Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4 [Archive]

pzarquon

January 19th, 2007, 02:46 PM

I think those are the same stock photos from before.Right. As I noted, I was pointing them out for those who hadn't yet seen them. I'm mostly curious about the external look and livery... mentioned in the news briefs but not accompanied by photos!
That's cuz you forget, you can do #1 over the side of the ship anytime.Wait, was that in the EIS? :p

Actually, I wonder what adjustments have been made to the overall business model... since the Superferry was announced before the current interisland airfare wars. The prices they posted to transport a family of four and a minivan seemed downright reasonable against a $180 one-way ticket on Aloha Airlines in 2004. But how about against $39, or $29, or $19 fares?

True, those money-losing fares are not sustainable, but it's clear it'll be a while before airline tickets go back to where they were when the Superferry was conceived. Will the Superferry feel compelled to "price match" somehow when another volley is fired by go! or another carrier?

Leo Lakio

January 19th, 2007, 02:54 PM

That's cuz you forget, you can do #1 over the side of the ship anytime. :pWait, was that in the EIS? :pNo; 'twas in the Preliminary Impact Statement - Supplemental.

*ahem*

Waiting for it...

LikaNui

January 19th, 2007, 03:06 PM

Wait, was that in the EIS? :p No. But that's probably why they want an EIS! :p
And to joshutree... yes, one of the genders can easily go over the side, but.

pzarquon

January 19th, 2007, 03:36 PM

joshuatree

January 19th, 2007, 03:53 PM

Getting back to the topic... any thoughts at all on how the Superferry will fare against $19-$39 airfares? Is the market they serve materially different from folks who want or need to fly?

Apart from the novelty angle, would you pay $460 to take a family of five and a minivan on a five hour ferry ride to the Big Island ($70/person one way presumably from Oahu during "peak" season plus $110 for the vehicle) when you can fly everyone there in a fraction of the time and rent a van (for a day) for less?

If and when Aloha collapses and airfares go back up to $79-$149, the Superferry rates will look very attractive. And for people who plan long stays on a neighbor island and want to save on renting a car, it'll look good the day it starts running. But for quick day trips in the land of go!, I wonder...

I think apart from the novelty, it will capture a different market. Definitely those with a fear of flying. And those who prefer to bring their own car. Let's also look at the bargain hunters, offpeak to Big Island with advance purchase. So $52/person one way and $100 for the van. So about $360 for family of 5. Ultimately, I think the ferry will capture people who intend to stay on another island for a few days and need a vehicle. Then it makes economic sense to take the boat vs plane. Last, it boils down to how much luggage are you bringing. If you're factoring in ton-O-gifts for relatives, you got to compare that to luggage limits on airlines.

Also, since price of oil has dropped lately, it's possible SF may readjust fares accordingly.

Bard

January 20th, 2007, 07:35 AM

Pax pay separate from the vehicle but there is no restriction on how much you want to pack your vehicle with luggage. So offhand, pax fares are more expensive than the current airfares. But if you factor in needing to rent a car and if you got ton-O-luggage, it would work out to be the better deal.

Yeah, that makes sense. It'd probably be most economical for people with a lot of stuff or who want to stay for a while with a car. Those rental car charges add up pretty quick...

Now then... when do they start service to CA so people can take road trips to Hawai`i? :eek: :D

oceanpacific

January 20th, 2007, 08:58 AM

Yeah, that makes sense. It'd probably be most economical for people with a lot of stuff or who want to stay for a while with a car. Those rental car charges add up pretty quick...

Now then... when do they start service to CA so people can take road trips to Hawai`i? :eek: :D

Not to mention the COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER (CDW) insurance premium the car rental companies try to stick you with. That's an insurance RIP-OFF at $10/day! Think about it, that's a rate of $3650 per year!

The rental companies either self-insure or have their collision/comp coverage with a $3000 deductible. So, they scare renters with the spectre of a $3000 bill should the renters get into an accident, regardless of fault.

First of all, "fault" does matter in regard to property damage claims. Second, a driver with collision/comp coverage on his own vehicles will find that coverage "extends" to any accidents he may have with rental vehicles up to the limits of that coverage. If his deductible is $500, that's what he will be responsible for, NOT $3000. Third, if you use a major credit card (e.g. VISA, Master Card) that is a GOLD card level or higher, the CDW is covered by the credit card.

I'm a likely user of Super Ferry for a week-long visit to the Big Island. I'm waiting for the opportunity drive my own car on the open roads in a level of comfort I won't find in a U-drive.

Composite 2992

January 20th, 2007, 10:04 AM

The nice part about the Superferry is the ability to load all your stuff once when leaving home. Then unloading it when you get to your hotel.

You don't have to go through all the hassle of making sure things weigh less than 50 pounds, have TSA rummage through your luggage unsupervised or risk having things stolen from your car when shipping via barge.

And now someone on Craigslist in Kauai can conveniently buy a used car from someone in Oahu.

Bard

January 20th, 2007, 03:36 PM

Third, if you use a major credit card (e.g. VISA, Master Card) that is a GOLD card level or higher, the CDW is covered by the credit card.

Huh, I didn't know that... thanks for the info :) I'll have to check into it before I go next month. I wasn't planning to do the CDW anyway just 'cause my current insurance already handles it, but it'd be nice to be responsible for zero instead of my regular deductible (not to mention potential rate hikes if anything happens).

GeckoGeek

January 20th, 2007, 11:08 PM

Huh, I didn't know that... thanks for the info :) I'll have to check into it before I go next month.

When you check into it, find out how it works. It might be that in the end they will pay up, but in the meantime, you might have to pay the rental company up front. Never checked into it myself, but seems like I've heard a horror story or two along that line.

Miulang

January 22nd, 2007, 05:03 PM

Hopefully the new Hawai'i Superferry won't suffer the same fate as the Spirit of Ontario I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Ontario_I), which was the Austal-built ferry that local residents saw about 3 years ago on its way to delivery in Canada. The company that originally bought the vessel declared bankruptcy, sold the boat to the city of Rochester, and now, the boat is up for sale again. :(

Miulang

koloagirl

January 26th, 2007, 02:57 PM

:)

Common bumper-sticker here on Kaua'i -----

"SINK DA SUPER FERRY!"

I'm with them! They never did an environmental assessment on this project, consequently they are doing only the bare minimum to avoid collisions with marine wildlife (we'll have a watch onboard to look for whales!!)....same with trying to keep "invasive species" away from areas not infected (well, we'll look at the cars, and if they are dirty, we won't let them on!).....not to mention the ease at which drugs, etc. will be able to be transported inter-island....their security seems very lax at the best.....there has been pretty spirited debate about this in our "Garden Island" newspaper since it was first announced. The huge full-page ads that the Ferry people have placed are pretty tacky also.

I too initially thought this was a great idea, but like a great number of Kaua'i folks, have revised my opinion after reading more about this. I don't want more drug problems on Kaua'i, nor pests from other islands (human and otherwise) infecting the 'aina here....and what with the fare wares lately with "Go" airline....the prices aren't even that great. Let alone the time factor with travel.

I don't think anything will stop it at this point in time unfortunately, but I certainly hope that things turn out better than people have predicted. Hawai'i doesn't need another problem imported from the Mainland.

:D :cool:

joshuatree

January 26th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Hopefully the new Hawai'i Superferry won't suffer the same fate as the Spirit of Ontario I, which was the Austal-built ferry that local residents saw about 3 years ago on its way to delivery in Canada. The company that originally bought the vessel declared bankruptcy, sold the boat to the city of Rochester, and now, the boat is up for sale again. :(

Miulang

Spirit of Ontario screwed themselves up in many ways so SF will not be in the same predicament.

1) They opted for these special engines that would do very well on the lakes but they forgot they had to navigate the boat across the Pacific from Australia. End result - they prematurely burnt out their engines.

2) They tried to be cheap by flagging the boat Panamanian I think. End result - US gave them low priority treatment for any needs. Canada did the same thing to them. So they screwed themselves by winning no allies.

:)

Common bumper-sticker here on Kaua'i -----

"SINK DA SUPER FERRY!"

I'm with them! They never did an environmental assessment on this project, consequently they are doing only the bare minimum to avoid collisions with marine wildlife (we'll have a watch onboard to look for whales!!)....same with trying to keep "invasive species" away from areas not infected (well, we'll look at the cars, and if they are dirty, we won't let them on!).....not to mention the ease at which drugs, etc. will be able to be transported inter-island....their security seems very lax at the best.....there has been pretty spirited debate about this in our "Garden Island" newspaper since it was first announced. The huge full-page ads that the Ferry people have placed are pretty tacky also.

I too initially thought this was a great idea, but like a great number of Kaua'i folks, have revised my opinion after reading more about this. I don't want more drug problems on Kaua'i, nor pests from other islands (human and otherwise) infecting the 'aina here....and what with the fare wares lately with "Go" airline....the prices aren't even that great. Let alone the time factor with travel.

I don't think anything will stop it at this point in time unfortunately, but I certainly hope that things turn out better than people have predicted. Hawai'i doesn't need another problem imported from the Mainland.

I think there's a lot of "sky is falling" mentality in your arguments. So, just how will you look out for marine life with no one on watch? I guess maybe sonar to drive them away? As for "invasive species", again, what else do you want? A chemical spray down of the car? If so, how come you don't require it from Young Brothers when a car is shipped via barge? Drugs? Same thing, what about the barges?

Another problem imported from the Mainland? What mainland? The boats are interisland. Or are you just trying to say, keep the rest of Hawaii out of Kauai? So much for Aina. :rolleyes:

LikaNui

January 26th, 2007, 05:23 PM

I think there's a lot of "sky is falling" mentality in your arguments. I agree. Koloagirl's comments are way too simplistic and ignore an awful lot of FACTS. I recommend that she first read back through various Superferry threads here, and do a lot more homework on the issues involved.
For instance, I've personally seen the massive amount of whale-avoidance research and planning they've done. Far more than anything required by any federal or state environmental and wildlife agencies. And that massive research was done extremely early in the initial conceptualization stages.
And the founder of the SuperFerry is a long-term and extremely active environmentalist himself.
Please do some research, Koloagirl. And ask yourself who is behind the anti-ferry group(s), and what they gain financially if the ferry doesn't happen.

koloagirl

January 27th, 2007, 01:16 PM

joshuatree

January 27th, 2007, 02:33 PM

Whoo -- plenty of huhu after my poor little post! :eek:

Sorry that I offended you with my "simplistic" comments -- which were only offered after reading our local paper every morning and which has had much back and forth about this subject by other simpletons like me. Also local news reports, etc. I guess that doesn't count as all of us regular folks are also "simplistic" and uninformed. All of those environmental groups that seem so concerned about the Super Ferry must be pretty embarrassed to be caught out so uninformed as well. :D

I am no scientist or environmentalist and haven't done months of research....unlike you apprently -- I am just a resident who is concerned about the subjects that have been raised by many other people on this island.

