Letters to the Editor and Editorials
Haugen fails to address congestion
Published: Friday, March 7, 2008, Everett HeraldTim Eyman's initiative to reduce congestion, I-985, is designed to carry out recommendations by state Auditor Brian Sonntag in his audit of the state Transportation Department (a result of Eyman's I-900, requiring performance audits of all state departments.)
The Legislature has ignored the recommendations from day one. Instead, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen and other lawmakers hauled Sonntag into Haugen's office, lecturing him over the scope of his audits, although the law reads no officeholder or employee may impede or restrict the state auditor in conducting audits. A recent commentary, "Simple non-rail solutions will provide traffic relief," by former Gov. Booth Gardner emphasizes the importance of road travel over mass transit. In contrast, Haugen wrote the commentary "Key part of our past, trains, in our transportation future." She wants us out of our cars.
Eyman's I-985 will open carpool lanes, require traffic lights to be synchronized and it doe s not impose new funds or tolls, but gets the money from existing funds.
DOT states that in the last six years, there have been no centerline roads constructed in the entire state. Haugen, Senate Transportation Committee chair since the 1990s, has done nothing to correct this. Instead, she finds $5 million to build a temporary train station in Stanwood with no commuter service and only two trains per day. She locates $18 million to build a wider bridge on the Gen. Mark Clark Bridge connecting Stanwood to Camano Island, although the Corps of Engineers had declared the bridge structurally sound, but finds no money to widen the road on either end of the bridge.
Bob Williams, a past Republican candidate for governor and president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, has made numerous suggestions on finding money for solving road problems, but the Democratic legislators ingore him.
After all these years, Haugen says she is going to make congestion her No. 1 pr iority . Can we believe her?
Doug McLaughlin
Camano Island
Coast Guard makes safety, security on state ferries its No. 1 priority
Thousands of us depend on Washington State Ferries for our daily commute. We board these vessels trusting, correctly, that they will take us safely to our destination.
For the U.S. Coast Guard, maintaining this trust, and ensuring the safety and security of the state ferry system, is our No. 1 priority for the region.
Recently, high-profile incidents involving several Washington State Ferries (WSF) vessels have raised questions regarding roles of the parties involved in the management and oversight of the ferry system. I would like to clarify that the Coast Guard is the lead agency for ensuring the safety and security of the 24 million passengers that use the WSF system each year.
The Coast Guard takes a comprehensive view toward safety on WSF vessels. We conduct numerous and regular inspections on all WSF ferries in accordance with federal safety regulations and standards.
Currently in Puget Sound, this oversight is performed by five Coast Guard senior marine inspectors with more than 100 years of cumulative vessel inspection experience among them. These inspections begin during a vessel's construction, and are continued throughout the life of the vessel.
For new vessels, the Coast Guard approves plans prior to the beginning of construction and oversees the actual construction to ensure it meets all safety standards.
For existing vessels, the oversight regime includes:
Inspecting the vessels for seaworthiness on a quarterly and annual basis;
Examining the vessels' hulls while out of the water in dry dock;
Examining internal structures of the vessels;
Determining vessels' suitability for their stated operating routes;
Ensuring that the vessels carry the right amount and type of lifesaving and firefighting equipment;
Licensing the vessels' masters, mates, engineers and seamen; and,
Ensuring that crews are adequately trained for at-sea emergencies.
In addition, when there are ferry incidents, including collisions with other vessels, allusions with docks or pilings, or accidents involving injuries or property damage, the Coast Guard conducts investigations into the circumstances in an effort to determine the root cause of the incident. It then works proactively to ensure that information learned from the incident is used to help prevent further occurrences.
The Coast Guard has the statutory and regulatory flexibility to increase its monitoring regime when warranted as it relates to frequency and scope of inspections.
This was the case recently when regular inspections detected external and internal hull corrosion issues on the four 80-year-old Steel Electric ferries.
Based on the findings of these regular inspections, we increased the scope and frequency of inspections for these vessels and other vessels within the WSF fleet to minimize risk to passenger safety. These enhanced inspections included additional internal structural examinations and extensive external examinations of the hull when the vessels were in a dry dock.
