The former C&O carferry Badger is under EPA mandate to stop dumping ash to the water as it crosses Lake Michigan. It is the last of the active former carferries that used to hall railroad cars across the Great Lakes, however, it now just hauls autos and trucks since the 90s. It operates summers between Ludington, MI and Manitowoc, WI.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP6cdcab029b024ef2bce609882fa48eef.html
Nonsense! My grandparents used to use coal ash from the furnace for fertilizer in the garden, and you should have seen the results they got! Nothing dangerous about it at all. And dumping coal ash from ONE vessel into a body of water as big as Lake Michigan, spare me...
Using LNG fior ferries is all the rage right now. I think they are going to do it in Norway and Washington State Ferries is thinking of it. My question is would they allow a LNG tank truck to use the ferry? With the engineroom fires they had in Norway they better think again.
Firelock76 Nonsense! My grandparents used to use coal ash from the furnace for fertilizer in the garden, and you should have seen the results they got! Nothing dangerous about it at all. And dumping coal ash from ONE vessel into a body of water as big as Lake Michigan, spare me...
I don't know how the toxins mentioned in the WSJ article might effect vegetation, but they bio-accumulate in aquatic life, to the point where public agencies recommend limiting the eating of certain Great Lakes game fish. I haven't heard that the EPA wants to regulate smokestack emissions (like they do for power plants), but they just want to control dumping from the ash pans.
The Badger is the only boat on the Lakes that is exempt from EPA regs regarding the dumping of ash into the lake. This exemption is due to an Act of Congress (see one-armed Hopi laws) rather than a grandfather clause. Based on what I've read elsewhere, it would appear that Badger is profitable in part due to an exemption that nobody else has.
The competing carferry is a high speed catamaran, between Muskegon and Milwaukee. The following link is an interesting newspaper article on the reactions of the different cities to the controversy.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/11/others_opinions_newspaper_edit.html
One thing that surprises me is that "Badger" was never converted to oil firing. If you read John Maxtone-Grahams book "The Only Way to Cross" , a history of the classic ocean liners, coal firing was one big pain in the neck, among other places. Maxtone-Graham tells the story quite well, and why the shipping companys switched so enthusiastically to oil firing after World War One.
Firelock76 One thing that surprises me is that "Badger" was never converted to oil firing. If you read John Maxtone-Grahams book "The Only Way to Cross" , a history of the classic ocean liners, coal firing was one big pain in the neck, among other places. Maxtone-Graham tells the story quite well, and why the shipping companys switched so enthusiastically to oil firing after World War One.
Thats correct, the Titanic had over 300 stokers just to move the coal around, probably cut that to 30 with oil firing. The coal bunkers on the Luisitania were interconnected lengthwise causing it to heal over so fast so that the lifeboats could not be launched properly after being torpedoed, with great loss of life. The main improvement in new construction was to go to larger but fewer boilers that allowed more installed power for higher speed. The Bremen and the Europa were the first pair that allowed weekly service because of the higher speed whereas the older slower boats require three vessels for the same service. Remember in steam locomotives getting more power required going to a stoker set up because one fireman couldn't keep up with the firing rate for the extra power. In the case of the Badger its thhe steeple compound that is the historical significant feature not the coal fired boilers.
Creepycranks comment reminded me of something. Since the "Lusitania's" coal bunkers ran the length of the hull down the port and starbord sides, "Lucy" might just have survived the damage that sank the "Titanic" if their places were switched. Closing off the coal bunkers would have controlled the flooding, at least until rescue ships would have arrived. Marine historians suspect that what may have killed the "Lusitania" was a coal dust explosion that ran down the starbord side right after the torpedo impact. THAT being the case, as "Titanic's" coal bunkers ran athwartships, that is ACROSS the hull, "Titanic" might have survived the torpedo hit that killed the "Lusitania", the damage being confined to one or two watertight compartments. A bit off topic here, but fun to speculate on.
