appendix3 vessel evaluation

wmw

Text Box

Keystone Harbor Vessel Evaluation

wmw

Text Box

Prepared for

wmw

Text Box

Washington State Ferries

wmw

Text Box

Seattle, Washington

wmw

Text Box

File No. 04062

wmw

Text Box

November 2004

wmw

Text Box

Rev. -

Washington State Ferries The Glosten Associates, Inc. Keystone Harbor Vessel Evaluation 1 of 36 File No. 04062, 8 November 2004 Rev. - H:\2004\04062\wp\Report\Keystone Harbor Vessel Eval_Report.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................5

2. THE EXISTING STEEL ELECTRIC CLASS VESSELS ..............................................................7 2.1 HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................7 2.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................7

Main Engines .........................................................................................................................................7 Main Propulsion Motors........................................................................................................................7 Main Propulsion Generators .................................................................................................................7 Auxiliary Generators .............................................................................................................................8 Propulsion Control Systems...................................................................................................................8 Shell Plating...........................................................................................................................................8 Weather Decks .......................................................................................................................................8 Vehicle Decks.........................................................................................................................................8

2.3 OPERATIONAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................9 Vehicle Lanes .........................................................................................................................................9 Side Thrust (Maneuverability) ...............................................................................................................9 Over-Height Vehicles.............................................................................................................................9 Elevator Intrudes into Vehicle Lane ......................................................................................................9

2.4 REGULATORY ISSUES .............................................................................................................................9 Stability ..................................................................................................................................................9 Life-Saving Gear..................................................................................................................................10 Evacuation Routes ...............................................................................................................................10 Structural Fire Protection....................................................................................................................10

2.5 PRESERVATION PROGRAM....................................................................................................................10 Preservation Costs ...............................................................................................................................10 Steel Electric Class Life Extension ......................................................................................................11

3. ALTERNATIVE VESSELS .............................................................................................................13 3.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................13 3.2 SERVICE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................14 3.3 COST ESTIMATE OF VARIOUS VESSEL OPTIONS ...................................................................................14

Cost Categories....................................................................................................................................15 The Existing Steel Electric Class .........................................................................................................15 New 130-Auto Class Vessel with CPP and Upper Vehicle Deck .........................................................18 New 100-Auto Class Vessel with CPP .................................................................................................20 New Steel Electric Class (“Keystone Special”) with Conventional Propulsion System ......................22 Vessels with Innovative Propulsion Systems........................................................................................24

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .....................................................................................................28 4.1 ENGINE EMISSIONS ..............................................................................................................................28 4.2 WAVE WAKE WASH EFFECTS ..............................................................................................................31 4.3 PROPELLER WASH EFFECTS .................................................................................................................31 4.4 MANAGING WASTE EFFLUENTS ...........................................................................................................31 4.5 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................32 5. USED VESSEL SURVEY.................................................................................................................33

6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................35

7. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................36


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In its analyses regarding the viability of Keystone Harbor, a key portion of the inquiry by the Washington State Legislature involves maintaining and retrofitting existing vessels so they can serve the terminal. The Glosten Associates, Inc. (Glosten) addresses this issue, along with the question of how many, if any, new vessels should be constructed and what the environmental impact is of alternative vessel selection to serve the harbor. We also briefly investigate the availability of used ferry vessels that might serve Keystone Harbor.

Assessment of the feasibility of extending the life of the Steel Electric Class vessels is based on information in the Washington State Ferries (WSF) life cycle model for vessel preservation, and a review of other studies related to the service capability of the Class. New vessel alternatives are based on the proposed New 130 Auto Class vessel acquisition program and variants of vessels having the same plan form as the existing vessels and of the new class. Construction, or major renovation cost, preservation costs over the thirty year life chosen for this study and maintenance costs form the basis of the economic analysis. We also evaluate the various alternatives with the environmental impact and the relative ability to meet current WSF service standards in mind. The number of vessels in various scenarios is based on WSF service projections.

The analysis of WSF condition reports on the Steel Electric Class (M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault, M/V Nisqually and M/V Klickitat) shows that the total cost to restore three of the four vessels in order to provide reliable service for the projected needs over the next thirty years is substantially in excess of several alternative approaches to providing vessels for the Keystone-Port Townsend run. The primary reason for reaching this conclusion is that the vessels are currently 77 years old, do not meet current USCG stability standards, are obsolete as far as WSF service standards for vehicle transport and are experiencing on-going hull and deck structure maintenance demands that will ultimately lead to large capital investment.

Some of the structural issues may be corrected with concerted effort and funding, but doing so would be a conscious effort to extend the life of the vessels, which would be a violation of USCG regulations, unless the fundamental subdivision below the main deck is changed. The vessels currently operate under an interpretation of the regulations that allows them to operate even though they do not meet today’s subdivision requirements, so long as they are maintained, without any modifications to extend their lives. (References 1 and 2) To meet current damaged stability (subdivision) requirements would entail rebuilding the vessels in their entirety and would cost much more (perhaps 50% more) than simply building modern ships of the same dimensions that meet modern USCG regulations and current WSF service standards.

We were also asked to investigate the used ferry market as part of the assignment to assess various options for maintaining ferry service at the existing Keystone Ferry terminal. To carry out this assignment we prepared an inquiry data sheet to send to


brokers and ferry operators. We received only one reply, which was from a broker, who said that they could find no suitable vessels currently on the market.

These results were not surprising since we specified that the vessels had to be capable of operating in U.S. waters, which means that they must be built in the United States, and be capable of being U.S. flagged. The operators who would most likely have vessels of interest are the Staten Island Ferries operated by the New York City Department of Transportation, the vessels operated by North Carolina Department of Transportation and those operated by the Texas Department of Transportation. None of these operators have any vessels for sale. Several old ferries are for sale, however none meet WSF requirements.

The vessel component of the Keystone Harbor Study required that we evaluate alternative vessels, considering the elements that would distinguish one vessel from another. The key considerations are:

• Draft. The current vessels have a draft of about 12’-9” whereas all the rest of the WSF fleet has about 16’ of draft. Extensive dredging is required if draft increases.