And yes, I am always skeptical of huge, multi-million dollar projects brought here from the Mainland. I've no idea why :p

I'm not offended by your comments or opposition. But I just want to know what details do you have instead of just blanket statements? I'm no scientist or environmentalist either but I did read enough of both sides to draw my conclusions. A lot of arguments made against the SF are not applied to Young Brothers. I have to ask why? Since you are skeptical, why aren't you skeptical that those who want to shut down SF may be special interests themselves? Of course they will find a banner to rally behind, in this case, environmental concerns. But I find hypocrisy when they don't apply the same pressure to YB barges or to the cruise ships that now make almost a daily port call.

I see SF having the potential to lower the cost of living within the state and that's a good enough reason for me to support it. SF, from what I can see, has made efforts to minimize their environmental footprint. I'm sure it won't please everyone no matter how much they do.

koloagirl

January 27th, 2007, 03:00 PM

I am aware that some of the people who oppose the Super Ferry might be special interest folks -- but I can't ignore some of the arguments that I've read about and ultimately I trust environmentalists more than big business.
I feel there are many valid points taken that this will negatively impact the Hawaiian Islands, most specifically the environment.

While I can't be more specific and quote any of their articles (as I stated I am not obsessed with this, just reading in the paper, etc. and making my own opinion) I know that the 2 biggest things that people felt were being soft-pedaled were the concerns about collisions with marine wildlife and invasive species being introduced to areas not already infected.

What I read led me to think that the Super Ferry did not want and did not request an Environmental Impact Assessment. While I know that this is costly, I do not think that a huge project such as this that will ultimately impact the Hawaiian islands and its environment should shy away from something that would give a clearer picture to everyone on just how their project will affect the islands and its population, both human and animal.

As I said before, when this project was first introduced I thought it would be great for all of us also. Then over the course of the next year, after reading articles, editorials, etc. in the paper and the news......I have changed my mind. This is my perogative.

I hope that I am wrong since this is obviously happening whether I like it or not. Only time will tell -- let's hope that this forum a year from now doesn't have further postings discussing the latest whale fatality, etc. I remain highly skeptical.

Composite 2992

January 28th, 2007, 12:03 AM

Container loads of goods, as well as heavy equipment, cars, stacks of lumber and tons upon tons of materials get moved via barge to both Kauai and Maui -- and all the islands every day.

The amount of people, luggage and vehicles moved via the Superferry is dwarfed by all the other modes of transportation.

Does anyone inspect boots with lug soles to see if they're free of dirt and debris when people step off the plane? Those Vibram soles can contain a lot of unwanted seeds from invasive species. As silly as it sounds, if you go to New Zealand they'll ask to inspect your boots. I'd bet good money that no one is at the airpot in Kauai checking to see if people have clean shoes!

And is anyone inspecting the pallets of goods coming via barge to make sure nothing unwanted hides among the stacks of 2x4's, plywood and cement bags?

Again, the Superferry's contribution to this risk is small.

As for collisions with whales, what is anyone doing to make sure the Navy's own fast ships, as well as all the privately owned boats and vessels, aren't going to collide with marine mammals? Why just single out the Superferry which will make a single run to each island per day when all these other vessels can operate without the same concerns?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. But if the Superferry has to operate with a high level of care, then so should everyone else.

Miulang

January 28th, 2007, 09:07 AM

joshuatree

January 28th, 2007, 09:29 AM

The main thing I would worry about is if it also carried military equipment between Honolulu and the Big Island on some runs and whether or not that military equipment is carrying traces of depleted uranium from exploded armament (the same stuff that some Iraqi vets from Gulf War I are claiming is making them sick and causing birth defects among Iraqi babies). And it's not dirt from peoples' shoes that are the worry; it's the dirt and mud that will be driven aboard the boats on the tires of cars and trucks that could be the issue (I suppose that could be remedied if all trucks and cars had to drive through troughs filled with some sort of chemical disinfectant prior to boarding).

More critical, however, is the fact that all of the neighbor island harbors where Superferry is supposed to dock are way overcrowded already, and the road infrastructure is woefully inadequate around the harbor areas. The EIS's that are being requested are not just for Superferry but for evaluating the overcrowding situation at Naalehu, Kahului and Kawaihae and the requirements for all the ports for all types of use through 2030.

Miulang

Some ideas regarding transporting of military equipment.

1) Perhaps basically ban SF from serving military contracts though I find this hard and unfair considering HA/AQ do it all the time.

2) Assuming no DU rounds are used for training, establish independent team with Geiger counters to inspect cargo each time before it gets loaded. Surely, there must be a radioactive threshold considered safe to the populace? Let's not kid ourselves, radioactive material is shipped around the world every day in the form of medical uses, etc, via everyday carriers like UPS & FedEx. How do you know that box of cookies from mom wasn't sitting next to a shipment of Polonium in a Fedex truck? :D

Regarding invasive species, I am all for prevention of invasive species but we really need to make the standards uniform. Why does a car need a chemical spray down on SF when nothing is required on a barge? I believe every flight to Australia gets a chemical spray down to prevent invasive species. Check out the youtube clip, they don't care if there's a pax sitting there, they just spray. So if Hawaii introduces a uniform code that applies to all airlines and ships, then I'm all for it. But if you're selectively picking on SF, I have to say there are ulterior motives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXrTi81FP5E

I have no probs with EIS for harbor masterplans but people need to realize SF applied under current State regulations that did not require an EIS so people should direct the anger at the State, not a company that's trying to start up another link between the islands.

Miulang

January 28th, 2007, 09:45 AM

Some ideas regarding transporting of military equipment.

1) Perhaps basically ban SF from serving military contracts though I find this hard and unfair considering HA/AQ do it all the time.

2) Assuming no DU rounds are used for training, establish independent team with Geiger counters to inspect cargo each time before it gets loaded. Surely, there must be a radioactive threshold considered safe to the populace? Let's not kid ourselves, radioactive material is shipped around the world every day in the form of medical uses, etc, via everyday carriers like UPS & FedEx. How do you know that box of cookies from mom wasn't sitting next to a shipment of Polonium in a Fedex truck? :D

Unfortunately, it appears that DU-armed armament has been tested at Schofield Barracks (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROK20061106&articleId=3748).:mad:
The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including Vieques; Puerto Rico; Colonie, New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana; and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay.

Some scientists believe there is no "safe" level of radioactivity for humans, and uranium is one of the deadliest forms of radioactive elements.

Miulang

LikaNui

January 28th, 2007, 10:03 AM

The main thing I would worry about is if it also carried military equipment (...) Well, that's a big "if". We don't know that they're going to do that, and "if" they did, wouldn't they be subject to extremely stringent controls? I mean, a non-military company carrying military material... gotta be regulations and oversights already in place, yeah?

And it's not dirt from peoples' shoes that are the worry; Yes, actually that is a worry. Ever notice how many of Hawaii's hiking trails have step-through brushes installed at the trail heads and large signs begging people to clean their boot soles so as not to introduce invasive species? So yes, shoes are a worry.
But again, why not make all interisland carriers, of any transportation mode, do the same thing? Why just the SuperFerry? Can we spell "discrimination', boys and girls? Yes, I knew you could.

it's the dirt and mud that will be driven aboard the boats on the tires of cars and trucks that could be the issue And again, why not the tires of vehicles on the barges??? Why just the SuperFerry?
Oh. Right. Because the barge companies don't want the competition so they're behind the "sky is falling" pseudo-panic. $hee$h.

WindwardOahuRN

January 28th, 2007, 03:06 PM

"The sky is falling!"----Chicken Little :p

The Superferry consists of ONE SHIP. Eventually....TWO SHIPS.

Gimme a damn break already. Do you have any clue as to how many ships arrive on a daily basis from Asia and the Mainland? Inter-island? Leisure cruises?

Can you say "airlines fearing competition manipulating eco-freako groups?"

joshuatree

January 29th, 2007, 10:23 AM

Looks like there are some new exterior pics of the first ship. And guess the mascot is a stingray.

http://hawaiisuperferry.com/story56.aspx

koloagirl

February 1st, 2007, 06:57 PM

Oh goody -- does that mean that is the first marine creature they intend to
ram? (:p )

LikaNui

February 1st, 2007, 08:16 PM

Oh goody -- does that mean that is the first marine creature they intend to ram? (:p )
Gee, funny how you ignore the recent news reports about the tour company boats and private boats hitting whales this year, as reported on the front page of yesterday's Honolulu Advertiser at this link (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/31/ln/FP701310401.html). Why don't you expend some energy complaining about them instead of the nonexistent SuperFerry?
:mad:

i-hungry

February 2nd, 2007, 12:29 PM

Maybe because tourism is the #1 industry?

Miulang

February 2nd, 2007, 01:40 PM

If it comes down to choosing between more cruise ships and Superferry for taking space on the crowded piers at Naalehu, Kawaihae and Kahului, I would choose Superferry because it will serve local residents. Don't need any more cruise ships cluttering the harbors!:mad: Top priority, though, should be space for barges and shipment of needed goods and supplies.

Miulang

joshuatree

February 2nd, 2007, 01:53 PM

LocoBoy

February 2nd, 2007, 03:50 PM

Super Barge, nice, lol.

I'm taking a weeks vacation and ferrying my ohana + car to Maui in July :).

LikaNui

February 2nd, 2007, 08:05 PM

koloagirl

February 6th, 2007, 05:26 PM

Since everyone thinks that the Super Ferry is such a great and wonderful improvement for our islands -- I sincerely hope this will be true. :)

I'll continue to harbor my own doubts and hope that they are proved wrong a year from now.

I'm outta here -- too much aggression! :o

Miulang

February 7th, 2007, 02:06 PM

Well, it looks like the Neighbor Island legislators are keeping true to their word and are pushing through HB 702, which would require an EIS for Superferry (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27481).

But the chairwoman of that panel, Kauai Rep. Hermina “Mina” Morita, said the legislative attempt to require a complete environmental study of the Superferry’s impacts has just begun.

Based on discussion by committee members and the panel’s vote, she said, “We’ve got a long, tough road to go down.”

House Bill 702 passed with six ayes and two nays, but three of the aye votes came with reservations. Voting in favor of the bill without reservation were Morita, East Maui-Molokai-Lanai Rep. Mele Carroll (who introduced the House bill) and Oahu Rep. Scott Saiki. Those voting in favor but with reservations were Oahu lawmakers Pono Chong and Michael Magaoay and Roland Sagum of Kauai. Voting against the measure were Reps. Ken Ito and Cynthia Thielen, both of Oahu.

