Since a substantial portion of the MVET currently goes to subsidize the WDOT ferry system, it is reasonable to discuss what the user fee (fares) ought to be relative to the subsidy. It turns out that this can be difficult to sort out of the national data bases, since some of the transit organizations that run ferries agggregate this into their overall data. Reviewing the 1997 National Transportation Data base I was able to tease out subsidies for these systems: Format is NTD identifier, name, percentage of operating expenses covered by fares. 9150B, Oakland Vallejo Ferry, 70% 2082B, New York City Ferry, 39% In Washington, the Tacoma Pierce Ferry (Pt Defiance to Vashon) collects 61% of operating expenses as farebox revenues while for THE REST OF WDOT the farebox collections are 14% of operating expenses. Of course, operating expenses ignore capital costs (buying new boats, building new terminals0. Including these, WDOT farebox revenues have covered about 6-8% of total system expenses for the last two years that figures are available in the data base. Is this an appropriate or inappropriate amount of subsidy?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999

Answers

Privatize the ferries. Sell off the boats to raise money for I-695 shortfalls. Without the subsidy, ferry commuters will have to use the money they save on their tabs to make up the difference. Private companies running ferries might lower fares anyway. Who uses these ferries the most? Poor people?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), September 03, 1999.

Greg writes:

"Privatize the ferries."

Been there, done that. Collapsed 40 years ago and it would now if we tried again.

"Sell off the boats to raise money for I-695 shortfalls."

????? To whom? Good luck.

"Without the subsidy, ferry commuters will have to use the money they save on their tabs to make up the difference. Private companies running ferries might lower fares anyway."

Actually the argument behind running ferries is to do away with the subsidy. If they're massively subsidized now, how would the fares suddenly become LESS expensive when that subsidy goes away, and they cost more to operate?

"Who uses these ferries the most? Poor people?"

Considering that the cost of housing on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas is far, far less than the other side of the sound, in relative terms, yes.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

OK BB-

You jumped in here. So answer the question. What do YOU believe is an appropriate subsidy for operating the ferries, and what percentage should be paid for at the farebox??? If you are saying that they shouldn't be privatized, that makes the extent to which they should be payed for through fees versus through taxes a legitimate question to ask of you. As a part-owner of the system (ie., taxpayer) what do you think is fair?

Gary

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999.

BB-

Been there, done that. Collapsed 40 years ago and it would now if we tried again.

NOT EXACTLY ACCURATE. The private fleet was perfectly viable as a state regulated privately owned company UNTIL the state held the allowable fare increases to LESS than the cost of doing business (Very much as the insurance commisioner is currently doing with commercial providers of healthcare coverage today, although that is another story. They subsequently built a highly subsidized empire with much lower efficiency, and this is typical of government owned transit systems, in comparison to privately owned ones. From the Washington Ferries own info site: Labor woes played a big part in getting the state involved in the ferry business. In the late 1940s, ferry workers' unions succeeded in getting higher wages at Puget Sound Navigation, also called Black Ball, the largest provider of service on the Sound. The company then asked the State Highway Department for a 30 percent fare increase to make ends meet. The State approved only a 10 percent increase, and on March 1, 1948, the disgruntled ferry company tied up its boats, bringing much of the cross - Sound service to a halt.

State officials suddenly realized that some kind of permanent plan was needed to ensure reliable ferry service on Puget Sound. Ideas ranged from building bridges to creating a brand new ferry system to buying out Puget Sound Navigation. The latter made the most sense and for $5 million, the State was the new owner of 16&nbsb;ferries and 20&nbsb;terminals.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/about-wsf/about-40-years.cfm

In 1997 WSDOT payed $87.5 million in labor costs.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999.

One of the reasons that the costs of operations of the ferries are so high: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/about-wsf/about- employment.cfm

Washington State Ferries hires all of its employees, with the exception of managment positions, through various unions.

Deck and Terminal (dock) Employees: Hired once a year, generally in May, through the Inlandboatmen's Union (IBU). The Union generally opens its registration in March and will advertise that date in the newspapers. The ferry system does not know the actual date of the open registration. All positions are entry level, on-call, and last only through the summer to begin with. As you build more seniority, you will be called back earlier each year and work longer each year until you are finally working full- time (this usually takes 3 to 4 years). Those prospective employees already holding licenses must still work up through the seniroity bid system. Because of our contractual oblgations with the Union, we cannot accept applications or resumes - you MUST go through the Union.

Engine Room (Engineers and Oilers): These positions are filled through the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, including temporary, on-call, and an occassional full- time replacement. You must contact the Union hall regarding these positions.

Crafts: Maintenance and repair positions are filled through the various Metal Trades Unions. You must contact the Union hall regarding these positions.

So basically it's a pretty sweet deal. The state wont allow the private company to make ends meet by restricting them from covering the costs of their union wages. They then take over the company and keep the union members happy by rolling over every time they want a wage and benefit increase. The union members vote for more and more big government, paid for by Joe Taxpayer. They hide their inefficiencies by taking the money out of OUR tax revenues.

And BB thinks this is all about helping the downtrodden. Believe me BB, I've ridden the Bainbridge run. Awful lot of ex-yuppy DINKS with rich waterfront/waterview property who bailed out of the Seattle schools as soon as they'd produced offspring, to settle into a life of suburban ease. What's the average family income in Bainbridge, relative to the rest of Washington State? Why am I subsidizing these people with my MVET? And you ask me to vote to keep doing it???? YGBSM. The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 03, 1999.

Gary writes:

"You jumped in here. So answer the question. What do YOU believe is an appropriate subsidy for operating the ferries, and what percentage should be paid for at the farebox???"

To answer your question, I don't know. I have no idea what the proper percentage is for a subsidy for operating the ferries. I'd rather see some comparisons of them to some other government run ferry systems, like BC Ferries for example, before I judge.

I'd also like to see statistics on how much each particular run is subsidized before I judge as well.

I think that they are a necessity. I seriously doubt that privitizing them would be successful.

Sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but I'm not willing to decide on something that I don't know enough about. I'll stick with the status quo rather than make a mistake changing it.

Craig then writes:

"They then take over the company and keep the union members happy by rolling over every time they want a wage and benefit increase. The union members vote for more and more big government, paid for by Joe Taxpayer."

I'm amazed that you were able to analyze every single union contract between the state and ferry system so quickly to determine that the state has "rolled over every time." I'm also just as amazed that you have been able to do a thorough analysis of the voting patterns of every single union member that is employed by the ferries to tell who they voted for.

Please give me a website address or better yet email me this analysis. I'm amazed at how quickly you can do these things!

"Believe me BB, I've ridden the Bainbridge run. Awful lot of ex-yuppy DINKS with rich waterfront/waterview property who bailed out of the Seattle schools as soon as they'd produced offspring, to settle into a life of suburban ease."

