Privatize the ferries?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Looks like one private ferry company isn't doing so hot. This is the example WSF should follow?

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/serv15.shtml

Coast Guard takes two private ferries out of service

Wednesday, March 15, 2000

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BREMERTON -- The U.S. Coast Guard has ordered two Horluck Transportation ferries out of service for safety reasons, leaving about 1,100 commuters scrambling for alternatives.

The private ferries, which run between Bremerton, Port Orchard and Annapolis, were sidelined Tuesday for an indefinite period after a surprise Coast Guard inspection revealed electrical and fire hazards.

Coast Guard Lt. Joel Roberts found "an excessive amount of oily waste" -- more than 100 gallons -- in the bilge of the Spirit of '76 and Eagle passenger ferries, said Damian Kuczma, command duty officer for the Coast Guard's marine safety office in Seattle.

The oil represented a fire hazard on the boats and an environmental hazard to Sinclair Inlet, said Coast Guard spokeswoman Della Price.

Hilton Smith, chief executive of Port Orchard-based Horluck, questioned the findings but said the engines would be rebuilt "so they do not leak oil."

In addition, Roberts found an unsecured diesel generator, gas generator and kerosene heater on board the Eagle, Kuczma said. He also discovered loose electrical connections and exposed wiring on the vessels.

The inspector ordered the generators removed from the Eagle and then allowed the boats to complete several runs until Kitsap Transit officials could make buses available to stranded passengers.

A passenger's written complaint prompted the surprise inspection, Kuczma said.

"They outlined what they thought were unsafe conditions on the vessels. Our inspection confirmed much of what was included in that letter," he said.

Roberts planned a more detailed inspection of the two boats Wednesday. Then he'll make a list of repairs that must be made before the ferries can return to service.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000

Answers

And of course, the Coast Guard has NEVER cited the WSF, right?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Heck-

The Anacortes run has been running on a soon to expire waiver from international standards for some time. It may well be discontinued rather than being upgraded to meet those standards.

But kudos for the Coast Guard for doing their job, even though the Horluck ferries are just across the inlet. Worst case for WSF is the Port Townsend run, and it's worst case indeed. They really ought to have rafts for all passengers on that one, IMHO.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 17, 2000.


BB-

Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone. Want to bet a Coke that the state is out of the passenger ferry business in three years?

FERRIES Boat makes wake test trip By David Levesque, Sun Staff

Results are not expected back for at least two weeks. More than 100 people went on a ferry ride from Bremerton on Thursday that lasted four hours and got them nowhere.

The trip wasn't in vain, though.

Volunteers helped an Everett-based company test the wake of a catamaran that could represent the future of passenger-only ferries to Seattle.

The 150-passenger St. Nicholas circled Port Madison off Bainbridge Island more than a dozen times as an instrument secured to a buoy measured its wake.

St. Nicholas' owner, Mosquito Fleet, primarily a whale-watching operation, is determining if the boat can run a fast-ferry service without causing a wake detrimental to Rich Passage waterfront property.

"I think it went very well," said Robert W. Isaacson of the Mosquito Fleet. "What we will find out now is whether we are in the ballpark to do this."

The results of the test won't be available for two weeks.

The company is interested in Kitsap Transit's plan to start a public- private passenger-ferry venture. Such partnerships likely will be necessary if the Legislature can't absorb transportation cuts from Initiative 695.

The boat is much smaller than the state's passenger-only ferries and has a custom-built hull designed to lessen wake. So the company's owners are optimistic they can provide the speed riders want and calm seas for Rich Passage residents.

Although the boat did zip by Rich Passage once Thursday, the tests were not done there because the company did not want to create a problem for homeowners.

Dick Hayes, executive director of Kitsap Transit, was encouraged by the trip.

"I think this is really nice. The boat's size is the same as what we have been considering," Hayes said.

He said it is important to have smaller boats because they use less fuel and are not as wasteful when making runs during off-peak times.

Many of the other passengers were not worried about energy efficiency.

The 114 people who showed up at 8 a.m. at the Bremerton dock had a variety of reasons for going.

For Patsy VanCleef, who homeschools her three children, a free day on the water made for a convenient field trip.

They found a table to do some studying and then her children, Julie, 11, Sarah, 16, and Jimmy, 12, wandered around the boat.

"I want to see sea creatures," Julie said.

Three Bremerton men spent most of the four-hour trip playing a dice game.

"WE'RE RETIRED. IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO DO," TERRY LANDRETH SAID.

