need to get their car their next day, and most people taking the ferry will have to get back to their homes, whether it be in Juneau or.....yes, even people outside of Juneau returning home from a visit to our fair town.
This summer, it will cost $496 for a family of four to travel to Skagway if they take a vehicle and $300 without a vehicle. $496 to go less than 60 miles and back!!! Once again, I go back to your statement "You say it's too expensive... compared to what?" How about compared to almost everywhere else in the world that you can currently transport vehicles, supplies, and people 120 miles!!!
So maybe, as you say, " If you can't afford it now, you still won't be able to with the new ferries." But I'm willing to take that chance, because ANYTHING is better and will be cheaper than what we have now! I KNOW I can't afford $496 right now to go 120 miles with my family...but just a 10% drop in ticket prices saves $50. If prices drop 20% to 30%, that's a $100 to $150 in savings...and since the schedules make it possible to travel every day, I can definitely take that family trip north.
lots of comments
about how dot is saving money by going for these shuttle ferries and building the road.....I wonder what world those folks live in, not reality by any means. A ship that cannot handle the weather anytime it gets nasty and then must cancel their run is just like the fast ferries. A road up Lynn canal that has doubled from 250 million to over 500 million (even though the initial cost was pegged at close to a billion) is not smart or in the best interests of anyone other than the private contractors that stand to make a mint. Having a shipyard that has no experience building a vessel of the proposed size is asking for trouble...and don't bring up the Susitna...if one knew anything about ships you would even go there. This whole fiasco is just that, pure fiasco.
@Bill de road
When you buy your ticket you are sharing a cab, you're just sharing it with strangers. You don't think the fare you pay is a bargain? Really? The LeConte being one of the smallest ships uses about 15,000gal of diesel a week, not counting crew wages and maintence. If AMHS was to price the fairs at a revenue neutral rate you would be going even more snippy, quippy, I'm smarter than you with your comments. But you're right, we should be focused on no net loss on money spent. So we should build the road and place a toll to cover construction and maintence for a pay off in say 40 years. So as long as it replaced a full LeConte that would run every day for 40 years the toll would have to be $195 per vehicle. Your math doesn't work just like the 2 open ferry idea won't work. Sounds good, but is riddled with flaws. If you can take a break from reading your clever posts over an over basking in your brilliance maybe you can see that.