• Maneuverability. The harbor entrance has a very strong cross current and service is interrupted when the current is too high. Increased maneuverability can increase operability.

• Vehicle capacity. The traffic projections show that increased vehicle capacity is required. Number and size of vessels has an effect on auto holding areas, impacts local traffic and has environmental impacts.

• Costs, including construction, preservation, maintenance and operating.

• System-wide impacts such as commonality of service compatibility, parts and equipment commonality and training issues must be considered to reduce system wide costs.

• Environmental impact. Particular vessel emissions are affected by the choice of vessel size and type.

The alternative vessels considered are:

• New 130-Auto Ferry (currently authorized, acquisition in process);

• Sealth 100-Auto Ferry (existing);

• “Keystone Special” (same footprint as existing Steel Electric Class but with improved maneuverability );

• Special 100-Auto Ferry (highly maneuverable, shallow draft, special design to better meet Keystone Harbor environmental constraints).

The overall selection of the best alternative for Keystone Harbor depends not only on the vessel type and capacity, but also on the cost of facility modifications dredging of the harbor to accommodate larger, deeper draft vessels and the projected level of service, impact on the environment and all other issues important to the


affected public. Table 1 gives cost and subjective ranking for the vessel-only elements. The overall study uses this information along with all the other relevant factors to address the Legislature’s questions regarding Keystone Harbor.

Table 1. Alternative Vessels, Estimated Cost Over Thirty Years

Note: 1. The capital cost for the new 130-Auto Class with CPP (Option 1) is the average cost of the four

vessels authorized; 2. Operating cost is not included 3. Estimated in 2004 dollars. 4. Only two Steel Electric Class vessels are considered in the cost estimate (Option 5B). However,

a third Steel Electric Class vessel may be required to provide extra vehicle capacity during high season, and also to allow rotation for scheduled and emergency repairs of the two regular vessels. The cost to improve and maintain this third vessel will be an additional $73 million.

Cost Over Thirty Years (in millions of $)

Vessel Options No. of

Vessels Req'd

Capital (New Construction) Preservation Maintenance Total

Rank of Least Environmental

Impact (1=Best)

1 New 130-Auto Class w/ CPP and Upper Vehicle Deck; 133 cars per vessel

1 65.1 50.0 17.6 147.5 1

2 New 100-Auto Class w/ CPP (130 Class less Upper Vehicle Deck); 100 cars per vessel

2 129.0 47.5 33.9 210.4 2

3A New Steel Electric (“Keystone Special”); 68 cars per vessel

2 84.5 91.0 33.4 209.0 3

3B New Steel Electric (“Keystone Special”), with (4) Z-drives or (2) Cycloidal Propellers 68 cars per vessel

2 89.0 91.0 33.4 213.4 3

4A New 100-Auto Class with (4) Z-drives; 100 cars per vessel

2 131.3 97.0 40.3 268.5 2

4B New 100-Auto Class with (2) Cycloidal Propellers; 100 cars per vessel

2 133.5 97.0 40.3 270.7 2

5B Improve and Maintain M/V Illahee & M/V Quinault for 30-yr Service (Essentially Rebuild the Hulls & Replace the Main Machinery), 59 cars per vessel

2 145.7 109.4 33.1 288.3 4


1. Introduction

In 2002 Glosten supported CH2M Hill in the preparation of a report for WSF examining the feasibility of relocation of the Keystone Ferry Terminal (Reference 3). The question was whether service reliability and vehicle capacity on the Port Townsend Keystone run could be improved. The terminal at Keystone is currently located in a sheltered inlet, not reliably accessible by vessels larger than the Steel Electric Class and even these are limited by tide, wind and current. To allow access by larger ferries without substantial dredging and significant modification to the inlet, the terminal must be relocated.

The CH2M Hill study, to which Glosten contributed, evaluated the motions of the ferries at alternative proposed sites outside the inlet in Admiralty Bay. Glosten concluded that the highest operability, considering current, wind and wave effects, would be at the western most site outside Keystone Harbor.

WSF began an environmental review process in Fall 2003 to examine potential alternatives for improving ferry service, which included improvements to both terminals and the potential relocation of the Keystone Terminal. In response to public concern over relocation options for Keystone Terminal, the State Legislature halted work on the environmental review process in March 2004.

WSF was directed by the Legislature to do a technical analysis and report on the viability of Keystone Harbor and deliver it to the Legislative Transportation Committee. Glosten was asked to contribute information for the components of the technical analysis by examining the maintenance and retrofit of existing vessels so they can serve the terminal, how many, if any, new vessels should be constructed, and the environmental impact. We were also asked to investigate the availability of any used ferry vessels on the U.S. market that might be suitable and available for this service.

In the course of our involvement, Glosten also supported WSF’s responses to vessel-related questions raised at meetings with the Keystone Citizen Advisory Group (CAG). We solicited advice from WSF’s operating personnel with regard to operational experience to develop concept level vessel designs used for cost estimates and comparative evaluation.

Six vessel configurations were considered in this study. They are the existing Steel Electric Class, the existing 100 Class (M/V Sealth, Issaquah 130 without upper vehicle deck), the New 130-Auto Class, the New 100-Auto Class, the “Keystone Special” (Steel Electric replacement) and the “Out-of-the-Box” 100 Special (with innovative, highly maneuverable propulsion systems). These six vessel configurations were used with six different harbor options to form a matrix of 28 feasible vessel/harbor options (“scenarios”) that were presented in the CAG meetings. As a result of the public process, and consultation with WSF’s operating personnel, the number of scenarios has been reduced to nine, as shown in the cells with out an “X” in Table 2.


This report is written to provide vessel information to address the issues raised by the Legislative Transportation Committee in support of the analysis of the Harbor/Vessel options.

Table 2. All Possible Vessel/Harbor Combinations

HARBOR OPTIONS

VESSEL OPTIONS

1. Existing Conditions

2. Existing Slip with

Jetty Extension

3. Harbor Mouth

Slip East State Park

Terminal

4. In Harbor

Slip-State Park

Terminal

5. West State

Park Slip and

Terminal

6. Existing Slip with

Line Dolphins

Maintain Steel Electrics (59 cars)

SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 SE-4 SE-5 SE-6

New/ Existing Issaquah 130 Class (133 cars)

130-2 130-3 130-4 130-5 130-6

Evergreen State or Sealth (Issaquah 100 Class - 87/90 cars)

100-2 100-3 100-4 100-5 100-6

"Keystone Special" (Same Footprint as SEs with New Propulsion System 68 cars)

KS-1 KS-2 KS-3 KS-4 KS-5 KS-6

"Out-of-the-Box" - 100 Special (100 cars)

NP-1 NP-2 NP-3 NP-4 NP-5 NP-6


2. The Existing Steel Electric Class Vessels

2.1 History

The four vessels of the Steel Electric Class were constructed in the late 1920’s. They are of riveted construction with diesel electric propulsion plants. There have been two refurbishments in the 1950’s and 1980’s, including widening (sponsons) of the main deck. These four vessels carry about sixty standard WSF automobiles each, and have a 12-knot service speed. The four vessels are M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault, M/V Nisqually and M/V Klickitat. M/V Nisqually has been in lay-up and will not be discussed further, since WSF has no plans to restore it to full service status.

2.2 Current Conditions

Main Engines

The M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault and M/V Klickitat were repowered with Wartsila 824TS engines in 1986, 1987 and 1981 respectively. These engines currently have between 60,000 and 100,000 (M/V Klickitat) service hours. These engines are about twenty years old and major overhauls will be required in the near future. The Wartsila 824TS has been discontinued for ten years and parts availability will be a challenge. Replacing the existing main engines with a different make and model may be considered by the USCG as an extension of the service life of the vessels and could likely trigger mandatory compliance with all current USCG requirements or which stability is the most difficult to meet.

Main Propulsion Motors

The propulsion motors of the M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault and M/V Klickitat were renewed in 1987, 1987 and 1999 respectively. For the M/V Illahee and M/V Quinault, the main generators are unlikely to provide reliable service for the next thirty years, and replacements are very likely. Replacing the existing propulsion motors with a different make and model may be considered by the USCG an extension of the service life of the vessels and could likely trigger mandatory compliance with current stability requirements.

Main Propulsion Generators

The propulsion generators of the M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault and M/V Klickitat were renewed in 1986, 1987 and 1999 respectively. For the M/V Illahee and M/V Quinault, the main generators are unlikely to provide reliable service for the next thirty years, and replacements are very likely. Replacing the existing propulsion generators with a different make and model may be considered by the USCG an extension of the service life of the vessels and could likely trigger mandatory compliance with current stability requirements.


Auxiliary Generators

The auxiliary generators on the M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault and M/V Klickitat were renewed in 1986, 1987 and 1981 respectively. These auxiliary generators are unlikely to provide reliable service for the next thirty years and replacements are very likely.

Propulsion Control Systems

The propulsion control systems on the M/V Illahee, M/V Quinault and M/V Klickitat were replaced in 1999, 1997 and 1991 respectively. The existing propulsion control systems are likely to provide reliable service for the next thirty years.

Shell Plating

The shell plating of all four vessels suffers from corrosion in varying degrees. The affected areas include the original hulls and the sponsons. The primary cause of corrosion is the seawater accumulated in the engine room bilges and various tanks and voids. Although ultrasonic surveys are carried out routinely during dry-docking (twice every five years) to locate areas of wholesale wastage, it has been common to discover additional problem areas when the shell plating is holed by mechanical tools (such as scraping with needle guns) in areas with surface rust. Localized pitting is a common problem in many areas.

As all the original hulls are of riveted construction, replacement of the shell plating requires special plate preparation, special welding procedures and additional labor for fit up. The discovery of new problem areas usually prolongs the vessel’s dry-dock period and increases the repair cost.

Although the routine replacement of the shell plating is not extensive at each dry-docking, shell plating replacement will be an ongoing process for all of the Steel Electric Class.

Weather Decks

Corrosion on weather decks has occurred on all four vessels in varying degrees. The discovery and unplanned replacement of weather deck plating has occurred in a manner similar to shell plating replacement. The replacement of weather deck plating will be an ongoing process for all Steel Electric Class vessels.

Vehicle Decks

In general, the vehicle decks on all four vessels are not designed for the axle loads of today. The present axle load criteria for highway trucks are 20,000 lbs per single axle and 34,000 lbs. per double axle (as compared to 18,000 lbs. per single axle and 32,000 lbs. per double axle of the 1950’s.) Tripping (temporary buckling) of the vehicle deck stiffeners is a common occurrence when legal-loaded highway trucks are loaded. WSF commissioned a study to evaluate the structural capacity of the deck and potential changes to accommodate current truck loads. No significant improvements can be made without substantial cost (Reference 4).


Localized pitting is common along the traffic lane markings and where seawater tends to accumulate. In addition to the corrosion problem, the vehicle decks require additional structural reinforcement to handle the wheel loads and axle alignment of current vehicles.

2.3 Operational Issues

Vehicle Lanes

At 7’-9”, the vehicle lane width is generally too narrow to accommodate modern vehicles (by contrast, the vehicle lanes for the Jumbo Mark II Class are between 9’-4” and 10’-5” in width.) Passengers have difficulty entering and exiting vehicles parked on such narrow vehicle lanes. People with disabilities often have to remain in their vehicles for the duration of the trip, creating a potentially dangerous situation in an emergency.

Because of fixed structure and stanchions, it is not feasible to widen the vehicle lanes in most areas. Where widening is possible, it will result in a reduction of vehicle carrying capacity. The fixed structure and narrow stanchions also negatively impact the loading/offloading rate.

Side Thrust (Maneuverability)

With regard to the prevailing environmental conditions at the Keystone Harbor, the side thrust output of the Steel Electric Class is marginal for the Keystone-Port Townsend route. Because of the basic hull form of these vessels, it is not feasible to change the propulsion plant to Z-drives or cycloidal propellers, or to add tunnel-type bow thrusters near the sterns so that maneuverability is significantly improved.

