Updated Research & Different Conclusion on Plattsburgh Ferry

<my apologies – I meant to post this 10 day ago but forgot to hit ‘publish’.  wynne>

Jim Dickinson has responded to Frank Abart’s 2008 report to Pete Kremen (included in full here, from a B’ham Herald blog post by John Stark). That report, after some more investigation by PW, was sent recently to Jack Louws, current County Executive.  Jim reviewed and considerably updated findings on the potential problems reported by Public Works  He concludes, based on these new findings, that the Plattsburgh ferry appears to be a functionally and fiscally option worth further consideration.

(Jim first posted this article on NextDoor Lummi Island, a site available only to Lummi Island residents and property owners. For clarity about ‘who said what’, Abart’s text is in black. Jim’s responses are blue.)

****************************************************

A lot of water has flowed through Hale’s Pass since the Public Works memo of 2008 regarding the ferry Plattsburgh. The $8M State Grant for a new ferry is gone, the Whatcom Chief is deteriorating faster than projected, the level of general knowledge about the ferry system has risen dramatically, and the local conditions are different. For brevity, the following represents the condensed version of a considerable amount of information gathered from many sources. Much more detailed explanations are available upon request.

1/ Moving the vessel to Bellingham would cost $2.8 million.

Response. I would encourage another, more current review of this estimation. Several knowledgeable parties, including the Coast Guard, believe that the easiest way of getting the Plattsburgh to Whatcom County is to drive it under its own power. Lake Champlain Transportation Company will deliver the vessel through the Champlain Canal, by temporarily removing the pilot house to go under some low bridges, then down the Hudson River to New York Harbor. (This is how the Plattsburgh arrived at Lake Champlain from the Florida boatyard that built it). From New York, a crew will pilot the boat down the eastern seaboard and then through the Panama Canal to here. Estimated costs are in the range of $205K- $100K for fuel (@ a high of $5.00/gal), $100K for crew (based on current prevailing wages), and $3500.00 for the Panama Canal Fee. Even more money might be saved by finding a “deadheading” tugboat heading east to west, especially if the schedule is flexible. In the past LCT has delivered three smaller ferries all the way from New York to Ketchikan, Alaska. Lake Champlain Transport has agreed to provide an estimate of costs and will shortly be sending us detailed quotes for the vessel delivery, including any desired modifications. They may be capable of providing Whatcom County with a turn-key boat, delivered and ready for service as the Lummi Island ferry.

2/ The Plattsburgh’s passenger cabin is on the second deck. It is very likely that the Coast Guard will require an additional deck hand on the second deck. This would bring the required number of crew to 4.

Response:  See Crew Compatibility, Below

3/ It does not appear that there are any ADA passenger accommodations on the Plattsburgh since the passenger cabin is on the second deck. The first deck appears to house the two heads and the stairwell going up to the passenger deck and wheelhouse. If we were to reconstruct the first deck to accommodate passengers, we would lose car capacity.

Response. In current configurations, the Whatcom Chief is less ADA compliant than the Plattsburgh. That said, there are options for making the Plattsburgh ADA compliant that are not overly costly. There are four rooms, other than the heads, in the on-deck house that could be reconfigured to hold a small number of passengers and therefore meet ADA requirements. There are also several other alternate ways, including expanding the on-deck house, to inexpensively meet this requirement without losing any car capacity. We have more information forthcoming on this.

3[2]) The Plattsburgh weighs approximately three times as much as the Whatcom Chief. The associated berthing energy of the Plattsburgh would likely require reconstruction of the wingwalls at both terminals.

Response: See Dock Compatibility, Below

4) The Plattsburgh is almost twice the length of the Whatcom Chief. We would have to evaluate the location of the breasting dolphins relative to the geometry of the boat. This may require additional dolphins and/or relocation of the existing dolphins

Response: See Dock Compatibility, Below

5) The Plattsburgh’s draft is 8.5 feet, compared to the Whatcom Chief’s draft (and that of the previously designed 35-car replacement ferry) of 6.0 feet. You’ll recall that draft and compatibility with our ferry slips was a major issue during design of the replacement ferry.  We would need to evaluate the effect of this on docking restrictions during certain low tides.

Response for 3[2]-4-5

Dock Compatibility

The Plattburgh probably weighs about 1.6-1.87 times the weight of the Whatcom Chief, as calculated from reference sources. Logically, since it is 1.8 times longer and similarly constructed, it could be expected to be 1.8 times heavier. In fact, a boat’s rated tonnage has no relation to actual vessel weight; it is instead a measure of hold capacity or storage volume below-decks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnage

At the rub-rails, the Plattsburgh is only 4 inches wider than the Chief; it will fit both docks perfectly. Moreover, the Lummi Island dock was reconfigured in 2010 to berth the recently designed (un-built) ferry. In 2011, the Island dock’s wing-walls were rebuilt and strengthened. The proposed ferry from a few years ago would be almost identical to the Plattsburgh in all dimensions; therefore, since 2008, the island dock has already been upgraded to accommodate a vessel of similar size to the Plattsburgh. There are no additional costs here. Furthermore, the Plattsburgh has a better power to weight ratio than the Whatcom Chief and can be brought to a stop faster.

The Plattsburgh’s actual, measured unloaded draft is 6.2 feet (in fresh water) while the Whatcom Chief’s unloaded draft (in salt water) is about 6.0 feet; the difference is insignificant. The Plattsburgh’s measured, loaded draft is 8.5 feet, with 4 fully loaded tractor-trailers and an otherwise full car deck. The Whatcom Chief’s fully loaded draft is likely similar, except a full load proportional to that of the Plattsburgh would be impossible to stage. If the Plattsburgh were loaded with 5 times as much weight as the Whatcom Chief, it would require equal draft. More realistically, the Plattsburgh will draw less water than the Whatcom Chief when loaded with the normal mix of cars and light trucks.

6) Our ferry crew is not licensed to pilot a ship larger than 100 gross tons. They would have to take the additional classes, test, etc. from the Coast Guard in order to pilot the Plattsburgh.

Response to 2 & 6:

Crew Compatibility

With a visit to a shipyard, we could get the Plattsburgh reclassified as a vessel under 100 tonness at nominal expense and it would then be compatible with the existing crew’s licenses. Again, the tonnage of a vessel is not based on size, weight, or appearance; it is a measure of a vessel’s hold capacity or internal cargo-capable volume. Tonnage of the Plattsburgh can be reduced by sub-dividing the holds and reducing the interior volume by installing lightweight steel tonnage frames in the empty spaces below. As an example, the newest boat in LCT’s fleet, the Raymond C Pecor Jr, built in 2010, is the same width as the Plattsburgh but is 35 feet longer. It is registered at 94 gross tonnes, compared to the Whatcom Chief’s 68 tonnes, even though it’s more than twice as long.

Our estimate of the total engineering and construction costs for reducing the Plattsburgh’s tonnage is less than $300K. These simple modifications would bring the Plattsburgh under 100 tonnes and into license as a “K”-class ferry. The crew would be fully qualified to operate this boat with their existing licenses. With the above tonnage reduction, the Plattsburgh, in its current passenger space configuration, can operate with a crew of three in almost all conditions. The crew member on the second deck is only required when the vessel is underway. By using currently approved legal procedures, as soon as the vessel is loaded, and before it begins to move, one of the deck crew climbs the stairs to the passenger cabin and informs the pilot that the vessel can get under way. In the event of loads over 150 passengers, regardless of vessel, a fourth crew would be required. Similar to restrictions already in place for the passenger vessel during dry dock, Whatcom County could enforce a passenger limit, thereby ensuring that a 3-person crew is always adequate.

Conclusion

Our estimates are that we could have the Plattsburgh modified, delivered, and operating for less than $3.5 million, perhaps much less. The Plattsburgh would fit the existing docks, reduce fuel consumption, not increase crew requirements, reduce maintenance expenses, and generally be an excellent replacement for the Whatcom Chief. It is also mostly depreciated and essentially a fungible good; it could conceivably serve as an interim vessel against the eventual purchase of a successor boat, should such a scenario be desired, and would likely retain most of its value. Purchasing the Plattsburgh would, of course, require appropriate planning and a procurement scenario, but otherwise the down side is hard to find.

(Thanks are due to Chandler Johnson of Lummi Island for his assistance). I am available at 360-296-3940 or BuyThePlattsburgh@gmail.com for any questions.

Respectfully,
Jim Dickinson