With one of the all-time best article titles ever, Ilima Loomis of Maui News writes that State Senator Joe Souki has once again (for the 3rd time?) introduced the Superferry bill:
House Bill 1239 would establish a Hawaii state ferry system, along with a special fund to pay for the program, opening the door for a public or private operator to “ferry people and cargo between the islands.”
The bill stalled in the state Senate this year, but it has been carried over to the 2012 legislative session.
Senator Souki has some interesting ideas about why the Superferry went bankrupt including a questionable statement that reasons for the failure included the loss of funds when investment bank Lehman Bros. “went kaput.” Sen Souki then went on to say, “That damn Supreme Court coming up with a decision that it was special legislation. What the hell do they think? Every piece of legislation we pass is special.”
The article quoted Ed Welch, legislative director for the Passenger Vessel Association, who said that
while Hawaii Superferry was a member of his organization, he wasn’t knowledgeable enough about the company’s finances to say why it failed.
But he did say that the distance and rough water between the islands would likely be an issue for any operator.
“Most ferry operators on the Mainland are not operating on the open ocean,” he said. “That is one factor. The ‘seakeeping’ of the vessel, the comfort, the ride, is much more challenging.”
Ferries in Europe, which are built to cross rough bodies of water like the English Channel or the Baltic Sea, are “huge vessels, almost the size of cruise ships,” to better withstand the wind and waves, he noted.
Welch said there are some examples on the Mainland of ferry systems run by private operators, including the ferries that serve Catalina Island off California. But he said private ferries are “a minority.”
“If you look at other places around the country – Alaska, Washington state, North Carolina or coastal Texas – where there are substantial ferry operations, those are run by government entities,” he said.
Irene Bowie, executive director of Maui Tomorrow, said she was closely watching Souki’s proposal but that her group wasn’t against an interisland ferry system on principle.
Maui Tomorrow’s top concerns would be for any system to undergo a true environmental review, and show that it could operate successfully without harming wildlife or the environment.
“The Superferry was loaded with problems,” she said. “A different kind of ferry system is something I think everyone would consider.”
Comments(2)
Francis Phillips says:
01/02/2012 at 7:45 amWe absolutely positively have great NEED for a maritime alternative to the airlines and rental car companies. Inter-island commerce is essential to our sustainable future in Hawaii.
The term; “500 passengers and 200 motor vehicles should not be specified” really seems overambitious and imposing. I agree it should be changed, possibly based on the actual ridership numbers of Alakai.
The State of Hawaii does have a burden to support the development of a reasonably sized inter-island ferry system without being overzealous. The needs of the public support more, smaller more maneuverable and versatile systems. The super-ferry and it’s sister ship were built for the military. They just needed a place and excuse to test them in extreme conditions, like the Pailolo channel. No sane mariner would try to navigate that channel while it is ‘going off’ like they did. Unless they were deliberately testing it’s rough water capabilities and limitations. Which they did and actually damaged the Alakai.
I know people who were on it and they believe it was damaged due to sea conditions and bad judgement and seamanship. It did get bent somehow. The dry-dock story is just an insurance/cover story. (The truth is DARPA eyes only)
More practally a ferry which could dock and load at Lanai’s Kamalapao, the ‘new Ma`alea’ and multiple ports on the Big Island would be ideal. Let those dopes on Kauai fly, they deserve and desire isolation and inordinate expense. Hey it’s a democracy right? Give em~!
Lastly, there are whales all over the places where other ferries are used. Are our whales more stupid, or is it the captains? I have three boats and they all go fast. I have never even come close to hitting a whale.
They have sonar, remember? They are also quite astute at navigation. Smaller possibly slower ferries will and ARE easily avoided by whales all over the planet. Why not here in Hawaii? The was such a giant pile of Bull Shirt, as my mother in law would say.
The real damage to our planets biosphere is being done by the jets flying everywhere.