HE SAID HE IS HAPPY TO SEE A PRIVATE FERRY COMPANY SHOWING INTEREST IN BREMERTON AGAIN.

"WHEN WE HAD BLACK BALL, THE FERRIES WERE ALWAYS RUNNING IN THE BLACK AND THEY NEVER HAD (MECHANICAL) PROBLEMS," HE SAID.

THE BLACK BALL FERRIES WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE IN THE 1950S.

"INSTEAD, NOW YOU HAVE THE STATE SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON BOATS THAT DON'T WORK," LANDRETH SAID.

The Mosquito Fleet is a long way from selling tickets to commuters. The test was the first step in what could be a long process.

The company is working with the Bremerton engineering firm of Art Anderson Associates, which did similar wake studies for the state ferries.

The companies used sensors attached to a buoy to collect data on the water pressure created by the boat. That data will be used to create a model of what kind of wake the boat will create along Rich Passage.

Mosquito Fleet partner Michael Bennett is confident the boat's design and size will do the trick.

The boat has a shallow draft of about three feet and displaces less water than the state ferries, he said.

"It almost glides on the water," he said.

If the Mosquito Fleet does become the answer to area commuters, the company will likely have boats built specifically for the job.

Bennett said if his company is to make 30-minute trips to Seattle they will need a boat with a little more power. The St. Nicholas has a sister boat that goes 35 knots, the speed of the Chinook, which should work out fine.

Sen. Bob Oke, R-Port Orchard, stood in the pilot house of the St. Nicholas discussing the county's options.

"From what I'm hearing from the Senate side ... the state is getting out of the passenger-only business," he said. "Privatizing could be the only option."

Published in The Sun: 03/17/2000



-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.


Looks like BC Ferries is having to eat the cost of its catamarans. So much for the idea that privatizing things will always save money.

High wakes doom B.C.'s high-speed ferry project

Wednesday, March 15, 2000

By LARRY LANGE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

British Columbia is abandoning its dream of high-speed ferry service between Vancouver and Nanaimo, adding another chapter to the mixed history of fast ferries in the Pacific Northwest.

B.C. Ferries this week said it was giving up its six-year, $462- million catamaran car ferry program and will immediately put two of its three 403-foot vessels up for sale and offer the third one for sale when it is completed this fall.

"The fast-ferry project was a failed experiment and now we need to move on," said Joy MacPhail, the provincial minister in charge of B.C. Ferries.

Though done largely for financial reasons, the province's move reflected problems similar to those encountered with Washington's fast ferries.

The Canadian fast ferries, like the smaller catamarans used on the Seattle-to-Bremerton run in Washington, became liabilities after their large, high-energy waves damaged beaches and docks on islands near Horseshoe Bay, at the east end of their route.

As a result of complaints from island-dwellers, the boats' cruising speed was cut from 42 to 26 mph through the bay last summer. That lengthened their travel time, limiting them to four crossings each day instead of the planned six and making them slower than conventional single-hull boats that used far less fuel, said B.C. Ferries spokeswoman Betty Nicholson.

Washington residents, including some who live along the Seattle-to- Bremerton route where catamaran ferries once ran at high speeds, said the move shows designers still haven't figured out how to prevent fast catamarans from producing damaging waves.

"I don't know that a monohull or a catamaran is ever going to get there," said David Pasciuti, vice-president of the Seattle naval architecture firm Guido Perla & Associates. "Theres a lot of research still going on."

The problem, designers say, is designing a boat large enough to carry many passengers with enough horsepower to move quickly. Doing both can mean adding weight, which displaces more water and produces a larger wave.

Washington state ferries put the fast catamaran Chinook into service between Seattle to Bremerton in 1998, saying it met limits on wave height and energy. But the boat and its sister ship, the Snohomish, were slowed to 14-mph last summer through the narrow Rich Passage when a judge agreed with residents there that waves were damaging the beaches.

Washington ferry officials have disputed the owners' claims in court, saying the beach damage could have resulted from weather and tides. Washington Ferry spokeswoman Pat Patterson said "the jury's still out" on whether the Chinook and Snohomish's design is wrong for the passage.

Trying to compare the 403-foot, 1,000-passenger B.C. boats to the 143- foot, 350-passenger Chinook is like "comparing apples to tangerines," she said.

Washington rejected car-ferry designs like those in British Columbia for the Bremerton run because of known wave-energy issues in the passage, fearing its size might create damaging waves, she said.