Over-Height Vehicles

There is only one lane between the casings that can accommodate over-height trucks and recreational vehicles.

Elevator Intrudes into Vehicle Lane

The stairway casings on the Steel Electric Class are narrower than those on other WSF vessels. Combined with the narrow vehicle lanes, the elevator installations for ADA compliance intrude into the vehicle lanes to a much greater degree than on other classes of WSF vessels. This reduces vehicle carrying capacity, introduces a hazard for mirror strikes and slows loading and unloading of vehicles.

2.4 Regulatory Issues

Stability

None of the four vessels meet current USCG stability standards (vessel to remain afloat with some specified freeboard if any two compartments are flooded.) The USCG allows them to operate under the so-called ‘grandfather clause’ provision.


However, the USCG letter authorizing the continued operation of the vessels under the stability regulation in effect prior to 1965 states that the decision is not a waiver, “but rather an exercise of the administrative discretion entrusted to the Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection in the interpretation and application of vessel inspection regulations.” If some marine accident were to occur involving a passenger vessel, irrespective of whether a U.S.-flag vessel is involved, the USCG could rescind the operating license of any vessel not in compliance with current regulations. Furthermore this letter clearly refers to the USCG requirements (Reference 2) that prohibit life extension actions without meeting all current USCG regulations.

If any substantial work is carried out to extend the service life (such as replacing main engines or main propulsion motors, etc.) of these vessels, they must be brought up to current stability standards. Such modifications will involve very substantial structural, machinery and outfitting re-work, and will not be economical compared to constructing a new hull of the same dimensions.

Life-Saving Gear

The rescue boats and passenger assembly area are located on the Passenger Deck. While this arrangement is acceptable from a regulatory standpoint, it is far from ideal. The rescue boats and passenger assembly area should be located on the Vehicle Deck.

Evacuation Routes

The evacuation route from each end of the stairway casings to the marine escape slide (MES) crosses three vehicle lanes. This is not a desirable arrangement. For all other vessels in the fleet, the evacuation routes only cross two vehicle lanes.

The Blue Ribbon Panel on Ferry Safety (Reference 5) addressed issues such as evacuation of passengers and particularly noted Port Townsend–Keystone in that item. WSF has implemented many new procedures and complies with all USCG requirements in that regard. Nonetheless, the fact that the Steel Electric Class does not meet current USCG damaged stability standards is notable.

Structural Fire Protection

There are no substantial structural fire protection issues with the existing Steel Electric Class.

2.5 Preservation Program

Preservation Costs

WSF uses a life cycle model to identify needs for preserving vessel systems and structures (Reference 6). This model contains information about each system and structure i.e. expected life cycle, the date the item was last preserved (serviced, repaired, renewed, renovated or replaced), the date the preservation work is next due


and a standard cost to preserve the item. WSF uses this information to develop a preservation budget for each system on each vessel.

According to its function, each system on a WSF vessel is categorized as vital or non-vital (“other”). Preservation expenditures are targeted at selective systems as their expected life cycles are reached. The aggregated total of the number of systems preserved over a certain time span is represented as the Life Cycle Rating of the vessel. A 100%/80% Life Cycle Rating means 100% of the vital systems and 80% of the non-vital systems are preserved.

The Life Cycle Rating is in direct proportion to the total preservation expenditures for a particular vessel. In other words, a Life Cycle Rating of 100%/80% for vital/non-vital systems will be reflected in a higher total preservation cost for the vessel than if the same vessel is preserved at a Lift Cycle Rating of 90%/60%.

To retain the Steel Electric Class for the Keystone route, a Life Cycle Rating of 90% for vital systems and 60% for non-vital system must be maintained, since this is the legislative mandated minimum standard. The costs to attain these target Life Cycle Ratings are as follows:

Table 3. Projected Preservation Costs for Steel Electric Class Vessels, 2004-2015, in Millions of Dollars

Constrained Preservation (90% and 60% Life Cycle Rating for Vital and Non-Vital Systems Respectively)

Vessel 2004-2005

2006-2007

2008-2009

2010-2011

2012-2013

2014-2015

M/V Illahee $4.3 $3.8 $1.3 $0.6 $0.7 $1.8 M/V Klickitat $6.6 $1.4 $1.3 $3.6 $0.4 $1.8 M/V Nisqually - - - - - - M/V Quinault $7.0 $1.4 $2.1 $0.0 $0.3 $1.8

Total $17.9 $6.7 $4.6 $4.3 $1.3 $5.5 Notes:

1. The M/V Nisqually is currently laid up and no preservation is planned. 2. Cost information supplied by WSF on 10/22/2004.

The costs set forth in Table 3 simply try to maintain the vessels in operating status with minimum expenditure of funds. They do not address service improvements, potential major structural or operational impacts.

Steel Electric Class Life Extension

Based on the existing conditions of the Steel Electric Class, replacement of some major machinery during the next thirty years is very likely.

Given their design and existing conditions, the Steel Electric Class is ill-suited to handle the projected traffic flow in the next thirty years. In order to fulfill their


missions in a safe, reliable and efficient manner and to meet WSF service standards for vehicle transport, a program to extend their service life is essential. The following features should be enhanced or upgraded as part of this program:

1. Strengthen vehicle deck to match current axle load of highway vehicles.

2. Enhanced vehicle lanes to facilitate loading and passenger access. The existing dual casing should be consolidated into one structure near the centerline; the existing stanchions on the vehicle deck should be relocated or eliminated.

3. Create more vehicle lanes with over-height clearance. The passenger deck should be raised.

4. Increase maneuverability. If the existing propulsion system design is retained, the only viable option is the installation of high performance rudders.

As mentioned in previous sections, any extension of the vessels’ service lives will trigger the need to meet current USCG stability standards. Aside from the regulatory issue, bringing these vessels to current stability standards is prudent in reducing potential risks in public safety and public relations. New structural and machinery arrangements within the hulls will be required. Such an undertaking is virtually a reconstruction of the hull in a very inefficient manner, and will cost more than a brand new hull of the same dimensions.

Based on the above discussions, it is deemed uneconomical to extend the service lives of the Steel Electric Class vessels.


