Earlier, I wrote:
Really, what the fuck are we doing even considering putting ferries into Lake Washington when King County’s South Park Bridge is deteriorating before our eyes?
I had the chance to chat with Dow Constantine’s legislative assistant Chris, and he explained the ins and the outs of the new King County Ferry District.
Like I said before, I like the Water Taxi and the Vashon-Downtown Seattle passenger ferry service. Since the state of Washington doesn’t want to provide this service anymore, King County has to find the money. Since the property tax is county-wide, the benefit has to be county wide. That’s why they’re studying all those extra routes. Some of them may never become permanent, but some may. The Kirkland-UW route has great promise considering 520 may be severely constricted for years during construction.
Using waterways for transit is something that’s done in many other big cities. The right-of-way is free! King County is right to explore it. Ferries won’t “solve” our transportation situation, but they’ll help move people.
The difference is the state pays for ferries out of gas taxes, and the county is paying for ferries out of property taxes. Once again, the wrong people are being taxed for transportation, even if the price is right. When are you going to get it straight that transportation, being terribly expensive, should be paid for by people who need and use transportation; and those whose commuting and earning power are both in the past, and are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that don’t go up with inflation, shouldn’t be hit up for other people’s transportation?
I’m glad you came to your senses. The coolest thing about passenger ferries is how little capital cost they require. Whereas light rail and highways require massive capital outlays to prepare the surface for the vehicles that will travel them, ferries don’t require new construction other than the docks because they travel on water that it, er, already there. I think this plan has great potential and is actually quite cost-effective if you look at the capital costs.
However, if you feel the whole community should pitch in for everyone’s private transportation requirements, who do I send the bill to for one of these?
http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonly.....ht_low.jpg
After all, you don’t expect a rabbit to SWIM across Lake Washington to visit his friends at Bunny Meadows in Redmond, do you?
I don’t know how to swim! Besides, I might get eaten by a sturgeon or something.
@1: Then your gripe isn’t with the County, it’s with the state that authorized county ferry districts but only gave them the authority to raise money through property taxes (RCW 36.54.110). I agree that property taxes aren’t the fairest way to get funds for this program. We should demand that the state either fund the ferries or authorize county ferry districts to collect funds through fairer taxes. But that’s not the Council’s fault.
I must say I side with the conservatives here.
It seems to me that subsidized ferries amount to subsidized housing. Should we be paying people to live in Kirkland?
@6 We’re already paying to get everyone home… one way or another. If you pay a little to keep some people out of your hair (or off your bumper) isn’t that fair? I mean, you give the Aleut in front of the Central a tip to keep him downtown & out of your garage at night, don’t you? ^..^
Will — the problem with this is that the speed limit between the edge of the 520 bridge and downtown is 7 knots, or about 10 mph or less. That means these ferries have to putter along slowly for most of the trip to Seattle. Even if 520 is jammed, it’ll likely be faster to drive than to take the ferry.
This is really all about Vashon Island. That’s fine, but if they want passenger ferries, why not have the ferry district be just Vashon Island?
Who says the ferries need to go all the way to South Lake Union? The UW and its hospitals are one of the major destinations for commuters. And there will be rail to the UW in 2016 with fast connections to downtown. There is already excellent frequent bus service from the UW to downtown. If a ferry takes cars off 520 I am all for it.
Why do we even bother to have an anti-Sprawl policy if we are going to subsidize sprawl?
http://www.metrokc.gov/smartgrowth/
If someone prefers the isolation of rural Vashon, why should the REST of us be taxed to provide them with transportation. We don’t subsidize people commuting to and from Cle Elum.
Like Cle Elum, Vashon is NOT in the urban growth area.
http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/compplan/map_UGB.pdf
We need to come up with a rationale as to why we want urban density under the Growth Management Act, then bring what we do into compliance with that. Otherwise we just look stupid and spend our taxes at cross purposes to our announced goal.
Nothing is free. believing that things are free is how we got into this jam in the first place. Ferries are filthy – belching black diesel smoke, pumping their oily bilgewater into the free water. ugh. (and I love the ferry system, I grew up on Vashon – but there’s nothing free about it)
bax is right about the resrticted speed (on the free water) from Portage Bay through Lake Union, but how about reviving the Kirkland to Madison Park route – then the ferry riders could transfer to the streetcar that runs right up and over Madison into downtown, oh, wait, nevermind.
