Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/28/2013 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2013
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Bob Lynn
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Dennis Egan, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Craig Johnson
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Anna Fairclough
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: NORTH LYNN CANAL FERRY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
REUBEN YOST, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities' (DOT&PF)
presentation on the North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design.
CAPTAIN JOHN FALVEY, Captain; General Manager
Marine Highway System (AMHS)
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities' (DOT&PF)
presentation on the North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:22 PM
CHAIR DENNIS EGAN called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Transportation Standing Committees to order at 1:02 p.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Transportation
Standing Committee were Representatives Gattis, Kreiss-Tomkins,
Isaacson, Feige, and P. Wilson; Representative Lynn arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Present from the Senate
Transportation Standing Committee were Senators Dyson, Bishop,
French and Egan.
^Presentation: North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design by the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Presentation: North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design by the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
1:02:41 PM
CHAIR EGAN announced that the only order of business would be a
presentation: North Lynn Canal Ferry Conceptual Design by the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF).
1:03:58 PM
REUBEN YOST, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), introduced himself and offered to
provide an overview PowerPoint presentation on the Northern Lynn
Canal Ferry Conceptual Design.
1:05:17 PM
MR. YOST discussed the mission requirements [slide 1]. He said
this ferry will be the next generation of ferry. The report
provides how the new ferry design can be used on existing and
potential future routes. Whatever ferry is built will have a
50-60 year life and some of the basic elements will determine
its potential operation. Thus the department has an opportunity
to make changes and while change can be uncomfortable to many,
some of the changes will be very beneficial. This report lays
out some of the benefits, he stated.
1:06:34 PM
MR. YOST explained the ferry would be a roll-on roll-off (RORO)
bow stern ferry. This concept means the vehicles all roll in in
one direction, but also roll off in the same direction. This
means vehicles do not need to be sorted based on port
destination and vehicles do not need to be backed off or turned.
In fact, this becomes important in order for the boat to be
operated as a 12-hour day boat. Basically, the 12-hour rule is
that the crew works for an average of 12 hours and the schedule
is built around this factor. This is important when considering
the primary service in Lynn Canal. If the two vessels were to
replace the M/V Malaspina one of the vessels must complete a
round trip between Haines and back within that 12-hour period.
In addition to a fast RORO, it is also important to have speedy
mooring capabilities and loading ability.
1:07:44 PM
MR. YOST indicated the DOT&PF has heard loud and clear that
people want seakeeping ability similar to the M/V Taku, or
better than the M/V LeConte in terms of winter operations with
99 percent sailing frequency, which means it can handle all but
the most extreme weather conditions.
MR. YOST turned to vessel requirements [slide 3]. He said the
overall length of the proposed 280 feet overall or 260 feet at
the waterline, which is approximately 40 feet longer than the
M/V LeConte. The speed would need to be at 15.5 knots, which is
not the maximum speed of the vessel but the speed needed to
stick to the 12-hour schedule.
1:08:53 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked whether this is the hull speed.
MR. YOST answered no; the hull speed would be approximately 16.5
knots.
1:09:08 PM
MR. YOST continued. The vessel would have a bow and stern door.
Most of the current ferries have a forward side door, which
means all vehicles either must turn or back in. The bow would
be designed to minimize spray. In fact, one problem the Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS) has with the M/V LeConte is that
the bow and side sponsons throw a lot of spray and in freezing
conditions it means the spray freezes on life boats, davits, and
other working gear and creates a safety issue. Additionally,
the vessel would need the capability to load aft, port, and
starboard to allow functioning for existing side load ports.
MR. YOST anticipated the capacity at 300 passengers and a
minimum of 53 Alaska standard vehicles. He explained that the
Alaska standard vehicle is a measurement that AMHS uses, which
is a vehicle approximately 24 feet in length. He explained the
department reviewed the current traffic in Lynn Canal and
accommodating 95 to 96 percent of the traffic days. He
explained that 95-96 percent of the time, the ferries load 53 or
less vehicles, although a few specific events such as 4th July,
the Haines fair, or the Klondike or Kluane races. The AMHS
would need to schedule some additional service to cover those
events.
1:11:11 PM
MR. YOST turned to the Lynn Canal day boat schedule [slide 3].