Acknowledging that some of her colleagues are “unsure” about the measure, Carroll said the bill passed with an amendment proposed by Morita that would allow the Transportation Department to assess the Hawaii Superferry for the costs of a complete environmental impact statement.

...Transportation officials opposed the bill as being “unnecessary” and possibly “legally flawed.” They maintained it “will adversely affect and impact the activities associated with improving and expanding our state commercial harbors.”

“The proposed legislation is based on an incorrect assumption that the state Harbors Division undertakes commercial harbor improvements without observing or complying with the state’s environmental review process,” the department’s testimony states.

Although Kahului Harbor modifications are required to allocate space to a Superferry dock, the department testimony said the actual work will accommodate Young Brothers’ needs.

“The majority of improvements being undertaken at Kahului Harbor are intended to improve operating conditions for the Young Brothers interisland barge service,” it said.

...The House bill is a companion measure to one drafted and introduced in the Senate by Central Maui Sen. Shan Tsutsui. Maui Sens. J. Kalani English and Roz Baker also signed on as co-sponsors of Senate Bill 1276, which is scheduled for a public hearing this afternoon before the Senate Transportation and International Affairs Committee (chaired by English) and the Energy and Environment Committee (chaired by Oahu Sen. Ron Menor).

So the big question is would the time required to decide whether an EIS is needed delay the inauguration of service to Maui scheduled for July, and if it does, will Garibaldi et al pull the plug on the operation? (My guess is no, because they already have too much money invested in the project).

Miulang

WindwardOahuRN

February 7th, 2007, 03:00 PM

Well, it looks like the Neighbor Island legislators are keeping true to their word and are pushing through HB 702, which would require an EIS for Superferry (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27481).

So the big question is would the time required to decide whether an EIS is needed delay the inauguration of service to Maui scheduled for July, and if it does, will Garibaldi et al pull the plug on the operation? (My guess is no, because they already have too much money invested in the project).

Miulang

Just tossing this in, with no knowledge of such things but---I'm wondering if the Superferry operators would have any legal grounds to recover damages if they are squashed so late in the game?

After all, at this point they would certainly believe that the ferry is a done deal. It's been years from package to plate, after all.

Miulang

February 7th, 2007, 03:09 PM

Just tossing this in, with no knowledge of such things but---I'm wondering if the Superferry operators would have any legal grounds to recover damages if they are squashed so late in the game?

After all, at this point they would certainly believe that the ferry is a done deal. It's been years from package to plate, after all.
Well. according to the contract they signed with the State, they get something like $20k a day (Or maybe it was per month...anyway, there's a liquidated damages clause in the contract) for delays in starting service. I'd like to know WHO in the State negotiated that contract. Was it now-deposed DOT director Rod Haraga?

Miulang

LikaNui

February 7th, 2007, 03:10 PM

I'm wondering if the Superferry operators would have any legal grounds to recover damages if they are squashed so late in the game? Oh, heck YES, you're right -- they'll be suing 'til the proverbial cows come home! They've got tens and tens of millions already invested, the ship has already been launched and is about to begin its voyage here, staff has been hired, tons and tons of money have been spent in facilities, crew and staff training, expenses of hiring and advertising, and God knows what all else... and at the very last second a couple of legislative idiots want to change the rules and stop everything?!?! Hell yes, the SuperFerry will sue. And the state will end up paying a bloody fortune. That $75 million from the Ko Olina Aquarium that was kicked back to the state? Ka-CHING it goes to the SuperFerry lawsuit.
And even that quote from Miulang's article today said "The majority of improvements being undertaken at Kahului Harbor are intended to improve operating conditions for the Young Brothers interisland barge service”, but no, all the whiners wat to do is blame it on the SuperFerry.
This is all going from dumb to dumber. WAY dumber.

LikaNui

February 7th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Miulang, $20,000 per day wouldn't even come close to how much they'll be losing every day they're delayed, as I'm sure you're aware.

Miulang

February 7th, 2007, 03:25 PM

That $75 million from the Ko Olina Aquarium that was kicked back to the state? Ka-CHING it goes to the SuperFerry lawsuit..
They're gonna have to fight for that $75 million tax credit with the folks who want to now put an aquarium in Kaka'ako.:D

Miulang

LikaNui

February 7th, 2007, 04:55 PM

They're gonna have to fight for that $75 million tax credit with the folks who want to now put an aquarium in Kaka'ako.:D Yeah, I know. You're right. But who the heck thinks we need another aquarium in Kaka'ako? Fix and improve the one we already have, I say. But we should probabloy start another thread for that topic.

oceanpacific

February 7th, 2007, 05:47 PM

At the close of the news story on TV last night, it was mentioned that this latest move is expected to get bottled up in committee and die there.

LikaNui

February 7th, 2007, 06:40 PM

At the close of the news story on TV last night, it was mentioned that this latest move is expected to get bottled up in committee and die there. As well it should. And once again, our elected officials waste valuable time on a bill that never should have been introduced in the first place. Lack of forethought. Like the bill to purchase a private jet for the state, and Hanabusa can't even remember who first suggested it, yet she authored the bill.
Who elects these airheads?!?

Miulang

February 7th, 2007, 07:24 PM

As well it should. And once again, our elected officials waste valuable time on a bill that never should have been introduced in the first place. Lack of forethought. Like the bill to purchase a private jet for the state, and Hanabusa can't even remember who first suggested it, yet she authored the bill.
Who elects these airheads?!?
Nah, it's called "delayed hindsight" by the Neighbor Island legislators. :p Of course, they could plead ignorance by saying that the DOT and Superferry were in cahoots (wonder if this is one of the reasons why Rod Haraga got fired?) and didn't give them all the information they needed earlier, but they gotta put up at least a token fight because a vast majority of the residents of Maui don't think Superferry is a good idea if it means that they won't be able to get their basic necessities shipped to them and the canoe clubs can't practice in Kahului Harbor (canoeing is a big deal on Maui). Many people think it's an Oahu conspiracy to again take advantage of the Neighbor Islands (looking at the pricing chart, it will be cheaper for Honolulu folks to travel to the Neighbor Islands than vice versa).

Miulang

joshuatree

February 8th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Nah, it's called "delayed hindsight" by the Neighbor Island legislators. :p Of course, they could plead ignorance by saying that the DOT and Superferry were in cahoots (wonder if this is one of the reasons why Rod Haraga got fired?) and didn't give them all the information they needed earlier, but they gotta put up at least a token fight because a vast majority of the residents of Maui don't think Superferry is a good idea if it means that they won't be able to get their basic necessities shipped to them and the canoe clubs can't practice in Kahului Harbor (canoeing is a big deal on Maui). Many people think it's an Oahu conspiracy to again take advantage of the Neighbor Islands (looking at the pricing chart, it will be cheaper for Honolulu folks to travel to the Neighbor Islands than vice versa).

Miulang

It's only cheaper if you are trying to get from one neighbor island to another neighbor island because SF will charge as two separate trips and Oahu will be the hub/transit point. That's not a conspiracy but rather the reality of demographics and supply/demand. Unless there is sufficient demand to go direct between two neighbor islands, routing will be via Oahu. Or unless if another neighbor island will gladly become the concrete jungle and hub for the state instead of Oahu.

As for canoe clubs, that's great but honestly, is it really a great idea to mix pleasure/recreation/sport watercrafts with commercial/industrial watercrafts? Would the time and money wasted on this token fight be put to better use in exploring and developing a separate facility for the canoe clubs? Ultimately, it's a breakwater that is what the canoe clubs really need.

Miulang

February 8th, 2007, 10:31 AM

As for canoe clubs, that's great but honestly, is it really a great idea to mix pleasure/recreation/sport watercrafts with commercial/industrial watercrafts? Would the time and money wasted on this token fight be put to better use in exploring and developing a separate facility for the canoe clubs? Ultimately, it's a breakwater that is what the canoe clubs really need.

There ARE no other harbors on Maui suitable for canoes, and that's the problem. Plus, the canoes have been using Kahului harbor for generations. Squatter's rights.:p

Miulang

joshuatree

February 8th, 2007, 10:56 AM

There ARE no other harbors on Maui suitable for canoes, and that's the problem. Plus, the canoes have been using Kahului harbor for generations. Squatter's rights.:p

Miulang

Sorry but I don't buy that. Kahului harbor was created by building two break waters, one from the left, one from the right. If the area occupied by the canoe clubs were available to commercial shipping, the harbor capacity would double instantaneously. If you build another, smaller break water, starting from near the middle of the existing left breakwater and have it run parallel with Kahului Beach Road, that will create a nice separate facility for the canoe club. Maybe instead of fighting SF, perhaps you can get them to chip in on that new breakwater. It's hard to sympathesize when the main argument is that SF will disrupt the flow of "essential goods" to the people of Maui but it's ok for canoe clubs to squatter harbor space that could be used for the flow of "essential goods". :)

Miulang

February 8th, 2007, 02:37 PM

Sorry but I don't buy that. Kahului harbor was created by building two break waters, one from the left, one from the right. If the area occupied by the canoe clubs were available to commercial shipping, the harbor capacity would double instantaneously. If you build another, smaller break water, starting from near the middle of the existing left breakwater and have it run parallel with Kahului Beach Road, that will create a nice separate facility for the canoe club. Maybe instead of fighting SF, perhaps you can get them to chip in on that new breakwater. It's hard to sympathesize when the main argument is that SF will disrupt the flow of "essential goods" to the people of Maui but it's ok for canoe clubs to squatter harbor space that could be used for the flow of "essential goods". :)

YB and the canoe clubs have co-existed peacefully since at least the 1960s. Even the cruise ships aren't much concern because they berth on the other side of the harbor. Where Superferry will dock is right next to the part of the harbor where the canoe clubs practice. You can't build another breakwater on the outer part of the harbor (towards Waihee). It's too shallow and the state would have to spend millions to dredge it. They might be able to pull something together on the north end (by Kanaha Beach Park) but I seriously doubt the State would want to spend that money just for the canoe clubs.

I still think it would be better for Superferry to dock at Ma'alaea because the impact to traffic would be greatly reduced. There already is a harbor there (that's where the snorkle boats to Molokini depart from) and it would have been better to put it there also because of its more central location (it would be about equidistant to Lahaina, Kihei and Central Maui), and it would leave the current occupants and configuration of the harbor intact..

Miulang

P.S. One other thing: if Superferry was allowed to dock on the side of the harbor where the canoe clubs practice, the 2 hotels that are right next to that area on the beach (Maui Palms and Maui Beach) would probably sue the state.

