The politicians are continuing their vindictiveness towards are over-taxed public by threatening all sorts of service failures. Has anyone considered privatizing the ferry system? It's a pretty accepted fact that anything run by the government is not run as efficiently as by the private sector. Instead of griping about the tax cut, when are these idiots going to take a look at ways to be more efficient? Is it going to take voting them out of office? Maybe we need another initiative, Daughter of 695, forcing the legislature to open up the certain services for bids from the private sector.

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinmcd@microsoft.com), December 29, 1999

Answers

An independant auditor looked into this idea a few years ago. They concluded that although some functions like dock work could be contracted out to private firms to save money, a full privatization of the ferry system would not work.

There would be two options. The first would be to run the service at current levels and operate at a significant loss (unacceptable for a private company that wants to stay in business longer than a few months). The second option would be to significantly cut back service, most likely eliminating some of the smaller routes, while at the same time drastically increasing fares (unacceptable for the citizens and communities that depend on the ferry system for their economic survival).

I'm not sure if ANYTHING run by the government can be run just as efficiently as in the private sector, but if you can find a company that is willing to tackle the issue of trimming $100 million out of a $273 million budget without harmful cutbacks in service, then by all means let us know.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

Ah Patrick you put it all out where we can see it.

"a full privatization of the ferry system would not work"

Why of course it would!! It would just have to be run sensibly!!

"drastically increasing fares (unacceptable for the citizens and communities that depend on the ferry system for their economic survival"

No problem!! We are TIRED of our unaccountable 'dependants' We like dependants that can be deducted on our income taxes.

"I'm not sure if ANYTHING run by the government can be run just as efficiently as in the private sector"

Just when did you lose all manner of common sense? Can you pinpoint the time? Maybe if you can give us the exact date we can work with you to recover your mind.

In other words... Government can NOT run anything with ANY amount of efficiency. Government runs EVERYTHING at an ever-increasing LOSS. However those losses are constantly being shored up by STEALING more money and property from the public.

There will come a time when the 'public' has nothing and where will the government turn to continue it's destructive practices??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

"I'm not sure if ANYTHING run by the government can be run just as efficiently as in the private sector, but if you can find a company that is willing to tackle the issue of trimming $100 million out of a $273 million budget without harmful cutbacks in service, then by all means let us know. " BC Ferries formed a "Crown Corporation" back in the 70s to do just what WSF does. They do it with about a 6% (yes, six. NOT 60. Mot 84% like WSF) subsidy from the state, to offset a few truly remote areas.

Maybe we ought to subcontract the whole thing to them?

The British Columbia Ferry Corporation, a Crown Corporation of the Government of British Columbia, commenced operations on January 1, 1977. The ferry system that is now operated by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation was started in 1960, when the provincial government opened regularly scheduled ferry service between the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island with two vessels and 225 employees. Today the fleet includes 39 vessels, with one car-carrying fast ferry nearing completion and two more under construction. The system includes 43 marine terminals plus seven other sites, and encompasses 26 routes. High operational and maintenance standards make this one of the world's finest ferry systems. http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/corporate_profile.h tml

They average 90% recovery of operating costs from passengers and on food and souvenirs. (Percentage of operating expenses recovered from tolls, catering and other income 90.0% 85.9% 90.9% 91.4% 90.7 ) (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/historical_perspec tive.html)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

"Why of course it would!! It would just have to be run sensibly!!"

And how do you know this? Have you gone over the ferry system's books, found where a private company could make the necessary changes to provide adequate services, operate the system in the black, and keep the fares reasonable enough to keep demand for the system enough to bring in the necessary funds to keep the service operating? Do you know of a company that would be willing to take such a risky venture? Otherwise you're just making a wild generalization without a single basis in fact.

"Government runs EVERYTHING at an ever-increasing LOSS."

The US Postal Service is the largest non-military government entity in the country, yet still continually operates with a profit. This despite having one of the cheapest postal rates in the world.

The state liquor stores always operate with a profit. And that's working WITHOUT any competition.

Again, if you'd care to offer anything of substance, be my guest. Otherwise you're just blowing a lot of hot air.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

"The US Postal Service is the largest non-military government entity in the country, yet still continually operates with a profit. This despite having one of the cheapest postal rates in the world. "

Hyperbole is harder if you have the facts.

