The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) released the "Draft Design Concept Report (DCR) for the Day Boat ACF" February 25. I found it a little tricky to locate the report on the DOT/PF website, so once downloaded, Borough staff posted the documents on the Borough website. Click here for easy access.
The main report is 26-pages. I've read it once through but it deserves to be read by people with background in ferries, terminals, and seas. As with many topics, the more one knows about the ferry business, boats, currents, the more one can ask. With just a glance, an AMHS employee quickly wondered about the plan to hold the ships to the docks with propulsion instead of mooring lines (see page 7).
Page 8 talks about "no unaccompanied vessels," so I sent the document to Michael Ganey at AML wondering what kind of an impact this plan will have on AML's operation.
I wonder about designing for motion based on bow and stern seas only (page 16) but in other parts of the report, speculating about using these vessels to cross to the Katzehin (page 9). And I especially wonder about the safety and reliability of the clam-shell bow doors.
I'm not sure what to make about the repeated reference to designing a boat that enables drivers to be comfortable in their vehicles (pages 8 & 14). I am also curious about the different passenger capacity numbers given (450 on page 3; 300 on page 19). In both cases there are fewer seats provided than passengers allowed (300 and 200 respectively). (Is this discrepancy built in because it is assumed that some of us will ride in our cars?) On page 8 of the report, the authors state: "The Day Boat ACF needs to be designed to accommodate passengers on the Car Deck while underway."
A curious statement on page 17 leaves me wondering about the fate of the luggage cart.
Apparently, if this vessel is home ported in Haines, it will need to hook up to shore power (see page 16). Do we have sufficient hydro power to accommodate that? If not, what will be the effect on our rates when the diesels come on to provide the needed support? Let's get this report into the hands of APT.
And yes, a partially open aft deck is proposed - as a cost saving measure. The vehicles stowed there will be protected from spray by "...bulwark walls high enough to safely shield the Car Deck from sea water including spray" (page. 18); additionally the bow will be specially designed to reduce spray. I just have to wonder if the concept designers (Coastwise Corporation) have seen the video from the wheel house of the Taku recorded this winter. White water repeatedly eclipsed the view, if only for seconds at a time. See more details of the proposed design for the aft deck in Appendix D.
I do believe I heard one of the presenters from DOT/PF at the MTAB meeting state that additional research would be done to further characterize the seas in the upper Lynn Canal as a result of comments from many riders. I am thankful for that.
Our terminal will have to have a major modification to accommodate this vessel. The cost of this is not addressed.
Cost: On page 17, the authors state"...there is approximately $117 million remaining in the existing ACF funding." The plan is to build two vessels for this amount.
The calendar for the project is aggressive:
This first report, called the Design Concept Report or DCR, was presented to MTAB yesterday and to the joint House/Senate Transportation Committees today. I listened to MTAB; and I believe that Deputy Mayor Lapp may have been present. Senator Egan's office solicited a comment yesterday but I hadn't fully read the report so I was unable to comment. However, Mayor Selmer and I did request traffic data from the Haines Terminal, having heard DOT assert that few cars would need to ride outside in the proposed ferry because winter ferries often traveled lightly loaded. (The Day Boat ACF provides for 53 vehicles, 30 under cover: the LeConte carries 44 and has traveled fully booked frequently this winter.) No mechanism for public comment other than to send comments to Commissioner Reuben Yost, has been described. However, the report does say that "Comments and questions in response to the DCR will be addressed during the next phase... ." The next phase is the Design Study Report (DSR) and Concept Design. This is to be completed March 31, 2013. The DSR will be presented to MTAB.
I think it is far easier and perhaps even more effective to register concerns early in the process. I recommend that the Assembly form a small committee and prepare a comment or a set of concerns to be approved at either our March 5 or 12 meeting and submitted to Commissioner Yost as soon as possible at reuben.yost@alaska.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment