Day Boat ACF - Read, Think, Comment

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.

Frankenfish

Senator Begich has appealed to Alaskans to speak out against the United States Federal Food and Drug Administration's decision of no significant environmental impact of the genetically altered Atlantic Salmon hybrid often called "Frankenfish."

According to an article in the Alaska Native News, Senator Begich said:

“Allowing questionable science to ultimately influence our food supply is a slippery slope that Alaskans don’t want to go down. I hope Alaskans take the time to submit their comment to the FDA and let them know we won’t tolerate science projects messing with our wild salmon supply.”

Closer to home, the City and Borough of Petersburg has appealed to municipalities to object to the FDA decision.  Eight Alaskan Representatives have introduced House Joint Resolution 5:

"Opposing the United States Food and Drug Administration's preliminary finding relating to genetically engineered salmon; urging further examination of genetically engineered salmon; opposing AquaBounty's petition to produce genetically engineered salmon; and proposing, if AquaBounty's petition is approved, that its product should be labeled as "genetically modified.""

The deadline for comments is February 25, 2013.  Because the Haines Borough Assembly does not meet until February 26, I took the liberty of forwarding Haines Borough Resolution 10-11-247, adopted November 30, 2010 to the sponsors of HJR5 and to the City and Borough of Petersburg. I will also make sure it is delivered to Senators Murkowski and Begich and Representative Don Young.

The Haines Borough Resolution 10-11-247 is titled:

"A Resolution of the Haines Borough Assembly opposing an application from AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve and market genetically engineered Atlantic Salmon in the United States."

After citing the process that resulted in the genetically altered salmon,  and the lack of thorough scientific research and testing to ensure that consumption is safe; and reasoning that

"...this lack of safe consumption testing could weaken consumer confidence in all salmon products; " and Alaska's wild seafood industry "...could be severely impacted by the introduction of genetically engineered salmon,"

the Assembly resolved

"..that the Haines Borough opposes approval of genetically engineered salmon for release in the wild and for human consumption int he United States.... ; and "...calls upon the FDA to not approve the application from AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. to market and sell genetically engineered Atlantic salmon for human consumption in the United States."

More recently Senators Murkowski and Begich sponsored two bills opposing the FDA's stance:

Senator Murkowski joined Senator Mark Begich on two bills. One would make it illegal to sell, possess, transport or purchase GE salmon in the United States unless and until the NOAA approval process makes absolutely sure there is no harmful impact on  the environment – a claim that Murkowski is extremely dubious about, challenging the Food and Drug Administration on the floor of the Senate and through multiple legislative means. ...  The other bill defies the FDA’s stance against clearly labeling Frankenfish, requiring that GE salmon be clearly labeled and identified so that consumers can have full faith in natural salmon and know the difference on grocery shelves so they can be sure they are purchasing the real thing.

Also, Representative Don Young has introduced H.R. 584 which requires that all genetically engineered fish sold for consumption be labeled as such.

Many news outlets indicate that comments can be submitted electronically,  however, I've had no luck with the link.  So I mailed a copy of the Haines Borough Resolution to the address given for written comments:

-->

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

RE:  Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0899

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. 

Recent Procedures

Recently the Assembly followed a procedure that may have been improper.  We met as a Committee of the Whole in public and then retired to executive session to discuss a personnel matter: the details of the manager's performance.

The matter we discussed is unquestionably one of the very few permitted to be discussed in executive session.  Even the outcome can be justified since it can be argued that Assembly directed itself in a labor negotiation and the outcome had been previously moved pending a specifically given direction. The problem is how we got there.

The convening of the Committee of the Whole was by motion adopted November 27, 2012. And although the meeting was subsequently posted as convened the discuss a matter that qualifies for executive session, the problem is that there wasn't a motion at that time specifically moving into Executive Session.  Our Charter (Article XVIII) Section 18.03 (B) states, "The general matter for consideration in executive session shall be expressed in the motion calling for the session."

If the session was improper, I am not exactly sure of the remedy.  But I have asked for clarification from our attorney.  I have also asked the Manager to schedule, as soon as possible, a briefing for the Assembly sitting as a Committee of the Whole, regarding the Open Meetings Act, and the specifications state and local pertaining to the singular exception to the Open Meetings Act: executive sessions.

