All fares are each way, adult (except for WSF)

Bridgeport CN-Port Jefferson NY Sailing time-1 = hours Car & driver= $32.50+$1.50 tax Foot passenger=$11.25+.75 tax

Baylink, (private?) Vallejo-San Fran. Walk on 55 minutes $7.50

Red and White (private) Richmond-San Fran. Walk on 45 minutes $5.00

New York Waterway NJ-NY (Largest privately owned commuter ferry Operator) Walk on 5-8 minutes $5.00

Prince William County-Wash DC Sailing time? Walk on Planned $5-6

WSF Seattle-Bremerton 60 minutes Car & driver $6.50 ($8.25 peak season) walk on/passenger in vehicle $3.70 eastbound only

Some of these are presumed to be subsidized. (by me) In any case, it seems WSF has not been charging the going rate from around the country.

The only instance where I found lower fares was in the Red and White, they charge $1.00 to go from 1 S.F. point to another S.F. point.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999

Answers

I wouldn't argue that they shouldn't be raised a bit. I believe that the WSF system is considering that idea right now.

Of course the main thing they have to consider is to keep a balance. If they doubled all their prices, in theory they might get close to having farebox revenue equal expenses. Of course if you double the price, odds are that you're going to lose a substantial number of your passengers, which lowers your revenue.

Then again, any increase in fares will have to go to a vote of the people for approval.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 30, 1999.

WSF fares have not even kept pace with inflation. They didn't have to. They just kept cranking up the subsidy. But if you look at the BC ferries fares, they are equivalent to WSF for passengers, only modestly worse for most vehicle trips (remembering that one dollar Canadian is about 67 cents US).

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 30, 1999.

Patrick your back! I think I am with Craig on this one. Ferry dependant passengers (that we all helped create) should be given the increases incrementally, not all at once.

I only wanted to make the point that they have been receiving a very good deal for a long time. Also, I did find a Private Company in the commuter ferry business. I wonder if they need a couple of fast passenger only Ferries? Or maybe they have the desire to expand!

See, I CAN be nice.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

"If they doubled all their prices, in theory they might get close to having farebox revenue equal expenses" If they doubled all their prices and they DIDN'T change the number of passengers by doing so, they'd still come nowhere NEAR equalling their expenses. Their current farebox recovery is only 15 cents on the dollar (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF).

Patrick- This is just like the Sounder thread. You could GREATLY improve the quality of your postings if you would just bother to do a little RESEARCH instead of pulling figures out of your....... hat.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), December 30, 1999.

and the operating costs still don't count another $90 million a year they've been getting from the state for capital expenses (building new terminals and boats).

They actually SPENT $220 million last year. Fares brought in less than $20 million. Same source.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 30, 1999.

"Of course the main thing they have to consider is to keep a balance. " Ah yes, I learned this from Mr. Miyagi in the Karate Kid. Might as well attribute your sources, Patrick.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

Craigster,

How can we catch fish if you keep chasing away the bait? ;)

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

I'm sorry, Marsha. I realize I'm getting a little intense with old Patrick. It's just that I lament the demise of fact based logic. I think it went out when sight reading came in. Spell the word anyway you want, it's all subjective. Argue the argument anyway you want, one person's opinion is as good as anothers. Only there is an external reality. And if you ignore it long enough, it'll bite you in the butt.

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 31, 1999.

Wow, you guys are quite fond of patting yourselves on the back when you really haven't done anything. The doubling of the rate would most certainly drive away enough customers to make the increase moot. While you might be all so proud of yourself there Craig, you pretty much made the point that I was getting to. If the doubling of the rate hardly makes a dent in getting the ferries to be self sufficient, yet chases away a large enough customer base to eliminate any possible increase in revenue, then we're probably not looking at fare increases to even remotely come close to solving the issue of making the ferries self sufficient.