3. Alternative Vessels

3.1 General

The primary goal of the study was to address the issue of extending the life of the existing Steel Electric Class vessel so that reliable service can be provided for the next thirty years. We have concluded that this option is not a fiscally attractive alternative because it requires, in effect, rebuilding the vessels in their entirety.

Alternatives to the above solution are to provide new vessels of various auto capacities to serve the run. The key vessel design constraints imposed by Keystone Harbor are draft limitation, strong cross current at the entrance, occasional high winds and fog. Except for the latter, the candidate vessels can be designed to overcome the constraints so as to maximize operability at the site.

WSF is also considering substantial site and terminal facility changes so that larger existing vessels in the fleet and the New 130-Auto Ferry Design, currently in process of being acquired, can serve the site. The alternatives were discussed in public meetings with the Citizen Advisory Group, mandated by the Legislature, and questions and responses from that group guided the study.

For purposes of this study, our objective is to estimate the cost of the alternative vessels and to compare the ability of alternative solutions to operate in the existing harbor and/or to qualitatively assess the harbor and dock modifications needed. Environmental effects of each of the candidate vessels must be assessed.

Factors to Consider for Various Vessel Options:

1. Total vehicle capacity per vessel and per sailing schedule

2. Arrangement of vehicle deck

• Clearance for highway-legal and over-height trucks and recreational vehicles

• Evacuation route

• Rescue boat installation

3. Capital cost

4. Operating, preservation and maintenance costs

5. Manning requirement

6. Crew training

7. Service speed

8. Maneuvering capability

9. Commonality among fleet

10. Operating draft


11. Compatibility with the existing environment of Keystone harbor and terminal

12. Regulatory requirements (stability, structural fire protection)

13. Vessel security

The following table gives the alternative vessels, key design issues that must be addressed and commentary on vessel/issue effects.

Table 4. Key issues

3.2 Service Impacts

The WSF traffic projections formed the basis of the selection of number and size of vessels for the various alternatives of vessel/harbor facility scenarios that were investigated. We based our cost estimates on the number of vessels used in each of the scenarios, except for the existing Steel Electric Class element, we used only two vessels in the baseline, but noted the cost for three.

3.3 Cost Estimate of Various Vessel Options

The estimated cost for the various vessel options over a thirty year life cycle is shown in Table 1. All costs are estimated in 2004 dollars.

System Commonality Issues

Alternative Vessel

Configuration Vessel

Dimensions Auto

Capacity Dredging

Requirements Maneuverability

Impact on Auto-Holding

Area

Supportable by other

service area

Extra training needed

Crew Flexibility

1. New/Existing 130-Auto Class (Figure 2)

343’ x 83’-2” 133 16 ft. draft; new dredging required

Enhanced maneuverability possible – increases service

High Yes No High

2. Evergreen State or Sealth 100-Auto Class

Evergreen – 310’ x 73’; Sealth 328’ x 79’-8”

81/90 16 ft. draft; new dredging required

Conventional maneuverability – no increase in service

Medium Yes No High

3. “Keystone Special” (same plan view as Steel -Electric) (Figure 4)

256’ x 73’-9” x 17’

68 12’-9” existing dredging plan

Enhanced maneuverability possible – may in crease service

Low No Yes Low

Novel Propulsion 100-Auto

342’ x 83’-2” 100 12’-9” existing dredging plan, but widening required

Enhanced maneuverability – increases service

Medium No Yes Low


Cost Categories

Capital Costs Capital cost primarily covers the detail design and construction of new vessels. This cost includes all owner-furnished equipment, spares, project management, commissioning and other program costs associated with the new vessels.

Preservation Costs Preservation cost is based on preservation work scheduled for each vessel in the next thirty years, at a Life Cycle Rating of 90% for vital systems, and 60% for non-vital systems. The schedule and cost data are furnished by WSF. For the new vessels yet to be built, data for an existing WSF vessel with dimensions and propulsion similar to the new vessel is used as a reference.

Maintenance Costs The maintenance cost is based on distribution of the $15 million budget according to the ratio of system inventory for the reference vessels.

Operating Costs

The operating cost is based on crew size, wages, fuel cost, administrative overhead, etc. The operating cost is not included in our cost estimate.

The Existing Steel Electric Class

This scenario calls for maintaining two existing Steel Electric Class for the Keystone route for the next thirty years. As noted elsewhere in this report, these vessels must be upgraded in order to provide safe, reliable and efficient service for the next thirty years. They must also be brought up to current stability standards. Such an undertaking is virtually a reconstruction of the entire hull in a very inefficient manner, with new subdivision bulkheads and re-arrangement of all machinery. Our estimated cost for such a reconstruction effort is one-and-one-half times the cost of a new vessel of the same dimensions. It must be emphasized the end result of such a reconstruction is not necessarily superior to a new vessel.

At the end of the reconstruction, the existing Steel Electric Class vessels will have the following features:

1. Estimated vehicle capacity of sixty cars.

2. Combined the existing twin casings into one casing on the centerline.

3. One elevator for ADA access.

4. Redesign passenger deck structural support to affect wider vehicle lanes.

5. New vehicle deck designed for axle loads of modern highway vehicles.

6. Vehicle deck clearance to match the rest of WSF fleet (about 15’ 6”.)

7. New weather decks.


8. New propulsion engines, AC propulsion generators, AC propulsion motors and control system. System reliability will be improved significantly.

9. New high performance rudders. Maneuverability will be improved, but not to the extent offered by cycloidal or Z-drive propulsion systems.

10. New subdivision bulkheads in hull and new machinery arrangement.

11. All new piping systems.

The arrangement of the passenger deck spaces will not be altered significantly. If the existing diesel electric scheme is retained with the addition of high performance rudders, the maneuverability of the vessel will be increased only marginally.

It must be emphasized that extensive engineering effort will be required to support the reconstruction effort.

The existing vehicle deck arrangement and relevant data of the M/V Illahee are shown below in Figure 1.


New 130-Auto Class Vessel with CPP and Upper Vehicle Deck

The cost of the New 130-Auto Class is primarily based on lightship displacement based on a cost per ton factor from the Jumbo Mark II program. Adjustments were made to include all owner-furnished equipment and program management costs for one vessel that will serve this route. This design is fully developed and the acquisition process is underway.

