The writing is on the wall - how else can you understand this…

I know virtually nothing about north lake activity and the ferry use.
However, the article doesn’t address the incremental cost of mothballing the ferry for future use, only stating there are significant maintenance costs. Hard to believe there is much value in a ferry that would have to be hauled to some unknown, distant destination. Maybe there will not be any great recovery in the lake in the next few years, but it certainly could happen. I know, Polly Anna. But if maintenance costs are manageable, selling “at the bottom of the market” may be short sighted.

Just read that Vail announced planned opening dates for southern UT and CO resorts well before Thanksgiving — they are hyping Super El Nino for likelihood of southern Rockies snow. 🤞🤞
 
Trix said:
I know virtually nothing about north lake activity and the ferry use
Click to expand...
The article stated something like 7500 vehicles used it in a recent year. That’s 20.5 vehicles a day. Or probably an average of 2 vehicles per trip (assuming a 10 trip day, which is probably close to accurate.

When we were partners on smaller group in years when it was operating we would frequently watch it cross empty.

The bottom line is it received very little use. Resources are limited. This is a fiscally responsible decision.
 
One administrative/legal problem with shutting down the ferry is that it's part of the state highway system--it's State Route 276 on either side of the ferry.

Here's what the state Admin Code R930-6-1(3) says:

"The primary function of a state highway is to provide system continuity and efficiency of state highway system operation and maintenance activities."

So it seems as long as the ferry is a link on a designated state highway (it is right now), state law requires that "continuity" in the system, and that the route be operated and maintained.

The only legal work-around to keeping the ferry viable is to remove the state highway designation for the road to either Bullfrog or Halls.

It might be a technicality, but the law's the law.
 
Last edited:
April 2017 we took the Ferry from Bullfrog to Halls, part of a 2-day roundtrip from Page via Scenic Byway 12, Moki Dugway & Mexican Hat.

I recall the curious “Utah State Hwy 276 East” signage as we departed land for water. Also the “Property of Utah Department of Transportation” prominently displayed onboard the ferry. It was rather curious because we were on the water using a “highway” on a marine vessel maintained by Utah DOT. IMG_7986.jpegIMG_7987.jpeg
 
It seems to me that if there is not going to be an launch ramp at Halls for the foreseeable future, thus requiring a Bullfrog Bay launch to reach Halls Marina, then the ferry might get more use by vehicles wanting to go from Bullfrog to Halls.
 
I took the ferry two summers ago at the end of a Trash Tracker trip. It was us and one other car that rode it back to Halls. I've always thought the ferry was larger than it needed to be. Certainly UDOT can find a smaller one with a shallower draft to replace the Charles Hall? It would be great to be able to get cars/trucks/trailers to/from Bullfrog/Halls so we don't have to drive the 1.5 to 2 hours extra.
Tiff

IMG_8225.jpeg
 
In 2005, UDOT made a similar decision to eliminate the John Atlantic Burr. It was sold for $200,000 to BC Ferries (Letter of the week: Powell ferry Utah sold for salvage still plies Canadian waters).

To transport it to Vancouver it was cut into pieces and shipped on trucks from Page. This required 24 foot wide loads, so I can imagine it was fun to see, but rather disruptive (https://www.trucknews.com/features/...aulers-needed-to-relocate-b-c-ferries-vessel/).

BC Ferry currently has it shown as operating as the Pune'luxutth (Pune'luxutth | BC Ferries) though other sources indicate it may have been retired. Seems like BC Ferries is still using it though.

While I am not sure it makes any sense to continue ferry service, it certainly has been fun over the years seeing the ferries going back and forth across the lake. I don't think there is enough room now to make it work on the scale of the Charles Hall and Tiff's smaller barge idea is probably a better fit.
 
Back in July, I wrote an email to UDOT about the ferry. Here is the response I received back:

I just wanted to reach out and thank you for your idea regarding ferry service at Lake Powell. Unfortunately the issue is not the size of the ferry in this case. There is plenty of water to float the ferry, there is just no way to get vehicles down to the current water elevation and load them onto the ferry. Extending loading ramps is extremely expensive, and we have not identified a funding source for it. Operating a ferry service at Lake Powell is extremely challenging even in the best of times due to its remote location. Furthermore, the severe drought conditions and low water elevation have made it infeasible without doing significant infrastructure improvements at the lake. We will continue to evaluate all options and appreciate your ideas.

Tiff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top