Getting back to LNG for a moment, The LNG tankers to my knowledge have a perfect safety record. They are for the most part steam turbine driven and the boilers are fed from the cargo boil off. In the case of the Badger coal fuel as is LNG is a lot cheaper than oil fuel so the cost of operation shouldn't change that much.
This strikes me as regulatory Mickey Mouse when it is compared to potential or actual damage done when a coal fired electric plant's ash pile gets loose. For examples, in the Kingston accident in Tennessee it was estimated 500,000 cu yards of ash was freed from the holding area. Another occured at Oak Creek in Michigan when an estimated 25,000 cu yards entered Lake Michigan. I believe the EPA has issued a list of 40-odd additional sites where there is a "high risk" of another spillage.
How many (hundreds of) years would the Badger have to be operated to dump the equivalent amount of ash?
Minor correction, DakGuy: Oak Creek was in Wisconsin (still is, unless too much more of it slid into the lake).
If LNG is competitive, and the conversion and fueling facilities are cost-effective, I see no reason not to convert the Badger (especially if the existing engines can be used!). If nothing else, it would get some environmentalists off their butt. I'd rather have the boat with gas than no boat. So would Ludington and Manitowoc, I suspect.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Dakguy201 This strikes me as regulatory Mickey Mouse when it is compared to potential or actual damage done when a coal fired electric plant's ash pile gets loose. For examples, in the Kingston accident in Tennessee it was estimated 500,000 cu yards of ash was freed from the holding area. Another occured at Oak Creek in Michigan when an estimated 25,000 cu yards entered Lake Michigan. I believe the EPA has issued a list of 40-odd additional sites where there is a "high risk" of another spillage. How many (hundreds of) years would the Badger have to be operated to dump the equivalent amount of ash?
The Tennessee ash flood engulfed houses. The Oak Creek, WI ash spill was from an ash dump in a bluff that slid into Lake Michigan. Of the 25,000 cu yds that slid, only about 2500 cu yds made it into Lake Michigan. The slide stayed fairly cohesive, and was surrounded by booms. The ash is to be excavated, and the lake bed restored. Both these spills will be remediated at substantial costs. These were accidents, whereas, the Badger is dumping the ask purposely.
The Badger dumps the ash in a line between the two ports. Hundreds of charter and recreational boats fish out of these ports. The carferry is not beloved by everyone in Ludington.
I would like to see the ash from the pans captured and properly disposed. It might not be practical to do in the tight confines of the boiler room squeezed below the car deck.
IIRC, the Badger is an ex-C&O boat. I seem to recall Trains reporting that, when it was built (1952), industry observers were surprised that the C&O went with coal instead of oil firing at such a late date.
Staying off topic...I have wondered that same thing myself for some years now but haven't found any informed speculation about it.
When the C&O ordered Spartan and Badger, it was still heavily coal-oriented and was still supporting the development of advanced steam locomotive designs that could compete with diesels. The ferries were ordered as coal-burners as a show of support to the coal mining business.
CSSHEGEWISCH When the C&O ordered Spartan and Badger, it was still heavily coal-oriented and was still supporting the development of advanced steam locomotive designs that could compete with diesels. The ferries were ordered as coal-burners as a show of support to the coal mining business.
That was 60 years ago. The only way the passengers will know that there is something different about this boat is all that coal smoke. CSX probably hauls more coal than C&O ever did and the above mentioned power plants probably receive their coal by lake carrier that's diesel powered.
creepycrank That was 60 years ago. The only way the passengers will know that there is something different about this boat is all that coal smoke. ...
That was 60 years ago. The only way the passengers will know that there is something different about this boat is all that coal smoke. ...
Passengers may notice something else different if the boat is converted. When I first rode the carferry, I remember looking over the side of the boat down into the clear Lake Michigan water until it turns jewel green at depth. All of a sudden a firehose sized stream of black water came gushing out of the side of the boat, and continued for a long time. I thought it might be bilge, but much later realized it was ash laden.
MidlandMikeThe former C&O carferry Badger is under EPA mandate to stop dumping ash to the water as it crosses Lake Michigan.