The large boats might have been useful on a longer run in open water, such as a proposed Seattle-to-Kingston route. But on other, shorter runs, generally lasting 30 minutes or less, they'd have saved little time, Patterson said.

The province will likely sell the big vessels off at a loss. It hasn't set an asking price for its big boats but Patterson said Washington isn't interested.

"We'll take a pass," she said.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.


Mark,

I have no problem with private ferries, as long as they're truly private. That means building their own docks and no state subsidies. If a private company can succeed under these conditions, more power to 'em.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.



BB-

BC Ferries had the same problems that WSF did. They were politically pressured to buy vessels built in local shipyards, rather than getting the best item available from the lowest bidder.

And do the people that own the shipping companies own the docks where their freighters are loaded and unloaded? No. Do the airline companies own the airports? They are charged a fee for use that covers these costs, or an aviation fuel tax that (more than) covers these costs. A similar arrangement would appear possible. I think a little competition would be a good thing for the WSF, personally.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 17, 2000.


privatized ferrries always save money even if they go under, if for no other reason than because, there is competition( if the state will let it happen)and the employees are not on the state payroll or pension plan...not to mention no subsidies for fares on runs that make no money...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>I think a little competition would be a good thing for the WSF, personally.<<

I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, I'm skeptical that a private company will be able to do the job any better than WSF without receiving huge subsidies. And if the only way for a private company to succeed is by receiving huge subsidies, it seems pointless to turn the ferries over to them.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.


no chance states "privatized ferrries always save money even if they go under, if for no other reason than because, there is competition( if the state will let it happen)and the employees are not on the state payroll or pension plan...not to mention no subsidies for fares on runs that make no money..."

What will make a huge difference is not forcing companies to hire Union Employees.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.


Questions bike policy: Bremerton Sun To the Editor: This concerns the practice of leaving cars off the ferry to accommodate bicycle riders on the Bainbridge-Seattle run. There were NO bicycles in the deck spaces reserved for them on the ferry I rode from Bainbridge Island to Seattle at 9:25 a.m. March 1, nor were there any in the reserved area on the return trip at 5:25 that afternoon. A deckhand I questioned told me those ferries were designed to hold 220 cars, but that there were only 174 on the morning ferry when it sailed. It left behind several rows of cars that would have gotten on had large areas not been blocked off for bicycle use. These areas remained unused during both sailings I rode that day. We are back to long waits when we recently addressed this problem by building bigger ferries. What's the sense in having more capacity if it goes unused? And what of the revenue lost when cars are left off for no apparently valid reason? The deckhand I spoke with said that bicyclists formed a group last May, and apparently their concerns are now being met, but at what cost and inconvenience to motorists and taxpayers? I'm sure I'm not alone in calling for ferry officials to change this practice. Regina LaMar - Poulsbo

One more reason to privatize the entire system.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.



"I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, I'm skeptical that a private company will be able to do the job any better than WSF without receiving huge subsidies. And if the only way for a private company to succeed is by receiving huge subsidies, it seems pointless to turn the ferries over to them. "

But the point is that WSF is getting huge subsidies NOW, they just aren't as readily apparent. At least if this was privatized, people would be watching the profits and practices more, and if it got too outrageous (which as Marsha's example demonstrates, I think it already has, there'd be COMPETITION wanting a piece of the action. I'm not anti-government, I've probably spent more time in government service than most, but I think we ought to try to keep government down to inherently governmental services whenever possible. Government does not do most things very efficiently. If no one else can do the job at all, the inefficiency can perhaps be justified. Giving government an artificial monopoly to do things inefficiently just doesn't seem like a good use of taxpayer's money.

BB, we've differed in the past on the issue of how much government is enough, but I'm sure that you understand that the ultimate restraint on the amount of government is the taxes that people are willing to pay. Regardless of whatever may be the reality, the politicians ARE viewing this as an anti-tax backlash and are ,if not hopping on the bandwagon, at least getting out of its way. The MVET is gone, regardless of the outcome in the Supreme Court, and even the Democrats are looking at giving back property tax dollars, to preempt a property tax initiative. Given that the size of government ultimately WILL be constrained by resources, wouldn't you prefer that those resources be used as efficiently as possible to do thoce necessary things that private enterprise CAN'T do?

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 18, 2000.