Now here's a challenge for you all. If these private companies are making ends meet on comparable routes (something I'm not conceding that they are doing), then what is it that they are doing that makes them so much more efficient than the WSF? And please don't give me "they're private companies, that's what makes them more efficient" answer. Give me specifics on HOW they are more efficient. What could a private company do to shave off 85% of those operating costs? Since the other private companies are operating their fleets at comparable fares, a private company here should be able to do the same, right?

So can anyone answer that question? How could a private company provide adequate service in Puget Sound for about $20 million or so?

Come on Marsha, quit criticizing and start offering some solutions! And that incremental rate increase probably wouldn't work. After a couple years of approving increases, most people would probably start voting no just because they're tired of voting on it.

Come on Craig, you're great at finding other people's statistics. Let's see if you can actually put some of them to constructive use in finding a solution. Seems all you do is find stats that point out how one thing or another doesn't bring in much money. Let's see if you can come up with a thought of your own and figure out something better.

Come on zowie.... Well, let's start with giving you the challenge of coming up with anything. You remind me of the smart alleck sidekick in cop movies that doesn't actually do anything except pad out the running time.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

Here are a few Ferry facts (and perhaps a little fallacy), some I did not know.

http://www.thesunlink.com/news/99december/daily/1205a1b.html

Here are a few interesting highlights.

The Bay Area passed a water transit initiative that is exploring a world-class system of 120 high-speed ferries. (Getting any new ideas yet Tim?)

Charging higher fares and contracting out to private operators cuts its expenses.

Don't keep fares artificially low. He (Smith) doesn't think a $10 round trip per passenger is unreasonable. Keep politics out of it, especially out of boat design. Cut service during slow times. Negotiate a labor contract that allows split shifts.

Yes, I posted just little bitty pieces, the ones I liked best.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

A quote from that same article. President of Argosy commenting on providing a passenger only ferry from Bremerton to Seattle.

"Blackman concedes that a private company couldn't operate without a subsidy."

And oh look, it also says that BC Ferries runs with a subsidy. Interesting, it says that it's 20% less than WSF. Now if WSF gets about a 90% subsidy by Craig's math, then a 20% less subsidy is roughly a 70% subsidy. But in another thread, Craig seemed to think that they operate at only about a 10% subsidy (I assume that based on the 90% farebox recovery he quoted). Can you account for this apparent difference Craig?

Actually there was a rebuttle letter to the editor a few days after this article calling Smith's $10 round trip passenger crazy. That is a fairly steep rate, and one could assume that the car ferries will still be running at least during the peak hours with the capability of carrying walk ons. Although a private company could set its fare at $10, it's doubtful that the ferry system would ask the voters for such a massive increase in its rate. So which would you choose, a private ferry that could get you to Seattle about 20 minutes faster (that Rich Passage speed limit still in place) but cost $10, or a slower state ferry that charges you about $4? Unless the state ferry stopped allowing walk on passengers, it's real doubtful that a private firm could woo too many customers.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

"Wow, you guys are quite fond of patting yourselves on the back when you really haven't done anything."

And again your wrong, Patrick. You see, we actually did some RESEARCH to come up with FACTS upon which to base our opinions. I realize you believe that to be a waste of time, that comes through CRYSTAL clear in all your posts. Notwithstanding your disbelief, gathering facts upon which to base decisions is a worthwhile endeavor.

"The doubling of the rate would most certainly drive away enough customers to make the increase moot." What you are talking about is what economists call the elasticity in the demand for a service. I am glad that you realize that static forecasting assumptions really aren
ft valid, because the US Congress still ignorantly scores tax revenues that way. That
fs why the "luxury tax" on yachts was such a disaster several years ago. You are smarter than the average member of Congress. Don
ft get a swelled head. That
fs called damning someone with faint praise.

"While you might be all so proud of yourself there Craig," Not at all. It only took about 30 seconds to pull up FACTS rather than basing my decisions on guesses. That
fs nothing to feel proud about doing, it
fs something that you should feel embarrassed about not doing.

