Is it time to sell the passenger ferries?

An article in todays PI raises some interesting questions (http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/boat111.shtml):

State may lose the service of 10 ferries in I-695's wake Thursday, November 11, 1999 By GEORGE FOSTER mailto:georgefoster@seattle-pi.commailto:georgefoster@seattle-pi.com SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER As many as 10 Washington State ferries -- including all five passenger-only vessels -- may be mothballed next summer because of passage of Initiative 695. All ferry schedules, from the San Juan Islands to the Tahlequah-Point Defiance run, will suffer if proposed budget cuts are approved by the state Transportation Commission next month, and by the Legislature early next year. "I don't think anybody gets hit the hardest," said Pat Patterson, ferry spokeswoman. "What we attempted to do is spread the grief around." While saying core service for daily commuters will be maintained, Terry McCarthy, deputy director of the system, said cutting $52 million per biennium in operating costs will force "some people to find other jobs or move." THE FERRY SYSTEM HAD ALREADY SHELVED PLANS TO BUY AND OPERATE FIVE NEW HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER BOATS, BUT NOW SAYS IT WILL ALSO MOOR THE CHINOOK AND SNOHOMISH, WHICH WERE PUT INTO SERVICE IN THE PAST TWO YEARS AT A TOTAL COST OF $22 MILLION. Though boats would be taken out of service, THE STATE HAS NOT YET LISTED POTENTIAL CUTS IN THE FERRY SYSTEM'S 1,400-MEMBER WORK FORCE.

Having just purchased two passenger boats for $22 million, why are these being parked? One would assume that these are the fastest, cheapest, most efficient, least polluting, safest, etc., boats in the inventory. One can understand the Anacortes to BC ferry being taken out of service. It was never particularly popular, and the cost of upgrading it to meet the new international ferry safety standards (their waiver soon runs out) would be unreasonable, for a route with so little demand. Is it that the passenger ferries crews are relatively junior? Or is this a reasonable business decision, these boats cant handle both passengers and vehicles, vehicles MUST be handled, therefore the other boats must stay, and it makes no sense to duplicate the service? But if the passenger ferries MUST be taken off the line, why dont we sell them? They are going to require money to maintain them, even moored at dockside. Just ask anyone who has ever owned a boat. Now might be a GREAT opportunity to see if anyone else out there wants to run these FOR PROFIT. If the demand is there, someone might be able to make a good living. If it isnt, then we dont have to continue to pay taxes to support SURPLUS equipment. It makes NO SENSE just to sit on these boats. If we arent going to use them, lets sell them to the highest bidder AND open up the WSF monopoly on ferry service in Puget Sound.

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

Answers

Well, I really wish you didn't ask that question Craig. Look who is taking you up on your offer.

Kitsap Transit has the same budget worries as the ferry system. Hayes hopes to solve both problems with a Kitsap-based passenger-only ferry system.

Kitsap Transit would run 150-passenger boats with very low wakes across Puget Sound. Bremerton, Southworth and Kingston are all included in Hayes' plan.

The system would start with nine or 10 boats. Fares would run between $2.50 and $4 one-way during peak hours, less for off-peak runs.

Hayes anticipates the program might require a sales tax of up to 1 cent per dollar.

http://localhost:1234/HLPage?pg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesunlink.com% 2Fnews%2F99november%2Fdaily%2F1111a1c.html&qt=bremerton+sun

Glad I moved.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

Couldn't get the URL to work. I take it that this is a local politician. Privatizing doesn't generally mean one part of government taking over the job from another part of government. Although the state as a whole might believe it is more equitable for Kitsap to fund ferry services that primarily benefit Kitsap County, privatization would suggest that a non-governmental agency provide this service and the USERS (not all Kitsap taxpayers) pay for it. By the way, If the Silverdale incorporation recount holds up, I'd think that Kitsap county would have other deficits to offset besides I-695.

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

Here is the correct link, Sorry. http://www.thesunlink.com/news/99november/daily/1111a1d.html

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE

Do you see a pattern starting here?

PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.