Miulang

February 8th, 2007, 02:49 PM

As promised, the Neighbor Island legislators are pulling out whatever they think they can to stall Superferry. Now the Senate is pondering SB 1276 (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27528)which is about whether SF travelling at the speed NOAA said was safe (35 knots) and would allow humpback whales to be safe.

Notsofast, says Maui Sen. Shan Tsutsui. According to experts at the Pacific Whale Foundation (also based on Maui), if SF is allowed to travel that fast, it would only have 2.9 seconds to stop once a whale is sighted in its path! Stopping on a dime will not be one of the safety features of Superferry. And if they have to slow down to 12 or 13 knots (as recommended) it would take FOREVER to get between islands.

English’s Transportation and International Affairs Committee, and the Energy and Environment Committee chaired by Oahu Sen. Ron Menor, recessed the joint meeting on Senate Bill 1276 to continue the sessions on Kauai and Maui on Saturday, the senators said.

Sen. Gary Hooser of Kauai said he believes there is strong support in the Senate for the bill that would bar the Superferry from operating until an environmental impact statement on the ferry operations is accepted.

“There is support, and it’s important that we hold these hearings on the Neighbor Islands for the committee to have an opportunity, and for members who live in Honolulu, to be able to talk face-to-face to the people who live in our districts,” he said.

The joint committee will convene at 10 a.m. on Saturday at the Kauai County Council Chambers and at 5 p.m. in the Baldwin High School multipurpose room.

On a somewhat related note, the Lanai City (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27527)-->Lahaina Harbor ferry may have collided with a humpback yesterday.:( And that ferry is passenger only, no cars allowed.

Miulang

LikaNui

February 8th, 2007, 05:29 PM

Notsofast, says Maui Sen. Shan Tsutsui. According to experts at the Pacific Whale Foundation (also based on Maui), if SF is allowed to travel that fast, it would only have 2.9 seconds to stop once a whale is sighted in its path! Stopping on a dime will not be one of the safety features of Superferry. And if they have to slow down to 12 or 13 knots (as recommended) it would take FOREVER to get between islands. SuperFerry has done a massive amount of research (with the various whale foundations and researchers) to determine the most common areas and lanes the whales use, and SuperFerry has stated publicly (many many times) that they will re-route during the whale season to avoid those areas.
What do the whiners have to say about that?
Oh yeah. The whiners conveniently forget to mention that.
:rolleyes:

Miulang

February 8th, 2007, 06:07 PM

SuperFerry has done a massive amount of research (with the various whale foundations and researchers) to determine the most common areas and lanes the whales use, and SuperFerry has stated publicly (many many times) that they will re-route during the whale season to avoid those areas.
What do the whiners have to say about that?
Oh yeah. The whiners conveniently forget to mention that.
:rolleyes:

Well, that would pretty much preclude them plying the waters between the Big Island, Molokai, Lanai and Maui (see Sanctuary map (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/maps/maps.html)), then, because that's where the humpbacks like to play. SF would have to go out of their way between early Dec. and Feb. when the whales are at their most plentiful in Hawai'i waters. (I don't think the whales travel on underwater freeways, so it's doubtful that scientists know where they roam unless they tag each and every whale to monitor radio signals).I'm sure they wouldn't prohibit SF from travelling in those waters during those times, only that they can't go 35 knots. At 13 knots per hour...lessee...how many more hours would that add to a trip from Honolulu to Maui? If the scheduled travel time according to the schedule is 4 hours (@35 knots), then a trip would take about 12 hours instead; that's long enough for a nice little snooze so you'd be bright eyed and bushy tailed when you got to Kahului.

Miulang

Miulang

February 8th, 2007, 08:34 PM

I dug a little deeper into the humpback whale controversy and came across some very interesting things. First of all, the "team of experts" that the Superferry says it consulted with, primarily the the Hawaiian Islands National Humpback Whale Sanctuary Advisory Council (part of the HINHWMNS) is chaired by none other than one Terry O'Halloran (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/sac/members.html), a principal in the Hawai'i Superferry (could it be a "slight" conflict of interest?).

Second, at their last meeting on May 18, 2006, O'Halloran was absent, but Dr. Lee Tepley showed a documentary about the impact on humpback whales and other marine creatures of Superferry and the speeds at which it will be travelling.

In their original plans, Superferry promised to use sonar to detect whale proximity. According to Dr. Tepley, sonar cannot detect whales close to the surface, and if it could use sonar, it would be at levels which would probably hurt marine mammals (the same issue PacRim is facing with its naval testing of sonar). So the Superferry, when it arrives, will not be equipped with sonar.

One other argument that Superferry has used is that cruise ships can go as fast as 25 knots in between the islands. Dr. Tepley tracked the Pride of Aloha on one circuit and discovered it averaged a little more than 13 knots, which he considers a speed less likely to kill whales.

You can believe Superferry, or you can go with an open mind to Dr. Tepley's website (http://web.mac.com/leetepley/iweb/Site/The%20Superferry%20Video.html) and view the 2 videos that talk about what his concerns are. The second one was produced within the last month or so (around the time Austal launched the Superferry in Alabama). I believe this is the video that legislators will be seeing when they debate the value of requiring an EIS for Superferry over the coming week. It probably will open a few peoples' eyes. The first video (if you choose to watch the long version) is about 27 minutes and the second one is about 12 minutes long.

The picture I'm getting now from the "antis", is not that they don't want Superferry at all, but they don't think enough planning has been done to mitigate potential environmental issues. And as a compromise, if Superferry was restricted to travelling at an average speed of 13 knots (like the cruise ships) would people want to spend 12 hours on a boat that promised to get them to their destination in 4 hours? :eek:

Miulang

joshuatree

February 9th, 2007, 02:08 PM

YB and the canoe clubs have co-existed peacefully since at least the 1960s. Even the cruise ships aren't much concern because they berth on the other side of the harbor. Where Superferry will dock is right next to the part of the harbor where the canoe clubs practice. You can't build another breakwater on the outer part of the harbor (towards Waihee). It's too shallow and the state would have to spend millions to dredge it. They might be able to pull something together on the north end (by Kanaha Beach Park) but I seriously doubt the State would want to spend that money just for the canoe clubs.

I still think it would be better for Superferry to dock at Ma'alaea because the impact to traffic would be greatly reduced. There already is a harbor there (that's where the snorkle boats to Molokini depart from) and it would have been better to put it there also because of its more central location (it would be about equidistant to Lahaina, Kihei and Central Maui), and it would leave the current occupants and configuration of the harbor intact..

Miulang

P.S. One other thing: if Superferry was allowed to dock on the side of the harbor where the canoe clubs practice, the 2 hotels that are right next to that area on the beach (Maui Palms and Maui Beach) would probably sue the state.

Peaceful coexistence is great but it's not the 60s anymore. Even though not on the scale of Oahu, Maui has grown in every way. I'm sure even if HSF isn't going to be there, there will be a point in time when more harbor space will be needed by commercial ships.

Why can't you build another breakwater on the outer side? Why would you need to dredge shallow waters for a canoe club? You only need to build a breakwater to block waves that would make it rough for canoes. The spot currently occupied by the canoe club can then be freed up for commercial ships. Kahului harbor already has dredging done. In fact, shallow waters would make building another breakwater just for the canoes even easier.

Ma'alaea would actually seem to be a bad choice. That side of the island is where most of the whales congregate. Why else would so many whale sighting tours hang out in that area?

As for hotels suing the state? Why? What unholy pact has the state entered with the hotels that the state can't build or change anything around the hotels?

Speed of ships. I don't believe HSF is gonna be cruising at 35 knots when entering coastal waters. It would primarily be out in the open between the islands. Besides, at a certain point, what else is left to do to avoid whale strikes? I guess simply not having HSF service, that's the message I'm getting from the antis.

Miulang

February 9th, 2007, 02:28 PM

Speed of ships. I don't believe HSF is gonna be cruising at 35 knots when entering coastal waters. It would primarily be out in the open between the islands. Besides, at a certain point, what else is left to do to avoid whale strikes? I guess simply not having HSF service, that's the message I'm getting from the antis.
If SF doesn't travel at average speeds of 35 knots+, they won't be able to meet their timetables as published. Please go to Dr. Tepeley's website and look at those videos, and then come back and tell me you're not convinced that high speeds are dangerous to whales, dolphins, honu and other protected species.

The antis are NOT saying no Superferry (at least not the ones who object on the grounds of whale strikes anyway). If SF would travel at 13 knots (the average speed of the Pride of Aloha when it travels between the islands), it would be far less risky. But how many people would want to spend 12 hours on that boat when the advertised transit time was 4 hours?

According to this Maui News story (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27570), there are more whales being spotted in the Marine Sanctuary. More whales means more possibilities of collisions. If you look at the videos, you will see what other Austal high speed ferries that are very similar to Superferry (the ones in the Canary Islands) have done to decimate the pods of whales swimming offshore there. They say that they know the numbers of whales killed or injured there has increased exponentially since those ferries went into service in 1999.

Cruising at 13 knots, according to Dr. Tepley, would allow the whales to be able to avoid collisions with the boat, or if they were struck, the blow would not be as severe as one coming from a 2-pontooned boat travelling at 35 knots. I don't think you have to be a scientific genius to see that that is the truth. If smaller boats today travelling at slower speeds can strike whales, then what would much larger boats travelling much faster do? And when you're on a boat as big and hefty as the Superferry, you probably wouldn't even know when you hit a whale. So if you don't feel it, then you can't know it's happening, and therefore it's OK, right?:rolleyes:

As for a new breakwater at Kahului Harbor, to be on the Waihee side, you'd need TWO more walls (makai and on the Waihee side) because it's so rough.

Miulang

LikaNui

February 9th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Miulang

February 9th, 2007, 06:20 PM

JoshiaTree is correct in most (maybe even all) things, including saying that SuperFerry will only run at high speeds in deep interisland waters and will slow down drastically in the shallower near-shore waters where the whales, dolphin and honu congregate.
SuperFerry also claims that their in-house policies are stricter than existing federal regulations; that they will indeed change their routes during whale season; and that during whale season they will double the number of crew on the bridge, with two crew doing nothing BUT watching for whales using several types of high-tech equipment, including motion-stabilizing and night-vision binoculars.
Lika: Have you watched the Tepley videos yet? If not, please do! If you look at the proposed route of Superferry on its website (http://www.hawaiisuperferry.com/main/faresroute/rtssched/default.aspx), it would go between Lanai and Molokai to get to Kahului ( basically the same route that the interisland planes take.) Unfortunately, where the whales are is exactly in that area. So Superferry would have to go around the northern part of Moloka'i in order to avoid the whales. Looking at this NOAA map (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/graphics/maps/chart19004.pdf) (the pink areas are known whale habitats), that route would take a whole lot longer. So I think it would be 6 of 1, a half dozen of the other: either Superferry cuts its speed down to 12 or 13 knots (or less) in the channel between Molokai and Lanai ---which is a good percentage of the trip--- or it goes a northern route around Moloka'i; either way, the transit time will be longer than what Superferry proposes.