The New 130-Auto Class vessel will have the following features:

1. Estimated vehicle capacity of 130 cars.

2. Dual casings.

3. Upper vehicle decks.

4. Two elevators for ADA access.


6. Vehicle lane width in line with the latest WSF standard.

7. High performance rudders. (Note that these rudders will significantly improve maneuverability as compared to conventional rudders, although at a measurable increase in fuel consumption)

8. Geared diesel engines with controllable pitch propellers (CPP).

9. Rescue boats on Vehicle Deck.

The vehicle deck arrangement and relevant data of the 130-Auto Class are shown below in Figure 2.


New 100-Auto Class Vessel with CPP

The 100-Auto Class vessels are considered identical to the New 130-Auto Class, but without the upper vehicle deck. The reduction in displacement is about 200 long tons. The cost for a total of two vessels is estimated in the same manner as the New 130-Auto Class vessel, and includes all program management costs.

The New 100-Auto Class vessel will have the following features:


2. Dual casings.

3. Two elevators for ADA access.



6. High performance rudders. (See 130 Auto comments)


8. Rescue boats on Vehicle Deck.

The vehicle deck arrangement and relevant data of the 100-Auto Class are shown in Figure 3.


New Steel Electric Class (“Keystone Special”) with Conventional Propulsion System

This class of vessels will have the same hull dimensions as the Steel Electric Class, but with a high-performance rudder package. The estimated displacement of the new vessel (1,800 long tons) is slightly greater than the existing Steel Electric Class. The cost for a total of two vessels is estimated in the same manner as the New 130-Auto Class vessel, and includes all program management costs.

The New Steel Electric Class vessels will have the following features:


2. Casing on one side of the vessel. This feature maximizes the vehicle carrying capacity.

3. One elevator for ADA access.



6. High performance rudders.


8. Rescue boats on Passenger Deck.

The vehicle deck arrangement and relevant data of the New Steel Electric Class are shown in Figure 4.


Vessels with Innovative Propulsion Systems

To increase maneuverability, it is possible to incorporate one of two types of innovative propulsion systems for the 100-Auto Class and the “Keystone Special.” Although the technologies employed are different, the two types of propulsion system offer the same level of benefit and involve similar trade-offs. The selection of one type or the other should be done only after detailed review.

Cycloidal Type Propeller A cycloidal type propeller is one type of vertical-axis propellers that can produce thrust at any direction without stopping or changing the direction of rotation of the propulsion engine. It is therefore eminently suitable for vessels that operate in crowded and restricted waters, requiring large steering thrust at low speeds. The control system for the propeller itself is straight forward and highly reliable. This type of propellers has been installed on various ships since the 1930s, and is currently installed on ferries for North Carolina, New York and Texas. Figures 5 and 6 show the cross section of a cycloidal propeller and the underwater portion of a typical installation.

To accommodate the cycloidal propellers, the hull shapes near the ends must be customized to create proper clearance for emersion. The resulting hull form typically produces higher resistance when compared to a conventional hull form, which in turn requires higher propulsive power to achieve the same service speed. This characteristic translates to a moderate increase in the costs of propulsion machinery and fuel.

If this type of propeller is selected for the 100-Auto Class or the New Steel Electric Class, the particulars and arrangement of the Vehicle Deck will be virtually identical to the version with controllable pitch propellers (CPP). The maneuverability of the vessel will be greatly enhanced.

If selected, the cycloidal propeller installations will be the first in the WSF fleet and some crew training will be required.


Figure 5. Cycloidal propeller (Voith-Schneider), cross sectional view

Figure 6. Cycloidal propeller (Voith-Schneider), external view under hull


Z-drives A mechanical azimuthing Z-drive is basically a steerable propeller mounted on a vertical strut. It can produce thrust at any direction without stopping or changing the direction of rotation of the propulsion engine. It is therefore also highly suitable for vessels that operate in crowded and restricted waters, requiring large steering thrust at low speeds. This type of propellers has been installed on various ships since the 1980s, and is currently installed on one class of ferries in British Columbia. Depending on vessel arrangement and power required, two or four Z-drives may be installed on one vessel. Figures 7 and 8 show a typical installation and a cut-away view of a Z-drive with a nozzle for increased thrust.

As speed reduction is inherent in the design of any Z-drive, the propulsion engine could be closed coupled to the Z-drive without the need for a reduction gear, thus forming a compact package. See Figure 7. The mechanical design of the Z-drive itself is rather complex, and reliability could be an issue. It is recommended that one complete Z-drive unit to be kept in WSF inventory as a spare for emergency repair. With suitable arrangement on the vehicle deck, a Z-drive could be replaced in relatively short duration and without dry-docking.

To accommodate the Z-drives, the hull shapes near the ends must be customized to create proper clearance for emersion. The resulting hull form typically produces higher resistance when compared to a conventional hull form, but less than that of a hull form designed for a cycloidal type propeller. This characteristic translates to a slight increase in the costs of propulsion machinery and fuel.

If Z-drives with closed-coupled propulsion engines are selected for the 100-Auto Class or the New Steel Electric Class, the arrangement of the Vehicle Deck may be impacted by the routing of the exhaust piping of the propulsion engines. The maneuverability of the vessel will be greatly enhanced. Also, the Z-drive installations will be the first in the WSF fleet and some crew training will be required.


Figure 7. Typical Z-drive installation with propulsion engine

Figure 8. Z-drive cut-away view (with nozzle)


4. Environmental Impacts

The study of the Keystone Ferry Terminal and the alternative vessels that might serve it includes a requirement that the “impact on the environment” be considered. This section discusses the environmental impacts of the vessels that might be considered for the run. The baseline for this assessment is the current service provided by the Steel Electric vessels M/V Quinault, M/V Klickitat, and M/V Illahee.

There are four areas of environmental concern that may differ, depending on the particular vessel that serves the run. These areas are 1) engine emissions, 2) wave wake wash effects, 3) propeller wash leading to scour and erosion, and 4) managing waste effluents. Each of these topics will be generally discussed, and then the various vessel options will be given a qualitative ranking according to environmental impact.