Actually, the Postal Service is subsidized to the tune of $3 billion per year by the federal government. Without that, they'd be operating at a loss. Source: http://www.usps.gov/history/anrpt98/

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

Two examples of privatization costing less:

A 1996 review by the Florida Corrections Privatization Council found an 8 to 10 percent cost savings in the states 10 private correctional facilities over the states government-operated facilities. The most recent program audit found that the private contractors were charging the state $46.96 to $47.05 per inmate, per day, while the state operated facilities incurred costs of $52.40 per inmate.

http://alabamafamily.org/98gti/crime/crime04.htm

Highlights -Privatization of Indianapolis public transit system has led to an annual 2.4% decrease in operating costs -Estimated long run marginal costs have fallen from $2.99 per vehicle- mile to $1.62 per-vehicle mile

http://www.azfms.com/DocReviews/Dec97/art12.htm

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinmcd@microsoft.com), December 29, 1999.

"BC Ferries formed a "Crown Corporation" back in the 70s to do just what WSF does."

Actually, looking at their website http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/service.html tells me that BC Ferries is most certainly not designed to do what WSF does. A large portion of the routes are specifically geared towards vacation or long term trips whereas the WSF system is designed to service commuters. For example, of eleven routes in the Vancouver area, only five of them take less time to cross than the Seattle-Bremerton run, and you can expect to pay about $20 to take your car on the routes taking longer than an hour. Then you've got some routes that can cost a PASSENGER $70-110! One has to wonder how much the cruise ships that BC Ferries operates subsidize the shorter routes.

It's rather simple how BC Ferries can get such a high farebox return. Unlike the WSF system that services commuters that take the ferries everyday, the largest portion of BC Ferries travelers are people who make only occasional trips. So they don't mind paying $60 dollars (one way) to take the family from Vancouver to Victoria. However, just try charging a walk on Bremerton commuter $10 a day and see how long he keeps riding the ferry.

Sorry Craig, but you're trying to compare apples to oranges there. You might as well compare taxi service to Metro. Sure taxi companies operate with a profit, but just how many commuters are willing to pay $100 a day to commute from Tacoma to Seattle?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

Ah Patrick delusions delusions. Maybe the postal service could operate at a profit if it didn't spend so much money on advertising and promotions. Maybe it could show a profit if there wasn't some ridiculous program to get new and fancy 'art stamps' every few months.

Maybe the post office could show a profit if postage was just printed on each item instead of printing miliions of different stamps.

The state liquor stores 'may' SHOW a profit but the unbudgeted items that keep the state liquor stores operating are not included when they do their accounting.

State liquor stores cost the customer much more than private liquor stores that exist in the less communistic staes in this country. But what is WORSE is the state liquor store's burden of operational expenses that is borne by the people WHO DO NOT EVEN CONSUME LIQUOR.

The state does NOT realize a profit in ANY of it's opperations even if it can cook the books in a manner that 'SHOWS' a profit.

The state is a business that is ALWAYS functioning in the LOSS column.

Try it at your house.. Your earnings=E Your expenses=2E so

E-2E= -E sure it looks like you have a profit until you factor in all the expenses.. That's the REAL world. The government isn't required to function in the REAL world but, unfortunately, we are forced to.

Don't you feel a littled ashamed that they have been able to dupe you so well that you jump to their defense at every chance??

I know that's why you accuse me of having nothing to add to the conversation. It's too embarrassing for you to realize they have tricked you so you attack logic

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

How many people are willing to spend $100.00 on taxis everyday? Politicians are willing cause we pay for it. The other people don't wnat to so the buy cars..

What part of private transportation is just too difficult for you to understand????

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

How many people are willing to spend $100.00 on taxis everyday? Politicians are willing cause we pay for it. The other people don't want to so they buy cars..

What part of private transportation is just too difficult for you to understand????