He asked to focus on the Juneau-Haines and Haines-Skagway
schedules. coordinated between Juneau and Haines and Haines and
Skagway. In order for people to travel to and from Juneau to
Skagway, the arrivals and departures in Haines need to be
coordinated. He pointed out that the schedule shows that both
vessels would arrive in Haines at approximately noon. That
means the Juneau vessel would leave at approximately 7:30 a.m.,
which can be shifted, and the vessel homeported in Haines would
leave approximately 9:30 a.m. and complete a trip to Skagway in
time to meet the Juneau vessel. At that point vehicles and
passengers would off-load and if the Juneau passengers or
vehicles are destined for Skagway they would embark on the
second vessel.
1:12:22 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether this schedule would leave from
Juneau-Haines and return twice a day.
MR. YOST answered the schedule anticipates one trip from Juneau
to Haines and return. The Haines to Skagway vessel would make
two round trips. That would mean a 12-hour day for the Juneau-
Haines vessel, whereas the other would operate approximately
eight hours. This would allow four hours to service the vessel
and a night crew would service the Juneau-Haines vessel.
1:13:35 PM
MR. YOST related that these are closer to daylight hours. Noon,
10 a.m.; returns at 6:30 p.m. To do this with one vessel means
an 11 p.m. arrival; now the trip is more condensed. One
advantage to the schedule is that it operates largely during
daylight hours whereas using a single vessel the vessel would
start at 7 a.m. from Skagway or Juneau and returning at 11 p.m.
1:14:45 PM
MR. YOST discussed the roadmap design [slide 5]. Granted, this
is one example of how to meet the mission requirements. The
vessel will be similar to this design in terms of the length,
the number of cars and passengers, the clamshell style bow, and
stern center doors; however to calculate a cost estimate the
department needs to have a design to evaluate the space, steel,
and arrive at a pound metric estimate for the overall design
cost. He detailed the length, beam, depth, and draft as per the
drawing. The service speed would travel at 16 knots at 85
percent power with a higher sprint speed of approximately 16.5
knots. Passenger capacity would be 300 persons and is based on
2 x 3,000 horsepower (hp) engines. People have expressed
concern about an open deck; however, the department is
considering a partially open aft roof. Thus one part of the car
deck would be exposed, but would be surrounded by an 18-foot
high bulwark. He detailed that the door would be six feet above
the water line so the total height of the enclosure would be 24
feet. He reiterated that the design may be partially open to
the sky, but would be well protected from sea water and spray.
MR. YOST showed a side view of the day boat entitled, "ACF
"Roadmap" Vessel" with the clamshell bow, no forward side door,
not sponson, and the aft deck is surrounded by the 18-foot
bulwark.
1:17:45 PM
CAPTAIN JOHN FALVEY, Captain; General Manager, Marine Highway
System (AMHS), asked to address the bow configuration. He said
that presently the inland certified vessels, the mainliners,
such as the M/V Malaspina, M/V Taku, and the M/V Matanuska have
forward car doors as well as a stern cargo door. He said that
frequently ships of this type of certification are designed with
sponsons, which run the entire length of the ship, but also can
be slightly forward of the cargo doors. He acknowledged the
stability benefits of the sponsons; however, three ships: M/V
Kennicott and the M/V Tustemena do not have sponsons. He
explained the sponsons tend to create slamming and excessive
spray. Thus it is important to be very careful about the inland
designed boats, such as the M/V Aurora, due to the slamming
problem. He pointed out that the M/V Lituya, at 198 feet, does
not have sponsons and has a modified North Sea bow or one with a
lot of flair.
1:19:24 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked more specifically where the sponsons are
located.
MR. YOST offered that the sponsons are shown on subsequent
slides. In response to a question, he agreed the sponsons are
not planned for the day boats.
CAPTAIN FALVEY responded that the department will make the case
for the seaworthiness of the road map vessel. He said the
roadmap vessel will not have sponsons. He pointed out that a
modified sponson would end at a certain point, since the
slamming effect would be on the forward quarter of the ship.
Thus, without the sponsons and with the flared bow, the AMHS
believes the combination will make for a very seaworthy vessel.
He said this ship would operate at 280 feet, whereas the M/V
Tustumena - without sponsons - operates at 290 feet in some of
the worst weather conditions in Alaska. He indicated this will
truly assist in the seakeeping of the ship, in general.
1:21:42 PM
SENATOR DYSON thought he saw a bulb bow in the schematic.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that the bulb technology will reduce
wave making and in essence creates a slip stream. Additionally,
it helps with fuel efficiency.
SENATOR DYSON asked whether it would help with buoyancy and
reduces pitch.
CAPTAIN FALVEY agreed that the design reduces wave making
resistance.