The Badger is now a National Historic Landmark and there is serious weight in Congress behind exempting a ship with such status from EPA rules such as coal ash disposal. So the EPA mandate should hopefully be void soon.
MidlandMikeThe Badger dumps the ash in a line between the two ports. Hundreds of charter and recreational boats fish out of these ports. The carferry is not beloved by everyone in Ludington. I would like to see the ash from the pans captured and properly disposed. It might not be practical to do in the tight confines of the boiler room squeezed below the car deck.
You're the first person I've seen from Ludington or Manitowoc that didn't fully back the Badger.
They've already stated that capturing the ash isn't practical. It would be expensive to do and maintain and isn't really under consideration.
And the coal ash is harmess. The mercury, lead, arsenic, and selenium in the ash are well within allowable limits set by the EPA and are miniscule and harmless. They discharge about 3.8 tons per day for a total of approximately 509 tons of coal ash per season. The primary contaminant, mercury, is less than a quarter of an ounce per year. It's so miniscule it isn't even detectable at the point of discharge and they have to detirmine these figures via mathematical calculations just to arrive at an estimate.
It's not doing anyone any harm.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe Badger is the only boat on the Lakes that is exempt from EPA regs regarding the dumping of ash into the lake.
Considering that there hasn't been another coal fired ship on the Great Lakes since the S.T. Crapo was converted to oil firing during her winter of 94/95 layup (Only to be retired at the end of the 1996 season when an integrated tug/barge combo took her job away), how is that exactly a problem? It can't be unfair since there's no one left to be unfair towards. The coal ban came at a time when only the Badger was left.
CSSHEGEWISCHThis exemption is due to an Act of Congress (see one-armed Hopi laws) rather than a grandfather clause. Based on what I've read elsewhere, it would appear that Badger is profitable in part due to an exemption that nobody else has.
The competition has recieved millions in government grants and only exists due to those grants and other government assistance. Even the construction of the ship was only possible because the government gave them a $17.5 million loan guarantee on the construction. Yet they cry foul when the Badger asks for federal stimulus funds since it would be the government assisting a private enterprise in competition with them.
They've spent a quarter million of their own money on studies to make the Badger more environmentally friendly (Which has already resulted in significantly decreased ash discharge) and were prepared to match that with several million dollars to keep a part of American history operating and protect American jobs. Yet they're turned down despite Lake Michigan Carferry being started with private funding and operated with private funding ever since. Yet the only reason there is even any competition in the first place is because of massive government assistance to finance Lake Express.
The Badger is directly responsible for 250 jobs, supports many other jobs at shipyards and such, and has an economic impact of nearly $35 million annually on the port cities of Ludington and Manitowoc. The Badger is the lifeblood to those communities it serves. So her demise would not only would be a loss of a valuable and interesting part of history, but would be an economic disaster for those communities. .
It's the competition that is getting all the benefits from the government. It's the Badger being treated unfairly, not Lake Express.
Firelock76One thing that surprises me is that "Badger" was never converted to oil firing. If you read John Maxtone-Grahams book "The Only Way to Cross" , a history of the classic ocean liners, coal firing was one big pain in the neck, among other places. Maxtone-Graham tells the story quite well, and why the shipping companys switched so enthusiastically to oil firing after World War One.
The Badger has mechanical stokers just like any modern steam locomotive had. She doesn't really need anymore men in her engine room than a modern powerplant would require. There hasn't been a hand fired ship on the Great Lakes since the carferry Chief Wawatam last sailed under her own power in 1984.
creepycrankIn the case of the Badger its thhe steeple compound that is the historical significant feature not the coal fired boilers.
Her coal fired boilers were a big component behind their application for landmark status.