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

"Sorry Craig, but you're trying to compare apples to oranges there. You might as well compare taxi service to Metro. Sure taxi companies operate with a profit, but just how many commuters are willing to pay $100 a day to commute from Tacoma to Seattle? "

Actually, on COMPARABLE DISTANCE RUNS, they are QUITE competitive for both passenger AND vehicles, with WSF. Please see their website: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/tariff_comparisons. html

Once again you use wishful thinking that your opinion is correct, in lieu of doing a little research and getting the right answer. Same as your assumption of fare revenues on the Downtown Commuter that was about an order of magnitude off. You'd be more convincing with more facts and less invective. For that matter, you'd be more convincing with more facts, DESPITE the invective.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

For your FURTHER enlightenment, Patrick, here are some more comparable distance runs than the ones that you pointed out:

http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/brentwood_bay-mill_bay.html http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/langdale-gambier-keats.html http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/south_gulf_islands.html http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/vanisle-saltspring.html http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/gulf_islands-tsawwassen.html http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/horseshoe_bay-bowen_island.html

Now before you get your pants in a bundle, yes, they do sock it to vehicles a little heavier than WSF, but remeber these numbers are in Canadian dollars. They're worth about 67cents, so just multiply everything by two-thirds.

And I again remind you, it isn't hard to look up FACTS rather than just pulling numbers out of your ....., out of the air that is. It'd REALLY help your credibility if you didn't just make things up.

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

You're right Craig, in 1998 the Post Office would have operated with about a $700,000 deficit subtracting out the government subsidy. However, in both 1997 and 1996, it would have operated with a profit regardless of the subsidy. (Operating Income for 97 $3.34 billion, 1996 $3.29 billion, federal government subsidy of $3.03 per year) Factor in that the government is requiring the Post Office to retire its debt dating back to 1971, which it appears it will do in a few years, and the Post Office can manage on its own WITHOUT the subsidy. It's not hyperbole, it's fact.

Maddjak, why don't you try checking your figures before you make a blind accusation. In total, the Liquor Control Board (which operates the liquor stores) BROUGHT IN $166 million in 1998. That's a dollar amount AFTER the total cost of operating the entire Board was deducted. How long are YOU going to dupe yourself before you figure out that the world doesn't shape itself into whatever you think it ought to be?

And Kevin, note that I didn't say that privatization COULDN'T bring savings, in fact I mentioned that the audit revealed some instances where privatization would help. What I said was that a total privatization, the elimination of ALL government funding, wouldn't work. A privately run WSF system could not be self sufficient given the current needs of the region. Although the Indianapolis example also shows how a degree of privatization can provide savings, it is NOT a totally private entity. The IndyGo corporation in fact still relies heavily on its taxing authority to make ends meet. I doubt very much that it could become totally self sufficient.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

"You're right Craig, in 1998 the Post Office would have operated with about a $700,000 deficit subtracting out the government subsidy. However, in both 1997 and 1996, it would have operated with a profit regardless of the subsidy. (Operating Income for 97 $3.34 billion, 1996 $3.29 billion, federal government subsidy of $3.03 per year) Factor in that the government is requiring the Post Office to retire its debt dating back to 1971, which it appears it will do in a few years, and the Post Office can manage on its own WITHOUT the subsidy. It's not hyperbole, it's fact. "

You admit that I'm right, that you're wrong, and then throw it back in my face that you PRESUME you will be right in a few years?

I will give you the chutzpah award, Patrick, but little more.

Now I believe we were also talking about ferries and you made some non-factual statements there, too. Here is a system map so you can see what runs have comparable distances to WSF runs: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/schedules/maps/all_routes.pdf

Here is the fare listings for BC ferries: http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/

After you read those you can tell me that I was correct, and indignantly throw that in my face too. The fare listing site is real interesting. They allow seniors to ride as passengers FREE on most routes Mon-Thurs, and highly discounted at other times. And they substantially discount frequent users on most routes. And give group discounts. And of course the posted rates are in Canadian Dollars so the prices listed would really be a third less in US dollars. Here's one COMPARABLE posting (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/fares/south_gulf_islands.html):

Nanaimo - Gabriola Island Chemainus - Thetis Island - Kuper Island Effective Dates Season Starting Date Ending Date PEAK June 29, 2000 September 10, 2000 LOW September 13, 1999 June 28, 2000 September 11, 2000 January 1, 2001

All fares are in Canadian Funds. All fares are return. Visa, Mastercard and American Express accepted. Check CurrencyGuide.com for conversions to international currencies.