The bills in the legislature that talked about private/public partnerships for passenger only ferries are dead for this session. They die every session. They have been around for years in every session. They don't go anywhere. WSF should be out of the passenger only business but it won't happen. Passenger only is a favorable way to discourage single occupancy vehicles. WSF is not really providing passenger only service, it is providing FAST passenger only service at the same cost as vehicle ferries that are not carrying those same passengers. Those who want FAST passenger only service should pay MORE for that CONVENIENCE. Remember, must commuters will tell you that they moved to the other side for a greater value of life and more for the dollar. Than why FAST service. To privatize means giving tax payer dollars (what tax will this be) to a private company who will still charge double the rate, with less Coast Guard regulatory oversight, constant turn over of personnel, less sailing times across the sound, etc., etc. Those who live on an island, should pay their fair share for that service, which means WSF should raise fares at least 50% and eliminate the discount for commuters during peak times. WSF carries almost as many passengers that fly in and out of SEATAC; 26,000,000 per year. Their safety record for loss of life is unmatched. Don't kid yourself. The green and white fleet is here to stay and the State will be the one receiving the $$ to provide that service to those who wish to utilize it.

-- Bob (pavlichwheeler@uswest.net), March 22, 2000.

"WSF should be out of the passenger only business but it won't happen."

We'll see.

" Passenger only is a favorable way to discourage single occupancy vehicles. "

What FACTS or figures do you have to support this? I thought that's what SmartGrowth was supposed to do. Doesn't it defeat the idea of SmartGrowth to export Seattle's sprawl to Bainbridge and the rest of the Kitsap peninsula? Doesn't the increased sprawl contribute to increased SOV use? What's the break-even point on these two apparently contradictory programs, with respect to SOV use?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 22, 2000.


ITEM #1 The ferries crossing Lake Washington were made obsolete when the floating bridges were constructed.

ITEM #2 I-695 proponents have been anti-ferry and pro-road construction.

THEREFORE I-695 proponents would favor bridges across the Sound making ferries obsolete. Right?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.


"ITEM #2 I-695 proponents have been anti-ferry and pro-road construction. " I'm not anti-ferry. It's just an alternate lifestyle. They ought to pay their own way though.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.


ITEM #2 I-695 proponents have been anti-ferry and pro-road construction. " I'm not anti-ferry. It's just an alternate lifestyle. They ought to pay their own way though. Zowie,

Point taken. How about... I-695 proponent have been against government subsidies of ferries, but for government funding of road construction.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


Questioning,

Exactly what answer are you fishing for? That we all think it's a good idea to bridge the sound? I am not an engineer, but even I can see some serious problems. Give it up.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


"Point taken. How about... I-695 proponent have been against government subsidies of ferries, but for government funding of road construction. " Exactly correct. In one case you have subsidization of the few by the many for a personal life-style choice, in the other you have the desire of the majority that revenues derived from them be used for the transportation options that are really providing the services. Answer these questions: What percent of person miles of travel are provided by transit? What percent of person miles of travel are provided by ferries? What percent of person miles of travel are provided by autos? Now since the vast majority of the transportation funding comes from fuel taxes and from taxes on those people who use autos, why should the government fund a higher proportion of the costs of one option than they do the other? If transit provides 2% of the person miles travelled, why should it get more than 2% of the transportation budget? If ferries provide 2% of the transportation budget, why should they get more than 2% of the transportation budget? Don't tell me about wanting choices. I would deny no one their choice, just the right to force me to subsidize theoir choice. Don't tell me about air pollution. Ferries are big polluters, so are diesel buses for NOx and particulates, and that's all that the Puget Sound area is borderline on compliance for (and that after the air standards have been repeatedly lowered). Don't talk to me about fuel economy. Ferries burn tons of fuel, and transit uses more per person-mile travel than autos.

So how DO YOU justify the premium that you want me to pay to support someone else's alternate lifestyle?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


"Exactly what answer are you fishing for? That we all think it's a good idea to bridge the sound? I am not an engineer, but even I can see some serious problems. Give it up. "

There will always be issues and problems that will need to be resolved whether you build a bridge across the Sound, across the Narrows or just across Lake Washington. That does not mean it can not be done.

I am just trying to find out if anti-government-subsidy people are really against subsidies or if they are just against funding transportation that does not benefit them directly.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


Questioning,

I am against subsidies for well to do people, who should be paying their own way.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


Zowie, Ignoring the pollution and choice issues, I concede that the majority of the transportation tax monies are generated from automobiles. But that does not mean that those tax monies have to be reinvested in that same mode of transportation. The goal should be to have an effective overall transportation system that links all parts of the state and its people.