The coolest thing about passenger ferries is how little capital cost they require.
You are kidding, right? Hell, Vashon passenger ferries were looked at back in January 2006, and the proposal didn’t make sense then.
http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....038;id=670
And operating expenses have increased significantly since then. Fuel prices were $1.69 a gallon then.
If a ferry takes cars off 520 I am all for it.
So create a dozen van-pools and you’ll get 90 % of the vehicle reduction for 15% of the expense.
A boat is a hole in the water into which you throw money. If you’ve ever owned one, you know that.
But it’s worse for a ferry. They require terminals on each end that are expensive to buy and maintain as well, and you aren’t going to be able to blow off Americans with Disabilities Act requirements on a ferry to the University Hospital…heck, you won’t even be able to do that on the Vashon run. You’ll have to upgrade the terminals the first lawsuit you get.
When the South Park bridge collapses, will we get a ferry across the river?
I’m in favor of expanding transportation choices, but I’d feel better if we could maintain the ones we have also.
George Hanshaw @ 10, 13:
Roger Rabbit @ 1, 3:
Seattle Jew @ 6:
You guys are all seriously full of shit. What part of “Vashon Island is in King County” do you fail to understand?
Look at the cost of the ferries and then look at the cost of all the cars that would be using the highways if the ferries didn’t exist. you have to ofset the potential cost of all those ferry commuters using their cars.
Look until we know the travel time the routes the ridership the capital cost and the operating cost (and the CO2 footprint) and the finance plan, we have no idea if ferres make sense.
Instead of worshipping ferries (or rail or bus or autos) or demonizing them we need the data. Going on our hunches and intuition or prejudice and taking sides immediately for or against is not enough.
We also need to know how these ferries would connect with other modes esp. bus or rail, the frequency of the service, etc.
@15
What part of Urban Growth Management area don’t YOU understand. The more people we encourage to sprawl to the rural areas of King County, the lower the population density in the urban area and the more transportation requirement we have, while lowering population density WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES FREQUENT MASS TRANSIT SERVICE ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE.
If you would EDUCATE yourself rather than just attack others, it might help.
While we are on the topic of education, try reading this:
In Search Of Passenger-Only Ferry Service That Pencils Out
http://www.discovery.org/a/4126
@15 WADR
I am very aware that Vashin is in King County, so are Broadmoor, The Heights, Hunt’s Point, the 2200 Condoes, etc.
The point is that Vashon is a luxurious choice, a great place to live. As such, it see,s to me that people who choose to live there should be able to pay for the costs of Island living.
By yuor logic, maybe I could move to Orcas Island. I would very much like that but the airfare, being unsubsidized, is a bgit steep for now. Just imaginee, again, follow8ing your reasoning, how many miles of driving we would save is we loaded folks from Orcas onto the WASAL (Washington State Airline) every AM and PM! Not only that, lo5tsa folks could then move to Orcas and the developers would make scads of $$$ AND the increase in real estate vaklues would be great for buying Bayliners (also made in WASTATE) to put arounbd the Islands. Everyone wins!
From:
http://www.discovery.org/a/412 6
Lost in the rush to expand service, however, is a clear accounting of the environmental impact of foot ferries. Soil erosion from wakes is a major problem; advocates claim that new vessel design can lower the impact, and a study on the subject will be completed by Pacific International Engineering in 2008. Moreover, foot ferries use much more fuel per passenger than the larger passenger-vehicle ferries.
A New proposal
“Be it resolved, that King County establish a heated swimming lane from Hunt’ Point to Evergreen Point. To stimulate trade with China, the new lanes would be named after China’s most famous swimmer, Mao. ”
The impact would be awesome! Swimmers generate far less CO2 than do autos or light rail! Moreover, the new swimming lanes would obviously become a tourist attraction and showers at either end could reasonably be rented at a cost that would 5take care of the minimal costs of maintaining the lanes.
New traditions would arise as well. For example, races for Gov., County Exec, and Mayor would feature public dem onstrations of swimming skills.
Last I checked, West Seattle, Kenmore, Des Moines, Renton and Ballard were all well within the urban growth boundary. And Vashon service takes cars off the road as Ivan points out.
