In Support of the Alaska Class Ferry

About a dozen of us huddled around a speaker phone in the library today waiting for our turn to testify before the joint meeting of the Senate and House Transportation Committees regarding the Govenor's plan to scuttle the Alaska Class Ferry.  We were able to watch the meeting on the big screen in the library but the audio was difficult.  However, we were a focused and attentive group. We got every word. We heard testimony objecting to the Governor's revision of the Alaska Class Ferry from Kake, Petersburg, Sitka, Yakutat, Ketchikan, Skagway, and Juneau. Testimony from Homer reminded the Legislators that this wasn't "just a southeast Alaska issue."  Representatives from the Juneau Chamber of Commerce and a speaker from Anchorage applauded the Governor's decision as cost-saving.  Locals Mike Denker, Debora Vogt, and Rob Goldberg spoke against the Governor's decision, as did I.  This is what I said:
-->

Although I am discouraged by the apparent disregard for the statutes that require DOT/PF to consult, if not collaborate with MTAB, I am confident that you as legislators have that particular concern well in hand, thus my testimony will focus on the outcome: safe, reliable , cost-effective marine transportation for Southeast Alaska in general and  Haines-Skagway-Juneau in particular.

1)   Commissioner Kemp, while admitting that the design for the smaller vessels is on his desk, has declined to say whether or not the design includes an open car deck. Please put an end to our speculation. The concerns we have about the knowledge base from which such a vessel could be proposed, erode our confidence in the operation of Alaska Marine Highway – confidence  that has been  hard won and finally established over the past six years - confidence that has been secured through the public process recently dismissed as a problem.  To date, prior to the scuttling of the Alaska Class Ferry, we have understood AMHS  to positively respond to our concerns, and this, I submit is the reason that confidence is up, ridership is up, revenue is up.  It is just bad business to erode this confidence.

2)   I have seen a video taken from the bridge of a ferry coming up Lynn Canal this winter.  Waves were breaking over the bow and smashing against the wheelhouse windows.  Certainly, an open-deck design will be much less expensive, but it will be much less reliable in the heavy seas of the Lynn Canal or even in the seas of Clarence Straits outside of Ketchikan.  Such a ferry will be a fair weather vessel much like the Chenga and the Fairweather, the "fast" ferries that cannot reliably sail in the Lynn Canal due to the high seas. This is Alaska. This is the Lynn Canal.  The state’s own consultant, Elliot Bay, in reporting on the expected patterns and frequency of wave height, says that their conclusions are based on inferred data. There are no buoys in the Lynn Canal to provide the  primary data needed. In this case, local knowledge has got to be considered.  But if that is not credible, perhaps the Committee might call in some AMHS captains to testify to the seas in the Lynn Canal.  Better yet, test the concept directly.  The state owns an open deck vessel.  The Lituya, designed by Coastwise Alaska, the group now consulting with DOT/PF.  She sails between Metlakatla and Ketchikan.  Trade her out with the LeConte and sail her in the Lynn Canal this February and March – not even in the worst weather.  See how it works.

3)   And while you are asking about costs, please make an effort to track precisely the expenditures related to this project.  Last Thursday Commissioner Kemp said that the Department was spending  $20-30,000/day.  How is this possible?  Commissioner Kemp said that they pulled the project as they were about to schedule tank tests in Norway.  Norway?  Why Norway?  The Interisland Ferry, built independently of the state, which sails the 4.5 hour route between KK and Hollis, was tank tested too.  Here in North America.  Perhaps DOT/PF could find out where and avoid the expense of a trip to Norway.  When accounting for the cost of a specially designed shuttle ferry, please include the cost of modifying terminals throughout SE to accommodate it.  After all,  isn’t redundancy an important element of the plan? Shouldn’t this ship enable the system to be scalable – bringing it to routes that need extra capacity for some reason; or replacing another vessel that is disabled for all the reasons that accompanying an aging fleet?  Ask for the costs of a vessel that cannot sail, for surely, if the vessel is not designed to handle the high seas of Lynn Canal, that will certainly be the case – there will be critical times of travel when it simply will not be able to go.  It will represent a stranded resource, as do the Fairweather and Chenga. Ships designed for speed, but not for speed in the Lynn Canal.

One more question of finance: would it be possible to see those estimates that have been provided by Elliot Bay and the Alaska Ship Yard that have caused all this trouble?  My own experience, brief and limited though it is, suggests that estimates based on a project that is only 35% designed are quite speculative.  If high, the design can be modified at that point; not scraped, modified.  Suggestions to modify would be welcome; the plan to scrap the Alaska Class Ferry is not.