Craig, if you're able to be this judgemental of somebody just because of the way they look, or the ferry they ride, I'm truly sorry for you.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

"I'd also like to see statistics on how much each particular run is subsidized before I judge as well. I think that they are a necessity. I seriously doubt that privitizing them would be successful. Sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but I'm not willing to decide on something that I don't know enough about. I'll stick with the status quo rather than make a mistake changing it. "

Please read the top level original question BEFORE answering. As it says, farebox revenues cover 70% for the Oakland Vallejo run, Tacoma Pierce the farebox revenues cover 61%, New York City farebox revenues cover 39%, there are only about 4-5 other systems with a very few boats, and these departments just report their ferry revenue as an aggregate with the rest of their transit, making it difficult to sort out. For large transit systems, the average is 42% farebox revenue, but I can't tell from their figures what it is JUST for ferries. For WDOT (exclusive of the Vashon-Pt.Defiance run listed above) it is 14%. Given your willingness to give opinions, I would think that this would be adequate information. It's all I can find. Washington State has the largest ferry system in this country. Most foreign ferries are private, including the Channel ferries between the UK and Europe. They make profits, and require NO tax dollars.

So answer the question. What do YOU believe is an appropriate subsidy for operating the ferries, and what percentage should be paid for at the farebox???

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 04, 1999.

"Sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but I'm not willing to decide on something that I don't know enough about."

Well ladies and gentlemen, that's all we are going to hear from old BB. If he has (at last) decided that he should shut up about issues of which he is uninformed, I assume all we'll hear from him is "The Sounds of Silence, as Simon and Gurfunkel used to say.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 04, 1999.

Gary writes:

"Please read the top level original question BEFORE answering. As it says, farebox revenues cover 70% for the Oakland Vallejo run, Tacoma Pierce the farebox revenues cover 61%, New York City farebox revenues cover 39%, there are only about 4-5 other systems with a very few boats, and these departments just report their ferry revenue as an aggregate with the rest of their transit, making it difficult to sort out."

Gary, none of these systems are as large as WSF. That's why I don't think it's all that fair to compare them. As far as I know, the only other ferry system as large as WSF is BC Ferries. Oakland-Vallejo is one very very profitable route. The Bay Bridge is so crowded and so expensive that people who live in the east hills use any method they can to avoid it, like BART for example. The Pierce ferry is the Steilacoom-Anderson Island-Ketron Island that they do with one dinky little boat. New York City I'm not familiar with; I'm assuming it's Staten Island to Manhattan.

WSF runs all sorts of little routes that probably aren't that profitable. Like I said, I'd like to see route by route information on how profitable they are. Personally, if the Bainbridge run is ultra-profitable, then I don't think it makes much sense to cut service on it, or make people pay more.

Don't you think it might make a little bit more sense to adjust fares route by route? Or do they do this already, I'm not exactly sure.

So like I said before, give me more information. Comparing WSF to these other systems is sort of an apples/oranges comparison.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

I said in my last post that I thought that comparing the systems that Gary mentions to WSF was an apples/oranges comparison, but I never really realized how true that was until I looked around on the web.

First of all, on www.transitinfo.org (SF Bay Area's information site for basically all methods of transit), there is no mention of any Oakland-Vallejo Ferry, which is the one that Gary is comparing to WSF. The only ferries that run from Vallejo go to San Francisco.

Secondly, it appears that there are no car ferries in the San Francisico Bay Area. The picture on the Vallejo ferry website (www.baylinkferry.com) looks like one of WSF's fast ferries, like the one that was just ordered to slow down between Bremerton and Seattle.

I'm not sure how these two systems are supposed to be compared to each other. They're obviously not alike at all, considering WSF is dominated by car carrying ferries (which are probably more expensive), and there isn't a single car ferry in the SF Bay Area.

A more fair comparison would be to contrast the costs of the Bremerton/Seattle fast ferry run to this one in SF. They both run about the same number of times per day (15 for SF-Vallejo, 16 for Seattle-Bremerton), for about the same time per trip (about an hour), so a comparison between those two would probably be pretty fair.

In any case, like I said before, cmparing the two *systems* is comparing apples and oranges.

BB

P.S. So Craig, who's uninformed?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

BB- As long as you've got me on a roll, let's also talk transit systems: From http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST.nsf/NTST/1997/$File/Ntst97.pdf The trends in contribution of passenger fares to total operating funds applied depend on the urbanized areas size. For small urbanized areas, the share of passenger fares increased 19.7 percent from 1993 to 1997. In 1993, passenger fares represented 21.5 percent of the total operating funds applied, and this figure increased to 22.2 percent in 1997. For mid-size urbanized areas, there was also an increase in the share of passenger fares for the 1993-1997 time frame, increasing from 22.5 percent of the operating funds in 1993, to 24.8 percent in 1997. For large urbanized areas, the contribution of passenger fares increased from 38.4 percent in 1993 to 42 per-cent in 1997.

Now this reflect NATIONAL trends. Washington farebox recovery is CONSIDERABLY LESS. King County Metro was 21% of Operating revenue, Pierce Transit 16% (http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm) Our smaller systems like the Ben Franklin farebox recovery was 10% of operating revenue. Of course, if you count total operating expenses, all these percentage would be much lower.

This gives you exhaustive data on every transit system in the country. What should our farebox recovery be??????-------------------------

The reason I ask this, is that when I-695 passes, farebox revenues could be a source of replacement funding. Now if JUST King County Metro transit passengers payed 100% of the operating cost of providing for the services that they used, that would amount to $250 million per year in farebox revenue above what Metro currently brings in. But even a more modest proposal, to raise farebox revenue on transit systems in the state of Washington to EQUAL the national averages listed above (22.2% small, 24.8% middle sized, 42% large transit system, would STILL bring in significant amounts of money. If King County Metro (21% farebox revenue) were raised to the national average 42% it would yield an additional $61 million annually. Tacoma-Pierce County (17%) would yield $11.5 million annually. For smaller systems the result would be less dramatic but still significant. Bellingham going from it's current 6% to 22.2 would yield $1.5 million. Yakima (9%)would yield $440K. This seems like a modest proposal. It would not slam the users of transit, merely require them to pay the average percentage of the operating expenses that the transit riders in the other 49 states pay. Subsidies would STILL be at least 52%, 78% for smaller systems. So ow that you have COMPLETE data, what should Washington State transit systems farebox recoveries be???????

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 04, 1999.

BB wrote: I think that they are a necessity. I seriously doubt that privitizing them would be successful.

Sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but I'm not willing to decide on something that I don't know enough about. I'll stick with the status quo rather than make a mistake changing it.

BB, what's your worst nightmare about ferry privatization. A lot of people need ferry service, and a lot of business people love to "help out" people who need stuff. Besides, the status quo you're worried about maintaining seems to be plenty inefficient as well as, uh, sort of unjust (but I have to throw that in there, because you statists are generally only concerned with the well-being of the hive rather than the individual worker bee).