Though I may be unclear about the procedures followed by the Assembly as a whole in order to convene this particular executive session, I am crystal clear about an error I made. Haines Borough Code clearly states that Executive Sessions are to be recorded.  The Clerk was not invited into the session, thus the responsibility to record defaulted to .... me.  And I failed to discharge that responsibility.  Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Chilkat Valley News last night.  It was uncertain whether or not the editor would be able to include it in the upcoming paper.

I made an error at the Assembly Committee of the Whole meeting on January 22.  Though we met properly in executive session, I did not push the “go” button on the little recorder the Clerk thoughtfully laid out for me.  I should have. Borough code requires that “Audio recordings shall be made of all executive sessions.” These recordings can be heard only by the Mayor or a member who did not attend and was excused. Although there is no one eligible to hear the recording except me (all members except one attended; the absent member was not excused), I still feel awful that I overlooked the requirement to make a recording.  Clearly, I erred; and I apologize.

One of my predecessors advised me to read the Borough Code every night before I go to bed.  Sometimes I wish he had been more specific as to which sections when.  Please bear with us.  Don't hesitate to point out when we get things wrong.  And then stick with us as we work to get it right.  Thank you.

Contributions Sought to Help with Reward and Vet Bills in Arrow Shooting

Haines is shaken by the shooting by arrows of two dogs.  One piercing was fatal.  On Friday, the Haines Police Department posted a $500 reward "for information leading to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons involved in this crime.... The size of the reward may increase if donors provide additional funds."  The arrows are in the possession of the Police Department and are on their way to State Crime Lab for analysis.

This coming Tuesday night (January 22) Assembly Member Steve Vick will ask the Assembly to guarantee that the Police Department can access any additional resources it needs to solve this crime.  I fully support that, but I seriously doubt that I will be called upon to break any sort of tie! 

My heart goes out to the victims – both canine and human – but I am also concerned for the perpetrator.  This is a terrible deed to carry and as hard as it may be, my hope is that culprit will come forward, make a clean breast of it, and begin a process of restitution – both to the victims and the to community. When an event like this takes place, we all are heart broken. We all suffer.

The Haines Animal Rescue Kennel has created a PayPal account for members of the public to donate to the reward fund. 100% of all donations to this account will go to the Police Reward Fund. (You can also mail your support to the HBPD, Box 1209, Haines AK 99827.)

There has also been an account set up at the First National Bank of Alaska for those who would like to help the dogs owners pay their veterinary bills (estimated at $2,000). The account name is The Foxy Memorial Fund. 

Joint House and Senate Transportation Committees Inquire into AK Ferry Change

Haines was able to watch the proceedings of the joint meeting of the House and Senate Transportation Committees today (Jan. 17) on the big screen at the Haines Borough Public Library.  The system was excellent.  Though we were not able to comment during this meeting, we were  able to send questions to Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins via email. The committees will meet jointly again on January 24 specifically for the purpose of taking public testimony.

I find it so ironic that this significant and serious conversation regarding the plan for improved ferry transportation is taking place on the 50th anniversary of the AMHS.  I am, nonetheless, holding stubbornly to a sense of celebration. However, I fight the feeling that AMHS is being swept aside by this turn of events.  That being said, I am very grateful to the Senators and Representatives on the Senate and House Transportation Committees who are giving so much attention to DOT/PF's proposals.  Committee members on the Senate side are Dennis Egan (Committee Chair), Fred Dyson (Vice-Chair), Hollis French, Click Bishop, and Anna Fairclough.  On the House side, Peggy Wilson (Chair), Doug Isaacson (Vice-Chair), Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Lynn Gattis, Bob Lynn, Eric Feige, and Craig Johnson.

There are many lines of inquiry that I hope the legislators will pursue. For starters, here are two that "popped" for me:

1) Commissioner Kemp, while admitting that the design for the smaller vessels is on his desk, absolutely refused to say whether or not the design included an open car deck.  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. In this case, local knowledge has got to be considered.  But if that is not credible, perhaps the Committee might consider calling in some AMHS captains to testify to the seas in the Lynn Canal.