See below for descriptions of entries flagged with symbols.

Season PEAK LOW Adult% 5.00 4.75 - Group Rate 4.00 4.00 - Book of 10 Prepaid Tickets 23.50 23.50 - BC Student (school event) Free Free - BC Permanently Disabled 2.50 2.50 Child (age 5-11) Under 5 years of age: Free 2.50 2.50 - Group Rate 2.00 2.00 - BC Student (school event) Free Free - BC Permanently Disabled 1.25 1.25

So once again Patrick, you need to get FACTS, and get them BEFORE you form an opinion (or at least before you post one). Then you wouldn't have to try to chutzpah your way through when you are simply wrong.

. .

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

We'll all assume Patrick is either off finding some of them "facts" or perhaps composing his admission of error.

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

Patrick

Haven't talked to you for a while, been too busy with both jobs. But as I was lurking through the thread I read this and had to reply. You wrote:

"However, in both 1997 and 1996, it would have operated with a profit regardless of the subsidy. Operating Income for 97 $3.34 billion, 1996 $3.29 billion, federal government subsidy of $3.03 per year) Factor in that the government is requiring the Post Office to retire its debt dating back to 1971, which it appears it will do in a few years, and the Post Office can manage on its own WITHOUT the subsidy. It's not hyperbole, it's fact."

If they are retiring a dept that dates to 1971 does that include the Billions ins subsidies for the past 28 years? The debt was to pay off the cost of the equipment and buildings that the government (i.e. TAXPAYER) had paid for. Yet since becoming a "private company" the USPS has continued to receive taxpayers funds and will continue to do so. Also you could apply your last statements "in fact still relies heavily on its taxing authority to make ends meet. I doubt very much that it could become totally self-sufficient.", to the Post Office.

Just as AMTRACK was to become self sufficient, we continue to pour money into it year in, year out. What is a fact, is if it is a government MONOPLOY then it is okay. However if it is a truly private business (Microsoft, Standard Oil) then it is not. And before you bring it up, yes I do know that just about every business in the U.S. gets some sort of subsidy form the government (not to pleased about that either). But at least these companies do (or did until the Feds step in) a pretty good job on their own.

Ed - hope you all had a great Christmas and got what you wanted

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), December 30, 1999.

Well Craig, I'll have to pull a Marlon Brando and decline to accept your chutzpa award. I said that you were right that the post office would not have operated in the black last year had the government subsidy not existed, BUT the two years previous they would have done so. Two out of three years making a profit isn't that bad. Can Amazon.com make the same claim? The post office also operated those three years without raising their prices at all, which does help to explain why it failed to break even in 98.

I looked at the facts on the BC Ferries. And again, if you can show me any evidence that the system is targeted towards commuters as the WSF system is, then I would appreciate it. There are several routes that can be, by their crossing time and ports they service, considered commuting routes, and yes, their rates are comparable to the WSF routes. HOWEVER, as I stated before, a large portion of the routes serviced by BC Ferries ARE NOT geared towards commuters, but instead towards people taking long term trips. Since the WSF service can only claim one route (the San Juans) that can even come close to these extended routes, you can not honestly compare the two. A sizable portion of the BC Ferry system is targeted towards totally different services and demographics. If you could factor out those routes that are not similar to WSF routes and just compare the BC routes comparable to WSF routes in terms of economic revenue, then you'll have something. Otherwise, as someone who knows something about statistics, you ought to be aware that when comparing a specific variable between two samples, all other variables either must be equal or taken into consideration.

Zowie, I'm glad to see that you're so anxious to hear my comments. Unfortunately I do have a job that requires me to actually work a good portion of the day. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with this concept, but hopefully you can understand that my job does take priority over ensuring a lightning fast response to posts made on this board.

Good to hear from you again Ed! (And I am being sincere there). I'm not aware if that includes the subsidies, however I would assume that it doesn't. I don't have much doubt that the post office could hold its own quite well if the government were to suddenly cut off funding though. We are talking about a 5% subsidy on an industry that does not have a very finicky demand curve based upon the price. The post office could certainly afford to raise its rates a little to both cover the lost subsidy, and to cover any outstanding debt without much danger of losing customers. A $.02 increase to the first class stamp alone would raise an additional $2 billion, and a $.35 stamp would still be way below the world average.