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), September 04, 1999.

Ferry subs.... Well in San Francisco and the Oakland area Private ferries were started up after the earthquake (the recent earthquake) and they have been so successful that they remain today. The only thing stopping private ferries here is Olympia. As a matter of fact the only thing stopping most of the things that could move Washington state into the 20th century (not the 21st) si th policies from the government. People have been trying to establish private ferry systems but they are NOT allowed.

I know the socialist mindset wouldn't want them to use the PUBLIC facilities where the Government ferries go.. But that's the same mindset that wants to keep Private vehicles off of public roads.

We pay for the facilities so private enterprises should be able to use them..... And a normal tax on the fare for private ferries should cover upkeep...

Believe it or not Private ALWAYS does a better job than government because they have to..to make a profit

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

Believe it or not Private ALWAYS does a better job than government because they have to..to make a profit

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

NOT! If that were true, why would we need government programs at all? Sometimes the profit motive is inconsistent with the public service being provided. Do you want the police and judges motivated by "profit"? Do you want paramedics to allow "profit" to determine if they initate patient care procedures on the uninsured during an emergency? Some services require a monopoly situation, and "profit" over "public interest" would lead to higher prices and unacceptable outcomes.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 04, 1999.

maddjak writes:

"Ferry subs.... Well in San Francisco and the Oakland area Private ferries were started up after the earthquake (the recent earthquake) and they have been so successful that they remain today."

Something smelled suspicious about maddjak's statements about these ferries being private. So I went to San Fran's website to dink around for a bit, and found out something interesting. The ferry itself appears to be privately run, but guess who pays for the terminal? That's right, the Port of San Francisco, a government agency. See http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/new_embarcadero/issue1.htm to read for yourself.

So you have a private ferry system who gets to use a public ferry terminal. Pretty sweet deal considering San Francisco has some of the highest real estate costs in the United States. Especially on the waterfront, along the Embarcadero where these ferries dock.

So maddjak, this is your "private" ferry system? Seems to me if it's going to private, make it truly private, and make the ferries pay for their docks themselves. Otherwise you just have government funding a big share of a system that's supposedly private.

"Believe it or not Private ALWAYS does a better job than government because they have to..to make a profit."

Not true. The largest private ambulance company in the world, AMR, is bailing on contracts they have with cities all over the country. They can't provide the same quality of service that local agencies can and make a profit at the same time. When you deal with a private company, some portion of the government money you spend has to leave that area and go into the hands of the investors of that company.

So in some cases you have a hobson's choice: save money and provide a lower quality service to the public (so that profit margins can be held high) or spend a little bit more money (keeping it all within the local area) and provide a much higher level of service to the public. Personally, I like having good quality service, so I'll take the latter. This of course isn't always like this, there are private companies that can be more efficient than the government. But I challenge you to find one that can replace a police or fire department and do it effectively. I'll help you out right now: you won't.

Gary & Greg, just so you don't think you're being left out I'll get back to you later. Gotta run.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

BB Since a private ferry system would be owned by part of the public that has already funded the docks and would be paying a tax that would go to the docks then why should they NOT use the existing docks?

Freight functions in a private domain on publically funded docks so why shouldn't ferries?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

And 'D' we were discussing ferry systems , NOT police and judges. Although they do operate on a 'for profit' system since it has become the common practice to seize private property without due process, for the financial gain of the justice system.

And there are private police.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

BB- Still waiting for the answer on transit. No excuses on lack of knowledge since I gave you the USDOT website that contains all data on transit systems in the US. Washington State, on the whole, has a farebox return WELL SHORT of the national average. Should we increase ours to the national average provide more transit money? If you believe that transit is an essential element of government and should be provided FREE, just say so, it's a free country. These are apples to apples comparisons according to the format specified by USDOT. The statistics are exhaustive. They're all there. No excuse for not having an opinion. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE OPERATING COSTS OF METRO KING COUNTY TRANSIT SHOULD, IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION, BE COVERED BY FAREBOX REVENUE? Second question: What percentage of capital expenses should be covered by farebox revenue?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 04, 1999.

BB-

Go to this website. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/stpmlang/channel.htm

Whole flock of PRIVATE COMPANIES that make a profit providing ferry service across the Englush Channel.

But then, maybe the English are more industrious than we are.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 04, 1999.

BB-

"So you have a private ferry system who gets to use a public ferry terminal. Pretty sweet deal considering San Francisco has some of the highest real estate costs in the United States. Especially on the waterfront, along the Embarcadero where these ferries dock."

The figures I gave you were OPERATING EXPENSES. They don't include the cost of buying ferry terminals (or ferries either for that matter). Those are capital expenses. Those are above and beyond the operating expenses, except that for the private boats, they needed to come up with the money to buy the ferries initially out of private capital

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 04, 1999.

BB- "To answer your question, I don't know. I have no idea what the proper percentage is for a subsidy for operating the ferries. I'd rather see some comparisons of them to some other government run ferry systems, like BC Ferries for example, before I judge. "

"Gary, none of these systems are as large as WSF. That's why I don't think it's all that fair to compare them. As far as I know, the only other ferry system as large as WSF is BC Ferries"

BB, It looks like I'm doomed to spend the rest of my life doing your research for you. Unfortunately, I believe that your about 20-30 years my junior, so you'll probably out last me. Here is the website for the last FY budget for BC ferries. They were converted into a government corporation back in the 70s because they were just too inefficient as a part of government. Now they must use standard accounting rules, etc. They do receive a subsidy from the Province. In 1998/99 (they have a 1 July fiscal year) it was $24 million (Canadian that is, all figures are in Canadian for that matter).

Here's the website: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/consolidated_statem ent_operations.html

Their revenues were tolls $290 million, catering and other income $67 million, operating contracts and grants $26.6 million for total revenues of $383.4 million. Operating expenses were salaries wages and benefits $221 million, financing expense $33.8 million (yes, they pay INTEREST on bonds they sell to capitalize themselves), fuel $38 million, repairs $26.3 million, cost of catering goods sold $25.3 million, and a variety of other costs including INSURANCE, taxes, and utilities $8.6 million coming to a grand total of $397 million. They lost $14 million last year.

It would appear that they are running it like a BUSINESS except for the $24 million subsidy which is, let me see..........$24million/$397million = about 6%. Farebox revenues account for $290 million and profit on food sales about $42 million, but comparing ONLY farebox revenue would be $290million/$397million or 73% of operating costs. If you toss in the profit on food too it's $332/$397 or not quite 84%. It isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, since BCs operating costs include insurance, taxes, interest expense, etc., but since their percentage farebox revenue would be even higher if these things weren't in the numerator, I'm sure you don't want to quibble. So there you have it. Our semi-Socialist neighbor to the North is running a corporation that is reasonably cost efficient. They also have a web page boasting of the other ferry systems they beat. It's at http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/tariff_comparisons. html Our ferry system is PROMINENTLY mentioned.