We are fully aware of the impact on the ferry service caused by the Steel Electrics removal from service: accelerated dry-docking schedules for other ferries, mechanical problems, and other operational incidents, including the allusion involving the ferry Yakima.
It is important to note that Coast Guard does not suggest or determine specific types or sizes of vessels for ferry service, specific vessel-route assignments, or when a vessel is "retired" from service; these decisions are the purview of a vessel's owner or operator. We are engaged with Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond and the Washington State Ferries leadership to review WSF inspection regimes and long-term fleet maintenance.
In the coming weeks and months, the Coast Guard will be evaluating WSF repair proposals, mindful of the impacts on service as WSF works to bring additional capacity online and minimize service disruptions. As the Coast Guard official charged with these responsibilities, these issues have my fullest attention.
Capt. Steve Metruck is commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle.
EDITORIAL: Taking Bites Out of Ferry Problems
New state ferries chief David Moseley has been described as a "problem-solver" and "fixer."
He'll find ample use for those talents at Washington State Ferries. There are abundant repairs to make with the agency, the boats and relations with their riders.
Moseley says he's approaching his new job like eating an elephant, one bite at a time. His first "bite" will getting a March 20 bid for construction of a new ferry for the Port Townsend-Keystone run. It will be the first of six new ferries to be built in four years: the result of long-term problems with legislative funding, lawsuits and internal leadership that have plagued the system for years.
READ
MORE>
Gov.
takes bum advice
The Daily
Herald, 12/29/2007
Below average and average leaders in any field of endeavor, whether in business or government, concentrate on the day-to-day tyranny of the urgent, reacting to crisis after crisis, and engaging in purely tactical activities.
Above average leaders are able to visualize and foresee future problems and needs, share their vision and bring others to that same level of awareness and understanding, strategize and plan solutions in advance, and marshal forces so that the future needs are met, problems are addressed, and solutions are implemented before the visualized crises arise. READ MORE>
Poor planning results in lousy ferry service
Editorial – The Whidbey Examiner, 12/28/2007
State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond's decision to divert the
passenger ferry Snohomish from the Keystone route for use as a special shopping
ferry for Port Townsend compounds the effects of Washington State Ferries'
complete lack of planning.
For the past two weeks, while Port Townsend was enjoying its very own
private ferry link with Seattle at a cost of about $14,000 per day, people who
needed to cross Admiralty Inlet to get to or from Whidbey Island have been
stuck with small private tour boats.
READ
MORE>
Haugen shares ferry blame
Whidbey News
Times, 12/22/2007
Is Sen. Haugen rescuing the ferry system or her image?
I spoke with Sen. Haugen on Nov. 29, the day of special session in which I-747 was partially adopted in appearance, but not in substance.
I asked Haugen, “Was your radar off as chairperson of the Transportation Committee on the ferry system closures? Four boats are hard down!”
I received a finger waving in my face: This is an engineering problem. READ MORE>
Tired of
politicians abandoning ship
Letter to the
Editor – The Daily Herald, 12/20/2007
Haugen really
missed the boat
Letter to the editor – The Daily Herald,
12/18/2007
The Sunday
Herald reports, "Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, head of the
Senate Transportation Committee, has said she is angry enough over the state's
reliance on unsafe boats that she believes people should lose their jobs."
Sen. Haugen is right! She might start the ball rolling by using her own
letterhead; resign now! READ MORE>
Revisit plans for a new terminal
Letter to the editor – The Daily Herald, 11/29/2007
READ
MORE>
Where did she put the money?
Dec 05 2007
This is a letter we sent to Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen regarding the Keystone/Port Townsend ferry:
Transportation was a big winner in 2003, when we approved a $4.2 billion statewide investment package that was long overdue. "Now I will work to assure that the new revenue is used, above all, to make our state's transportation system safer for all who use it." Quoted from the 2004 government guide.
We understand there was enough money allocated to replace four of the aging ferries that have been withdrawn from service due to structure safety issues, namely the Quinault, Klickitat, Nisqually and Illahee, all of which are in the 80-year-old bracket.