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

"There are several routes that can be, by their crossing time and ports they service, considered commuting routes, and yes, their rates are comparable to the WSF routes. " So you AGAIN admit that what you said was WRONG, but somehow it's Craig's fault. I think he was being kind with the Chutzpay award. It would appear that your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You have been proven factually WRONG, and the best you can do is pat the man on the head and say you can HYPOTHESIZE that other factors make a difference? Get off your butt and go get the FACTS to back that up if you can. You've been caught in several factual mis-statements here. Your credibility, never good to begin with, is spiraling down the drain at a rapid rate.

.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

I don't know what you're talking about Mark. I never said that there weren't SOME routes that were similar. I said that the ENTIRE systems are not similar enough to make adequate side-by-side comparisons. If Craig wants to make comparisons between the WSF and another system, it is his responsibility to either find a truly comparable system or take into account the differences between the two systems before he makes the comparison.

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

You know on further review of BC Ferries financial statements, I'm beginning to have some doubts as to the truthfulness to those 90%ish farebox recovery numbers. First off, note 1 in the consolidated financial statements section mentions that in fiscal year 1998/99, the grant (read subsidy) from the BC government was being increased from $4.7 million to $24 million which basically meant a doubling of their total subsidy to ensure that the corporation meets its financial responsibilities.

But the odd thing in reviewing their statement of operations and deficit (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/ consolidated_statement_operations.html) is that I can't seem to find any mention of capital expenses. They are building several beautiful new vessels (man I'd like to take a cruise on one of those PacifiCats), and also mentioned the upgrading of several of their facilities. But nowhere is there any mention of those expenses in the report.

Any idea if those costs are included in those statements? If not, then there is a MASSIVE expense that is not being taken into account when determining revenue vs. expendatures.

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

"You know on further review of BC Ferries financial statements, I'm beginning to have some doubts as to the truthfulness to those 90%ish farebox recovery numbers. First off, note 1 in the consolidated financial statements section mentions that in fiscal year 1998/99, the grant (read subsidy) from the BC government was being increased from $4.7 million to $24 million which basically meant a doubling of their total subsidy to ensure that the corporation meets its financial responsibilities. "

Yes Patrick, that
fs a $24 million subsidy on operating expenses of 397,262,000. That
fs a subsidy of 24/397 or 6%. Conversely, tolls and other income (food, souvenirs and advertising mostly) were $357 million (357/397) or 89.92%. Gee, you
fre right. It missed 90% by 0.08%. How very astute of you to pick that up.

But the odd thing in reviewing their statement of operations and deficit (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/ consolidated_statement_operations.html) is that I can't seem to find any mention of capital expenses. They are building several beautiful new vessels (man I'd like to take a cruise on one of those PacifiCats), and also mentioned the upgrading of several of their facilities. But nowhere is there any mention of those expenses in the report. Any idea if those costs are included in those statements? If not, then there is a MASSIVE expense that is not being taken into account when determining revenue vs. expendatures(sic)."

Gee Patrick- See the $33 million item under operating expenses that says, "net financing expenses"? That means that, unlike WSF that just sticks it to the taxpayers, they are borrowing money and paying it off like a mortgage, just like MOST CORPORATIONS DO FOR THEIR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS. The $33 million annual expense represents the annual payments to retire their capital debt.

See that little arrow on their page that says "backnext"? Push the "next" and it will take you to..(You guessed it) -the next page. Which shows their capital budget. If you can
ft figure out how to push the right arrow, just load this (http://www.bcferries.bc.ca/corporate/annual_report/consolidated_state ment_changes.html) and it
fll take you right to it. It shows a capital asset increase of $128 million (the value of the new capital assets) and the receipt of $126 million in proceeds from debt financing.

So given that it
fs obvious that you DON
fT EVEN KNOW HOW TO READ A FINANCIAL STATEMENT, I think it
fs a little cheeky of you to go accusing our neighbors to the North of fraud, don
ft you? Particularly when you haven
ft gotten one FACT right

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

Couldn't do it, could you Patrick. Had to make a fool of yourself at least one more time in 1999.

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

Craig,

I'm tired of fishing, flame away at that bait!

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