Miulang

P.S. 35 knots is about 42 mph (I think). Whales have this nasty habit of breaching whereever they feel like it. Boats at any speed have issues with stopping immediately. What is the reaction time of a really awake human being? 2 seconds? 5 seconds to realize what they see (after staring at open ocean for 2 hours). If we have problems stopping a 2,000 lb car going 45 mph, how long would it take for a boat weighing many more times than a car going the same speed (and accounting for the inertia that you encounter in water) to come to a complete stop? Somehow, I don't see the Superferry captain throwing the engines into full reverse (I bet he would just run over the whale instead). And where you say "Superferry claims..." isn't that the same kind of nonscience you claim that the antis are using? Why do you take Superferry's word for everything? Why not look at some of the scientific reasoning and then make up your mind? Oh yeah. And whale season is between November and May, so more than half the year, Superferry would be running behind schedule.

Composite 2992

February 9th, 2007, 10:31 PM

L35 knots is about 42 mph (I think). Whales have this nasty habit of breaching whereever they feel like it. Boats at any speed have issues with stopping immediately. What is the reaction time of a really awake human being? 2 seconds? 5 seconds to realize what they see (after staring at open ocean for 2 hours). If we have problems stopping a 2,000 lb car going 45 mph, how long would it take for a boat weighing many more times than a car going the same speed (and accounting for the inertia that you encounter in water) to come to a complete stop?

35 Kts is 40.2 MPH.

There's no way to effectively stop a vessel that large or massive in a reasonable amount of time. When dealing with an impending collision, stopping is seldom any mariner's first option. The first option would generally be steering clear of an obstruction. And, depending on how the propulsion units work in concert with the steering gear, reducing power might actually make a vessel LESS maneuverable.

Also, inertia is the same, whether in air or water. What counts is mass and velocity. And it's a lot of mass and a lot of velocity. Water, in fact, would tend to slow vessels a lot more when the power is chopped, due to the drag from the wetted surface, compared to a vehicle on wheels. Still, a ship is not likely to stop or slow in time to avoid impact.

Another option is forward-looking sonar made by companies like Interphase. There are commercially available units for recreational boating that can "see" 1000 feet ahead. At 59 feet per second, that gives you 16 seconds of warning. Enough time to slow down and steer to a safe course.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Another option is forward-looking sonar made by companies like Interphase. There are commercially available units for recreational boating that can "see" 1000 feet ahead. At 59 feet per second, that gives you 16 seconds of warning. Enough time to slow down and steer to a safe course.
Unfortunately, Superferry will not come equipped with ANY sonar.:( Does sonar work as well on close-to-the-surface objects, too? Mama whales and their calves apparently have to stay pretty close to the surface (even in deep water) because the calves can't hold their breaths very long; Mama will generally swim directly below the baby. Dr. Tepley (see video) said that a twin-hulled boat like Superferry travelling at 35 knots would only have 2.9 seconds to avoid collision. Is that possible? Would anyone's reaction time be that quick?

As for Superferry saying they will use visual aids (like state of the art binoculars) and spotters to detect whale proximity, I think that works better on smooth water; anybody who's flown over the channel between Molokai and Lanai knows that the water is always pretty choppy, so it would be harder to differentiate between a wave and a whale (and I bet it's even harder when you're closer to the surface of the ocean than when you're flying above it at 1,000 feet). Anybody who's tried staring at the ocean on a bright day knows that your eyes get tired within minutes, not hours, so the spotters would have to take turns and switch off every few minutes in order to maintain visual acuity.

Miulang

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Oh man, this could get ugly: all the facts about the "shelving" of DOT Director Rod Haraga (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27599)for the last 18 months of his tenure may impact any decisions that the State was part of regarding the Superferry EIS AND the negotiations between the State and go! And Pacific Wings (the ones who uncovered this little problem) now wants to join the Superferry EIS suit!:eek:

During the last two years, the Transportation Department has had its usual share of controversies and sensitive issues. On Maui, these included the Superferry EIS, unhappiness about the time it has taken to build a Lahaina bypass and extensive changes at Kahului Airport.

But there was nothing unusually contentious going on – at least in public – in the months before Lingle told Haraga in August 2005 that his deputies would no longer report to him.

“Awana and Lingle sidelined the DOT director so they could run things themselves,” Kahlstorf contends.

“This could invalidate decisions made by Hawaii DOT during the time the department was being illegally run,” Kahlstorf told Morita, including the decision that an EIS was not required for Hawaii Superferry.

Although it was not publicly known that Lingle had removed Haraga from operational decisions in 2005, House Transportation Committee Chairman Souki knew.

He said Wednesday that “of course” it bothered him, but he did not see what the Legislature could do about it.

“I was aware last year that (Haraga’s) responsibilities were taken away from him. I didn’t know why.”

Souki said he knew that “the power was going to (Haraga’s) respective deputies, he was left only with public relations.”

Nobody in Gov. Lingle's office (including Haraga) wants to discuss why he was kept on salary for 18 months with only contract signing duties (@ an annual salary of $102,000) and why underlings in the department (like Brian Sekiguchi, who helped negotiate the terms for Superferry and go!) had the kind of power they apparently had, and instead of reporting to Haraga, appear to have reported directly to the Gov.'s office. According to the State Constitution, all department heads have complete line responsibility for their staff.

And Barry Fukunaga, the new DOT Director nominee, says that the practice of DOT staff reporting directly to the Gov's office has now been changed. Is that an admission that the Gov. was involved in some shenanigans?

Miulang

joshuatree

February 10th, 2007, 01:15 PM

If SF doesn't travel at average speeds of 35 knots+, they won't be able to meet their timetables as published. Please go to Dr. Tepeley's website and look at those videos, and then come back and tell me you're not convinced that high speeds are dangerous to whales, dolphins, honu and other protected species.

The antis are NOT saying no Superferry (at least not the ones who object on the grounds of whale strikes anyway). If SF would travel at 13 knots (the average speed of the Pride of Aloha when it travels between the islands), it would be far less risky. But how many people would want to spend 12 hours on that boat when the advertised transit time was 4 hours?

According to this Maui News story (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27570), there are more whales being spotted in the Marine Sanctuary. More whales means more possibilities of collisions. If you look at the videos, you will see what other Austal high speed ferries that are very similar to Superferry (the ones in the Canary Islands) have done to decimate the pods of whales swimming offshore there. They say that they know the numbers of whales killed or injured there has increased exponentially since those ferries went into service in 1999.

Cruising at 13 knots, according to Dr. Tepley, would allow the whales to be able to avoid collisions with the boat, or if they were struck, the blow would not be as severe as one coming from a 2-pontooned boat travelling at 35 knots. I don't think you have to be a scientific genius to see that that is the truth. If smaller boats today travelling at slower speeds can strike whales, then what would much larger boats travelling much faster do? And when you're on a boat as big and hefty as the Superferry, you probably wouldn't even know when you hit a whale. So if you don't feel it, then you can't know it's happening, and therefore it's OK, right?:rolleyes:

As for a new breakwater at Kahului Harbor, to be on the Waihee side, you'd need TWO more walls (makai and on the Waihee side) because it's so rough.

Miulang

1 knot = 1.150779 MPH
1 knot = 1 nautical mile
1 nautical mile = 1.150779 statue mile

Distance between Honolulu and Kahului is 93 miles. I will add 20 more miles just to factor in the ship does not go in a straight line.

So 113 miles / 1.150779 statue mile = 98.194 nautical miles.
Then 98.194 nautical miles / 35 knots = 2.8 hours travel time.

That still leaves 0.2 hour or 12 minutes extra since HSF's published travel time is 3 hours. This tells me HSF is not gonna be gunning at 35 knots from the moment they weigh anchor in Honolulu Harbor till the time they drop anchor in Kahului Harbor.

I am not challenging the concept of whale strikes but I am calling the antis alarm as chicken little with the sky is falling. If the antis answer is to travel at 13 knots, the antis are basically saying no HSF without saying no HSF. Read in between the lines. Sonar is not used because there's all this talk of sonar hurting whales. Kinda unfair to rub that in at HSF, isn't it?

There's a lot of talk of what HSF's speed will do to a whale but why not also look at what HSF has compared to other ships that routinely have whale strikes? No propellors, all waterjets. Shallow draft because of the catamaran design as opposed to deep draft like Pride of Aloha. Also, waterjets can be instaneously put in reverse because the engines keep running but the waterjet nozzles can be thrown into reverse. If you check out HSF's site, they intend not to completely reverse the boat upon a whale sighting but rather to probably throw one set of jets in one hull in reverse with the other forward to make a sharp turn. As someone previously stated, sometimes throwing a ship in complete reverse is not very effective (Titanic).

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/products/propulsion/waterjets/s_series.jsp

Also, all these other whale strikes, do these boats have the same number of spotters and procedures as HSF? Is it more? Is it less? We need to look at that to fairly assess HSF's threat to whales. The only realistic solution in the immediate future is perhaps to have HSF's path take a northern route north of Molokai. Then it should avoid all the cute pink areas on NOAA's map. But how much time will be added to the trip? What about extra fuel burn? I like to hear how the antis propose to solve this problem since you say they are not against HSF's existence.

I don't see why you need more than one breakwater running parallel to Kahului Beach Rd. Maybe we might be looking at different locations? I'm talking about building a new breakwater northwest of Kahului Harbor, right from the existing left breakwater.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 01:24 PM

As for collisions with whales, what is anyone doing to make sure the Navy's own fast ships, as well as all the privately owned boats and vessels, aren't going to collide with marine mammals? Why just single out the Superferry which will make a single run to each island per day when all these other vessels can operate without the same concerns?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. But if the Superferry has to operate with a high level of care, then so should everyone else.
Very few of the other commercial and private boats has the capability of going 35 knots. Plus, if a "cigarette" boat (which can go faster than that) DID collide with a whale, the whale would probably win because it would be far larger than the boat.

Some people are trying to get the "speed limit" on larger boats (including cruise ships and ferries) changed to a maximum of 12-14 knots within the marine sanctuary areas. In fact, one of the people who wants NOAA and the State to change the rules is the operator of the Moloka'i ferry. The cruise ships wouldn't have any problems complying, because even though they are rated to travel much faster, they appear to only average about 13 knots now. And you know the Navy is above any laws the State might impose on everybody else:rolleyes: .