And to be even clearer, she's powered by Skinner Unaflow steam engines. They're technically reciprocating steeple compounds, as you said, although they're almost a steam version of internal combustion engines. They're the last of their kind in a passenger ship (And as far as I'm aware, beyond a few tourist operations here and there, she's the last steam passenger ship of any kind operating in North America). She's also the last railroad Great Lakes carferry operating. She's the last coal powered ship operating on the Lakes, etc. She's not only valuable economically, but because of her rich history, her education value, and the experience crossing Lake Michigan on a classic vessel that allows one to step back into time.
As for her engines, only the just retired Great Lakes freighter James Norris that sailed her last a few days ago and is now at a scrapyard, the former WWII era landing ship dock USS Comstock still sailing in the Taiwan Navy, and the still active Great Lakes freighter St. Mary's Challenger (Built in 1906 and still going strong despite being 6 years older than Titanic) have Unaflow type steam engines today. And of course the heavily stripped engines of the Spartan still exists onboard her to serve as a parts source for the Badger.
They once were used in several new builds and to repower several other lake freighters back in the 50's, the Casablanca class escort carriers during WWII and some other naval vessels, and the C&O twins from the 1950's. Almost all have disappeared so it's just one more reason it's important to protect the Badger.
Kevin C. SmithIIRC, the Badger is an ex-C&O boat. I seem to recall Trains reporting that, when it was built (1952), industry observers were surprised that the C&O went with coal instead of oil firing at such a late date.
I don't know why, they continued building coal powered Lake freighters for several more years (For instance, the Edmund Fitzgerald, launched in 1958, was coal fired from launch up until 4 or 5 years before she sunk in 1975). It clearly must've still made economic sense throughout the 1950's..
While most all of the modern 1950's coal fired vessels had been converted to oil firing by 1980, many dozens of earlier coal powered freighters continued to successfully operate at a profit right up until the recession of 1980 and the resulting devastation of things like the North American steel industry that eventually sent the survivors to the scrapyard as Great Lakes fleets divested their older vessels and reduced their carrying capacity to be in line with the resulting decreased demand.
Even some nearly new ships in Great Lakes terms went to the scrapyard, including two of the largest vessels on the Great Lakes, the Arthur B. Homer (The longest Great Lakes ship scrapped to date) and the William Clay Ford (The second longest). Ironically, the Homer was the Fitzgerald's sistership and the Ford assisted in the search for suvivors the night the Fitzgerald sank.
It left the legions of coal fired ships from the early 1900's with no cargoes to carry and quickly killed off the survivors. That's why the Badger is all alone today. Only the Irvin L. Clymer and the S.T. Crapo survived into the 1990's before age finished off the Clymer in 1991 and the Crapo's owners converted her to oil firing a few years later since coal was getting expensive since the infrastructure and distribution network for coal died along with the disappearance of the ships.
It wasn't because the government unfairly drove them away while giving the Badger special permission to keep burning coal, like some have portrayed in this thread. The Badger was the only operating coal fired ship left when the EPA mandate came about. There were no other active vessels to grandfather in.
Leo_Ames MidlandMike: The former C&O carferry Badger is under EPA mandate to stop dumping ash to the water as it crosses Lake Michigan. The Badger is now a National Historic Landmark and there is serious weight in Congress behind exempting a ship with such status from EPA rules such as coal ash disposal. So the EPA mandate should hopefully be void soon. MidlandMike: The Badger dumps the ash in a line between the two ports. Hundreds of charter and recreational boats fish out of these ports. The carferry is not beloved by everyone in Ludington. I would like to see the ash from the pans captured and properly disposed. It might not be practical to do in the tight confines of the boiler room squeezed below the car deck. You're the first person I've seen from Ludington or Manitowoc that didn't fully back the Badger.
MidlandMike: The former C&O carferry Badger is under EPA mandate to stop dumping ash to the water as it crosses Lake Michigan.
MidlandMike: The Badger dumps the ash in a line between the two ports. Hundreds of charter and recreational boats fish out of these ports. The carferry is not beloved by everyone in Ludington. I would like to see the ash from the pans captured and properly disposed. It might not be practical to do in the tight confines of the boiler room squeezed below the car deck.
