by
Captain Dan Twohig
I originally wrote this rough fuel analysis last September to illustrate the possibilities that are out there to amend WSF schedules to address the USCG mandate for "Crew Endurance Management" which is the current catch phrase for the crew fatigue standards instituted after the Exxon Valdez incident. What I found was that by slowing the ships down a little, we could save millions of fuel dollars per ship per year and reduce the Greenhouse Emissions by thousands of Metric Tons per ship per year. Here are the numbers:
The following estimates are derived from the "Jumbo Mark II Underway Basic Fuel and Emission Information" report that was put together to support running the ships on two engines vs. three. This data is available in amazingly great detail from the WSF Port Engineer's office. WSF has saved considerable fuel dollars by shutting down one engine while running across the sound but this original study seems to be focused on maintaining our 18.5 knot cruising speed. We can do better...
If you slow a Mark II down from 18.5kts to 16kts while running on two engines, the additional fuel savings can be in excess of two million dollars per year (per ship…). Slowing the boats down to 16kts adds about 3-4 minutes to a 30 minute crossing.
I used the following formulas and assumptions to arrive at these figures.
A Jumbo Mk II burns 389 gallons/hr at 18.5kts on two engines (165 shaft RPM).
This same ship burns 266 gallons/hr at 16kts on two engines (140 shaft RPM).
This is a fuel savings of 123 gallons per hour.
Ships on the Bainbridge run operate an average of 19 hours per day, about 340 days per year. In order to be conservative with these estimated numbers, I used 16 hours per day running time to compensate for in-port time "pushing the dock" for loading, speeding up and slowing down. I realize that the data is available to be more accurate but I am using these estimates for demonstration purposes only. This is a rough analysis. A more comprehensive report can be requested from the WSF Port Engineer's Office.
123 gallons saved per hour X 16 hours/day X 340 days/year = 669,120 gallons/year.
At $3.00 per gallon, fuel savings = $2,007,360 per ship, per year.
At $3.25 per gallon, fuel savings = $2,174,640 per ship, per year.
At $3.50 per gallon, fuel savings = $2,341,920 per ship, per year.
Although we have no way to predict exactly where fuel prices will go this formula demonstrates that for every $0.25 bump in price, slowing these vessels down to 16kts creates an additional $167, 280 in fuel savings.
A Jumbo Mk II produces 8,786lbs of greenhouse gasses and particulates per hour at 18.5kts. The same ship produces only 6000lbs at 16kts. Using the same formula and assumptions as above, this is a reduction of 2,786 lbs of greenhouse pollutants per hour or 17,997,560 lbs per ship, per year.
To make this number easier to understand, 17,997,560 lbs/2000 lbs = 8999 MT (Metric Tons) of greenhouse gasses and airborne particulate pollutants not released into the atmosphere of Puget Sound.
If we were to slow the ships down to 16kts, have departures from Bainbridge and Seattle every hour on the hour, during non-peak times we would continue to provide the needed commuterservice, make better use of the capacity that we have, save the state millions of dollars per ship per year and reduce the level of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere of Puget Sound by tens of thousands of Metric Tons per year.
This savings estimate is just for the Jumbo Mk II class ships . There are three of them (Wenatchee, Tacoma, Puyallup). Multiply the above savings by three then ask yourself, "what data is readily available for the other classes of ferries?"
As for the accuracy of my numbers, they were derived from a report written by the WSF Port Engineer's office. My rough fuel savings numbers were designed to be conservative. I am not an engineer and do not have the nuanced statistical mind to verbalize fuel consumption curves while accelerating and decelerating. A more accurate report containing charts and graphs "with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one" is probably available from WSF but it might not be easily grokked by the layman. The bottom line is that those last two "top-end" knots of speed are very expensive.
As state employees we are all stewards of the taxpayer's dollars. I am a taxpayer too. We may be able to do a better job serving the public interest by slowing the ships down a little thus saving a substantial amount of money and pumping considerably less pollution into the atmosphere. Scheduling the Seattle/Bainbridge boats to leave the dock on the hour (during non-peak times would be less confusing for our customers, make better use of the available vehicle capacity and the additional few minutes in port would not only allow us to conduct more meaningful crew training, but also allow the cabin crews to keep the boats a little cleaner which is the ferry system's biggest source of complaints... a win/win for everybody. Changing the schedules for the Bainbridge Island run is just one example of how this slow down concept would work. It is possible that a modified version of this concept can be used on other runs too.
It is my understanding that WSF Management is held in a tight box regarding what they can and cannot do without direction from the Transportation Commission and the Legislature. Unfortunately this is a handicap when trying to be flexible in meeting the needs of the system. This is partially why we were granted an extension on the USCG scheduling mandate until September of 2009 and it probably is also why we are now looking at Plan A, Plan B and hopefully Plan C as to the long range future . Slowing the boats down and adjusting the schedules a bit is just one possible tool in the box to meet our goals.
I have only worked with WSF for 3 years. However, I am learning that due to continual funding shortfalls, we have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for quite a while now and it is imperative that we fix the money issue. The situation is indeed dire however I believe cutting service will not be a viable long range answer when our own studies tell us that ridership demand will rise as the Peninsula develops. The notion of cutting jobs on the vessels is ludicrous because the manning levels are mandated by the Coast Guard and the Code of Federal Regulations. To keep vessel labor costs as low as possible WSF already mans its vessels at the absolute lowest possible numbers based on the USCG safety requirements and personnel contracts. The Coast Guard and other agencies (federal and state) pile addition regulatory requirements on our crews every year and it is extremely expensive to train and certify all these people. We also have an aging workforce. I was told the other day in a WSF training session that the median age of the workers on the ferries is 56.7 years! How long can we sustain that? I don't know...
Our job at WSF is to move people and commerce across the sound in a safe, efficient and reliable manner. I have worked in the maritime industry my entire adult life. In my maritime career I have sailed all over the world and been part of many complicated marine operations. Washington State Ferries is without a doubt the most complex (non-military) operation I have ever had the honor to be associated with. Bad press surrounding the occasional snafu not withstanding, the people of WSF both in the office and on the vessels do an amazing job keeping all the balls in the air while moving all those millions of people and those billions of dollars of commerce around Puget Sound.
Washington State Ferries is not just an iconic tourist symbol for our state; but a lifeline for commerce in the Puget Sound region. I honestly don't know what the final answer will be for the Long Range Plan but we really do need one. It must be multifaceted and include funding for operations, capital projects both ashore and afloat, address unplanned contingencies and maintain our aging workforce. Building the needed ships to replace our aging fleet should be accomplished sooner rather than later. Any shipyard in the world will tell you that it will never be cheaper to build a ship than it was just yesterday...
I am hopeful we will see a viable answer soon and it is my belief that people smarter then me are working on it...
Captain Dan Twohig
Friday evening, February 20th. the Food Network will air the San Juan Islands episode of “Rachael’s Vacation” in which Rachael Ray and her husband John Cusimano visited Orcas Island and San Juan Island last summer. 
Tim Flanagan has boated since childhood, when his family cruised their trailerable powerboat up and down the Columbia River and into the San Juan and Gulf Islands. As an adult he took up sailing; his one-design racing résumé includes the Laser, J/24, and J/35. He has made three offshore passages totaling about 4500 miles, including two down the US west coast and one from Honolulu to Seattle. Tim cruises with his wife and two daughters aboard Two Lucky Fish, a C-Dory 22 Cruiser. Professionally, Tim has had a varied career, including stints as an ESL teacher overseas, talk radio producer, 911 operator, Microsoft encyclopedia editor, and freelance writer.