The twin-hulled Superferry will have twice the likelihood of striking whales, honu and other protected marine animals by virtue of its configuration, nevermind the speeds at which it could cruise.

Miulang

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 01:40 PM

1 knot = 1.150779 MPH
1 knot = 1 nautical mile
1 nautical mile = 1.150779 statue mile

Distance between Honolulu and Kahului is 93 miles. I will add 20 more miles just to factor in the ship does not go in a straight line.

So 113 miles / 1.150779 statue mile = 98.194 nautical miles.
Then 98.194 nautical miles / 35 knots = 2.8 hours travel time.

That still leaves 0.2 hour or 12 minutes extra since HSF's published travel time is 3 hours. This tells me HSF is not gonna be gunning at 35 knots from the moment they weigh anchor in Honolulu Harbor till the time they drop anchor in Kahului Harbor.

I am not challenging the concept of whale strikes but I am calling the antis alarm as chicken little with the sky is falling. If the antis answer is to travel at 13 knots, the antis are basically saying no HSF without saying no HSF. Read in between the lines. Sonar is not used because there's all this talk of sonar hurting whales. Kinda unfair to rub that in at HSF, isn't it?

There's a lot of talk of what HSF's speed will do to a whale but why not also look at what HSF has compared to other ships that routinely have whale strikes? No propellors, all waterjets. Shallow draft because of the catamaran design as opposed to deep draft like Pride of Aloha. Also, waterjets can be instaneously put in reverse because the engines keep running but the waterjet nozzles can be thrown into reverse. If you check out HSF's site, they intend not to completely reverse the boat upon a whale sighting but rather to probably throw one set of jets in one hull in reverse with the other forward to make a sharp turn. As someone previously stated, sometimes throwing a ship in complete reverse is not very effective (Titanic).

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/products/propulsion/waterjets/s_series.jsp

Also, all these other whale strikes, do these boats have the same number of spotters and procedures as HSF? Is it more? Is it less? We need to look at that to fairly assess HSF's threat to whales. The only realistic solution in the immediate future is perhaps to have HSF's path take a northern route north of Molokai. Then it should avoid all the cute pink areas on NOAA's map. But how much time will be added to the trip? What about extra fuel burn? I like to hear how the antis propose to solve this problem since you say they are not against HSF's existence.
.
Joshua: did you actually view Dr. Tepley's videos? Some of the questions you're asking above are answered there.

Miulang

P.S. The antis (the ones who are concerned about whale strikes) would say that ALL large boats should not be allowed to travel faster than 12-14 mph in the Marine Sanctuary areas. And you're right about "being fair" to Superferry by demanding that all other modes of floating transportation be subject to the same rules and regulations. Which is why, in the case of Kahului Harbor anyway, I think an EIS needs to be done in conjunction with the planning for harbor growth for 2030, not just because of Superferry.

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 02:16 PM

Very few of the other commercial and private boats has the capability of going 35 knots. That statement is totally false.

Plus, if a "cigarette" boat (which can go faster than that) DID collide with a whale, the whale would probably win because it would be far larger than the boat. Again, a totally false premise, based on your "probably" instead of hard facts which would show just the opposite of your guess. And no, I didn't research it; my opinion comes from a lifetime as a professional in boating and in various maritime industries.
And before you ask, I say again that I have no connection whatsoever with the SuperFerry, other than having seen the massive research they've done to ensure whale safety and stop invasive species, etc. Again, they have already gone far beyond state and federal requirements.

The twin-hulled Superferry will have twice the likelihood of striking whales, honu and other protected marine animals by virtue of its configuration, nevermind the speeds at which it could cruise. Wrong again. JoshuaTree is, once again, totally correct in pointing out the lower draft and wetted surface of the SuperFerry due to its hull configuration and design. And as JT also noted, SuperFerry HAS NO PROPELLERS. Sea life is harmed more by propellers than by hull strikes.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 02:21 PM

That statement is totally false.

Again, a totally false premise, based on your "probably" instead of hard facts which would show just the opposite of your guess. And no, I didn't research it; my opinion comes from a lifetime as a professional in boating and in various maritime industries.
And before you ask, I say again that I have no connection whatsoever with the SuperFerry, other than having seen the massive research they've done to ensure whale safety and stop invasive species, etc. Again, they have already gone far beyond state and federal requirements.

Wrong again. JoshuaTree is, once again, totally correct in pointing out the lower draft and wetted surface of the SuperFerry due to its hull configuration and design. And as JT also noted, SuperFerry HAS NO PROPELLERS. Sea life is harmed more by propellers than by hull strikes.
The baby whales swim close to the surface, which means a lower draft boat would float HIGHER in the water (which is closer to where baby whales swim). Dr. Tepley notes that whales have probably become acclimated to the "noise" from propellers and when they hear those, they know now to get out of the way. The Superferry generates a "different" sound underwater (heard on the Tepley video). The Canary Islands ferries are basically the same as the Superferry, and they have documented evidence that those boats do kill whales (again, see the video).

I ain't gonna argue with you guys anymore until you tell me that you've watched those videos. THEN we can debate more intelligently. and you can try to debunk Dr. Tepley's observations.

Miulang

joshuatree

February 10th, 2007, 02:49 PM

Joshua: did you actually view Dr. Tepley's videos? Some of the questions you're asking above are answered there.

Miulang

P.S. The antis (the ones who are concerned about whale strikes) would say that ALL large boats should not be allowed to travel faster than 12-14 mph in the Marine Sanctuary areas. And you're right about "being fair" to Superferry by demanding that all other modes of floating transportation be subject to the same rules and regulations. Which is why, in the case of Kahului Harbor anyway, I think an EIS needs to be done in conjunction with the planning for harbor growth for 2030, not just because of Superferry.

I've looked at the video a while back so I'm not gonna sit another 10 min minimum to review it again. The bottom line message I get from antis are speed limits of maybe around 12 knots. That won't work for a "reasonable" interisland ferry. Not unless people are willing to take 8 hour trips. And we all know the answer to that so essentially, antis are saying no to HSF's existence.

Here are possible solutions.

1) Invest in a system of underwater, passive sonar bouys that essentially forms an underwater mapping system that all boats can link up to see where the whales/large marine mammals are at any given time so they can react accordingly. But who's gonna pony up the $$$? And will antis start saying passive sonar will hurt whales too?

2) Arm a ship with an active sonar which may hurt the whales but you can locate the whale or even drive them away. :D

3) You have ships like HSF take an out of the way route which won't necessary reduce whale strike possibility to 0% but it will be much lower. But who is gonna pay for the extra time and fuel? Or maybe the state cuts HSF a tax break to comp for the extra fuel? Call it the whale tax?

I think with what HSF will implement, the chance of whale strikes will be about the same as what current ships experience.

Why not just invent a boat that can turbo boost and jump outta the water like Kit does in Knight Rider? So you see a whale, hit that turbo boost button. :p

joshuatree

February 10th, 2007, 02:51 PM

The baby whales swim close to the surface, which means a lower draft boat would float HIGHER in the water (which is closer to where baby whales swim). Dr. Tepley notes that whales have probably become acclimated to the "noise" from propellers and when they hear those, they know now to get out of the way. The Superferry generates a "different" sound underwater (heard on the Tepley video). The Canary Islands ferries are basically the same as the Superferry, and they have documented evidence that those boats do kill whales (again, see the video).

I ain't gonna argue with you guys anymore until you tell me that you've watched those videos. THEN we can debate more intelligently. and you can try to debunk Dr. Tepley's observations.

Miulang

Miuling, that first statement is just utterly wrong. A lower draft boat doesn't mean the boat floats higher, it means less of the boat is below the waterline. If anything, you rather have less boat in the water if your concern is hitting marine life near the water's surface. There is no way to have the boat completely out of the water. That would make it a plane.

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 02:55 PM

The baby whales swim close to the surface, which means a lower draft boat would float HIGHER in the water (which is closer to where baby whales swim). HUH?!? Do you mean a deeper draft? Or by "lower draft" do you mean a shallower draft? Your statement is totally confusing. SuperFerry has a shallow draft, as JT and I mentioned earlier. Are you saying that whales are safer with a deeper draft boat because the whales are close to the surface? If so, that makes no sense at all. A deeper draft boat has more of an appendage to hit the whales at any level. It's not like there's some kind of empty gap between the bottom of their keel/hull and the surface of the water.
Read JT's correct description of how the SuperFerry's design presents less total underwater area and therefore less risk to a whale.
Nope, you've confused me about what you're trying to say here. :confused:

Dr. Tepley notes that whales have probably become acclimated to the "noise" from propellers and when they hear those, they know now to get out of the way.Oh, he says they "probably" have? :rolleyes: And we're supposed to watch videos of a person who uses "probably" as their premise? No thanks.
And again, my lifetime of experience counters Tepley's "probably". I've encountered whales zillions of times. They hate noise and do notbecome "acclimated" to it. They always turn away from powerboats. And when I've been on silent sailboats and have had whales surface on either side (a mother on one side and her calf on the other), I start my engine -- in neutral so no prop is spinning -- and then crank the stereo up to full volume and also grab a couple of big cooking pots from the galley and bang those together. The whales leave when the engine first starts and before I even get to the secondary noises.
And by the way, once they're safely clear, I change course and let them proceed the way they were going.
And now, for a moment, I'm going to slightly "thread drift" though it's related and, hopefully, humorous:
First, you have to know that sailboats have various underwater configurations -- not including high-tech canting keels, etc., the basics are full keels, full keels with a cutaway forefoot, and fin keels, which are a shorter but deeper appendage. Well, I've heard many experts say (and I have experienced it myself) that female whales see that deep fin keel as being the, um, extended member of an aroused male whale. This explains many instances of female whales intentionaly rubbing up against the bottom of sailboats with fin keels. :D

The Canary Islands ferries are basically the same as the Superferry "Basically"? "Probably"? Maybe? Maybe not?

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 03:01 PM

3) You have ships like HSF take an out of the way route which won't necessary reduce whale strike possibility to 0% but it will be much lower. Remember, JT, that SuperFerry has already planned on doing that very thing.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 03:21 PM

Oh, he says they "probably" have? :rolleyes: And we're supposed to watch videos of a person who uses "probably" as their premise? No thanks.
And again, my lifetime of experience counters Tepley's "probably". I've encountered whales zillions of times. They hate noise and do notbecome "acclimated" to it. They always turn away from powerboats. And when I've been on silent sailboats and have had whales surface on either side (a mother on one side and her calf on the other), I start my engine -- in neutral so no prop is spinning -- and then crank the stereo up to full volume and also grab a couple of big cooking pots from the galley and bang those together. The whales leave when the engine first starts and before I even get to the secondary noises.
And by the way, once they're safely clear, I change course and let them proceed the way they were going.
And now, for a moment, I'm going to slightly "thread drift" though it's related and, hopefully, humorous:
First, you have to know that sailboats have various underwater configurations -- not including high-tech canting keels, etc., the basics are full keels, full keels with a cutaway forefoot, and fin keels, which are a shorter but deeper appendage. Well, I've heard many experts say (and I have experienced it myself) that female whales see that deep fin keel as being the, um, extended member of an aroused male whale. This explains many instances of female whales intentionaly rubbing up against the bottom of sailboats with fin keels. :D
?
The 27 minute version of the 10 minute video you saw has more explanation of Dr. Tepley's conjectures. And there's a new 12 minute video (Superferry 2)that has additional information not included in the first video. I'm only pointing out what I learned in those videos.