Wow! And I thought I didn't get out much. I live about an hour from Ludington and would travel there on business regularly. I know a number of people who dock their boats there. Some like the historical aspect of the ship, but some would just as soon not see it again. There have been the occasionally complaints from the townspeople about the smoke and ferry traffic. But I don't get a sense that it is any big issue with a lot of people. Frankfort is also about a hour from me. When the Ann Arbor ferries shut down, the town had an opportunity to retain a carferry as museum, but passed. They seem to be doing quite well as a lakeside tourist town.
You also mention :
"...The primary contaminant, mercury, is less than a quarter of an ounce per year. It's so miniscule it isn't even detectable at the point of discharge and they have to detirmine these figures via mathematical calculations just to arrive at an estimate."
I presume you were saying something about dilution factors in the lake, but I wanted to make it clear to others that there was sample analysis done on actual ash, and that it's not all based on theoretical "mathematical calculations." The lab sheets can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdf/Attachment-D-1.pdf
The boat owners are following thru on their EPA paperwork, and I have more faith on the process to sort out if it's harmful, than on Congress' attempt to derail the administrative procedure. If you think politics is a friend to steamboats, look what it's done for Amtrak.
As best as I can tell, that report confirms my statements. Look at the results of their test for various contaminants. They're no where even close to the "action level" where they become a problem for virtually everything that was tested for. And many things that were tested for are considered harmless with no action level. Heck, in many of the test, virtually nothing was even at detectable levels.
What I stated was a near quote of what Lake Michigan Carferry stated just a few months ago about the total output of contaminants from the Badger over the course of a season. And they've made several advancements since that report, including a new supplier of low ash coal and a changed sailing season, that has allowed them to significantly reduce how much they dump. And it's also quite clear they wouldn't lie about such figures since it would be very easy to be proven as a lie and would just harm their position.
http://www.htrnews.com/article/20111123/MAN0101/111230577/S-S-Badger-picked-study-gas-conversion
What's dumped is essentially inert and the EPA basically wants it to stop just out of principle since it's the dumping of waste into Lake Michigan, not because of any environmental problem.
Also, your protrayal of how the citizens of both communities feel about this couldn't be any further from the truth. I suggest people that want to know the truth to do a little research in things like the local papers. There are several local papers that are available online where you actually see what people in the area think, including the source I just used. The Badger has near full support from the local citizens and governments and they're sure as heck not indifferent towards the entire thing like you're suggesting. The Badger is critical to their entire economy during the summer season
I don't know what your agenda is, but it doesn't involve the facts. And your faith in the EPA is terribly misguided and foolhardy.
Leo Ames, my only agenda for starting this thread was to keep alive a little bit of C&O history since no one else picked up on the story. I don't have a dog in this fight. A cursory look at the sample data shows the low levels of the contaminants of concern. I have considerable environmental experience, but I am retired now and see no point in trying to second guess how this should go. I don't always agree with the EPA, but you seem to have a compulsive dislike for them. I had read some of the articles in local papers, but I'm sure it was not to the intensity of your research. I don't doubt there is popular support for the boat. I was only trying to counter your observation that I was the only person who didn't fully back the Badger. I didn't need to read a paper to know what other locals had told me.
MidlandMike I don't always agree with the EPA, but you seem to have a compulsive dislike for them.
For my dislike of the EPA, let's look at Great Lakes steamers again for one of many examples that illustrate my complete lack of respect for them. A significant number of steam turbine powered vessels still exist in the US fleet, although several are currently idle due to the lingering effects of this recession. The EPA placed a date that these had to initially exit service (I want to say 2012, but I'm too lazy to check) a couple of years ago. Eventually this was pushed out to something like 2018 when it became obvious it couldn't even be met in time even if they could afford to (Long lead times on 9,000 HP diesels and not nearly enough shipyard capacity to do all this work over a couple of winters).