"you pretty much made the point that I was getting to. If the doubling of the rate hardly makes a dent in getting the ferries to be self sufficient, yet chases away a large enough customer base to eliminate any possible increase in revenue, then we're probably not looking at fare increases to even remotely come close to solving the issue of making the ferries self sufficient." I don
ft know that it would result in a net decrease, it depends on the elasticity of demand. But certainly one would not expect a doubling of fares to produce a doubling of revenue. It would, with high likelihood, be less than that.

"Come on Craig, you're great at finding other people's statistics." No I
fm not. I rarely look up anything that isn
ft just a few mouse clicks away on the Web. But when half of what is said can be disproved by a few facts and some basic math, it
fs obvious that some people aren
ft interested in reality, just their pet philosophy.

"Let's see if you can actually put some of them to constructive use in finding a solution. Seems all you do is find stats that point out how one thing or another doesn't bring in much money. Let's see if you can come up with a thought of your own and figure out something better." Be glad to. The ferries in Puget Sound WERE MAKING MONEY up until 1948, when the state used it
fs power to control fares to force the company owning the ferries to sell, by denying them the ability to raise fares to offset an increase in wages to the ferry worker
fs union. Since then, they have continually mismanaged the ferry system, offsetting disastrously bad management with tax revenue. Wages have soared while the average age of the fleet has risen. It is now 32 and one-half years! And yet the new boats that they have just acquired are the ones that they propose moth-balling to offset I-695 cuts! There has been major accident after major accident (with few injured, fortunately) where millions of dollars of damage has been done to docks and boats, some due to mechanical problems with both new and old boats, some clearly due to operator error. No serious corrective actions have been taken. IMHO, the very first thing to do is to get the state out of the business. Either do like BC Ferries did back in the seventies, and set up a corporation, or farm it out to a public-private partnership. I
fd establish a five year plan to eliminate subsidies altogether. Spend a little surplus for the next five years, and get rid of a quarter billion dollar a year liability. If you simply weaned the ferries away from the government teat, you
fd have an extra $2.5 Billion a decade to devote to other traffic needs. Make that $2.4 Billion, since you wouldn
ft collect the fares you do now. And if I were the commuters, I
fd take that deal, cause it
fll only get worse. The people in this state are not going to support the capital costs of replacing all of these ferries in rapid succession, and that
fs what
fs going to have to hap

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 31, 1999.

Patrick,

Give it up.

"Actually there was a rebuttle letter to the editor a few days after this article calling Smith's $10 round trip passenger crazy. (like that gives your point validity?) That is a fairly steep rate, and one could assume that the car ferries will still be running at least during the peak hours with the capability of carrying walk ons."

$10.00 round trip. Private Company Red and White Fleet. From Richmond to SF and back. Richmond is not a well to do community either, similar to Bremerton. Been there done that!

I can find many other examples if you like.

http://www.redandwhite.com/ferrys.htm

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Or how about a quick run across the Bay from Alameda to Fishermans Wharf? $4.75 one way, $9.50 round trip? For a 20 minute trip.

http://www.eastbayferry.com/what/fares.html

YES, these are commuter runs!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

"And oh look, it also says that BC Ferries runs with a subsidy. Interesting, it says that it's 20% less than WSF. Now if WSF gets about a 90% subsidy by Craig's math, then a 20% less subsidy is roughly a 70% subsidy. But in another thread, Craig seemed to think that they operate at only about a 10% subsidy (I assume that based on the 90% farebox recovery he quoted). Can you account for this apparent difference Craig?"

Once again, I feel like I'm tossing pearls to the swine with you, Patrick. I don't know why I give you these references when you are too lazy to cut and paste them into the address window of your browser. I have not only previously given sources on the web for these, but I've specifically given them to you. The current figures for WS Ferries as reported to the US DOT(http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/0035/$File/P00 35.PDF) (which all forms of transit are required by law to do) gives these figures: Total fares revenue $19,196,231 Total operating expenses $128,714,642, total capital expenses Total Capital Funds Expended $96,236,062 I note in these NEW figures (posted within the last 2 weeks or so), that the addition of the two new boats brings the average fleet age down to "only" 30.8 years.