My question to you, Mary Margaret Haugen, is what have you done with the money that was allocated for these four replacement vessels?
Does it take a disaster with the loss of lives before any action is taken? These are the questions that we as ferry riders are asking you.
Haugen knew but did nothing
Dec 05 2007: www.whidbeynewstimes.com
Mary Margaret Haugen is our Island County senator in Olympia, where she is chair of the Senate Transportation Committee.
She had to know the problems with the ferry system, but did nothing, and said nothing.
Voters must remember this, and also that we had a rainy day fund when this governor took the office. Where is it now when we are in crisis?
Our politicians have totally failed us in all respects on these issues. They have spent our trust funds on Seattle's Alaskan viaduct, and failed us in the ferry issues by allowing the local ship manufacturer to go into bankruptcy while the state tries to go with a no bid contract for new ferries.
I hope the voters remember these things at the polls as Mary Margaret tries to gain re-election.
Ferries show failure of state government
A blog from the Washington Policy Center's Michael Ennis has a timeline of ferry problems.
The state has kept these boats in service 20 years longer than their life expectancy. While I appreciate the effort of efficiency, it's impossible to accept the lack of funding until 16 years later. Editors at the Everett Herald say it best:
"It was the state's own mismanagement and lack of basic planning that kept these relics working past their useful lifetimes, and it is now incumbent on the state to minimize the economic damage."
But wait, the legislature allocated WSDOT enough money to replace all four vessels in 2003. Three boats were funded from the existing portion of the state's fuel tax (.23 cents) and a fourth was funded from the "Nickel" increase.
New terminal is better approach
Dec 08 2007: www.whidbeynewstimes.com
Jim Larsen's editorial assumption ("Let's build them somewhere," Nov. 28) that "Islanders' initial reaction no doubt was to criticize Paula Hammond, Washington Secretary of Transportation, for abruptly closing the Keystone to Port Townsend ferry route the Tuesday before Thanksgiving," is not 100 percent correct. Considering the evidence Ms. Hammond was given (and being on the job less than two months), she'd have been a fool not to have pulled those boats from the water when she did. So, thank you, Ms. Hammond, for making an unpopular but correct decision.
Your editorial also cited allegedly "legitimate traffic and environmental concerns" as an explanation as to why no new terminal yet exists at Keystone. Other news sources have cited upwards of six years and $5.5 million of studies were spent on plans for a new terminal. If those plans had not been opposed so vehemently at the local level, a new terminal would already be in place.
In any case, the closing of this ferry run to vehicular traffic has created a whole new set of traffic and environmental concerns, having essentially closed one of our major highways in the state where that ferry run exists. These concerns seem to outweigh, or at least are somewhat equivalent to, the local concerns raised over the ferry system's plans for a new terminal: a plan that would have avoided the current debacle from ever having occurred.
To suggest we look worldwide for a ferry builder while dismissing the option of a new terminal at Keystone and modifications to the Port Townsend terminal, seems rather myopic, at best. A new terminal would require no worldwide search, and can likely be accomplished a lot sooner than it would take to fabricate special ferries for a run that comprises less than three percent of all ferry traffic in the state system.
The roughriders: Foot ferry hits turbulence
Dec 05 2007: www.whidbeynewstimes.com
When high winds blow through Admiralty Inlet, one thing that won't be on the water is the Snohomish, the passenger-only ferry that's been sailing out of Keystone Harbor since the antiquated vehicle ferries were pulled due to safety concerns.
The Snohomish, which is a relatively light foot ferry with an aluminum hull, has difficulty navigating the route when it's windy and waves are churning. The ride is rough enough that officials find it's better to simply cancel sailings until conditions improve.
You have got to be kidding
Dec 01 2007: www.whidbeynewstimes.com
Throughout the year, I have been hearing about changing the ferry system that runs from Keystone to Port Townsend. We pay taxes for many studies to determine the best landing and/or new ferries to continue our state highway from our island to the Olympic Peninsula. It is beyond comprehension that after years of study, we face a new crisis of canceling the Keystone run due to aging ferries.