1:22:53 PM
MR. YOST said the next two slides look at the deck level;
[slides 7-8]. He stated the upper passenger deck is a crew
lounge, but the middle deck would have a lounge, a quiet library
computer room, and a family/play and movie area.
1:24:07 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked whether Wi-Fi - wireless capability - will be
offered so the Internet can be accessed.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that the final process is installing
satellite technology. The department had hoped for Wi-Fi on the
ships and some vessels currently have hot spots installed. The
AMHS attempted to do so but broadband costs were too expensive.
Several years ago the AMHS started the process to have satellite
systems installed. Next, the ship's crew also needs to
communicate from shore to ship, which uses some broadband, which
has been assessed. At the same time the AMHS is building a new
reservation system, which will be live on ships. He reported a
request for proposal (RFP) will go out in July and the
department anticipates it will be successful. Currently, the
AMHS needs to get the new reservation system operational and
then assess how much available broadband is left. It may be
necessary to purchase more broadband; however, the department is
also looking at cellular technology since smart phones has
driven connectivity. He suggested that the route contains
numerous cell towers. He reiterated that the department will
look closely and weigh against the cost of additional broadband.
He estimated that it could be $500,000, since the AMHS currently
pays close to $1 million right now. He summarized the Wi-Fi
situation is on hold until the reservation system is up, but the
department will decide whether to offer the service through
satellite or Wi-Fi.
1:28:11 PM
SENATOR BISHOP said he was glad to see the comments were
considered.
1:28:33 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the design has been narrowed down
to avoid additional add-on costs, since retrofitting costs can
be higher.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that the design currently includes
installing hot spots on the capital improvement projects. This
installation throughout the ship ensures it will have
connectivity. He has considered having a provider pay for the
service. Unless large volumes exist, such as at the Ted Stevens
International Airport it is hard to provide; however the
marketing department sees it as a marketing tool that should be
provided at no additional cost and be open to the public. He
said the AMHS receives requests due to school children traveling
on the ferries.
1:30:35 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON said she would not want to pay extra fees for
Wi-Fi.
CHAIR EGAN admitted he paid for Wi-Fi on the airplane, but north
of Vancouver the service disappeared.
CAPTAIN FALVEY interjected that he hopes it will work out soon
to provide Wi-Fi on the ships.
1:31:50 PM
SENATOR DYSON said with the magnitude of the funding and the
issues being discussed that it seems unprofitable to pursue [the
Wi-Fi.]
CHAIR EGAN related that the $1 million would be spread through
the fleet and he's responding to constituent concerns.
CAPTAIN FALVEY acknowledged that broadband is not cheap, but it
also increases safety, provides 24/7 communication, and have
experienced about 95 percent reliability. He maintained that
broadband not inexpensive.
1:33:01 PM
MR. YOST discussed the day boat ACF "Roadmap" vessel [slide 7].
He explained that the department envisions vending machines and
not full food service to reduce operational costs. He explained
the department will consider the most advanced vending machines
and some foods may be able to be heated in a microwave. He
directed attention to the shaded area, which could be a
partially-open aft roof. He explained that 33 spaces would be
completely covered and the average winter load is approximately
25 cars. However, that is not to say any would not be exposed,
but generally the winter vehicle traffic is about half of the
summer traffic. Essentially, ways exist so the deck can be
open, but still covered so snow will not be on the deck.
1:35:08 PM
CAPTAIN FALVEY emphasized the need to understand that this
roadmap vessel is only a roadmap to guide the primary naval
architect to move forward with the envelope and parameters. The
department will look at a closed deck and a partially open deck.
The AMHS will look at closed deck in terms of cost differences
since the partially covered deck would mean less weight, some
reductions in heating and ventilation issues. However, where
the bow opens, behind them are up to two bulkheads and the
configuration will depend on watertight or waterproof
considerations, such that the method to self-clear and not trap
water. He related that USCG rules govern this. He emphasized
that if it were open, three-fourths of the vehicles are tucked
away. He acknowledged that sea spray in the winter is greater.
He predicted that on average some of the cars in winter will be
protected.
1:38:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE expressed concern about the open deck
concept. He asked whether it would be wasted deck space that
could be used for other cargo, such as oversized cargo, and how
people would be transported off the vessel if it became
necessary to MEDIVAC people. He noted there seems to be room
for a helicopter pad.