For BC ferries:

http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/consolidated_statem ent_operations.html

Tolls $290,120,000 Catering and other income 66,690,000 Operating contracts and grants (THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY) 26,631,000 Total 383,441,000 Operating expenses 397,262,000

They incurred a LOSS of 14 million (Canadian) in part due to capital investments

Now Patrick, I have NO IDEA where you got the figures you got or what assumptions you may have made. I have consistently POSTED REFERENCES for my sources, and EVERY SINGLE TIME I'VE RESEARCHED ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS IT WAS WRONG, often by an order of magnitude. So unless you can come up with more credible sources than these, I'd have to assume that either the individual you are quoting is wrong, or that (more likely based upon track record) you are wron

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 31, 1999.

Commuting? Need to include your bus ride? What a bargain! You can ride the Vallejo Baylink and get your transit too, all for only $11.00!

http://www.baylinkferry.com/fares.htm

Had enough?

You need to ask yourself why am I arguing this point? Now, since I really don't think your stupid, (I prefer to think you are just being stubborn and obstinate). now that you are faced with all these examples, (no, I never mentioned subsidy, but you can be darn sure it's alot lower than WSF) you can't possibly tell me no one is willing to pay these fares.

Remember one very important thing. If you live on the Kitsap Peninsula, and you work in the Seattle area, you have lower living costs and higher wages. Don't tell me they won't pay it.

BTW, I still have MORE FREAKIN EXAMPLES if you need them.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

You know Patrick, if you can just shut down your computer for 45 minutes, you can go the WHOLE rest of the year without making a fool of yourself on this forum?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

This is way too much fun Patrick. Don't like red and white? How about a commuter run on the good old Blue and Gold from Tiburon/Sausalito to SF? only six bucks each way!

Oh the pain of it all!

http://www.blueandgoldfleet.com/tssc.htm

One side note, do you think all these ferries crossing the bay has ruined the striped bass fishing I used to love so much? NO, I'm not from there, just love to fish everywhere the Navy sent us!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Hmm, Red and White also does Bay cruises, trips to Alcatraz, charters, and a whole slew of land and air tours. Think they mind if they don't make a profit on two commuter trips?

And why is that Alameda/Oakland fare so low?

"The Alameda/Oakland Ferry is a publicly subsidized public transit system operated by the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland. Blue & Gold Fleet provides maritime services for the ferry service under contract with the City of Alameda."

Baylink Ferry? Ditto, but for the city of Vallejo.

You can keep offering me examples Marsha, but you might want to check their sites out a little bit more before you post them.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

Zowie, last I checked we still had over 24 hours left in this year.

Perhaps you've started the drinking a little bit too early?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

Check them out for what? The fares I posted are not correct? My point was that people would pay it Patrick. And why were the WSF passenger only ferries put into service Patrick?

Because they were running out of room for walk on passengers on the car ferry! I sat in my bus many mornings at the ferry terminal in Bremerton, watching the boat pull away, leaving people behind.

So much for your theory that they would just use the car ferry. Not if there isn't room.

As for you other comments, what the hell was that all about anyway? Check out what? I presented you information regarding fares people DO pay and you spout this unrelated stuff. Hmmmm. Stubborn is beginning to take on another word with the letters s-t-u in it.

You read more into the posts than was actually there.

Casco Bay Lines in Maine charges a $2.00 fare for animals. http://www.cascobaylines.com/HTML/fr_sailing.htm

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Patrick,

What was your point? That they are subsidized? I never said they weren't. I hate to say this, but you really need to think a little longer, read more carefully, and gather your thoughts before you post. If they ARE subsidized, and they are charging a much higher fare, more than double, and people in the Bay Area are willing to pay it, people up here would not?