What are we paying taxes for? What would you do if the state closed I-5 due to unsafe road conditions? They would not close it, but only close one lane for repairs.
This is a needed highway and by God we would suffer dearly if the highway was closed indefinitely. Our state officials need to know that closing any highway is not acceptable, especially if it was a lack of insight. I believe there was ample time to inspect and decide which ferries are safe and inform the public of the need to build new ones.
We have been hearing too long about the lack of funding needed due to tax reform and the state has convinced us that some services will suffer due to this. Closing a highway due to safety is one thing, but I cannot believe that all four steel electric ferries are in dire straits at the same time. As is known, this class of ferries is the only one capable of maneuvering the Keystone run. One ferry at the least has to be assigned to and dedicated to this run.
To say other runs are more valuable and must continue without disruption is absurd. What politics do you want to play? We are ready if you are. Please write your congressman now.
Ferry system would lose war
Dec 01 2007: www.whidbeynewstimes.com
It is a good thing Washington State DOT was not managing Navy shipyards during WW II. I recently watched the story of the aircraft carrier Lexington. Japan thought they sunk it at least three times in less than three years. Thanks to shipyard managers who could make decisions and get things done the Lexington became known as the Gray Ghost due to shipyard restoration.
Eight years to replace four ferries, what is wrong with this picture? In the same amount of time we managed to go from a manned sub-orbital rocket flight to a landing on the moon.
Why not scrap the hulls below the waterline? Having ridden on these ferries the topside creature comforts are more than adequate for a 45 minute ride. Transplant the machinery if new equipment is not available, and get the job done. Maybe we can create some work for the laid off workers at Nichols Bros.
This old sailor saw it coming
Nov 28 2007
As a retired Navy sailor and a trained marine rigger I've been watching this story for a couple of months with some amusement. I do not mean to belittle the situation nor be an armchair commentator but this was coming right at us months ago.
I know that there is going to be economic concerns in Port Townsend and at the restaurant on the Whidbey side due to the loss of these runs and this just isn't the time of year for that, as if there is ever a time for lost income. I love those boats, but that's because I'm self-centered. Being that they are flat-bottomed boats, they can rock and roll at times, and that can remind me of the seven extended deployments I made while I was active duty without being gone for six to 10 months at a whack. It feels good to have a deck under my feet, if only for a half hour. Now back to the news.
These boats are 80 years old. Most boats and ships only last 30 to 40 years. The first one to hit the news (that caught my attention) a couple of months ago needed a stern tube fabricated and installed and the powers that be (WSDOT) thought that the other three "might" also need those tubes. Duh. Folks, 80 years, remember. We darn sure got our money's worth out of them. As a rigger, I know that you don't know what you're getting into as you start repairs on boats. Blame the physics of water and air. Regardless, they knew that they had an extremely large problem facing them. Now most voters know that government can cure anything without money, because we complain every time they ask for more. Last night I heard Ms. Paula Hammond, Secretary of Transportation, mention that to re-hull a boat would cost $40 million, and to build a new boat would cost $45 million. Now it was very late when I heard this, so there is a chance that I heard something wrong, but if I didn't what are they thinking? Let's see, after doing the math I come up with a brand new boat for $5 million more than a very old boat on a brand new hull. This is something to think about?
Other option: Maybe tear down both slips, then dredge the channels (yearly cost of dredging needs to be factored in). That does not seem very practical to me, but what do I know? Two things I do know is that Ms. Hammond waited way too long to pull these fine old boats out of service due to safety's sake (can you imagine what would have been said if one of them would have sunk?), and she should have started the paperwork to acquire money to replace at least two of them if not at the time they pulled the first boat out of service, then at least when they knew about that stern tube.
Enough said, by me anyway. Now I'm going to sit back and watch the finger pointing and the politicians do their bandwagon jumping (Sen. Haugen, I'm shaking my finger at you, where were you a couple of years ago?), and my hat's off to State Auditor Brian Sonntag for trying to do the right thing as he first learned of the problem.