So, you've stalled long enough BB. Give me a percentage of user fee that you think is appropriate. You now have the

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 05, 1999.

Let's see? OUR Ferries get $100 million in subsidies and charge $17 million in fares? BCs ferries get $24 million in subsidies, and charge $290 million in fares? They run their business with a 6% subsidy, we run OURS with a 85.5% subsidy? DAMN! Let's subcontract our ferries to the Canadians. They may be Socialists, but at least they know a little about running a business. It's obvious the opponents of I-695 are against the provision requiring popular votes on tax and fee increases. It looks like the decreased tax portion of eliminating the MVET can be entirely made up out of petty change in the DOT.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 05, 1999.

BB-

""Believe me BB, I've ridden the Bainbridge run. Awful lot of ex-yuppy DINKS with rich waterfront/waterview property who bailed out of the Seattle schools as soon as they'd produced offspring, to settle into a life of suburban ease." Craig, if you're able to be this judgemental of somebody just because of the way they look, or the ferry they ride, I'm truly sorry for you. "

No BB. I've got FACTS to back up my judgements, as opposed to your uninformed opinions. If you look at the 1990 census, median family income for King county was $36,179. Not bad actually. If you look at Bainbridge Island it was $42,107. Explain again why we're subsidizing all these poor people who live in Bainbridge Island?? Look it up yourself: ://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/936555844

-- Craig Carson (craigcar @crosswinds.net), September 05, 1999.

BB- If you don't have time to read the whole financial statement, this press release gives the essentials. If you'd prefer it in French, it's available that way too:

http://news.bcferries.bc.ca/index.epl?cmd=show-release&id=64

VICTORIA -- The British Columbia Ferry Corporation today released its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998. The report highlights a marked improvement in net loss, down to $59 million in 1997/98 from $76.5 million in 1996/97. The Corporation collected $383.4 million in revenue from tolls, catering and other income (pay parking and advertising sales), and operating contracts and grants; up from $360.3 million the previous year. Operating expenses increased by only 2%, from $389.5 million in 1996/97 to $397.3 million. This fiscal year, the ferry system transported 21.8 million passengers and 8.0 million vehicles. Commercial traffic volumes increased by 6% over last year and bus traffic showed a steady 7% volume increase. However, passenger and vehicle traffic was slightly lower than last year, declining by 2% and 3% respectively. "The Corporation's financial situation remains a primary concern of executive management," said Tom Ward, President and CEO. "BC Ferries will continue to work with the provincial government to establish a fiscal framework as well as working with stakeholders to develop a long-term service plan." The Corporation is also turning to non-tariff revenue as a means to offset expenses. It is striving to increase shipboard sales in its restaurants and gift-shops, to implement marketing and sponsorship initiatives, and to introduce specialized services to encourage travel during off-peak hours. The 1997/98 Annual Report will be posted at BC Ferries' multi-lingual website (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca) by mid-October, 1998. Any further inquiries may be directed to the contact below.

Contact:Eric Kristianson (250) 978-1267 Fax: (250) 978-1119 E-mail: bcfccomm@pop.gov.bc.ca

Still waiting for you to come up with a number for percent farebox revenue (user fees) versus percent subsidy.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 06, 1999.

Yeah BB, and if you look up the above reference you can easily get to this one:

BC FERRIES AND UNION REACH TENTATIVE AGREEMENT VICTORIA  BC Ferries and the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union have reached a tentative collective agreement, BC Ferries president and CEO Bob Lingwood announced today. "I am pleased to have reached this stage in the bargaining process," said Lingwood. "This tentative agreement is in line with the provincial guidelines for public sector workers, and addresses complex issues brought forward by both sides." The tentative agreement provides for a zero, zero and two per cent wage increase over three years. The agreement also establishes a process for resolving concerns over using casual employees as well as operational issues involving hours of work. "Both sides are ready to proceed with the next stage in the bargaining process, which is to present the agreement to the union's membership and the corporation for ratification," Lingwood said. "I am hopeful that these next steps will lead to a final agreement."

http://news.bcferries.bc.ca/index.epl?cmd=show-release&id=74

BC ferries actually negotiates with their unions, they don't just roll over and buy them off with taxpayers money. Is there any way we can get them to run WSF for us???

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 06, 1999.

So, why do Gary Henriksen and Craig Carson have post dates on September 6 when it is still September 5? Is it the computer that has the date and time wrong, or are you writing from the east coast? Or Europe? Or is this forum hosted on a computer on the east coast? You never know these days. I guess I will know more when I see if my post date is also September 6, when it is being sent at 9:40 pm September 5.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.

d-

I take it that, having read the above postings, you are so at a loss for ANY argument to defend the subsidies to WSF (payed for with MY taxes through MVET) that you must resort to beating up on a computer for using Greenwich Mean Time to date the postings. Talk about your basic DESPERATION.

OK d,

You obviously read the postings. How much do YOU believe the ferries ought to bring in through fares relative to their public subsidies. Kindly answer the question. If you then feel an urgent need to correct my grammar, punctuation, date of the month, day of the week, or whatever, OK. But make that part two. Give us a straight answer on part one. That is the question (see the top line on the posting), not the mechanics of time/date stamping by a computer program. If you are seriously here to discuss the question (rather than just harass the process) you ought to be able to answer the primary question.

The Craigster

PS: It's Greenwich ENGLAND, not Connecticut, if that was going to be your next item of concern.

PPS: Answer the question.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 06, 1999.

While we all wait expectently for BB and d to answer the question from their point of view I will share my view.

Generally I start out with the perspective that the cost of a product or service should be paid for by the consumer of that product or service. If the consumer does not believe that the cost is "worth it" and will not pay at least that amount, then the provider of the product or service should not be forced to subsidize the consumer.

I do not see anything compelling about this issue to alter my general perspective. Thus, if one chooses to live on a Puget Sound Island, or in a community that can be accessed by land or by water, it seems to me that the cost of ferry access should be borne by those using the ferries. One philosophical point could be that there might be a general "societal interest" in making those areas totally dependent on water access "feel" more a part of the mainland and the general state of Washington. I would not, however, be willing to subsidize such areas more than 10% for this reason.

At this point in time, however, the State has made other choices over the years and created a situation where the apparent subsidy is far greater. Personal decisions, therefore, have probably taken this actual situation into account in deciding where to locate. On the other hand, it would not be rational for anyone to assume that somehow they would forever have a "right" to huge subsidies for their location decisions. This means that I would be willing to endure a transition period where it was communicated up from that at the end of the period the rule would then be that the consumer would be responsible for at least 90% of the cost of the system.

Thus, the answer specifically, I would support moving immediately to a situation where consumers paid 50% of total costs and that this percentage increased equally every year for four years (60-70-80-90) when consumers would be responsible for 90% of the costs for islands and (62.5-75-87.5-100) 100% for non-island, water-served communities.