CAPTAIN FALVEY acknowledged these are good points. He stated
that these vessels seldom MEDIVAC since the AMHS tends to divert
its ships to the nearest dock. The odds of a MEDIVAC on this
route would be fairly low, in particular, since the maneuver is
a dangerous measure for the USCG and for the ships. Granted, it
could happen and if so, it would likely be executed on the bow
of the vessel. If the car deck is closed, it would likely be a
lighter aluminum material and not suitable to support
substantial weight. The car deck would be RORO and while it
would not be carrying freight the deck will have access for 40-
foot vans.
1:40:50 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the height [from the waterline] at the
point of the solarium.
MR. YOST responded that the passenger walkway will have railings
around the space, just as at on the enclosed aft deck. In
further response, he said a person would need to hop a railing.
He further clarified that the six feet he referred to earlier
related to the car deck being six feet above the waterline and
with the bulwarks at 18 feet would total 24 feet from the
waterline. Thus this 24 feet distance represents the height a
wave would need to climb before it could come in the opening,
which is not experienced in Lynn Canal. The railing would be
the same height as on the aft deck on the existing vessels. He
reiterated it would require someone to crawl over a railing
before the person could fall into the car deck space, which
would be less of a drop than falling overboard.
CAPTAIN FALVEY interjected that railing heights on vessel are
standard heights and while he doesn't know the specific
requirements offhand, he assured the committee the railing
height would be standard.
1:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the maximum wave height
in Lynn Canal.
MR. YOST responded that the department is currently evaluating
it. In the past, computer modeling using wind and wave data at
Eldred Rock has been done. He offered to research this further
and provide it to the committee. He recalled it is
approximately 12-15 feet. Additionally, the department is
preparing a more detailed wind and wave analysis and motion
comfort, which has been an issue and concern. In fact, all the
alternatives have day boats, such as the Juneau Access Road
project. Thus it's the time to have a detailed study for the
design team and the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the design would be
changed, if necessary, based on the results of the wave and wind
study.
MR. YOST answered yes; the design would be changed to maintain
seakeeping ability comparable to the M/V Taku.
1:44:53 PM
CHAIR EGAN recalled experiencing 70-knot winds in Northern Lynn
Canal while traveling on the M/V Malaspina. He expressed
concern about the capabilities of the day boat and what would
happen if a ship with an open stern must turn around due to
weather and freezing spray comes into the open stern. He
wondered whether vehicles would be frozen in and need to thaw
before they could be offloaded.
MR. YOST answered that would be an extreme situation.
CHAIR EGAN answered that Northern Lynn Canal has extreme weather
situations. He pointed out several cancellations of the M/V
LeConte this winter.
MR. YOST related that turnaround situations with the M/V LeConte
are primarily due to ice spray freezing on the davits of the
lifeboats and not due to the ship being threatened.
1:46:37 PM
CAPTAIN FALVEY understood the route between Metlakatla and
Ketchikan is different; however, he has operated the M/V Lituya
in up to 75 knot winds with a completely open car deck in
Ketchikan in the winter. He acknowledged this represents an
extreme situation.
CHAIR EGAN cautioned that wind chill factors of 20 degrees below
zero are not present.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that freezing spray does happen, but he
acknowledged Chair Egan raises a good point.
1:47:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS appreciated the bow design and
spray reduction capabilities. He related a scenario in which
the day boat is headed south to Juneau and experiences a
following sea. He asked what aspects of the vessel design takes
into account a following sea.
CAPTAIN FALVEY said, technically, a following sea is not as
harsh since the vessel is running with the weather and the wind.
He acknowledged 50-knot winds could be at the stern; however, it
tends not as severe as driving into a headwind.
1:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he's been wondering about the
fairness and equity of charging the same vehicle fees for those
covered and not covered. He asked whether these ships would be
limited to Lynn Canal.
1:49:32 PM
MR. YOST answered that considering the schedule the vessels
could travel to Hoonah, Angoon, Gustavus and Tenakee. The day
boats could fill in for emergencies to Sitka and would be
designed for those weather conditions, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON questioned vessels designed with an open
bay, which would capture moisture.
MR. YOST answered the design will be analyzed. He reiterated
that the top of the deck is 24 feet above the waterline in
inside waters. The vessels will not experience big swells, but
rather wind-driven waves. In further response, he acknowledged
the day boats would be open to snow and rain, which is the same
as any vehicle on any highway in the state.
