Superferry

Cars Damaged Onboard in Rough Seas - Is this Design Ready for JHSV?

kauaibrad — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:30:59 -0800

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Cars Damaged Onboard in Rough Seas - Is this Design Ready for JHSV? Additions made below on 1/6/09 7:45pm:

Well, I've still got at least one more post to do on the lack of studied need being established by the PUC and Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 5). Will get that up soon. I've been enjoying a break from this. Also, the updated page for seeing the State Supreme Court decision when it comes out is the following: http://www.state.hi.us/jud/2009jan.htm.

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 4)

kauaibrad — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:58:33 -0800

Monday, December 29, 2008

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 4) Revisions on 12/31/08 Begin with the 4th Paragraph Down:

This Part 4 will look at the timing and logistical problems and incompatibilities with the possibility of whether there could be a second 'large capacity ferry vessel' company that could get approval to operate under Act 2. Part 5 of this series will look at how 'need' was and was not estabilished by the PUC, commented on formally by Mina Morita, and how Act 2 subtly altered that PUC conditioned 'need' to at one point what Act 2 calls 'critical' need, regardless of the fact that there was never a formal study undertaken to determine if in fact these designs would satisify any 'need' at all.

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 3)

kauaibrad — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:31:51 -0800

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 3) In Act 2 there are at least 5 places, 3 Sections in the Act, where prior agreements or approvals that had been invalidated by the courts are explicitly stated to be reauthorized by Act 2. The key Sections for these reauthorizations are Section 1(d), Section 3, and Section 15. The reauthorizations are for:

1) The certificate of public convenience and necessity;
2) Any agreements between the department of transportation or the state and a large capacity ferry vessel company previously entered into;
3) Any state lands previously authorized to be used;
4) Any state harbor improvement or state or county facilities previously made or made available; and
5) Any tariffs issued by the company for the purpose of facilitating this provision of service.

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 2)

kauaibrad — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 02:51:01 -0800

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 2) Among the most significant points within Act 2 that create a "closed class of one" special law, the first point I will mention is not the most egregious, but it is one of the points that I find most interesting, so I will start with the definition of a "large capacity ferry vessel":

"PART II SECTION 2. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Large capacity ferry vessel" means any inter-island ferry vessel that transports, is designed to transport, or is intended to transport per voyage at least five hundred passengers, two hundred motor vehicles, and cargo between the islands of the state..."

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 1)

kauaibrad — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:36:01 -0800

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Act 2: A Closed Class of One (Part 1) This report will rely upon the content of Act 2 and the applicable citations from Act 2 as listed in The Act 2 Citations Creating a 'Closed Class of One'.

Mina Morita's PUC Formal Complaint 9-26-2007

andrea — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:17:47 -0800

attached

HawaiiSuperferryTariff 1A - April 2007.pdf

andrea — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:14:31 -0800

attached

PUC Decision on HSF 12-30-2004

andrea — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:12:10 -0800

attached

The Act 2 Citations Creating a 'Closed Class of One'

kauaibrad — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:45:25 -0800

The Act 2 Citations Creating a 'Closed Class of One' These are ALL of the citations within Act 2 that lend themselves toward creating the "closed class of one" requirement for special legislation. That state lands were used to award special benefits and that public necessity was never established as studied fact in this case complete the legal argument that this was special law and not general law. There are a few additional glaring citations not directly related to "closed class of one" that I have included. I am putting the citations up in order now, and will analyze them, particularly as to timing in a later post, soon.

PART I SECTION 1. (a) ...The legislature also finds that it is clearly in the public interest that a large capacity ferry vessel service should commence as soon as possible...

The Rapid Risk Assessment Did Not Adequately Respond to Act 2 Section 4

kauaibrad — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:35:48 -0800

Monday, December 22, 2008

The Rapid Risk Assessment Did Not Adequately Respond to the Requirements of Act 2 Section 4 Although the more important point right now would be going over the list of citations (that is completed) from Act 2 that creates a "closed class of one," I feel I first have to point out a significant and telling mistake that has been made regarding the reporting requirements under Act 2 Section 4.

Following reading and re-reading Act 2 line-by-line, the Governor's enabling EO 07-10, and the PUC's decision on this of Dec. 30, 2004, I decided to review the last few OTF reports.