In my judgment it is not necessary to see how Rhode Island, or England or Latvia run their ferries in order to determine what is a comfortable answer to this question based on personal philosophy.

I recognize that probably there are as many different views of this and the exact transition (if any) as there are people. The good thing about I-695 is that if most citizens feel there should be a 25% subsidy, then this can be accomplished directly. If, on the other hand, most feel consumers should pay their own way, this can also be accomplished and all through the democratic process. Moreover, those who believe trongly that the subsidy should be higher, even thought the majority do not, still would not be constrained in donating their money to accomplish their objective.

I remain interested in how d and BB think about their answer.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Geez, you go away for the weekend and everybody all the sudden wants to know your opinion on something. Well, here goes.

I dinked around WSF's website and found something interesting that I didn't know before. Apparently in some instances they only charge a one-way rate for certain things, like passengers in cars. I think this also might apply in walk-ons in some way, but I'm not entirely sure. The lingo they use on their page is a little confusing. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/schedules/fares/fares-general.cfm

I can't find anything like this in the BC system. It looks like you pay the same rate no matter what. Of course the BC Ferries also charge roughly 1 1/2 to 3 (with the exchange rate) times as much for riding their boats as the WSF does, so that's part of why their revenue is so astronomically high.

So my solution? Charge the same rate no matter where you're going. For example, right now a car with two people in it going to Bainbridge from Seattle is charged $10.20. Coming back, it's charged $6.25. That's a weird way of doing business. The rate should be the same either way.

This funky rate collection system applies on nearly every route. You apply the rates to each direction on every route and you'll make a ton of money, decreasing the subsidy. My guess is that it'll decrease the subsidy by 10%. Then see how the system operates at that point, do an audit to iron out the ineffeciencies, and go from there.

Of course any decrease in a ferry subsidy depends on more than mere mathmatics, and my opinion, and your opinion. It depends on politics. We can sit and pontificate 'till the year 3000 about how much or how little the ferries should and will be subsidized, but the only solution is going to end up being a political one.

But for those of you who want the ferry system to be totally unsubsidized, the answer is to jack the rate up to two or three times what it is now and charge the same thing in every direction. But as long as people in the Olympics, Vashon, Kitsap, and the San Juans have any political power, that ain't gonna happen.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

maddjak wrote:

"And there are private police."

In the United States? Where?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

This question is not a high priority for me, but since you asked I will give you an opinion.

The Puget Sound region has a lot of ferry routes, as did the San- Francisco Bay area 50 years ago. As construction capability made bridges possible, the ferry routes were replaced, usually by a toll bridge that eventually became free. What we have in Puget Sound relates directly to the geography of the area, the distances to be crossed, the limits of bridge construction, the obligations of government to support a transportation infrastructure, the relative responsibility of individuals who make choices about where they live and work, and the need for accessable land close to Seattle and Tacoma. The relative importance of these factors has changed over time, and will continue to change. If someone were to invent a way to construct a long floating bridge on puget sound inexpensively, for example, that could make construction attractive if land were scarce in King County. Think 2050, or 2075.

I have no problem with a partial government subsidy of the ferry system, but it needs to be compared to how government subsidizes a transportation system for anywhere else. If each ferry route were a highway and a bridge, what would be the cost of construction and maintenance? At least that much of a subsidy should be considered the minimum government responsibility, since they do that much for any other area of the state. How much does the state spend to connect Bellevue to Seattle?

As for how the individual should pay for their share, for the choice they made to live and work at opposite ends of a ferry run; that's a collection procedure issue that needs to minimize waste in the collection process itself. Automate as much as possible. Collect only one way if it is to an island, since it eliminates a toll collector one way. Whatever. It's procedural, not policy.

Another issues to consider is; even when a bridge makes sense, like one from Tacoma to Vashon Island, the residents may not want it. If a bridge were built, it would be easy for Vashon to become a Tacoma suburb instead of a rural haven. The property owners may rather pay for a ferry ride, as long as the price is not high. But, as a public policy issue the state or city may want to build a bridge anyway, because the region eventually needs to convert an area into a suburb. Again, think 2050 or 2075. In that case, who should pay? How much difference do you think it would have made to the development of Whidbey Island, if the bridge had been built on the south end nearer Seattle, rather than the north end?

If you want specific percentage recommendations, as others have provided, I can't do that. Because of the expense involved, these major transportation projects need to be considered based on a very long time horizon; and with some understanding of the social and political implications. The analysis of the history of bridge building in the City of New York is very interesting, in terms of the politics and unintended consequences.

If the site uses GMT, that explains the date issue. Thanks.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.

d- "If you want specific percentage recommendations, as others have provided, I can't do that. " Well that's just fine d, but in the real world someone has to do this. How can you say that tax rates are too high, too low, or just right when you won't even attempt to quantify something. The world doesn't work on "feel good" or phantom bridges to Vashon. In the real world someone pays money, be it bridge tolls as they are now trying to place back on the Narrows or ferry user fees. In my humble opinion, it is a cop-out to debate such things as a change in the rate of collection of taxes (which MVET certainly does) for transit and ferry services and be unable/unwilling to express an opinion as to how much of these services should be payed for in common, and how much should be payed for by user fees.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 07, 1999.

Chaff!! Flares!!!! Jink Right!!!! Jink Left!!!! Bob!!!!!!! Weave!!!!!! More Chaff!!! More Flares!!!!!! Come on d, show some spine. Take a chance. Risk saying that PERHAPS if BC ferries can get by with a 6% subsidy there MAY BE some economies that we could come up with to get ours under 80%.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

I said this isn't high on my priorities didn't I? I don't believe the case has been made to support I-695, and the ferry toll and subsidy rate are not an issue I am familiar enough with to give a more specific answer to. I'll leave it to the rest of you to give specific opinions without any knowledge of the subject.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 07, 1999.

"I said this isn't high on my priorities didn't I? I don't believe the case has been made to support I-695, and the ferry toll and subsidy rate are not an issue I am familiar enough with to give a more specific answer to. I'll leave it to the rest of you to give specific opinions without any knowledge of the subject. " Since a sizable proportion of the MVET goes to support transit and ferry services, how can you have an opinion as to the potential impact of the MVET if you have no opinion as to whether or not the subsidies currently being provided to these functions are necessary and appropriate? You have been provided with subsidy figures for Washington Transit systems and EVERY OTHER TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY. You have been provided with subsidy figures for WSF, for other US ferry systems and for BC ferries. What additional FACTS would you require before you felt that you had adequate information to have an opinion on what the appropriate level of subsidy for these services should be? Given that the question asked on this thread was "Subject: How much should a ferry be subsidized? " and you voluntarily interjected your opinions into this thread, one would assume that you felt competent to have an opinion at one time. What happened? Or is Mr. Carson correct, that the issue was never one of participating in a dialogue but rather merely attempting to obstruct and obfuscate the process?

.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 07, 1999.