1:51:04 PM
CHAIR EGAN remarked that the Lynn Canal travel is not the same
as taking a day cruise in [Washington state waters.] Even if
the deck is covered it would not be compatible with
International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) rules,
so it couldn't cross Dixon Entrance without a waiver.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that it can cross Dixon Entrance;
however, the vessel couldn't into British Columbia due to
international regulations. He clarified that SOLAS implements
increased safety regulations on ships that run outside the
international boundaries. He characterized SOLAS as literally
being lines drawn throughout the world that dictate whether
ships must follow inland or international rules of the road. In
further response to Chair Egan, he reported the M/V Matanuska,
M/V Kennicott, and M/V Taku as the only three SOLAS ships.
However, the AMHS can secure waivers to go to Prince Rupert, if
necessary, for emergencies under SOLAS.
1:52:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, among the safety concerns he has,
besides an open deck, is the clamshell RORO bow door and the
unsavory North Sea accident, when in 1994 the M/V Estonia sank
with the loss of 852 people when the bow door failed due to
heavy seas. He was unsure of the harsh weather comparisons, but
asked what safety considerations are envisioned to prevent such
a thing from happening in Southeast Alaska.
1:53:40 PM
CAPTAIN FALVEY related the M/V Estonia capsized due to free
surface. While the bow door failed the rules and regulations
has subsequently changed that that require internal watertight
or waterproof doors depending on the type of deck. He recounted
the incident, noting the bow door failed, the vehicle filled
with water, free surface took affect - there was nowhere for the
water to escape - the water went to one side and the ship rolled
over. Since then the rules and regulations have changed and
require internal doors, sturdier bulkhead doors behind the bow
or clamshell type doors to increase the safety of this type of
vessel. These vessels are very common with large ferries that
operate in the North Sea.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS understood the day boat design
would have redundant doors in the bow.
CAPTAIN FALVEY answered that if the design includes a moveable
bow door, the vessel will have bulkheads behind it to provide
watertight safety of the deck to avoid free surface.
CHAIR EGAN related the M/V Bartlett operated in Prince William
Sound and the AMHS did not experience any problems.
CAPTAIN FALVEY agreed.
1:55:39 PM
MR. YOST discussed the vessel comparison, which shows the size,
M/V LeConte is 237 feet, the day boat estimated at 278 feet, and
the M/V Tustumena at 296 feet [slide 8]. He highlighted that
the day boat would be closer in length to the M/V Tustumena. He
also pointed out the sponson on the M/V LeConte. He predicted
the proposed design would have greater seakeeping ability. In
response to a question, he answered the height of the stern is
approximately 24 feet, but the ships are all to scale on the
slide.
CAPTAIN FALVEY related that the profile of the M/V LeConte shows
the sponson just below the car deck whereas the day boat
proposed design shows the modified sponson much further aft than
on the M/V LeConte.
1:57:44 PM
MR. YOST discussed preliminary cost estimates, noting the
purpose of the preliminary design is to apply costs [slide 9].
The line drawings were used to create a parametric analysis,
which is the typical process used prior to creating detailed
line drawings. The process considers recently constructed
vessels and creates estimates for the spaces. He reported that
Coastwise came up with cost of first-vessel construction at $45-
55 million. The preliminary engineering and construction
engineering is based on a fixed percentage.
1:59:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the cost for adjustments necessary
to retrofit harbors to accommodate the RORO design is included
in these figures.
MR. YOST answered no; these figures apply only to vessel
construction. He recalled end berths or bow berths would be
required at Haines, which is estimated at $20 million. The 350-
foot Alaska Class ferry also called for a stern berth in Haines
which was estimated at $18 million and obviously to have two
stern berths would cost a bit more; however, they will be able
to use common elements.
2:00:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled $117 million remained, which leaves $10
million.
MR. YOST answered that even with the original ACF, the intention
was to finance the terminal modifications from FHWA, separate
from the $120 million or $150-$160 million in estimated vessel
costs.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that problems have arisen with
respect to modifications to the Petersburg terminal. She
explained that the terminal cannot be used. It was originally
modified for the Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA), but it sits
unused. She expressed concern that if federal funding is used,
the facility may not be used for all Alaskan ships.
MR. YOST answered that the Haines ferry terminal is only used by
the AMHS vessels. Most of the terminals are only available to
AMHS vessels. The design would be structured so it does not
preclude using the existing side berth. Further, the AMHS has
used federal funds for all Southeast terminals so they are not
available for lease to private entities.
CHAIR P. WILSON maintained her concern.