Is anyone even paying attention to that aspect? Please, people wake up and lets get some independent transport.
Multiple smaller ferries would be easier to clean and inspect, too. IE Invaders and contraband, etc. Please, make it happen Hawaiian legislators. Just ignore Kauai.
Aloha & Haolie Maka Hiki Ho~!
Kitesurfkanoe@yahoo.com.sg
Captain F
Anonymous says:
12/31/2011 at 9:30 amThis bill has the same problems as the one ruled unconstitutional. It is too narrow and applies only to one business. Here are some problems:
‑1 Definitions.
“High speed ferry vessel” means any inter-island ferry vessel capable of operating at thirty knots or more that transports, is designed to transport, or is intended to transport per voyage at least five hundred passengers, two hundred motor vehicles, and cargo between the islands of the State.
The term High Speed Ferry Vessel and the requirement of 500 passengers and 200 motor vehicles should not be specified. By requiring that narrow definition of what type of ferry shall be used (further required in the bill by one of the additional points below) the drafters are making the very same mistake that was made in Act 2 that caused it to be ruled as a special law by the Hawaii Supreme Court that could benefit only one possible company.
This is because there were less than a handful of vessels in the U.S. (built to Jones Act specs) that could satisfy this narrow definition of the type of ferries that can be used under this ferry authority. The only 2 ferries in the U.S. that met these requirements and had the design to be used in the open ocean (the Alakai and Huakai) are now or will soon be owned by the U.S. Navy. There are no other vessels currently in the U.S. that meet this and the Jones Act requirements.
More importantly, this specification dooms the ferry to be economically infeasible. Even one of the former CEO’s of Austal recommended that a smaller high speed vessel than the Alakai and Huakai would actually make more sense for the Hawaiian routes (he recommended a 60 to 70 meter vessel that can accommodate approx. 450 people and 70 cars and/or cargo). That recommendation was based on the expected fuel operating cost and expected seasonal variance in usage.
Further, it might not even be that a high speed vessel would be the best choice for these routes from a operational cost standpoint. The Legislature does not need to narrowly define this point in the law; one, because it was the key legal mistake made in Act 2; and two, because this is a detail that should be left up to the ferry authority to study and decide what parameters of an interisland ferry would be most feasible to use.
(17) Acquire by purchase, lease, or otherwise, and develop, construct, operate, own, manage, repair, reconstruct, enlarge, or otherwise effectuate, either directly or through developers, any required facilities, including terminal facilities.
(b) At minimum, the authority shall operate one high speed ferry vessel and other small vessels,
This is a continuation of the above point. This provision of the bill actually requires that at least 1 of the ferry vessels must be a high speed vessel as defined by the oversize definition enumerated above. This unnecessary limit, need not be required in the text of the bill, and should be left up to the practical determination of the ferry authority after some study and deliberation. Again a large vessel and also a high speed ferry vessel (HSV) might not be the optimal choice for Hawaiian interisland service, all things considered. That should be left to the ferry authority to determine.
§ ‑4 Initial operations. (a) The authority, as soon as practicable, shall engage in communications with the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Maritime Administration relating to federal funding assistance and the possible purchase or lease of the former high speed ferry vessel that operated in waters of the State or other available suitable vessels to commence its operations.
The above section should be deleted from the bill. The “former high speed ferry vessels” are or will soon be no longer owned by USDOT/MARAD. They are moving to U.S. Navy ownership. The above section of the bill is outdated.
§ ‑6 Common carrier. The authority shall have all the rights, obligations, and duties of a common carrier of persons and property in its ferry system operations, including the right to a certificate of public convenience and necessity;
The above section needs to be amended to read, “…including the right to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity…” The right to a CPCN should continue to be determined by the PUC, as the part of a normal filing process, and should not be unilaterally granted by the Legislature which has not reviewed the realistic details of any prospective ferry service. This is important especially if the State funds the ferry so that it doesn’t become a money loser and drain on the State.