My original comment was to ask about the date on some posts that was confusing to me. Support for the MVET is not why I don't like the Initiative. It may need some changes, but I don't believe you can pick out single issues funded by government, as a basis for funding cuts. No one will ever agree with everything their government does with tax money. To get to that point you need to be Gates, and buy a country and appoint yourself King. As I said before, government generally does a good job giving people all they need, most of what they want, and some of what they would like to see in government projects. What I want is different than what you want, so representatives try to balance interests and priorities. If you don't like how the MVET or any other tax is being spent, get involved in the process of setting priorities and electing representatives. Some of the comments in this forum look like children who don't like the game rules, so they want to take their ball and go home. What I don't like about I-695 are the problems caused by the voter approval requirement. I was asked for an opinion on ferry subsidies, and I gave you one. If you don't like it, move on. I am not interested in the ferry issue.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 07, 1999.

"But for those of you who want the ferry system to be totally unsubsidized, the answer is to jack the rate up to two or three times what it is now and charge the same thing in every direction"

A number please that YOU believe appropriate. 85% subsidy (like now), 70%, 50%? Not what one could or should or is politically feasible. What you believe is FAIR. Then you decide how you get there (if you support a change).

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 08, 1999.

BB

I think that last question is for you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei,net), September 08, 1999.

"My original comment was to ask about the date on some posts that was confusing to me." Oh yeah D. The heading for the thread was: Subject: How much should a ferry be subsidized? And you said to yourself, "Gee, I'm totally uninterested in that subject, but I'll click on it just in case there is something interesting I can learn about how computers time/date stamp posts of no interest to me." Yeah, sure. It couldn't have been ANYTHING like you wanted to defend the MVET subsidy to the ferries, and then backed off when the FACTS indicate that we have FOURTEEN TIMES the subsidy that BC ferries have. " I was asked for an opinion on ferry subsidies, and I gave you one." No you didn't. You waffled, quibbled, attempted to change the subject, derided the opinions of others, talked about bridges to Vashon, Bill Gates, becoming a monarch, and did virtually everything else you could to AVOID giving an opinion. "but I don't believe you can pick out single issues funded by government, as a basis for funding cuts." ' If you don't like how the MVET or any other tax is being spent, get involved in the process of setting priorities and electing representatives' Well, WHICH IS IT D? Do I get involved in the process of setting priorities which inherently requires a judgement call on the relative merits of single issues or can I not pick out single issues? Or is it only the concept of ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDING CUTS as being impossible to pick out? So come on D, be a Mensch. I'll make it easy and make it multiple choice:

The appropriate subsidy for the Washington State Ferry System in D's opinion is a. 100% or greater. b. 80-100% c. 60-80% d. 40-60% e. 20-40% f. 0-20%

Come on D. Show some cojones. Give us a letter, a to f.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 08, 1999.

Gary writes:

"A number please that YOU believe appropriate. 85% subsidy (like now), 70%, 50%? Not what one could or should or is politically feasible. What you believe is FAIR. Then you decide how you get there (if you support a change)."

I already answered this above, but you just don't like my answer. Implement the changes I suggested, then see where the numbers are, then go from there. Like I said, you'd probably take in roughly twice as much revenue as you do now. I'm comfortable with that as a start.

Graduated, measured, focused change will be much more effective than sudden, willy-nilly, overwhelming change. Shouldn't be any surprise I favor the former; the latter tends to be pretty shortsighted. But I'm sure you all favor the latter; that's 695 in a nutshell. Cut like crazy and then figure out whether it actually works. I'd rather figure out what works right in a system, then cut what doesn't.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.

BB-

Actually, your plans to make passenger collections both ways probably is LESS practical than Ds plans to just make them one way to avoid half the collection costs. But given that the subject of this thread is : How much should a ferry be subsidized, and that in previous posts you indicated that if provided with certain data, you could answer that question; "To answer your question, I don't know. I have no idea what the proper percentage is for a subsidy for operating the ferries. I'd rather see some comparisons of them to some other government run ferry systems, like BC Ferries for example, before I judge. ", and seeing as how I supplied the requested comparison, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to come through with, if not a number, a range. Saying that we should just make a few arbitrary fare changes and see what the number becomes, doesn't strike me as a reasonable way to do business. This is a very real problem anytime you have any subsidized service. Subsidies tend to distort economic reality. I agree that willy-nilly changes in subsidized operations are intensely disruptive. All the more reason we need a TARGET for our subsidized services. Why is it so hard for you to come up with a number?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 08, 1999.

"But I'm sure you all favor the latter; that's 695 in a nutshell. " If you're generalizing to all proponents of I-695 you're being real judgemental towards a half million people who signed the petitition, more so than Craig was to the customers of the Bainbridge run. If this statement is directed at me personally, I assume you'all are a Texan. But no, the second part of my question was "Then you decide how you get there (if you support a change). " Like weaning people off welfare (and corporations and farmers off subsidies, for that matter), once you have engendered their dependency, I believe that you have a moral obligation to de-subsidize them over a reasonable period of time. If you distorted the basic economics of the situation with your subsidy to begin with, you should allow a reasonable time for getting either off the subsidy, or to an appropriate target. But without the target, how can you plan a transition?

.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 08, 1999.

Let's get back to the original. How much should a ferry be subsidized? How about this proposal?

1.Sell the existing ferries to a private concern.

2.Let the state carry the paper on the ferries at ZERO percent interest. (hey they are LOSING MONEY on them every year and making up the balance by dipping in our pockets)

a. The above would put megabucks back into the government cash bag because they would no longer have to spend ANY of the money associated with the system.

3.The new system owners could choose to keep the NECESSARY ferry support group and weed out the unneeded positions or just start over with complete new personnel.

How's that for a plan??

The state would be subsidizing the financing of a private system.

I wonder how they go about figuring what the subsidy really is.

Do they take into account all the money that is spent on the 'support' team or just the physical operation of the ferries?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.

BB- Not on comparable routes. See: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/tariff_comparisons. html

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 08, 1999.

maddjack-

This appears to be what BC ferries did in the 70s, converted to a Crown corporation that was more or less donated the assets but then had to earn a living on its own. They appear to have been relatively successful (getting by on a 6% subsidy). See their latest balance sheet at: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/consolidated_statem ent_operations.html It makes some very interesting reading.

.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 08, 1999.

Craig Carson writes: "Well, WHICH IS IT D? Do I get involved in the process of setting priorities which inherently requires a judgement call on the relative merits of single issues or can I not pick out single issues? Or is it only the concept of ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDING CUTS as being impossible to pick out?"

