Our son who rides the ferry to and from his work place in Seattle has heard that if I-695 passes there will be no foot ferry dock built at the Southworth terminal. Is this true or just more fear mongering by the other side.

Thanks you.

PS My wife and are are backers and supporters of I-695.

-- D.M. Donovan (eskimohobo@aol.com), September 23, 1999

Answers

Dear sir and maddam, It is true. The new foot ferrys are to be funded through R-49, last years voter approved transportation package. There will be four new boats lost. One in Southworth, One in Kinkston, and Two in Bremerton. This is not fear mongering, just the facts. In addition, there is a Two Hundred Million Dollar loss to the Ferry system in general the first year. This will account for a 35% reduction in current service. I'm not sure Kitsap County can afford that. As well, new roads are lost to this Initiative. However don't believe me, feel free to check it out for yourself. It is the truth though.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 23, 1999.

Yeah... what it does is shift those tens of millions of dollars down to SW Washington where we need 2 more bridges to cross the Columbia River.

But then, I've often found it odd that all that money is spent up there on ferries... to move far fewer people then commute from the Vancouver area to the Portland area (latest reports... 55,000 from Vanvcouver to Portland and return; 18,000 from Portland to Vancouver and return... a total of 73,000 commuters and, comparatively speaking, not a dime in transportation development.

Reductions in the ferry fleet are yet another reason to vote for this initiative.

Westin

The finest in concentrated ASCII

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.

This is sort of off-topic, but what are the per rider costs for the ferries. How much of this cost is funded by revenue the ferries generate?

I don't have _any_ evidence to support this, but I'll take a SWAG and say that people living on the islands are _heavily_ subsidized when commuting via the ferry system to Seattle. I'd guess this is especially true given the lower property values (on average) on the island. As a result, the islanders are likely to pay less property tax than a mainlander. In other words, if I lived in Kitsap county, you're not gonna get a lot of sympathy about not having enough ferries.

BTW: if the ferry system is nearly self-sufficient cost-wise, I'd then agree they'd have something to gripe about.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.

If they really want a ferry dock built there they will build it there. I-695 forces them to prioritize their spending.

well it doesn't really. they can continue to fund every ridiculous scheme they chose and ignore every necessary thing they choose.....just like old times

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.

Brad- "This is sort of off-topic, but what are the per rider costs for the ferries. How much of this cost is funded by revenue the ferries generate? "

According to the USDOT the Washington State Ferries had fare revenue covering 14% of operating expenses and 0% of capital (construction) expenses in 1997, the last year for which figures are available:

http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF

By comparison, Vancouver BC ferries covered 94% of their operating costs through fares, food sales, souvenir sales, and other commercial contracts, with the Province contributing only $24 million last year for operations.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 23, 1999.

This may or may not be true. Anti-695 supporters love to trot out figures saying that this or that service WILL BE CUT as a result of this initiative. The truth is that I-695 outlines no specific cuts or changes to be made. The government will have to prioritize and decide where changes and reductions in spending will be made. Anyone who tells you that you WILL lose such and such a service if this passes is just using scare tactics because they could not possibly know for sure. This initiative would cut government spending by less than 2%. The minor adjustments will have to be made within government, each representative arguing for what most benefits their constituents, the way government is supposed to be working anyway. If and when the initiative passes your concerns over particular issues relevant to voters in your district should be addressed to your representatives, it is their job to stand for your best interests.

-- Jennifer Loveless (jennh@u.washington.edu), September 24, 1999.

Jennifer:

The MVET is already directed to specific programs, and the cuts that are being discussed are those that would occue because of the loss of the MVET and without any bailout by the state. When you say no one knows for sure, you are correct. No one knows for sure what the legislature will do, or what they will feel they can do, after the initiative. Many may feel the MVET cut was an intentional cut of those programs it supports, and they may be reluctant to then fund those programs after the voters have cut them. Sounds like the stadium issue, in a little different form. They get criticised if they go against the public vote, and assume that the vote was only about the funding method and not the programs themselves. Much of the criticism of the DOT, the ferry system, and sound transit on this site will cause some of them to believe those programs were a part of the reason the initiative is approved (if it is). I personnally disagree; but you can't count on the legislature reading the minds of the voters, and making such distinctions.

About the 2% figure, that is misleading. The MVET is a state tax. The 2% figure is of ALL government revenue at all levels. It is more than 2% of the state revenue, and the proponents feel justified in using all government revenue because much of the MVET is shared with some local governments. The sharing is not uniform, however, and the government revenue used to calculate the 2% figure includes a lot of local governments that get no MVET at all. You still get some situations where the MVET loss is 40% of some local governments revenues. That is enough more than 2%, that you can't just dismiss it. If you want to assume the state will replace those funds, it is an assumption and not a fact. You call the cuts scare tactics. I would call the assumption that the cuts will not occur, unrealistic optimism.

Finally, the above only looks at the MVET; which is the side show in this initiative. The real damage is in section 2. No one has any good information on how to interpret it, and even the campaign chairmen seem a bit confused about how it would work. That part is a lot more scarry than the MVET losses.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.