As I continue to read about the passenger ferry saga, I continue to be more and more amazed at how Washington DOT has let social engineering interfere with reasonable business practices.

Lets face it, the easy part of running the ferries is the passengers. Vehicles and vehicle drivers have issues of safety, issues of weight, issues of cube, issues of height, issues of hazardous cargo, issues of vehicle maintenance, issues of driver competence, and all sorts of other issues that ought to make moving vehicle , passengers, and driver more hazardous, more labor intensive, and more expensive than just moving passengers alone. Relative to running a car ferry, a passenger ferry ought to be a slam-dunk.

To up the ante, the passenger ferries are the NEWEST ferries in the fleet. They are the most modern, and one would therefore imagine, most automated and most efficient. But these are the ferries that are going to be heading for the drydock. Why?

Well, it turns out that these ferries really arent very EFFICIENT. About 70% of the WSF operating budget goes to salaries. We now read that a passenger only boat hauling 350 passengers has a crew of six, versus a crew of nine for a boat hauling 1350 passengers AND 150 cars. While the OLDER boat manages to handle all of the problems associated with the vehicles and passengers with 1 crewmember per 150 passengers, the NEWER boat requires 58.

And the economic reality is even worse than these figures would tend to indicate. The seasonal load for the ferries is, of course, greatest in the summer. Thats when they make a disproportionate share of their annual revenues. And the other reality is that the passenger load is higher on a weekend day than on a weekday. Thats when the tourist business adds its loads to the local traffic. But the tourist business is not, generally, just cruising to Bainbridge or Bremerton. Its usually a family group, in a vehicle, going somewhere on the Kitsap or Olympic peninsulas. And that makes passenger ferries a hard sell.

Like most forms of transit, passenger ferries suffer from the backhaul problem. Commuter loads may be high during rush hour, but they are not generally high IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. Load factors are never high on the return trip. This is NOT unique to passenger ferries, the car ferries suffer from this phenomenon also. But its certainly WORSE with passenger only ferries. And this isnt offset by the tourist trade to near as great an extent as with the car ferries.

So why did someone design a boat, and a service, that was going to be inherently less economical than what it was replacing? What kind of business sense was this? The answer, as you get in to the WSDOT documentation, is that it wasnt a business decision, it was a PHILOSOPHICAL decision. These boats were built with MVET revenue. They were subsidized with MVET revenue. The fact that they were less cost-effective at what they specialized in than the boats that had to do multiple tasks, didnt matter. By building them this way, the EVIL auto owners throughout the state could be punished for their vehicle ownership (by taking resources away from them) and the VIRTUOUS passengers who would take transit to the passenger ferry dock would be rewarded (by giving them resources taken from the auto owners). This makes sense, only in a social engineering context. It never made sense from a business perspective.

But after 695, the MVET has gone away. Even a government agency cannot afford the high passenger mile costs in passenger ferry service of this kind. Can the boats be reconfigured to run with fewer crew, so that they can EVER be economically viable? Dont know. Would the Inland Boatmens Union allow staffing changes to make these boats viable (or for that matter, would the Coast Guard, since these boats were designed and built for six man crews)? Dont know that either.

But either WS Ferries suffers from massive business incompetence, or this was an attempt at social engineering. Either way, it makes it REAL difficult to keep these ferries viable, even if privatized.

Isnt it time for us to replace the DOT leadership with someone competent?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000

Answers

Craig,

The City of Bremerton and Kitsap area residents/Kitsap Transit lobbied long and hard to get those passenger ferries. (and helped to pay for) I always had the general impression in reading articles that it was something WSF was pressured into providing, and would not have agreed to build and operate the new foot ferries, if enough people were against the idea. Just a thought.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Craig,

One other teeny point. Not all commute traffic is Kitsap to Seattle and back. There are a considerable amount of Shipyard workers coming from the Seattle side. (Federal workers AND from TODD)

Craig says "But either WS Ferries suffers from massive business incompetence, or this was an attempt at social engineering. Either way, it makes it REAL difficult to keep these ferries viable, even if privatized."

If Kitsap voters give Kitsap Transit the go ahead in May, and they very well might, I think will find out soon enough if it is viable. Good to let someone else pay for an experiment, don't you think?

Inland Boatmen's Union may have a thing or two coming though.