4.1 Engine Emissions

When the M/V Quinault, M/V Illahee and M/V Klickitat were repowered with Wartsila engines in the 1980s, there were no published standards for engine emissions. Marine diesel engines were built to respond to market conditions that reflected interest in fuel efficiency, long-term reliability and ease of maintenance. Those factors are still important today, but in addition, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), authorized by the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, has established regulations governing marine diesel combustion exhaust emissions and the associated testing and certification processes. Although there has been much voluntary compliance within the maritime industry, these regulations will be fully in force starting year 2007. Diesels certified as meeting these new USEPA regulations are now commercially available for this program.

There has also been much work done in the international community regarding diesel engine emissions, but the standards are not very high. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) in the marine pollution regulations promulgated in IMO Marpol, Annex VI, Table 1 (March 2000) gives a method for establishing the maximum emission of NOx. We applied this limit for engines used for the repower of the Issaquah Class vessels.

The USEPA’s rulemaking process has established a combustion exhaust emission baseline factor for previously non-regulated diesels with the primary objective of quantifying the environmental benefits of the new regulations. The oxides of nitrogen plus total hydrocarbons (NOx + THC) emission baseline factor that can be applied for Steel Electric Class type diesels is 12.67 g-kwhr (12.2 NOx + 0.47 HC). The NOx + THC requirement is 7.8 g-kwhr for compliant diesels. A nominal 40 percent reduction in NOx + THC emissions may be realized by using replacement ferries with upgraded diesels. The particulate matter (PM) benefit is considered negligible between the previously non-regulated and newly regulated diesels. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are expected to increase with regulated diesels. IMO MARPOL requirements are less than unregulated engines, but substantially greater than USEPA regulations allow.


Since there are no published engine exhaust emission standards for the existing engines, we are not able to perform a direct comparison of the total quantity of emissions based on published data. The engine manufacturers published some information, but there were no standardized testing requirements and we have no information for the particular engines in the Steel Electric Class ferries. An alternative approach to assessing the impact of using different vessels and different propulsion plants is to compare the amount of power that is required to propel the vessels during the run and use that as a basis of comparison, along with the nominal emission standard applicable to the particular engine. Since any vessels serving the run can meet the proposed schedule by running about 12 knots during the “full-speed” portion, we can compare the resistance curves for the various vessels and thereby deduce the quantity of emissions for various alternatives. We have estimates of the propulsion power required at 12 knots for the Steel Electric Class, the Issaquah Class and the New 130-Auto Class. We have also made an estimate of the Novel Propulsion 100-auto ferry that is being studied as an alternative to the existing vessels for this run.

Any new vessel that will be considered for the Port Townsend - Keystone run will consume only slightly more fuel than is currently being consumed on that run if the same voyage profile is maintained. This is because replacement vessels all have a longer waterline that reduces power required at a given speed. and the hull forms will be improved as regards resistance. For new vessels, the installed engines produce significantly less engine exhaust emission than the existing engines, so those vessels will have less overall emission at the same power level.. To make a comparison of different vessel types, we used the number of voyages and the vehicle capacity of each ferry to arrive at a ton of emission per vehicle carried per year as the measure of merit.

The following table shows the power levels for the various vessels and the estimated annual emissions using the U.S. EPA NOx +THC factors.


Table 5. Power Levels and Estimated Annual Emissions


4.2 Wave Wake Wash Effects

The Glosten Associates carried out a study of the New 130-Auto Ferry, comparing wake wash with that of other vessels in the WSF fleet including the Issaquah Class, the Jumbo Mk I Class, the Super-Class and the Steel Electric Class. This study was supported by Friendship Systems, GmbH, of Potsdam, Germany, who predicted the wave wake wash characteristics of the vessels using the nonlinear free surface potential flow features of the computational fluid dynamic analysis (CFD) program SHIPFLOW. The details of the analysis and the efforts of The Glosten Associates to use this information to better understand the speed limits, or lack thereof, in Rich Passage are discussed in reports being prepared for WSF.

One measure of the wake wash effects is the power consumed by the vessel in producing waves. The CFD analysis yielded the wave resistance of the various vessels. Examining the results at the service speed of the Steel Electric Class, 12 knots, one sees that the Issaquah Class and the Steel Electric Class have essentially identical wave resistance at 12 knots. The New 130-Auto Class has less wave resistance at that speed, and can go nearly 14 knots at that same level.

The general conclusion one can reach is that the effects on the environment due to wave wake wash produced by any of the ferry vessels that might replace the existing Steel Electric Class vessels are likely to be identical or positive. Furthermore, the high energy wave environment at the mouth of Keystone Harbor is probably not sensitive to the small amount of energy imparted by the ferry wave field.

4.3 Propeller Wash Effects

This item is very difficult to assess, since the energy is relatively low and just the power needed to hold the ferry into the dock. The effects might also be felt during the acceleration and deceleration through the entrance at Keystone. However, that portion of the harbor is dredged on a regular basis, so it is not clear whether any negative effects would occur.

In Port Townsend the effect of propeller wash will be identical to the current operation for a “Keystone Special,” which is essentially the same vessel but modernized. For larger vessels the effect may be greater because of greater windage areas requiring greater dock holding power. We do not believe this element will be a serious effect.

4.4 Managing Waste Effluents

The WSF fleet currently operates with zero discharge of waste effluents such as sewage, waste oils, bilge water and coolants. Sewage is carried in holding tanks and discharged to shore treatment plants. Bilge water that is contaminated with oil is likewise treated so that the effluent is ultimately processed ashore and disposal occurs in compliance with local, state and federal regulations. The current vessels, and any replacement vessel, will not carry liquid ballast that would result in


discharge. In any event, saltwater ballast would be taken from and returned to the same body of water.

4.5 Conclusion

The brief review of the effects of various vessel sizes and configurations on the environment leads us to conclude that there are no significant negative effects caused by the vessels under consideration. The following table lists the alternative vessel replacement strategies in ascending order of environmental impact based on a qualitative assessment of the four elements discussed above taking into account the number of voyages needed to meet the service requirements. In all cases the total impact is likely to be less than retaining the existing vessels.