MR. YOST answered that the Haines facility was built with
federal aid so adding a stern berth or end berth won't change
that situation.
2:02:31 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked whether an additional $40 million would be
necessary to upgrade the terminal.
MR. YOST responded the cost would be $20 million for a dual end
berth facility.
2:03:01 PM
CHAIR EGAN understood the proposed plan is to construct the
vessel in Ketchikan without any federal funds so federal funds
will not be accepted.
MR. YOST answered yes; the federal funds would not be used for
the vessel construction. In response to a question, Mr. Yost
agreed that every Southeast ferry terminal has been built with
federal funds. He clarified that the proposed day boat vessel
has always been planned to call at federal aid modified
terminals. He maintained that the defederalized construction of
the ferries will not affect the terminals.
2:03:41 PM
MR. YOST said that based on Washington state's experience and
other places in which identical vessels have been constructed by
the same shipyard, the department anticipates a 10 percent cost
savings to build the second vessel. He elaborated that the
shipyard does not have any engineering to contend with for the
second vessel and other efficiencies will occur in assembly.
However, the department did use mid-range figures for cost
savings. He recalled that Washington state experienced 8-18
percent cost savings. This leaves approximately $10 million for
contingencies. If vessel cost projections come in higher than
the $117 million, the AMHS will either redesign the day boats or
request additional funds. At this point, the department
anticipates the costs to build two day boats for the $117
million remaining ACF appropriation.
2:05:10 PM
MR. YOST related the timeline [slide 10]. He reported that the
Design Study Report & Concept Design was released on February
25. It is out for public review, is on the department's
website, and comments should be submitted by March 8 since the
Elliott Bay Design Group will need to analyze the report and
provide detailed analysis and prepare a concept design, that a
parametric cost estimate will be done and it will move to
preliminary design. In fact, the process the department uses
for any capital construction project is the same.
2:06:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the $20 million for
two end berths in Haines is the only modification necessary and
no other modifications would be needed to other terminals,
except for Tenakee, which is slated to undergo renovation.
MR. YOST answered yes; noting the $20 million is only an
estimate since the preliminary design has not yet been done.
Referring to page 25 of the report, he noted the conceptual
design of two end berths, but as soon as the bow configuration
is known, more detailed design will be performed.
2:07:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked to pose some questions for the department
to consider. She asked whether the crew comparisons - the
current 84 crew for the M/V Malaspina as compared to 44 for the
day boats - seemed questionable. Thus crew for the day boats
needs further explanation. She recalled the ACF was slated to
for 28 crewmembers and to go from a larger ACF to the day boat
the crewmember figures did not comport. She understood
unaccompanied vehicles would not be allowed and asked if this is
correct.
MR. YOST answered she is correct. He clarified that every
vehicle would need a driver and a power source so it can be
driven off for the RORO design. In other words, it won't work
to have to back in a tractor to haul off a trailer, he said.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further consideration of this issue.
She asked whether freight would only be able to go through
Haines. She expressed concern if unaccompanied containers can't
be moved between Skagway Haines southbound that freight can't be
moved in the way it currently flows. Further, people in many
communities currently have groceries delivered by van, she said.
She understood vending machine usage, which is the direction
airlines have gone, too. Additionally, she asked for
clarification on the reason the Haines to Skagway run requires a
12-hour crew since the travel could be accomplished in less than
12 hours. She recalled the trip was estimated at 7 hours, yet
it only takes an hour to travel between Haines and Skagway.
2:10:18 PM
MR. YOST agreed it takes an hour, but he offered to provide an
explanation.
CHAIR EGAN offered that public testimony would be taken at the
next meeting and questions could be answered at that time.
2:11:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that unaccompanied
vehicles on the ferry system have been an important means to
move freight throughout the region. He asked the department to
quantify how much freight will not move up and down Lynn Canal
if unaccompanied vehicles will not be allowed on the day boats.
He further asked how this freight will otherwise move if the
ferry system can no longer accommodate freight movement.
MR. YOST offered to provide answers to the committee.
2:13:37 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting between the House and Senate Transportation Standing
Committees was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Day Boat DCR Final Draft 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Appendix A - Vessel Routes 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Appendix B - Mooring and Loading Study 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Appendix C - Day Boat Schedules 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Appendix D - Roadmap Vessel 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Appendix E - Parametric Vessel Cost Estimates 2_25_13.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Joint Transpo 2013 Day Boat ACF Concept Design.pdf |
HTRA 2/28/2013 1:00:00 PM |