Craig says, "Isnt it time for us to replace the DOT leadership with someone competent?" Absolutely!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

"If Kitsap voters give Kitsap Transit the go ahead in May, and they very well might, I think will find out soon enough if it is viable. Good to let someone else pay for an experiment, don't you think? " I'm not certain that I would consider transferring the ferries from one government agency to another government agency to be exactly what I would consider to be "privatization." In any event, the designers of the boat haven't done any favors for the people that will be trying to make them economically viable.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000.

Craig,

Since I beleive Richard Hayes has studied other similarly operated systems, and drew the conclusion that it can be done by Transit, I don't have a problem with a different government agency doing the job. He will have to answer to Local voters in Kitsap, and it will be their problem to deal with as they see fit.

The plan calls for smaller boats to be built, with a supposed design that won't create a wake problem in Rich Passage. The larger boats would be shifted to the Kingston run.

Do you want WSF to maintain the passenger only boats with different Mangagment?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

"Do you want WSF to maintain the passenger only boats with different Mangagment? " Heck no, I'd privatize anything that I could. Competition is almost always healthy for the consumer/taxpayer. If they truly are building new boats, they might look into other successful options used elsewhere. Someone on another thread was talking about hovercraft ferries which are fast, don't have much of a wake, and have been economically viable in the channel, Hong Kong, and I believe Macau. Don't know how much noise they make. Only one I ever got close to was Dover to Calais. Since I was on the inside, I'm not sure how loud it was on the outside. It was nice, but it was BIG. It moved my family, our van, and a lot of other people and vehicles back to Europe in a fraction of the time the conventional ferry had taken to bring us there, for only a modest premium in price over the conventional ferry.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000.

Craig,

So are you saying we should give free enterprise/private ownership a chance to make an offer, assuming the Laws can be changed, before Kitsap Voters have to make a decision? Since time is of the essence, and those boats will be tied up July 1, what do you see to be the best next step?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

This:

REQUEST FOR BIDS - SURPLUS PROPERTY

See specifications at website (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/fleet- guide/fg-12-Chinook.htm)

Bids close 1 May. Take delivery on 1 July.

Let the chips fall where they may.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000.

Craig,

In case you are serious, I thought I better let you know your link doesn't work.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

It was kind of tongue in cheek, but I don't know why it doesn't work. Try http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/fleet-guide/fg-index.htm and scroll down and click on the silhouette of the Chinook. If that doesn't work, got WSF Home: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/ click on "fleet guide" at the bottom, and then go to Chinook. It's a kind of neat specifications page, cribbed from BC Ferries equivalent I believe.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000.

I still find it unbelievable that the state bought these crew intensive, low volume boats. Even if they are privatized, they may never be a viable business decision due to real poor planning. Of course, WSF has a real history of this. Remember the stainless steel pipes that had to be replaced? Time to fire someone.

http://www.djc.com/news/headlines/11003414 January 27, 2000 Property owners ask court to keep speed limit on fast ferries

By HUNTER T. GEORGE Associated Press Writer OLYMPIA (AP) -- At least one Washington Supreme Court justice appeared somewhat sympathetic as an attorney for waterfront property owners fought to preserve a court-imposed speed limit on high-speed ferries. "A picture is worth a thousand words," Justice Gerry Alexander said Tuesday, after watching video of a ferry's wake crashing onto the nearby shore of Rich Passage. "That looked like Hawaii there." A lawyer for the state asked the high court to lift an injunction that slowed the state's new high-speed commuter ferries in Rich Passage, adding 30 to 40 minutes to the round trip between Bremerton and Seattle.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 28, 2000.

I would prefer to see local ferry districts, and let them decide how to manage their own affairs. If they chose, they could lease out the "franchise" for some specified period of time, and private investors could take their shot. The investors could charge whatever they felt like, but they would have to give a certain amount of notice (i.e., a week; 30 days; etc.) before raising the rates. The investors might also have to follow certain rules about operating and maintaining the boats.

The investors would know what they're getting into, as the operating costs (i.e., labor, maintenance, fuel, etc.) would be made available. Recurring capital costs would be borne by the ferry districts, which would have to convince the district's taxpayers to ante up any shortfalls. In other words, if the franchise isn't viewed too favorably by investors, then the taxpayers would have to agree to pay more. Property tax? Sales tax? Local gas tax? Voters decide. If they vote no, the ferries shut down.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2000.

