Pubic Input AMH Reshaping Work Group 10 2 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Alaska Marine Highway Reshaping Work Group Public Input 4/30/2020 When you were talking about important things to consider, I think transparency is important as well. Often when there are changes coming there is no communication. For example, the Mat has been pulled from the schedule, as a taxpayer and user it would be good to know why, and is it being taken care of. Replacing vessels, we understand that there may be federal money for building but we passed on it so we could build them in Alaska when we were building the Tazlina and Hubbard. Planning outside of the Political arena so that it doesn’t get changed every four or eight years. Listen to the Captains, mates, and engineers!! Thank you for working on this. Nancy Berg, Viking Travel Inc. 5/6/2020 Dear AMH Reshaping Group: I read the group will be leaning heavily on the Northern Economics Study, I recommend the McDowell Group study be given equal if not more attention. The ongoing pandemic will cause much of the data to be not useful during the pandemic and I expect slow growth coming out of it. I say this looking at the price of oil and the State’s reliance on it for the majority of spending revenue. Here are some points I offer for consideration: • Population data: Census data is generally not accurate; note that to date only 37% of Alaskans have filed for the 2020 Census. I was contracted in 2010 to provide local water transportation to and knowledge of housing units outside the Pelican, Alaska city limits. My paperwork is not at hand, but off hand I am counting the houses south of Pelican; I easily come up with 20. The majority of these are seasonally occupied and do not appear in the census as residents; but the owners are very likely using the AMHS to come to their seasonal homes. On the north end I can think of 7 housing units; there are probably more but since we reside on the south end I am not as familiar without my subdivision plats. This measure is important as it not only reflects upon AMHS use but also upon a community’s economy. • Economy vs. Ridership; this is kind of like what came first the “chicken or the egg”. In my opinion in the communities that are demonstrating an effort to build an economy and showing results, the presence of the AMHS is vital. It is only vital if the service is scheduled, dependable, and repeated. The service can be three times a week if that is what is needed or once a month. People that are investing their time and money into a business need to know they can get goods and people in and out. • Life after the Pandemic. Well, again in my opinion it will take a while to get ridership back up. This is the time it would be such an advantage to have the availability of one or two smaller ferries to handle the smaller markets and perhaps some of the mid-size markets as needed. I would rather see a 120’ boat with capacity of 125 persons and 20 vehicles and a crew of 12 or less leaving some people at the dock than I would a larger vessel with 24 or more crew transporting 5 to 15 passengers. This is a reality we need to consider when building the next ferry. • None of our ports should have terminal/docks that can accommodate only one type of ferry; they need to be universal. I will likely have more to say later; for now I am on a medical required trip and my time for commenting is limited. Thank you for considering this brief message. Norm Carson, President Pelican Chamber of Commerce Pelican, Alaska 1 Alaska Marine Highway Reshaping Work Group 5/7/2020 Commissioner Barrett and Committee Members: We have been traveling and I have been playing catch up on listening to the previous meeting and finding time to put my thoughts down on one communique. In addition to the email I sent yesterday please consider the following: • Someone suggested there are communities the AMHS can not afford to serve. Coming from a remote and small market community obviously that caught my attention. I strongly believe the response to that is; “How do we serve certain small market communities?” Representative Stutes hit the nail on the head, come back to the communities and ask what is the minimum level of service needed to keep our economy and/or community viable. We must find a level of service that is sustainable with the boats we have until more appropriately sized boats are available to certain routes. • The AMHS budget is glaringly large within DOT. I will point out that communities on the road system receive other State services that coastal communities do not receive but those dollars are not obvious as they are spread out among a number of other Departments, such as Public Safety and Department of Law. Having been a former State Trooper Commander I can certainly affirm that road systems require more than just a snow plow and a grader. This is not an excuse to not find a means to be more efficient with marine transportation; it is simply a reality we should be aware of. • If we are to allow our economy to grow we should be looking to deliver marine transportation in the most efficient manner possible without being reticent about there being a subsidy; we do need to keep it that subsidy at a reasonable amount. I believe the answer falls within the right equipment for the right routes, universal docks, and minimum crew quarters to allow the crew to overnight onboard at a port. Thank you, Norm Carson, President Pelican Chamber of Commerce Pelican, Alaska 5/7/2020 Dear Reshaping Group, Some quick feedback from the 4/30/20 meeting from an out-of-state visitor and user of the ferries. 1. I agree 100% that you should be speaking with employees and crews of the AMHS to get their insight and suggestions regarding ALL aspects and operations of the ferry system. They are uniquely situated to see, hear, and otherwise experience the decisions made by previous administrators and can make suggestions. My last trip was in August 2019 from Kodiak to Dutch Harbor and back and I bet Purser Maggie, Steward Kathy, and food server Sheryl of the Tustumena could give you some good insights because I talked to them a bit about the ferry system and they were reflective of the whole ferry situation. Plus, they had a lot of interactions with other passengers and could provide passenger experience observations. Obviously, there are plenty of crew to speak with but if I wanted an insight to the ferry system, I would include these three. 2. Dynamic Pricing doesn't make sense to me as it penalizes people who may find out they need to use the ferry at the last minute. However, if there was a legal way to charge a modest surcharge on the passenger fare only to out-of-state users of the ferries, I would accept that as someone who would be subject to it. Since I don't pay any of the local or sales taxes or fees throughout the year that a resident would pay (and I assume a portion goes toward the DOT and AMHS), paying a surcharge would be my contribution to operating expenses. For example, 5% on a fare of $400 would only be an extra $20, but it might help given the high number of visitors that use the ferry in the summer. 3. Lottery!! I see this as a way out-of-state people like me could support the ferries. Our lottery in Virginia has does well in supporting our education system. Please consider this option. Perhaps this could be some sort of private sector partnership, maybe with Alaska Air? I heard some good comments last week and wish you all the best as you tackle this important issue. Thank you all for the work you are doing. I look forward to listening to future meetings and eventually being on the ferries again! Stay well, Beth Lynk , Virginia Beach, VA 2 Alaska Marine Highway Reshaping Work Group 5/14/2020 Greetings Admiral Barrett and members of the Reshaping Work Group: I would encourage the working group to explore the possibility of securing federal ‘continuing appropriation’ authority in support of operations and maintenance of the Alaska Marine Highway Service (AMHS), similar to the federal interest in maintaining the dredge depths at the Port of Anchorage (Cook Inlet). See document links below. https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/500.pdf Douglas and Juneau Harbors, Alaska: House Document Numbered 286, Eighty-fourth Congress, at an estimated cost of $1,394,000; Dillingham Harbor, Alaska: House Document Numbered 390, Eighty-fourth Congress, at an estimated cost of $372,000; Naknek River, Alaska: House Document Numbered 390, Eighty-fourth Congress, at an estimated cost of $19,000; Cook Inlet, navigation improvements, Alaska: House Document Numbered 34, Eighty-fifth Congress, at an estimated cost of $5,199,200; https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/operations/RH/anchorage/2019AnchorageHarbor.pdf?ver=2020-04-23-170116-897 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Title I, Division C, 118(a) and 118(d) modified the project authorization for the Port of Anchorage in Anchorage, Alaska, directing the Secretary of the Army to construct a harbor depth to minus 45 feet mean lower low water for a length of 10,860 feet.