Let's see, pay $3.75, (or even nothing) and possibly get left behind and wait an hour more, or pay $5.00 and go! Oh yes yes yes, let me save a buck and a quarter! ($5.00) NOT!

Patrick, you are sad man, really sad. I simply adressed one issue with you and you thought something totally different.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Come on Patrick, admit it, you were wrong. All my posts regarding fares had NOTHING to do with subsidies. It's what PEOPLE who commute ARE willing to pay. Come on now, be a big boy and admit you made a mistake.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

I picked the subsidy rate up from the same article Marsha cited. http://www.thesunlink.com/news/99december/daily/1205a1b.html

"B.C. Ferries is a government agency but is run outside the political arena by an independent board of directors. It has bonding authority. Subsidies are 20 percent less than WSF."

It also had this to say about farebox returns:

"fares comprise only about 25 percent of what it costs to run them (passenger only ferries). Car ferries bring in more than 60 percent."

The WSF website does mention that the ferries do bring in about 60% of their operating cost. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/about-wsf/about- facts.cfm

You'd like me to cite you some facts? Okay, all of these can be found in BC Ferries' 1998/99 Financial Report http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/ corporate/annual_report-98-99.html (Acrobat required to view). It reads amazingly like some of the transit figures you've quoted for the Puget Sound region.

There was a 1.9% decrease in passenger volumes and a 2.1% decrease in vehicle traffic. Catering and other income dropped about 2%. There was a $48 million overrun in the cost of constructing the three new fast ferries (which caused the president of the company to resign). The company lost $114 million this year, which represents a doubling of the loss from the year before. There is growing concern that roughly half the fleet is over 30 years old, but since the company is losing an increasing amount of money and the new ferries under construction are coming in WAY over budget, they figure they can't do much about that. Although revenue increased 2% (they raised fares), wages increased 7%, financing costs on their increasing debt increased 25%, repair costs increased 15%, and material costs increased 12%. The BC government has now decided to dedicate 1.25 cents per liter of the gas tax to make sure that the company remains solvent. Additional recommendations by the Coastal Council include the reinstatement of the 1977 highway equivalence formula to substantially increase the Provence's contributions and extra assistance in debt rescission.

The problems just now being experienced by BC Ferries is an issue that all public-private ferry companies face. It isn't terribly difficult to operate a ferry system at or near break even levels. The problem lies in the capital costs. A new vehicle ferry can easily cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, most private companies can't afford to raise the money needed to purchase such vessels. As is noted with BC Ferries, most of their fleet was constructed in the 1960's when the system was still under total government control. Now they are finding an increasing amount of their resources going towards maintaining their aging fleet, and gigantic payments looming on the horizon when the bill for their new boats comes due (currently they pay about $4.4 million in lease agreements, that will increase to $19 million in 2006).

So say the WSF fleet is turned over to a private firm that can somehow break even with operating costs. As you pointed out Craig, the average age of the fleet is over 30 years old. A lot of boats are going to need replacing soon. Where is that company going to get that money?

The Puget Sound region has changed A LOT since the 1940's. Back then smaller boats could handle the small population crossing the Sound every day. Private companies could afford to purchase and operate these boats. Now, such a fleet would clog up the waterways so much that Elliot Bay would look like I-5 at rush hour. Yes, most of this change can be attributed to the subsidized ferry system encouraging growth on the west side. But that doesn't change the fact that such a change has taken place and it isn't going to change back. The system in place in the 40's could not handle the requirements of today. The ferry system NEEDS large vessels, and no private entity is going to be able to provide that when the current fleet needs to be replaced.

Feel free to check the figures that I mentioned.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

It's all a matter of perspective Marsha. How happy do you think commuters would be if their fares went up 300%? I doubt that you would relieve too many angry passengers by explaining to them how comperable their rates are to other ferry services now.