I would be in favor of limiting ALL large vessels to travelling no more than 12-14 knots within the channels between Oahu and Maui. If Superferry wants to go 35 knots, let them take the more northern route around Molokai all the time and just put it in their literature that the trip is gonna take 4 hours and not 2 1/2 hours. If people think it's gonna take 4 hours, then that will be their expectation and they'll learn to deal with it. But if you tell them that it's gonna take 2 1/2 hours and then it ends up taking 4 hours some times and then 2 1/2 hours other times, well, I don't think your customers are going to be very happy (at least not the ones who get stuck with the 4 hour transit time, especially when they were expecting it to take only 2 1/2 hours! Either that or let passengers know that if they plan to travel by Superferry between November and May that the trip will take 4 hours so they "learn" not to expect a shorter trip).

I don't think it's an either/or issue as far as the potential whale strikes are concerned. For me, it would be finding a compromise solution. It would be nifty if there was an "early warning system" that the whales could learn to get out of the way of the boats, too, because I think they're just slightly more agile than any boat could be.;)

As a former and soon-to-be again resident of Maui, my main concern is NOT about Superferry and its impacts. I'm more worried about managing the growth of Kahului Harbor to ensure that essential goods for residents will continue to arrive without disruption. If it means condemning the 2 hotels that sit right on Kahului Harbor, tearing them down to have more space on the harborside for YB, so be it. Some choices do have to be made, and not everybody's going to be happy. But the ultimate bottom line should be that decisions made about Neighbor Island ports and their usage should be up to the individual counties and NOT up to Superferry or anybody on Oahu, which is why I'm glad they're holding hearings on Kauai and Maui this weekend so Oahu legislators can hear the concerns of the Neighbor Island folks.

Miulang

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 03:52 PM

The 27 minute version of the 10 minute video you saw has more explanation of Dr. Tepley's conjectures. Oh, Miulang. [/shaking head sadly] How many times have you been asked to stop with the "guess"es and "maybe"s and "probably"s? And now "conjectures"?!!! Please! Do NOT take us for fools.
Surely you know that Webster's defines conjecture as "inferring, theorizing, guesswork, or predicting from incomplete evidence". You have now convinced me to NOT watch Dr. Tepley's videos.

I would be in favor of limiting ALL large vessels to travelling no more than 12-14 knots within the channels Simply not feasible. Wave conditions (height, angle, direction, etc.) dictate speed, not some random number pulled out of thin air. Sometimes a boat can be doing 14 knots and pounding like hell, but increase it to 15 and it smooths out drastically.

I don't think your customers are going to be very happy Again with the guesses and presumption, not based on any, you know, FACT.

I don't think it's an either/or issue (...) I think they're just slightly more agile than any boat could be. See how many times with the guesses? Four speculations in just one post. [/sigh]
Tell you what. Why not suggest that SuperFerry pay a large fine (say, to a whale foundation for research, or something similar) for every time they strike a whale? Better yet, apply that to any commercial or private boat that hits a whale.
One way or another, that solves the problem. And without any guesses or maybes or probablys or conjectures.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 04:00 PM

Oh, Miulang. [/shaking head sadly] How many times have you been asked to stop with the "guess"es and "maybe"s and "probably"s? And now "conjectures"?!!! Please! Do NOT take us for fools.
Surely you know that Webster's defines conjecture as "inferring, theorizing, guesswork, or predicting from incomplete evidence". You have now convinced me to NOT watch Dr. Tepley's videos.

Simply not feasible. Wave conditions (height, angle, direction, etc.) dictate speed, not some random number pulled out of thin air. Sometimes a boat can be doing 14 knots and pounding like hell, but increase it to 15 and it smooths out drastically.

Again with the guesses and presumption, not based on any, you know, FACT.

See how many times with the guesses? Four speculations in just one post. [/sigh]
Tell you what. Why not suggest that SuperFerry pay a large fine (say, to a whale foundation for research, or something similar) for every time they strike a whale? Better yet, apply that to any commercial or private boat that hits a whale.
One way or another, that solves the problem. And without any guesses or maybes or probablys or conjectures.
Sure, why not fine ANY boat that strikes a whale? I'd be in favor of that. Only problem is confirming that a whale got injured/killed in the first place because on larger boats, you might not even feel a "bump" and if a whale isn't impaled on a pontoon, it might drift away or the carcass might drift to the bottom of the ocean and there goes the proof. And would you be pissed if you were told that a trip was going to take 2 hours and it ended up taking 4 hours (without your knowing it in advance)? I know I would be less than happy. I know I get irritated when my plane is delayed.

When I say I "think", it's based on my own opinion formed on what I have learned from both sides. I wouldn't trust everything Superferry claims, either. You have your opinion and I have mine. Watch the Tepley videos and debate his explanations or not. I frankly don't care anymore.

Miulang

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 04:25 PM

Only problem is confirming that a whale got injured/killed in the first place because on larger boats, you might not even feel a "bump" and if a whale isn't impaled on a pontoon, it might drift away or the carcass might drift to the bottom of the ocean and there goes the proof. No. No, no NO.
First of all, you're guessing that boats don't feel the "bump". And that guess is absolutely false!
Secondly, if a carcass drifts away, it can be easily found, obviously. And a carcass will NOT sink. Just like a human body, gases expand in the organs and the carcass/body always drifts to the surface! I've seen too many dead animals and dead bodies in the ocean. I KNOW what happens. No "might" or "might not"s. No conjectures or guesses or maybes.
And just how thin do you think a whale's skin is, anyway? There was a famous photo in the last year or so of a whale hit by a private boat here in Hawai`i. The propeller had left extremely deep gouges... and the whale was swimming along with no noticeable problem. Now, I hate like hell to see any animal hurt... but whales are not fragile. Ever see the battle scars on them from other predators, like sharks? Or from the whales battling each other?
And as for travellers being slighlty delayed, well hell, if they're in that much of a damned hurry, they can take an airplane. Sheesh.

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 04:39 PM

No. No, no NO.
First of all, you're guessing that boats don't feel the "bump". And that guess is absolutely false!
Secondly, if a carcass drifts away, it can be easily found, obviously. And a carcass will NOT sink. Just like a human body, gases expand in the organs and the carcass/body always drifts to the surface! I've seen too many dead animals and dead bodies in the ocean. I KNOW what happens. No "might" or "might not"s. No conjectures or guesses or maybes.
And just how thin do you think a whale's skin is, anyway? There was a famous photo in the last year or so of a whale hit by a private boat here in Hawai`i. The propeller had left extremely deep gouges... and the whale was swimming along with no noticeable problem. Now, I hate like hell to see any animal hurt... but whales are not fragile. Ever see the battle scars on them from other predators, like sharks? Or from the whales battling each other?
And as for travellers being slighlty delayed, well hell, if they're in that much of a damned hurry, they can take an airplane. Sheesh.
They STILL haven't been able to find the carcass or sighted any whale that shows evidence of being struck by the Lanai ferry earlier this week (they did air searches too), and the eyewitnesses who were on that ferry who called in to report the strike said they definitely saw lots of blood and chunks of meat. So when will that carcass resurface? And if the whale is still alive, they've done air searches and haven't been able to locate it yet.

As far as scheduling, all I'm saying is that Superferry, in its advertising material, might want to do what the airlines do, which is to post the arrival times that include a "fudge factor" in them. That's one of the reasons why HA arrives either "on time" or "early" and why they have consistently either been #1 or #2 in on time arrivals. I would post the longest possible transit times rather than the optimal transit times to reduce the likelihood that customers get upset because they don't get what they expect. I'm not sure about the amount of time they're figuring in for fully loading the boat, too. I mean, if inspections weren't going to be required, it might be feasible to load 285 cars in 20 minutes (the Seattle ferries do it all the time in about 15 minutes), but they'd have to make sure people got to the loading area well in advance in order to do the kind of inspections that are probably going to be required--you know like how they deny you boarding a flight if you're not at the gate by a certain time (if the antis get their way). Without having the required inspections, people could show up at the last minute and still get on board. And I am not necessarily against Superferry, I only want to make sure all questions have been answered satisfactorily with facts (Superferry doesn't include any of the scientific information to back their claims on their website). If they weren't trying to hide something, why wouldn't they include all of that information? That would sure shut lots of the antis up. The Superferry's lack of outreach to the communities it is supposed to serve continues to this day, which is why the Neighbor Island folks are so paranoid, and merely saying "no, really, trust us" ain't gonna cut it anymore. That's how the kanaka maoli lost Hawai'i.

Miulang

LikaNui

February 10th, 2007, 05:52 PM

Superferry, in its advertising material, might want to (...) I'm not sure about the amount of time they're figuring in (...) I mean, if inspections weren't going to be required, it might be feasible to (...) the kind of inspections that are probably going to be required (...) Without having the required inspections, people could show up at the last minute...
[/banging head against the wall]

That's how the kanaka maoli lost Hawai'i. [/splutter]

Miulang

February 10th, 2007, 05:57 PM

[/banging head against the wall]

[/splutter]
If you know any of the people at Superferry, please ask that they include some of their scientific documentation on their website, as a community service and to shut those of us who have questions up.;)

8,000 moving targets (http://www.hawaiiactive.com/blog/8000-and-counting-humpback-whales-vacation-in-hawaii.html)and a population increase of about 7% a year: Based on the latest population studies, there is thought to be about 12,000 to 14,000 Humpback Whales in the North Pacific, with about 60% spending at least some of the winter months in Hawaii to mate, calve and nurse their young. The population is believed to be growing at a rate of 7% per year.

The Great Whale Count began on Maui in 1988, and is conducted by teams of Pacific Whale Foundation staff and volunteers stationed at specific points along Maui’s shorelines. The counting is limited to animals sighted within three miles of the shoreline to ensure more accuracy and to allow the counters to best determine the whales’ pod composition and behaviors.