From the Journal of the San Juan Islands

http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=53912&title=Kaleetan% 20plagued%20by%20propulsion%20problems%20and%20engine% 20failures&BRD=973&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top% 20Stories&CATEGORYID=410 Kaleetan plagued by propulsion problems and engine failures Feb 1 2000 12:00AM By Robin Hamilton, Friday Harbor Editor The M.V. Kaleetan's hard landing at the San Juan Island dock last Friday morning, caused by a propulsion system failure, may be just the beginning of engine-related troubles for the ferry. The rough landing of the Kaleetan, a newly refurbished super-class ferry, was caused by the malfunction of a part that regulates the propeller, according to investigators from the U.S. Coast Guard. The problem was corrected by Washington State Ferry crews and the ferry was back on line by Friday evening. Then, at 9 p.m. Monday, the ferry lost power in Thatcher Pass, near Decatur Island. "It could have been caused by a number of things," Susan Harris, spokeswoman for Washington State Ferries said. "We're checking the fuse board, things like that." The captain dropped the anchor, Harris added, which divers are now trying to find. "We thought we might have touched ground. Though there was no breach of the hull, we've got divers examining the bottom." THERE WERE ONLY EIGHT CARS ON BOARD, SHE SAID. The Coast Guard provided a tug assist, and investigating officers are now on board. The fallout from this latest mechanical snafu are backups at Anacortes and Friday Harbor, Harris said. "We've cancelled our Sidney, B.C. run and the Evergreen State (ferry) is taking on some of that load," she said. "But by this afternoon (Tuesday) we'll feel the weight of the loss of the Kaleetan."

According to WSF (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/fleet-guide/fg-2- super.htm) the Kaleetan is capable of carrying 160 autos and 2500 passengers. That would mean that this ferry was operating at 2% of capacity with respect to vehicles. Youd kind of have to wonder what percentage of capacity it had with respect to passengers too. If the ferries werent heavily tax subsidized, would they be running with load factors this low? Or would they run smaller ferries more appropriate to the routes instead?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.

Correction: That's from the Islands Sounder, not the Journal. The URL is correct, however.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.

Craig-

That's 5%, not 2%. But your point is well taken. That's STILL a ridiculously low load factor.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

WHOOPS!

Like he says, 5%. Gotta stop doing these things in my head. That's why God (and Casio) made calculators.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 02, 2000.

"God" made calculators? I wonder why so many people travel to Jerusalem, when they clearly should be visiting Taiwan.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 02, 2000.

God made everything. Big Bang, long time ago. Humans have been playing with the pieces for the last few hundred millenia.

Whatsamatta Matt? Don't believe in God? And named after a saint, too. Tsk-tsk.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 02, 2000.

to Craig: My beliefs concerning a "supreme deity" aren't really relevant to the topic of Tim Eyman's initiatives. I don't believe "God" makes calculators. Humans make calculators.

But, I certainly respect your right to believe whatever you want, even if you can't point to a website link.

I'm an admirer of Western Civilization, and I perceive at least three key "pillars" for America's version - choice, competition, and compassion. Choice is enumerated in the Constitution. Competition fits well with an economic philosophy known as Capitalism. And, compassion is the theme of the Old and New Testaments.

I can sum up the Old Testament in three words - "ISAIAH ONE SEVENTEEN", which I can some up in four words - "DO THE RIGHT THING".

As to your question about whether I believe in "God", this assumes I have "free will". But, where did "free will" come from? Did it not come from "God". Therefore, a better question would be, "Do I believe in free will"? If I say no, then I cannot believe in "God". If I say yes, then I can CHOOSE to believe in "God", but we could then spend an eternity debating the definition of "God". We already disagree on the terminology that "God made everything". "God" merely needs to provide "free will", and the rest is up to us.

Do I believe in "free will". Yes I do.

Named after a saint? The name, "Matthew", means "gift of God". Is there a better name for a narcissist?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 03, 2000.

"Is there a better name for a narcissist? " Donald

"Ruler of all." Just ask Mr. Trump.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), February 03, 2000.

Matthew "three key "pillars" for America's version - choice, competition, and compassion. Choice is enumerated in the Constitution. Competition fits well with an economic philosophy known as Capitalism. And, compassion is the theme of the Old and New Testaments. "

Oh Yeah!! compassion is the theme of the Old and New testaments!! Right!! And when you go into the land kill ALL of the inhabitants..the men..the women.. the children..and the babes in arms.. Yeah compassion

And compassion is not even referenced in the constitution.. of course bing the liberal no-mind that you are...I'm sure your version of the constitution bears no resemblance to the actual document

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.