Need an example? How many times did you see letters to the editor about 695 from people talking about how they used to live in another state where their licence fees were dirt cheap, and when they moved to Washington they couldn't believe how expensive they were? The rate itself hadn't changed since the late 80's.

Bremerton walk on riders are used to paying less than $5 to ride the ferry to work every day. Raise their rates by three fold and they won't care that people in California think its a fair rate (in fact, tell them that, and I'm sure a native Washingtonian will get even more angry!). All they'll care about is that the cost of them going to work just went up 300%. If you don't think that's crazy then you have two things in common with Hilton Smith, you think that a $10 fare is reasonable, and you DON'T take a passenger ferry to Seattle from Bremerton everyday.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

Poor Patrick,

Come on Patrick, admit it, you were wrong. All my posts regarding fares had NOTHING to do with subsidies. It's what PEOPLE who commute ARE willing to pay. Come on now, be a big boy and admit you made a mistake.

You still can't admit that you TOTALLY mistook what I said, can you? Well, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong....

"It's all a matter of perspective Marsha. How happy (who cares if they are happy?) do you think commuters would be if their fares went up 300%? I doubt that you would relieve too many angry passengers by explaining to them how comperable (he meant comparable, right Craig?) their rates are to other ferry services now."

I doubt you will find many taxpayers willing to continue the current subsidy knowing what other areas pay to ride a ferry. It's all a matter of perspective Patrick. Now that we are aware how much their subsidy is AND what others pay, you would have to be crazy to want to continue eh?

Need an example of how much people are willing to subsidize? See I- 695.

Now if fare hikes are phased in, (and you are way off on fare hikes being placed on the ballot EVERY year, it can be a yearly hike for a total of four years, as a ballot issue) that would give them plenty of time, if they don't like the increase, to move to the Seattle side.

Of course, if you think they would sell their relatively inexpensive homes and do that, then you would be crazy.

Here is what I think.

1) They Live in Kitsap County because they can rent/buy a nicer home for ALOT less. 2) They work in Seattle, where wages are higher. 3) They will not move to the city to save $31.25 a week. 4) They will not drive around to save a few bucks, since it would cost them even more to do so. (they all drive BIG suv's) and they would miss that comfy ferry ride and their nap. 5) Mason County is nicer than Kitsap (full of commuters now), so no, Marsha doesn't live there any more. 6) Marsha is quite familiar with Kitsap commuters. Marsha did subcription service routes to the ferry every morning starting at 0430. She is pretty sure she knows more than Patrick about said commuters. Like they would lose ALOT of sleep if they had to drive around. KT General Manager Richard Hayes ALSO knows more about Kitsap Commuters and believes they would pay a fare of $5-$6 each way. 7) Patrick needs professional help with his narcissism.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Patrick- I couldn
ft get your WS ferries site to load, but I
fve seen them make this claim before. I am at a loss for how they justify the claim. The figures provided on the DOT site are the ones that they are required by law to provide, and they match what is in the DOT budget for ferry revenues and expenditures. I posted a thread (Can anyone tell me why the info on the WSF website is so different from their official reports??)back on Nov. 26th asking if anyone could explain the difference. No one did. I did contact WS Ferries to find out about the subsidization figure and (after talking to two other people) got a young lady who explained that because the ferries had been declared ROADS by a judge, they didn
ft count the fuek taxes that went into the ferry system as a subsidy. That sounded lame to me, but I checked her figures for the (other) category in the DOT figures, and that apparently is what they are doing. She never did explain the discrepancy between the passenger figures on their website and what they reported to the Feds. She did indicat, however, that the figures to the Fed
fs were the "official" figures, whatever that means. Apparently the people who write the PR stuff on their website use other definitions. I think the DOT site is correct.