2) The route proposed for the two shuttle ferries is Haines-Skagway for one ferry (10 miles one way) and Haines-Juneau for the other.  There are quite a few logistical problems with this plan.  For one, just how many times a day will a ferry shuttle between Haines and Skagway?  What is the need? The traffic?  Seems to me that it will run empty if it runs more than once.   Also, if it is planning on revenue from passengers only, it will compete with private ferries that do just that. Second of all, Skagway travelers, bound for Juneau will have to disembark, cars, tractor trailors, and all, line up and reload on a different vessel.  Right now it takes an hour or less for the LeConte, coming from Skagway, to load Haines passengers and head for Juneau.  Skagway would like less time in the Haines port, not more; and especially not more complicated time - as would be the case if required to disembark and reload.

Dept. Commissioner Yost made an argument that having everyone from Skagway get off the ferry would save money devoted to security.  Please ask just exactly how much it costs to provide security for any ship when stopping over in a port as compared to a ship that off-loads all passengers in a port.  You can compare the security-related costs for the IFA (Ketchikan-Hollis) to the security-related costs for the LeConte on its present run, when it stops in Haines, bound for Juneau from Skagway. The IFA seems to have the same level of security as the LeConte even though the IFA completely off loads in Hollis, and then again in Ketchikan.  I know because I recently traveled on that ferry.

Questions for Alaska DOT/PF re AK Class Ferry

The Haines Borough Assembly meets specially Tuesday, January 15, to consider questions regarding the impact of the Governor's surprise December 4 announcement of an alternate to the Alaska Class Ferry for ferry service in the Upper Lynn Canal, throughout the system, and to the system itself.

On the advice of Representative Peggy Wilson (R-Wrangell) and Chair of House Transportation, the plan is to transmit the Assembly's questions to the House and Senate Transportation Committees.  In a teleconference with Rep. Wilson December 28, we were told that the House Transportation Committee would take up the discussion on January 22; however, Representative Wilson, as reported in Alaska Legislative Digest No.2/2013, has advanced the schedule, scheduling the discussion for January 17. At that time, the House and Senate Transportation Committees will meet jointly with DOT/PF to review Gov. Sean Parnell's announcement to replace the plan to construct a single, 350-foot Alaska Class Ferry with two smaller vessels.

The Haines Borough Assembly will look at this working draft of questions, considering additions, deletions, and modifications:

DRAFT

Purpose: Prepare Questions to transmit to the Joint meeting of the House and Senate Transportation Committees January 17 to assist in examination of Governor Parnell’s proposed replacement of the Alaska Class Ferry with two smaller vessels

Service Standard in Southeast Alaska: frequency, versatility, capacity, and backup

Demonstrate how the plan to use the smaller ferries meets the need for versatility. Small boats cannot operate any where except within state waters; where can they go?  Can they deal with Clarence Strait?  The smaller boats will not qualify for SOLAS so cannot run to Prince Rupert as could the Alaska Class Ferry.  The smaller, limited vessel, limits the options.  Haven’t the Fairweather and Chenga taught us that the more specialized the vessel, the more limited its deployment opportunities?

Please explain how the plan supports the Governor’s December 4 statement: “The smaller vessels will provide much-needed backup service should other vessels experience mechanical problems, and can add flexibility to the system when special community events require greater access,” by describing the routes and naming the communities these vessels can serve directly and in a back-up capacity.

How will the new plan address the needs for service in the Lynn Canal during periods of inclement weather, especially high seas? 

How do you know that the smaller ferries will be safe, reliable, and comfortable in the proposed routes?

The Role of the Marine Transportation Advisory Board (MTAB)

Wasn’t the purpose behind the MTAB process to get the design “right”?  Wasn’t the goal of the process to match the vessel to the need?  MTAB identified the actual need and the proper solutions were articulated in the form of a concept design.  Shouldn’t the focus be on funding the right tool for the job, as opposed to changing the tool?

Is the state willing to utilize the resources (experience and knowledge) of the MTAB  to inform the planning and design of the latest idea for an Alaska Class ferry?  

How does the State’s plan for the role of MTAB align with AS 19.65.180 (C) with respect to developing a strategic plan for the Alaska Marine Highway?

The Proposed Design for the Two Smaller Ferries to Replace the Alaska Class Ferry

How will the new plan address the needs for service in the Lynn Canal during periods of inclement weather, especially high seas? 

How do you know that the smaller ferries will be safe, reliable, and comfortable in the proposed routes?