So the EPA, in their quest to preserve their existence and grow their power, decided emissions from Great Lakes vessels was going to be their next area of concern. So they placed a mandate on a mode of transportation that is by far the most fuel efficient there is. The effects are going to be that shipping cost rise. Shipping rates will rise to subsidize repowering vessels for those that continue to use this model of transport. Others will switch to rail with their cargos pulled by things like modern Tier 4 diesels from EMD and GE that still burn far more fuel and put far more pollution into the atmosphere moving the same amount of tonnage as an inefficient 60 year old steam powerplant on a Great Lakes vessel would. Other companies might not be able to afford to stay in business due to the increased transportation cost, shifting even more American business like what little is left of our domestic steel industry to China where they'd pollute far more than the domestic business over here did. And so on and so on.
How does this benefit our environment, the very purpose of the EPA, by going after a dozen or so steam powered merchant ships in the US fleet? They've spent the years since 1980 like many American families do today, living day by day trying to survive and make ends meet and hopefully squeek out a little extra by the end of the year. The days of things like 90 million tons of iron ore shipped through the locks at Sault Saint Marie died along with most our steel industry 30 years ago. They have the money for necessities and a little bit extra to appease the shareholders, and little else.
They don't have the money to spend on repowering vessels that don't need repowering. So the EPA, in its quest to protect and improve our environment (Or so they say), is just hurting it with such a move. Same with the Badger if they kill it off with this mandate if the company isn't able to survive. Irregardless of all the intrinsic values of preserving it as is, those automobiles, SUV's, pickups, semis, and so on will suddenly have to travel much further if they stay on roads rather than shortening their trip by sailing aboard a more efficient mode of transport on the waves of Lake Michigan. Going after the Badger, the last remainder of the days when many hundreds of coal powered ships of all types once sailed those waters, has every possibility of just increasing the amount of damage done to our environment. Those people, if they still choose to travel, are going to now be taking the long way around and putting out far more pollution on the roads than the Badger would've done taking them across Lake Michigan and saving them a lot of mileage.
MidlandMike I don't doubt there is popular support for the boat. I was only trying to counter your observation that I was the only person who didn't fully back the Badger.
I don't doubt that there are some exceptions. But the overwhelming majority are clearly behind the Badger. That's all I contested and was trying to communicate.
Leo_Ames A significant number of steam turbine powered vessels still exist in the US fleet, although several are currently idle due to the lingering effects of this recession. The EPA placed a date that these had to initially exit service (I want to say 2012, but I'm too lazy to check) a couple of years ago. Eventually this was pushed out to something like 2018 when it became obvious it couldn't even be met in time even if they could afford to (Long lead times on 9,000 HP diesels and not nearly enough shipyard capacity to do all this work over a couple of winters).
A significant number of steam turbine powered vessels still exist in the US fleet, although several are currently idle due to the lingering effects of this recession. The EPA placed a date that these had to initially exit service (I want to say 2012, but I'm too lazy to check) a couple of years ago. Eventually this was pushed out to something like 2018 when it became obvious it couldn't even be met in time even if they could afford to (Long lead times on 9,000 HP diesels and not nearly enough shipyard capacity to do all this work over a couple of winters).
Are these ships oil fired? What is the environmental concern? Thanks.
Also I probably should have been more clear what I meant by the "process" in my earlier post. It does not just depend on a single agency like the EPA. Any regulatory action has to be based on existing law. If an agency brought a case to court, and they could not cite applicable statute, the judge would get very angry.
MidlandMikeAre these ships oil fired? What is the environmental concern? Thanks.
They're oil fired (Using Bunker C just like oil fired steam locomotives did) and inefficient compared to the latest diesel powerplants of comparable power. The rule is over air pollutants. They want to mandate fuel with a much lower sulfur content than used today, but which is impossible to use on steamships. So it essentially equates to a ban on steam.
Like I said in that long winded post above, this basically promises to do more harm than good. It threatens to push cargo to less efficient rail, or worse, off-shore it to heavily polluting plants in places like China with a long ocean voyage followed by a long rail trip to accomplish what clean domestic plants (In comparison) that employ American workers are presently doing with 60 year old steamships (albeit not as efficient as a modern merchant vessel built in 2011) with just a couple of hundred mile voyage on the Great Lakes..