With that goal in mind, why shouldn't monies generated from one area be used to develop the transportation system in another area. Government uses a similar logic with its citizens - those that make more are taxed more, those that make less are taxed less. Just because income is generated from certain areas, does not eliminate governments responsibility to make reasonable provisions for ALL areas.

Marsha, The reason to support transportation across the Sound is not to subsidize those "well to do people" or to subsidize a "personal life choice," but simply to provide an effective transportation link. They could drive around, but so could those who lived on the east side of Lake Washington prior to the bridges being built. In this case, the economics of solving the problems, not the problems themselves, may restrict the mode of transportation.

All of this is not to say that the fare rates shouldn't be revised, only that some level of subsidies may be acceptable.

Let's try a different scenario... Suppose there wasn't a Narrows bridge. How would you justify building one? Now suppose there were no bridge or ferries linking Bremberton and Seattle. Couldn't a similar justification be made to have a bridge or ferry link?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


"Let's try a different scenario... Suppose there wasn't a Narrows bridge. How would you justify building one? "

At one time there wasn't. Ferries connected Kitsap peninsula to Tacoma, Seattle, Everett. Non-subsidized ferries. The state decided they could do it better. They built, at enormous (for the time) expense, a bridge. It lasted about a month, just long enough to get the name Gallopin' Gertie. By the time the second one was built, WWII had come and gone, with transportation provided by those same ferries. Must have been adequate, we won the war. Eventually DOT took a second go at the Narrows and built a toll bridge, that was eventually paid off by users. In the meantime they took advantage of a labor strike that forced the ferries to pay higher wages, denied the ferries the right to raise their fares to cover the wage hikes, took over the boats and terminals at fire sale prices (the same as the cost of the one toll bridge), and has been operating them at a huge (taxpayer subsidized) loss ever since.

I don't think you picked the best example.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 23, 2000.


"The goal should be to have an effective overall transportation system that links all parts of the state and its people. " This is stupid. What about the guy with his private island in the San Juans. Why should I pay for any level of ferry service to him. What about the person who chooses to live in Ferry county or the Okanogan to be away from it all? Why should I subsidize bus service to him? The goal should be to provide reasonable levels of service where it is reasonably cost efficient to do it. When someone voluntarily puts him/herself away from a city center, why should I be expected to provide them with a downtown level of service. Seattle has a trauma center. Why don't we subsidize the building of a trauma center in Ilwaco? Isn't effective trauma care at least as important as effective transportation?

Look, when you voluntarily put yourself in a position of economic disadvantage, I don't think you ought to expect society to bail you out. Is this a difficult concept?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


Craig,

The history behind the existing Narrows bridge is interesting, but does not address the proposed scenario. If it wasn't there and people commuted between Gig Harbor and Tacoma by ferry or by driving around through Olympia, could the building of a Narrows bridge be justified?

Zowie,

To avoid extreme examples, I indicated that the government had a responsibility to make REASONABLE provisions. I really didn't want to get into a discussion on what is "reasonable" and what is not.

A transportation link to various areas is not provided to support people who have made a choice to get away from it all, but is simply a requirement to join the various areas of the state and to join the state to the rest of the country. It is the same basic philosophy that spurs the continued development of the interstate highway system. Just because an area may suffer economically does not alleviate the government from their responsibility of providing an effective and reasonable transportation link. If the building of the interstate highway system was strictly dependant upon the income of the local area, then I-5 would only stretch from Pierce to Snohomish county.

So back to the scenario, how would you justify building a bridge?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 24, 2000.


"The history behind the existing Narrows bridge is interesting, but does not address the proposed scenario. If it wasn't there and people commuted between Gig Harbor and Tacoma by ferry or by driving around through Olympia, could the building of a Narrows bridge be justified? " I don't think you are paying attention. IT WAS JUSTIFIED AND BUILT (albeit incompetently on the first attempt) WITH USER FEES. I have NO PROBLEM with the state capitalizing the boats and terminals through bonds that can be totally paid off with fares as long as the fares ALSO cover operating expenses. Since the autos on board are avoiding paying a commensurate amount of gas tax (since they aren't running), I see no reason to subsidize them with gas tax money. They ought to pay for their own cost-avoidance. Same thing for the passengers. They ought to cover costs.

Make the ferries self sufficient and I don't have much gripe with them. The environmentalists might though, because they use a LOT of energy and create a LOT of pollution per passenger mile. Much more than autos.

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 24, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