From the Star Bulletin last month (http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/17/news/story10.html): a demonstration at the Pacific Whale Foundation over the lack of regulation within the NMS.

Miulang

P.S. In light of the very distinct possibility that the no EIS requirement gets hung up in the courts by the antis because of the Haraga debacle, what do you think this would do to the timing of the Superferry launch?

Miulang

February 11th, 2007, 04:36 PM

Some very interesting meeting minutes from the Humpback Whale National Maritime Sanctuary Advisory Committee from 2005 related to the Superferry.

The March 17, 2005 (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/sac/SAC_March_05_FM.pdf)meeting, at which there were 13 affirmative and 3 abstentions for the voting on the HSF agenda items (testimony was submitted from concerned individuals),

and the May 12, 2005 (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/sac/SAC_May_05_FM.pdf)meeting (under unfinished business), at which there were 15 affirmative and 2 abstentions for the voting on the HSF agenda items.

On Jan. 20, 2005 (http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/sac/SAC_Jan_05_FM.pdf), Tim White, a member of the Sanctuary Advisory Council and Executive VP-Operations of Superferry, gave what appears to be the first presentation on HSF to the Advisory Council:

Terry White, Commercial Shipping Representative and Hawaii Superferry Chief
Operating Officer, showed a Hawaii Superferry informational video, and then
gave a presentation on the plans for the ferry service. Some environmental
considerations that the company is taking are that the ship has no wastewater discharge, is the most energy efficient model, has no ballast tanks or propellers, is quiet, and has a low underwater profile. The company is looking at preliminary work for radar detection of whales for the future and is considering tracking whales using theodolites from shore. Mr. White explained Hawaii Superferry’s whale avoidance strategy which includes: vessel design, approach policy (staying 500 yards away), routing (slower speeds and different routes during whale season), visual detection (two added lookouts, making a total of four, during whale season), shore-based theodolite use, technological detections (including radar, collision avoidance sonar, and night vision scopes), and avoidance procedures (course and speed changes). He explained that alternate routes might include going south of Penguin Bank and/or north of Molokai, and that the company is interested in the possibility of research and data collection.

Rob Parsons, Environmental Advisory to Mayor Alan Arakawa (County of Maui),
provided a presentation representing concerns raised by Maui County citizens
about the Hawaii Superferry. He pointed out that Mayor Arakawa has not taken a stand on the ferry and that there are economic benefits, but there are also environmental concerns. Mr. Parsons reviewed the document that he submitted to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for the Hawaii Superferry hearing on Maui. At the hearing the public asked that the company submit a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not just an Environmental Assessment (EA). PUC’s recommendation was that Hawaii Superferry should go through a comprehensive environmental review. Their decision is available on their website (http://www.hawaii.gov/budget/puc/). Maui County does require an EIS for Kahului Harbor improvements, however one is not required for the proposed ferry. Mr. Parsons said that he felt an EIS would help to mitigate some of the concerns. He invited Council members to inquire about the use of an Incidental Take Permit. June Harrigan-Lum reminded the Council that an EIS is not an enforceable document, but rather a disclosure document. Mr. White addressed some of the concerns including that fee schedules are subject to change and federal funds are not being used. Hawaii Superferry has not found a trigger for either a state or federal EIS requirements, however the company is working on a voluntary basis to look at environmental issues on their own. He said that the company is hoping to form advisory councils to address concerns and that they will continue to work with the Mayors office and Sanctuary Advisory Council. Bill Friedl suggested looking into a model simulator to test some of these routes and potential of whale interaction.

So these are the things that went on behind the scenes to get the SAC to issue its seal of approval (the group of whale experts that Superferry refers to on its website). The fact that the SAC has TWO representatives from Hawai'i Superferry on the council seems a little bit like a conflict of interest: Tim White and Terry O'Halloran (the HSF Director of Business Development). I hope they recused themselves from voting when the discussion of the Superferry was held in March and May of 2005.

And one of the examples brought up by several people, both at the SAC meetings and public hearings, is the decimation of the sperm whale population by high speed ferries in the Canary Islands. Here is one article (a PBS report (http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/20050312_log_transcript.html)) with evidence of what is occurring there.

We now know that Superferry is not equipped with sonar, but does it even have radar? We know they promise to have spotters on board, but will they still have the theodolite devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite)onboard and on the shoreline when they finally start sailing between the islands?

Miulang

LikaNui

February 11th, 2007, 05:05 PM

Some very interesting meeting minutes from the Humpback Whale National Maritime Sanctuary Advisory Committee from 2005 You lost me with your very first sentence there. That's TWO YEARS OLD. Ancient history.
:rolleyes:
Never bothered to read the rest.

Miulang

February 11th, 2007, 05:14 PM

You lost me with your very first sentence there. That's TWO YEARS OLD. Ancient history.
:rolleyes:
Never bothered to read the rest.
It's the history of this whole thing that has created the problem, Lika!:mad: As much as Kamuelakea bugs the piss out of me sometimes, he's right in one way: that politics in Hawai'i is same old, same old. We'll just roll over and not try to make any waves.

When Dr. Tepley provided copies of his video to the Council members, how many actually took the time to review it (I mean, gee, 27 minutes of boring testimony)? When Oahu legislators got copies of the video, how many said "oh yeah, we trust Garibaldi and we don't need to ask any questions."

I'm just posting all of that so that some people later can't come back and say, "gee, we never knew why things happened the way they did!" Why didn't Superferry put their environmental commitments on their website for all to see? That surely would have stopped some of the questions that are floating around now.

It'll be interesting to see what the Maui News and the Garden Isle News report sometime this week about the public hearings that were held on both islands this weekend. I know for sure there was lots of noise on Maui.

Miulang

P.S. Here is the status of HB702 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB702) (requirement for Superferry EIS) as of this evening. Rep. Joe Souki from Maui is the Chair of the House Transportation Subcommittee.

joshuatree

February 12th, 2007, 11:37 AM

Remember, JT, that SuperFerry has already planned on doing that very thing.

Actually, you're right, on a PDF attachement on their website, it does say they will only traverse the whale habitat area off southwest Maui during whale season only if harsh sea conditions deter them from going north of Molokai. With that being said, I really don't see what is there more to condemn HSF on regarding whales. I would observe and watch operations to see if anything else can be done then.

As a former and soon-to-be again resident of Maui, my main concern is NOT about Superferry and its impacts. I'm more worried about managing the growth of Kahului Harbor to ensure that essential goods for residents will continue to arrive without disruption. If it means condemning the 2 hotels that sit right on Kahului Harbor, tearing them down to have more space on the harborside for YB, so be it. Some choices do have to be made, and not everybody's going to be happy. But the ultimate bottom line should be that decisions made about Neighbor Island ports and their usage should be up to the individual counties and NOT up to Superferry or anybody on Oahu, which is why I'm glad they're holding hearings on Kauai and Maui this weekend so Oahu legislators can hear the concerns of the Neighbor Island folks.

Actually, this problem is a lot easier than it looks. Once again, the key is the canoe club. I know, you will quote squatter's rights to me, but I think it's just ludricris to say a canoe club has the right to be in Kahului Harbor considering the development of that harbor was for commercial activity. It's like me demanding I have canoe rights next to the Matson container docks at Sand Island. Here's the simple solution. Remove canoe club. That area freed up can be used by HSF. Building a simple dock is all that is needed. I doubt you need to dredge because HSF's are shallow draft, they only take about 10 feet. Then the existing facilities for YB, cruises, and others can be left as is or improved. Build a secondary break water running parallel to Kahului Beach Rd. Canoe club can relocate there and never have to butt heads with commercial activity again. The hotels do not need to be destroyed. Infact, they may get even more business since the HSF will then dock at their doorsteps. Hotel makes a little concession space for a car rental and it will really making things convenient.

I'm not sure about the amount of time they're figuring in for fully loading the boat, too. I mean, if inspections weren't going to be required, it might be feasible to load 285 cars in 20 minutes (the Seattle ferries do it all the time in about 15 minutes), but they'd have to make sure people got to the loading area well in advance in order to do the kind of inspections that are probably going to be required

HSF's site has videos showing a similar boat doing loading/unloading. Basically all of this will be done in a one hour turn-around time. This is very doable and well paced because all the inspections and check-ins are done before hand. They say their terminals will open 2 hours before departure to take care of the inspections/check-ins first. So it will operate like an airport check-in.

Miulang

February 12th, 2007, 11:52 AM

Actually, this problem is a lot easier than it looks. Once again, the key is the canoe club. I know, you will quote squatter's rights to me, but I think it's just ludricris to say a canoe club has the right to be in Kahului Harbor considering the development of that harbor was for commercial activity.

There are THREE canoe clubs that use that area for practice (two have their hales next door at Kanaha Beach Park), and one offers moonlight paddles during the full moon.

The one canoe club that has the biggest clout in the State is the Hawaiian Canoe Club. They consistently win most of the canoe contests held statewide and they have backers who are very very powerful politically.

And you know how it is in Hawai'i: it's not what you know, it's WHO you know;)

It's not up to what the people of Honolulu want as far as the Neighbor Islands and HSF are concerned. They want to make sure that whatever decision is made, that it serves THEM first, not Honolulu. I seriously doubt any of the antis is saying absolutely no to HSF, they just want to make sure an environmental impact statement is done. Once that's done, and if it's shown that all potential risks have been identified along with their mitigations, I think you wouldn't hear another peep out of the antis. But it's this arrogance of HSF to say, if we don't get want we want, then we're going to pull out and then having the State run after them like a parent trying to calm a child having a tantrum that disturbs a lot of people. What's the problem with waiting another 6 months or however long it takes to get an EIS? Surely the pro-HSF people want to be able to give the antis and the on the fence people enough scientific reassurance that nothing adverse will happen to the Neighbor Islands? Somehow, I think many Valley Islanders may have been psychically born in Missouri (the "Show Me" state).:p If HSF has nothing to hide, why wouldn't they want to have an EIS done? Just because it hasn't been required of YB and NCL doesn't mean that HSF shouldn't have to have one done, especially for Kahului Harbor. If you read the notes from the Jan. 20 2005 meeting of the sAC, it clearly states that Maui County was requiring an EIS from Superferry but the State said it didn't require one, which is interesting because the PUC said an EIS should be done and the DOT didn't. And as you recall due to recent events, all decisions handed down by the DOT during the period spanning mid-2005 up to Dec. of last year are under scrutiny now because of the Haraga debacle.

If I was a business person and I was starting a company that required goodwill from the customers I served, I sure wouldn't go around antagonizing them by stonewalling.

Come on. The State's already coughed up $40 million to help a PRIVATE, for profit company establish a business here. It's about time the State showed some balls and stood up for the rights of its voters on the Neighbor Islands, too.

Miulang