Since you asked so nicely, I'll give you another answer you won't like. The distinction I am trying to make is that funding of government, as a civic responsibility, is a different issue than participation in the process of governing by being involved. Pick out specific programs to get involved in and influence, but if the decision doesn't go your way you still need to pay your taxes. You win some and you lose some

About subsidies, here is an answer you may like better. I think subsidies should be inversely proportional to the commercial viability of the ferry route, and directly proportional to the public benefit and necessity provided by that route. If a route is commercially viable, the subsidy should be reduced or eliminated. If a ferry route can be operated commercially at a profit, the government does not need to be involved except in a regulatory role to prevent monopolistic prices and assure that the public is being served. On the other hand, the higher the public benefit and necessity of the route, the greater the government responsibility to assure that the route will continue to operate in the public interest. You gave me some choices about a subsidy, ranging from 0 - 100% (I will ignore the over 100% option). The answer is, it all depends. How important is the route? How much subsidy is needed to assure the route will be available? Is it capable of being operated as a commercial enterprise? If we are talking about a scenic ferry to a resort, ZERO. Specific answeres about specific routes requires an analysis of the specific facts.

As I said, this is not an issue I am very interested in. I looked in this area because it was getting the most activity and often the initial question has little or nothing to do with the eventual topic. So now I have given you an answer. I just don't think the question is as important as an exploration of the damage I-695 will do to the functioning of government. I didn't get many SPECIFIC answers on those questions, either.

I have confidence you will be able to find several things here to pull out and criticise.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

P.S.

I see a lot of reference to the Canadian situation, and I don't think that is very useful. The relationship between private enterprise and government in Canada is somewhat different than it is here.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

I see that nothing is going to get you out of the waffling mode. That's fine, but in my mind that diminishes your credibility when you talk about the effect of I-695 in terms of loss of revenue, since such budgetary decisions require an assessment of the relative merits of the different options. You are invoking a strategy that is one of sophistry. Your opponent is less noble than you if they don't support "mass transit" THE CONCEPT. But you are unwilling to defend it at any level objectively. And if, at any level, it is indefensible by some external standard, you want to go to the next level. If All of Washington Transit is funded at a higher level than in other states you would say, "but that's because other people don't have ferries to support". If the research then indicates the ferries are supported at a higher level than an external standard would imply is justified, you go to the "but what about the run between a and b." If that is then supported at a level that would appear unjustified, you'd say, "but what about Joe Smith on Maury Island who is disabled on fixed income?" I'm sorry. These decisions from a financial perspective ought to make sense at every level, not at ANY level (not that you've yet found any level that they make sense). And in the aggregate, the allocation of public funds to transit in Washington State just doesn't make sense. I share your concern for Joe Smith on Maury Island who is disabled and is on fixed income. I'd like to support Joe Smith in a way that makes sense. But that does not mean that I would support inefficiencies throughout the system that do not have anything to do with Joe Smith, just because Joe Smith gets some marginal gain from the system inefficiencies. Talking concept is fine, d. That's where all systems start. But to engineer something other than air castles, you've got to be able to stand up for the economics of the system you're advocating.

Cordially

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 09, 1999.

Gary:

The passenger ferry to Blake island, for the salmon dinner, no subsidy (commercial and no real public necessity). The ferry to Vashon island is an interesting case. Nearly all the users are residents of the island, who need a route to the mainland as a public necessity. They could, perhaps, buy their own ferry and run it as a public utility so they would not be charged a high rate by private enterprise; or even support it by local taxes and operate it as a free service as a benefit for the local residents and businesses. Since the state is running it, but it primarily is a service to the local residents, a fare support of 50-75% seems reasonable. For other ferry routes, study the local situation and make some judgements about who benefits and what the public policy issues are. I have not done that, and I am not all that confident about my understanding of the Vashon situation. A flat rate of subsidy for all ferry routes does not make sense to me, nor does privatization of the entire system. If a private company can't make money on a run, the public interest will not be well served by their decision on continued operation. Government should do what it would not make sense for a private company to do, in such cases; which is why comparisons to private operations that selectively concentrate on the profitable runs, do not make a case about what the state should do.

None of this has any bearing on I-695, however. Whatever taxes are collected should be fairly distributed and relate to the services being supported. That part of the arguement about the MVET seems to be appropriate. Specific detail about programs and procedures, are no longer funding issues related to the tax. They are operational issues that would exist no matter what the funding source was. They are questions that need to be addressed by the politics and public participation that determine how the agency operates. I don't see how this provides any justification for cutting the revenue of government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 09, 1999.

Chaff and flares, D, chaff and flares.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 09, 1999.

There are alot of changes the ferries could make to increase revenue like charging their employees families for using the ferry. And not giving free lifetime ferry passes to their retirees. I don't receive anything free from the company that I work for, and they shouldn't either.

-- Tina (harrywho@whidbey.com), October 08, 1999.

I think the ferry issue will be the most troubling. And, to dbvz, I- 695 will make a difference because it will force a major debate on the subject. You must have a lot of influence with the government, because I know they're not going to listen to me.

My recommendation is, for the first year, to raid the state surplus and to continue subsidies at a level of 50% to 75% of the current subsidies. After the first year, it's up to the voters to decide. The remaining monies should be achieved by raising fares and/or eliminating runs. I would personally recommend eliminating the ferries which carry cars. Why should we heavily subsidize people to pollute the air on the other side of the Puget Sound from their home?

The voters should just be people in Kitsap and Pierce counties. They should decide if they're willing to pay a property tax on their home and/or vehicle in order to keep the "ferry" people off of their roadways (e.g., Hwy 16, I-5).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.

My only point was, 695 does not do anything about this. It will force a debate about state and local funding of everything. It does nothing to determine where the budget cuts will actually be made. With or without 695, those decisions will be made the same places they have always been made, with no change in priorities mandated by the initiative. Influence results from being involved in the process. If I have any, that's why.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

to dbvz: Damn right I-695 changes the process. We're going to be involved because we're going to vote on it. Why is it so difficult for you to understand? Now, the politicians are going to ask our permission rather than the other way around. The more I read what you say, the more I support I-695.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.

Matt:

And the more I read about what you say, the more concerned I am about changing to direct democracy for funding decisions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

Gary

Question back at you.

Why should the ferries be subsidized?

Ed - always liked asking instructors what this class would do for me in the real world. Answer good for taking up 30 to 40 minutes of class time.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Why should the ferries be subsidized?

Ultimately, they shouldnt be subsidized. I do believe, however, that having distorted economic reality for decades by subsidizing them, the state has a moral obligation to de-subsidize them over a reasonable period (decrease subsidies by ten percent per year for ten years, for example). This would be in fairness to those individuals that they lured to locate or do business in areas that would not have made sense, absent the discounted ferry service. I also believe that if they either privatized or at least opened the ferry system up to competition, thr cost of operation might be decreased to where the adverse impact of the loss of the subsidy would be significantly mitigated.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 10, 1999.

Ed:

1. Because a ferry is part of a transportation system just like any public road. It provides a route for travel that is a general public benefit.

2. Some ferry routes that have a higher public benefit than others, have a lower economic viability if they were private. They would not be attractive to private enterprise, as a result. Government should do what needs to be done, that would not be done by private enterprise alone.