There is a renewed focus on bow doors. Please explain why bow doors haven’t been used on vessels other than the Bartlett. While bow doors are said to offer great efficiency of roll-on/roll-off operation, the need to seal things properly to provide sufficient watertight integrity may result in significant construction and operation costs. There have been a couple of serious life-taking ferry accidents in the Baltic – all related to bow door failures.

Does not the proposed design, stern/bow roll-on/roll-off (RORO) require a specialized loading dock?  If so, how many communities have the appropriate facility and what is the cost of building the required facility?  Is this cost considered when estimating the savings from the change in plan?

A partially opened car deck configuration has been referenced in earlier discussions.  Will this be safe for the proposed routes?  If it is deemed unsafe, how will the change affect the cost of construction for the two smaller ferries?

Funds/Cost:  The purpose of the new plan is to control costs. How will it achieve this? “With declining oil production and declining state revenue, we have to be smarter with the people’s money while meeting Alaskans’ marine transportation needs.” (December 4, Press Release from Governor Parnell announcing new direction.)

We understand that the Alaska Class Ferry design was 35% complete, and that thus the cost estimates were in the same preliminary state.  Will you provide us with the same estimates provided you that led to your conclusion that the AK Class Ferry would run over budget?

To what level have the smaller ferries suggested as an alternative to the Alaska Class Ferry been designed?  To what level has the cost of construction been estimated?  Will you please provide us with the design and cost estimate documents?

It is probably true of ferries as with houses:  a small percentage of the cost is accounted for by construction (capital cost); the larger percentage is operation and maintenance. Please share with us the estimates of the operation and maintenance for one large Alaska Class Ferry, that that makes one round trip but that that can handle expected loads compared to the cost of operating 3 small shuttle ferries with crews several times a day.

Are the construction costs for the new terminals needed for the stern/bow roll on-roll off (RORO) vessel part of the cost savings?   

According to Commissioner Kemp’s December 20 report, the decision to build two smaller ferries instead of the Alaska Class Ferry is based in part on a prediction in a report of “a substantial increased cost that resulted in the highest annual AMHS subsidy of any alternative UAF analyzed” (page 2, Commissioner Kemp, 12/20/12).  The report is based on AMHS data from 2006.  Why do you have such confidence in a report based on 6-year-old data, knowing that utilization (both commercial and non-commercial) has increased in the interim?

How do you read the following sections of the UAF report that connect the highest increase in subsidy to a ferry-road combination as opposed to the replacement of the Malaspina by an Alaska Class Ferry?

Under Option 1B (Malaspina is replaced by an Alaska-Class shuttle ferry):

·      AMHS’ financial performance is only slightly worse than the status quo (Option 1A) (p.189)

·      Profitability index “is statistically identical to that of the Status Quo and is to be expected.” (p.191)

The Option 4 (Multiple Alaska-Class Ferry plus Juneau Access Highway) would (p.190):

·      Result in a greater operating subsidy than all options except for the “full” Service Expansion Option 3.

·      The revenues generated by the expanded Lynn Canal service fall well short of the level expected to accrue from the proposed capital expense.

·      In this option, revenue yield actually decreases while Marine Vessel Operating costs remain unchanged.

·      The solution – change the current labor contract:

·      Option 4 “appears the least ‘unprofitable’ of the six options.”  (p. 191)  --

The report concludes: “Options 1B and, 4 illustrate that ship replacement of one or more existing vessels with Alaska-Class ships will increase the subsidy requirement, particularly in Option 4 where the fleet size increases.”  (p. 193)

The per/mile ticket prices between Haines and Skagway are the highest in the system, sometimes 200% to 300% higher per/mile than on other legs of the Marine Highway.  How will the construction of lower cost ferries affect user costs, specifically in Lynn Canal?

Reorganization of the State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Why is it necessary  to eliminate the position of Deputy Commissioner of Marine Operations?  Where will the functions of the Deputy Commissioner be handled?   Help us understand the proposed reorganization and administrative structure. 

The Alaska Marine Highway is a statewide function similar to airports and road systems. It serves communities and commerce from Bellingham, Washington to  the Aleutians.  Where does it fit in the structure? 

Process Oriented Questions:

Why did the State wait so long, at such a cost (+/- $3 million), to weigh into a process that was producing something unwanted? Is there some element in the procurement regulations that needs to be addressed to avoid wasting funds in a similar manner in the future?