Table 6. Environmental Impact

Ranking for Least Environmental Impact

1. New 130-Auto Ferry Class

2. New 100-Auto (New 130 without Upper Vehicle Deck)

3. New 100-Auto (New Propulsion Options)

4. New Steel Electric “Keystone Special”

5. 130-Auto (Issaquah Class)


5. Used Vessel Survey

The Glosten Associates, Inc. was asked to investigate the used ferry market as part of the assignment to assess various options for maintaining ferry service at the existing Keystone Ferry terminal. To carry out this assignment we prepared an inquiry data sheet to send to brokers and ferry operators. We received only one reply, which was from a broker, who said that they could find no suitable vessels currently on the market.

These results were not surprising, since we specified that the vessels had to be capable of operating in U.S. waters, which means that they must be built in the United States, and be capable of being U.S. flagged. The operators who would most likely have vessels of interest are the Staten Island Ferries operated by the New York City Department of Transportation, the vessels operated by North Carolina Department of Transportation and those operated by the Texas Department of Transportation.

The older Staten Island vessels (John F. Kennedy Class) carry only 40 vehicles, but can carry up to 3500 passengers, since the primary service is walk-on passenger traffic. These vessels are clearly not suitable for the Keystone-Port Townsend run, even if they were for sale.

The vessels in the North Carolina fleet might be suitable for the run, but no one from North Carolina responded to our inquiry. Their ferries are double ended; the largest is about 220 feet long and carries 50 vehicles and 400 passengers. They are shallow draft and those with Voith-Schneider propulsion should be able to serve Keystone harbor.

The Texas Department of Transportation operates five vessels that might be suitable for the Port Townsend-Keystone run, all of which carry 70 automobiles and 500 passengers. The run they serve is only 2.7 miles long, and they are open car deck with a small enclosed passenger space. Texas DOT too received our inquiry regarding the sale of used vessels and did not respond. Texas operates several vessels propelled by Voith-Schneider propellers.

An older (1950’s vintage) former Texas DOT ferry is for sale in Galveston. It was in service for Texas DOT until 1998. The open deck, double-ended vessel carries 70 autos and holds a certificate for 500 passengers. Engines are original Cooper Bessemer diesel. This vessel would likely require extensive refurbishment.

There are two smaller double-ended ferries listed for sale in Omarine classified advertisements. They are owned by Lake Champlain Transportation Company, Inc. and operate between New York and Vermont. The larger of the two is a USCG-inspected vessel, M/V Plattsburgh, which was built in 1984. It is 161 feet long on the waterline and carries a maximum of 56 cars. Its speed is modest, since it only has 725 horsepower installed.


We also contacted several ship brokers who specialize in passenger vessels. As noted earlier, one firm, Jacq. Pierot Jr. and Sons, Inc., who have provided some appraisal services for us on other ferry projects, responded that they could find no suitable vessels that meet WSF requirements.

The question was raised as to whether foreign vessels could be reflagged and thus be available for WSF service. Our understanding is that the Jones Act, which requires that vessels carrying freight or passengers in domestic service be built in the United States, can only be bypassed by act of Congress. Such has been the case in several very specific instances, but in those cases the domestic shipbuilding industry required that domestic built vessels ultimately fill the service. The recent Hawaiian situation with cruise ship reflagging involves vessels that were started in the U.S. and are involved in a unique business arrangement.

In conclusion, we find that there are no used vessels that are for sale that WSF could use to replace the existing ferries.


6. Conclusion

The existing Steel Electric Class is unsuitable for the service on the Keystone/Port Townsend route for thirty years. Any program to extend the service lives of the Steel Electric Class vessels is economically unattractive when viewed in terms of reliability, safety and standard of service as compared to any new construction.

There are no used U.S. flag, Jones Act compliant vessels on the market that can meet the needs of the run. There are some old ferries on the market, but they offer no improvement over the vessels currently serving the run.

The alternative vessels examined for the run are shown in Table 1 (see page 4). Based on estimated cost for acquisition, preservation and maintenance, the most suitable alternative is to use a new 130-Auto Class vessel since acquisition cost is reduced due to the multiple vessel acquisition program now underway. Furthermore, only one vessel is needed to meet the traffic projections for several years. Since the 130-Auto Class is part of fleet wide standardization program, back-up service can be provided by any other 130-Auto Class vessel. The 130-Auto Class solution also has the least environmental effect as measured by the emissions analysis we performed. This is principally due to the fewer voyages needed to meet traffic projections.

A special design that is shallower draft and more maneuverable than the 130 Auto class vessels is also an attractive option, however this option requires two new vessels, such that service is not lost during routine and special maintenance periods.

In conclusion, new vessels will best meet the requirement to provide safe, reliable service on the Port Townsend/Keystone run. The final selection of which vessel to choose must also consider the cost, service impacts and local environmental effects of the terminal and harbor modifications. Those issues are addressed in the broader study of which this report is part.


7. References

1. Capt. C.E. Mathieu, USCG, letter to Mr. K.W. Forslund, Art Anderson Associates, 3 January 1981.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard. Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 10-81. 5 October 1981.

3. Douglas R. Playter, P.E., “Keystone Ferry Terminal Relocation Feasibility Study” (CH2M Hill, 2003).

4. Elliot Bay Design Group, “Washington State Ferries Steel Electric Class Ferry Deck Strength Study,” prepared for Washington State Ferries, July 26, 2001.

5. George Washington University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Virginia Commonwealth University, “The Washington State Ferries Risk Assessment” (presented at the Blue Ribbon Panel on Washington State Ferry Safety, Seattle, WA., July 1, 1999).

6. Washington State Ferries Program Development and Management, “Capital Preservation Standards,” March 13, 2003.

7. Keystone Citizen Advisory Group, “Keystone-Port Townsend 2030 Vehicle Throughput Capacity.” CAG meeting, Port Townsend, WA, 13 October 2003. Handout.

appendix3 vessel evaluation

Documents