3. State economic benefits are not all direct. The value of the traffic routes for the economic viability of the state, are sometimes hard to measure. How many businesses locate in the Seattle area, at least in part because the ferry system makes a variety of living choices more available? Or becuse they help with their distribution of products? It may be marginal for most, but could be important for some.

I imagine others can contribute more and better ideas. Ferry systems and bridges are public all over the world, for most of these same reasons.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

"I imagine others can contribute more and better ideas. Ferry systems and bridges are public all over the world, for most of these same reasons. " Actually, many are public. The WSDOT plan for the new Tacoma Narrows bridge is a public/private partnership, with the company charging tolls for 30-40 years. But regardless of whether ferries or bridges are public or private, they ought to be payed for by users. Not by the people of the Okanagon who derive minimal benefit from them.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

Using that logic, every road and bridge should also be a toll road or toll bridge. How about we return to a subscription service fire department? If you have not paid your dues this month, they let it burn. Or end the public school system, and fund it all with tuition paid for by the parents? We could quit paying the police, and the "blue gang" could be funded as an extortion racket. How do you decide what public benefits deserve public support? What makes a ferry different from the Tacoma Narrows bridge different from the local police? I would like to understand your logic.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

" How do you decide what public benefits deserve public support? What makes a ferry different from the Tacoma Narrows bridge different from the local police? I would like to understand your logic. "

If you are REALLY serious, read this with an open mind, http://www.rppi.org/ps250.html, think it over for 24 hours, then reread it. Particularly the part about congestion pricing. Then tell me what you think.

But I clearly distinguish between ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS such as fire and police and optional functions. Preservation of justice and public safety is an essential function of government. The ferries really aren't. Those who would have chosen to live in otherwise remote area absent the ferry subsidy, simply made a choice, like choosing to live in Tonasket. A certain amount of isolation and lack of availability of services is inherent in that choice. And I just don't like government for the sake of government. Why should we subsidize people to live in places like Mukilteo, Kingston, Winslow, and Southworth while we are simultaneously enacting restrictive measures on the east side to decrease urban sprawl? I also believe that monopolies are inherently inefficient and not customer oriented. This may be unavoidable for police and fire, but it certainly isn't for power production, ferries, transit, solid waste, road-building, and a host of other non-essential government functions that could be easily and effectively privatized, if we had the political will in Olympia. That leaves MORE money for doing the essential functions well, while giving the taxpayer a more efficient government.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Given that area non-compliance or marginal compliance with clean air standards is a major factor in transportation policy for the feds, how long do you think that we'll be able to get away with allowing the ferries to pollute like they do? Will this require further capital investment, on an already highly subsidized system?

http://earthisland.org/bw/ferryreport.shtml Based purely on air quality considerations, transit buses are a much cleaner choice for commuter transit than ferry boats by an order of magnitude. The major factor driving this conclusion is that marine diesel engines are completely unregulated with regard to air emissions. This contrasts sharply with automobiles, which have only six percent of the smog-forming emissions they did in 1973. Buses too, have become much cleaner. Ferry emissions on a grams/horsepower basis are several times the levels permitted in on-road vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed emission standards for marine diesels scheduled to take effect in 2006 that are nearly twice the current standards for on-road vehicles and more than three times the standards for over the road diesels produced after 2002.

Of further note is that the fleet average emissions for automobiles in the Bay Area are coming down with time as newer, cleaner vehicles enter the fleet and replace older gross emitters. If current trends continue, it is possible that the automobile fleet average emissions will be less than the emissions for diesel buses sometime shortly after 2010.

An additional site of interest: http://www.msnbc.com/news/293713.asp?cp1=1

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Before someone says, yeah but the ferries have more passengers, these are the passenger mile statistics, adjusted for the miles that would have been required to be driven had the ferry not been available. These are San Francisco figures, so ours might be different. Also, the ferry used was their most efficient, a passenger only catamaran. diesel buses emit pollutants of 0.63 grams per passenger mile, cars emit 0.80 grams per passenger mile, and diesel ferries emit 7.90 grams per passenger mile.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Craig:

"Essential functions" seem to have changed in most minds over time. I think most people would include a transportation infrastructure as essential. Since before WWII a variety of social services programs have been considered essential. Before 1978 in King County the Medic One program didn't exist, but now it is considered essential. What is necessary for government to provide, seems to be subjective.

Even among the essential functions, the level of service is certainly subjective. You can have an "adequate" EMS system, or you can pay more for a system that is significantly better at saving lives. Same with a fire department. Same with a police department. You still need to decide how much they get, even if we agree they are funded first.

At some point, governments move past the basic minimum needed for the essential functions they are created to perform; and begin doing the "extra" things the public wants them to do. We can argue about what may be in or out of this group for years, but some examples you may agree are extra are; parks, art, youth programs, senior centers, community centers, libraries, roadside weed control, zoning code enforcement, public right-of-way landscaping, homeless shelters, public health services, and many many more.

My question was really about all those things that government does, that you may not personally support. Whether it is a level-of- service of an agency you agree is essential that is higher than you think is necessary, or an entire service you think is not necessary at all. It does not matter how government budgets, you will never be entirely satisfied they are spending your money the way you want it spent.

Where we differ, it seems to me, is that I don't expect to be entirely satisfied. What I expect is the opportunity to be involved in selecting my representatives, and an opportunity to influence the decisions I am interested in by my involvement in the process.

I will look at the sites you provided, and get back to you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 13, 1999.

d-

One of the issues that determines, to me at least, the concept of ESSENTIAL, is whether it is an inherently government service. Certainly things light electric power production, transit, road building and upkeep, solid waste disposal, etc., have been contracted out/privatized quite successfully by many locales. I have some reservations regarding attempting this with police and fire services (and I regard Medic one as part of the latter). I am neither young (any more) or naive enough to expect that every level of service or other governmental decision will exactly correspond to what I desire. But it's a participatory democracy, and I have as much of a right to advocate, even strongly advocate, my position as anyone else has to advocate theirs. I'm not building barricades, tossing molotov cocktails, mailing letter bombs, or advocating violence. I'm participating in an electronic bulletin board. If I indeed " will never be entirely satisfied they are spending your money the way you want it spent, " what is the harm to you or to the population at large? It gives me an opportunity for further involvement that from my aspect is continuous quality improvement, from your aspect is someone advocating a bias that you don't support. Free speech is the marketplace of ideas. Would you curtail mine? I wouldn't curtail yours.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.

Craig:

So we get back to an agreement to disagree. Satisfactory.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 13, 1999.

"So we get back to an agreement to disagree. Satisfactory" Mull over that reference: http://www.rppi.org/ps250.html

This might be worth looking at too, I don't fully agree with it, but I think you will agree with some of the areas that I don't: http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/pcr1.html

We may be closer to agreement than you believe.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.