Here is some insight by Washington based Clear Air Watch, one of the big pushers of this EPA mandate. It essentially amounts to that they should do it because they aren't already doing it. Ashame to see people that just refuse to use the brain that the good Lord gave them like this individual.
Frank O'Donnell (President of the group) dismissed the concerns as the companies just wanting to "keep their big stinkers on the water." He said ships that are 50 to 100 years old are a major pollution problem, not something to preserve.
"Isn't it about time some of these ships were modernized?" he asked. "Since we're doing it with trucks and we're doing it with tractors and we're cleaning up trains, isn't it time to deal with ships?"
Here's some interesting facts about the Badger, ignoring sentiment and the value of the operation as an historic asset.
-Saves approximately 1 million gallons of fuel each year by allowing vehicles to avoid driving around the Lake.
-This causes a "4.3 ton reduction in hydrocarbons, a 100 ton reduction in carbon monoxide, a 20 ton reduction in NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and a 1,089 ton reduction in particulate matter (i.e., dirt in the air)".
-"The Badger is the single most important maritime element of an emergency response plan under formation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as part of contingency planning for a terrorist attack on Chicago. The vessel is uniquely suited for emergency evacuation".
-The Badger is directly responsible for 200 jobs and indirectly responsible for 500, contributes $21 million annually to Ludington and $14 million to Manitowoc in economic impact, for a total of more than $570 million since they started operations in 1992.
If they were really concerned about the Badger, they'd be doing what they could to provide assistance to reduce pollution rather than a mandate with no offer of assistance that threatens to sink her, destroy two communities economically, and signifcantly hurt our environment. The only motives here are for the EPA to justify their existence, maintain their power, and expand their sphere of influence. It ceased being an organization legitimately concerned about America many years ago.
Has anybody else noticed that Badger is no longer performing the primary function for which it was built? All of C&O's and Ann Arbor's ferries were built to transport freight cars across Lake Michigan, automobiles were strictly a sideline. The question remains, does Badger need an exemption from environmental law to remain economically viable?
With her sailing date for the 2012 season nearing, things aren't looking good for going past this season. Hope everyone that's interested in her takes advantage while they still can.
Regardless of the loss of history, convenience, and just a beautiful and fun way to travel, I especially feel sorry for the local communities that are going to be devastated by this. Several businesses have already put investments on hold pending the final outcome of what's going to happen with the Badger for an example of the economic reality they're facing of not having this service and all the dollars it brings to these two communities.
Hope she survives somehow and remains a coal fired passenger steamship pleasing the public, offering a useful service, and protecting the environment by taking many vehicles off highways for a shorter trip on a more efficient mode of transport. Starting to approach the point now where saving her is going to be a 11th hour rescue if it happens, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
CSSHEGEWISCH Has anybody else noticed that Badger is no longer performing the primary function for which it was built? All of C&O's and Ann Arbor's ferries were built to transport freight cars across Lake Michigan, automobiles were strictly a sideline. The question remains, does Badger need an exemption from environmental law to remain economically viable?
She's still hauling passengers (Being a railroad carferry for freight cars was just half her job, she's also been a passenger ship with extensive passenger accomodations since day 1). And a significant portion of her business is hauling trucks including many 18 wheelers. So she's still a freight hauler even though the freight is coming across on rubber tires instead of steel wheels.
Thanks for the 'heads-up'. May try to do that later this summer/ early fall. See also:
The Great Lakes Car Ferries, by George W. Hilton, Howell-North Books, 1962:
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=2697286
- Paul North.
This thread is depressing. I've never ridden her, and I probably won't now that I live on the west coast, but I don't know what a trip up to Door County will be like without the anticipation of seeing the Badger in Manitowoc.
I doubt it will be the same level of Bittersweet as when she stopped calling on Kewanee.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.