I also couldn
ft get the BC Ferries 1998-1999 site to load, but found it with a quick search. You are correct, BC Ferries had a pretty lousy year between cost over-runs on their new boats and the weather beating up their equipment (much of which isn
ft sheltered like in the Sound). Even so, their numbers are FAR better than WSF numbers. I would refer you to page 34 which shows:

Revenues: Tolls $ 296,477,000 Catering and other income 65,601,000 Federal operating contract (Note 10) 22,040,000 Total Revenues of 384,118,000

Operating Expenses: Salaries, wages and benefits 235,176,000 Fuel 31,979,000 Repairs and maintenance 30,167,000 Professional, computer and other 28,291,000 Costs of catering goods sold 23,500,000 Materials and supplies 23,358,000 Insurance, taxes and utilities 9,254,000 Total Operating Expenses of 381,725,000

Now prior to the over-runs on the new construction, net financing expense, and amortization expense, you will note that they ACTUALLY MADE MONEY. (Not much, I
fll grant you, $2.4 million Canadian is about $1.6 million American.) In addition to their Federal operating Contract (which is actually for services rendered) the Province kicked in $24 millionCDN. Their total cost to the government was $46 million on operating expenses of $384 million, representing 12% of the total operating costs, up SIGNIFICANTLY from their 10% subsidization the previous year. Course if you look at the federal contract as payment for services, the subsidy is now $24/$384 or only about 6and 1/4 %. And you
fre again correct, this POOR PERFOMANCE so upset the Corporate President that he did resign. And the Province HAS instituted a gas tax to help bail them out with their capital problems (caused in large part by a political decision to buy locally rather than go with the lowest bidder (sound familiar?) )

Let
fs see, that compares with Total Fare Revenues Earned $19,196,231 on Total O perating Funds Expended $128,714,642 with $109,500 of that coming from taxes, let
fs see by my calculations, 85% of the fare was subsidized which, guess what, agrees with the pie chart on the DOT Transit site.

But OK Patrick, you actually did some RESEARCH, and I
fm proud of you for doing it. Now we work upon you going to reliable (official) sources, rather than newspaper articles and PR, and we
fll be in business!

So for your final exam we
fll make it easy yes or no:

1. Do you feel that you have a better understanding of issues when you research them, rather than just guessing?

2. Notwithstanding their bad year, did BC Ferries cover 88% of their operating costs by passenger and sales revenue?

3. Notwithstanding their bad year, did BC Ferries get 12% of their operating costs from government, and only $24/$381 or about 6.3% of their operating expenses from direct grants?

4. And assuming that the subsidy goes up to $65 million next year as a result of the new gas tax, will that direct subsidy go up to about $65/381 or 17%, compared to WSF 85%?

5. Now when you compare that with a system that we pour a quarter of a billion dollars into annually (counting capital expenses), 85% paid for by taxes, wouldn
ft you say that the Canadians are getting more for their (adm

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 31, 1999.

"The Alameda/Oakland Ferry is a publicly subsidized public transit system operated by the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland. Blue & Gold Fleet provides maritime services for the ferry service under contract with the City of Alameda." CITY OF ALAMEDA FERRIES. Operating Expenses are 74% supported by fares. 25% supported by local taxes. One percent supported by state taxes. Capital funds are 92% supported by local taxes, 8% by state taxes. Source: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/9150/$File/P9150.P DF

"Baylink Ferry? Ditto, but for the city of Vallejo."

Operating expenses 45% fares, 34% local taxes, 14% state, 6% federal. Capital funds are 43% state, 57% federal. I think the federal involvement is because it supports a big Navy base. Total operating expense is only about $4 million a year, for two boats. Capital funding is another million.

"The Alameda/Oakland Ferry is a publicly subsidized public transit system operated by the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland. Blue & Gold Fleet provides maritime services for the ferry service under contract with the City of Alameda." CITY OF ALAMEDA FERRIES. Operating Expenses are 74% supported by fares. 25% supported by local taxes. One percent supported by state taxes. Capital funds are 92% supported by local taxes, 8% by state taxes. Source: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/9150/$File/P9150.P DF

"Baylink Ferry? Ditto, but for the city of Vallejo."

Operating expenses 45% fares, 34% local taxes, 14% state, 6% federal. Capital funds are 43% state, 57% federal. I think the federal involvement is because it supports a big Navy base. Total operating expense is only about $4 million a year, for two boats. Capital funding is another million.

Source: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/9028/$File/P9028.P DF

And this compares how to WSF, where fares pay 15% of the operating costs, Patrick?

Patrick, Patrick. Just when I had HOPE for you. You might want to check these for yourself, before you give Marsha a bad time.

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 31, 1999.

[Zowie, last I checked we still had over 24 hours left in this year.] Not for those of us on vacation in Tinian. It's already tommorrow here. Neat place! Course it helps that Japan's economy is still in the dumps, and they are discounting the hotels deeply because they don't have many customers. Air fare was NOT CHEAP though.

[Perhaps you've started the drinking a little bit too early?] As a matter of fact, some kind of a fruit drink. Disguised the taste of the alcohol real well. Given me a wicked hangover today though.

zowie

-- (zowie@net.saipan.com/), December 31, 1999.

Craig,

You are correct about the Vallejo-Baylink, Naval presence. Although Mare Island Naval Shipyard has closed, there are still other Commands, Facilities and Housing at Mare Is. (Been there, done that, twice.)

Strange isn't it, Norm Dicks warned that ferry cuts here would jeopardize the continuing presence of the Navy. I guess they will just pull up stakes, after building the Everett Homeport, major upgrades to the Naval Hospital (underway at this very moment), and millions worth of upgrades at PSNS, Bangor Sub Base and Whidbey NAS.

Just a thought Mr. Dicks, maybe you could get the Feds to kick in a couple of bucks toward more reliable PRIVATE ferry service here.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 01, 2000.

Bremerton Sun Ferry System Passengers last To the Editor: I was not surprised when I read the ferry captain returning to the dock to drop off two ferry workers. I remember when the busload of sailors was redirected from Bremerton to another ferry, and the ferry pulled out without them. The bus driver called ahead, flashed his lights and they were arriving when the ferry pulled out. How about the time ferry workers would not let the terminally ill and in pain lady on the ferry because of some stupid 24-hour notice technicality? Just remember, passengers are the second-class citizens on the boats. You can be sure the ferry workers who forgot to get off at the dock were not helping passengers. It must be nice to earn overtime in a job because you forget to leave work. Just think, bus drivers could ride as passengers after getting relieved and make some extra holiday cash (I don't think so). I can't believe the ferry system is so mismanaged that workers can authorize their own overtime due to their inattentiveness. I want a private ferry system that is not dependent on more taxpayer dollars than fares. Where passengers are treated like customers and not an inconvenience. Elias Magdaleno - Bremerton

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 01, 2000.

Patrick--"Of course the main thing they have to consider is to keep a balance. If they doubled all their prices, in theory they might get close to having farebox revenue equal expenses. Of course if you double the price, odds are that you're going to lose a substantial number of your passengers, which lowers your revenue."

While this is true, it may *or* may not matter. In the research I've read on this topic, transit fares are inelastic for people taking the ferry for work purposes and elastic for other types of trips. I've no idea what the trip mix is for the WSF system, but I suspect that it's highly work-oriented during the week and leisure-oriented on weekends. As a result, I'd suspect they'd have higher revenue (suspicion: substantially higher) during the work week and lower revenue (suspicion: substantially lower) on the weekend runs.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 02, 2000.

Brad- The DOT figures show their weekend traffic to be higher than their weekday traffic.

Additionally, most commuters use heavily discounted monthly passes or tickets. It would appear that simply eliminating the iscount passes and tickets would have the desired effect, without really changing prices, if your desire is to just get more revenue from commuters. But the demand MAY be more elastic than you believe, since some commuters could conceivably drive over the Narrows,

My guess though, is like yours. Most commuters would just keep on commuting if you eliminated their discounts.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 02, 2000.