There is a fallacy in the thinking that one mode of transit is the solution. We need a toolbox that includes rail, ferries, buses, vanpools, and more. Some people will use each. What is clear is that we can’t continue to lay pavement. We are out of space for that and the costs to the environment are too great.
I’m wondering how these commuters are going to board the ferrys, on both sides of the lake. Remember that according to the state, one-third to one-half of the current cost of the 520 bridge is the cost of dealing with the expanded approaches to the bridge and the environmental impacts & mitigation of shoreline-related work.
Are they planning to use the Kirland city dock, and the UW dock at Husky Stadium? At first glance that seems to be a cheap solution, using existing facilities. But assuming you have more than a handful of commuters using the service, wouldn’t you need substantial improvements to the docks and the dock areas, as well as service vehicle access, parking, restrooms, etc.??? Remember that construction near the waterfronts is never easy or cheap, especially if you have to condemn land to do it.
And then you have the problem getting people to and from the ferries. Lots of commuters would prefer to have a car on both sides of the lake for their convenience (as some who cross the Puget Sound try to do). But except for some wealthy yuppies living in Kirkland condos who work at the UW hospital, most Eastside commuters will want to drive to a Park&Ride lot close to the Kirkland ferry terminal. Are we going to build a Park&Ride lot in downtown Kirkland to handle that traffic, or are they just going to clog up the little street parking available?
If you expect people to drive to an existing Park&Ride lot on the eastside, take a bus to downtown Kirkland, then a water taxi to the UW district, then another bus to their workplace, I find it hard to believe that this could all be accomplished in less than two hours, each way – at which point most commuters would just take their car anyway.
And don’t forget that somebody in Montlake or Webster Point is going to sue the county for shoreline erosion caused by the wake from the ferries.
And sometime in the next couple of years, one of those ferries is going to run into the dock and smash it or the ferry, or both, requiring substantial repairs.
Anyway, just a few thoughts about how the state waterways aren’t necessarily a “cheap” alternative.
Dow Constantine’s legislative assistant, eh? No wonder, since it’s Dow’s political palm that gets greased with the Vashon walk-on.
Read what Casey Corr wrote over at Crosscut: http://www.crosscut.com/blog/m.....r+ferries/
Funny how no money can be found for things until someone wants it bad enough for for a pork party in his back yard.
Corr calls it a, “Miracle on James Street.” More like, “Constantine Constipates the County” to me.
The Piper
rhp6033–Oh, you are right–waterborne transit doesn’t work anywhere…the five million people who ride the Sea Bus each year in Vancouver, the myriad of routes serving the Bay Area, the passenger ferries in New York, Sydney, all through Europe, etc.
The Piper would have us not invest in any new infrastructure. Perhaps people like him are why we are in the mess we are today as a country. They seem happy that we as a country are willing to be second rate in all that we do as long as they don’t have to pay taxes. Personally, I think we are better than that.
@24…PPA…
I’m all for infrastructure, so long as it’s prudent and appropriate (roads and bus lanes), but I don’t equate yachting excursions with “infrastructure,” especially for well-healed Vashon Island-types, with the other routes appearing to be make-it-up-as-you-go-along routes to hide just how porky Dow has it.
Curious…what fun activities will be available on the lido deck?
The Piper
When the mosquito fleet was plying the waters of Lake Washington and Puget Sound the were quite a few differences from what exists today. First of all the mosquito fleet was privately owned and operated. Secondly, there were no freeways or cross lake bridges, so the alternative was a very very slow drive around the lake. Today, the worst traffic on 520 would still be faster than taking a ferry across the lake. No one will ride it as an alternative to commuting. Take a bus to the ferry, ride the ferry across the lake, get on another bus and continue to your destination. Why not just take a bus for the whole trip. It’ll be a lot faster, and a lot cheaper. Far fetched ideas in lieu of actual leadership is all we can expect from our feckless local politicians. Is it any wonder that 70% of area voters don’t even bother to cast a ballot. They’ve just given up.
@22…RHP6033…
Can you see ferry commuters riding the thing in an early late-Fall or Winter morning when the wind whips Puget Sound or Lake Washington like a you-know-what? Are there enough barf bags in the world? And how “green” will these commuters be when they arrive at their destination?
Isn’t this carrying the green agenda a bit too far?
The Piper
I still think that we need to critically evaluate ferries in general. Just because it’s “Mass Transit” doesn’t necessarily make it desirable.
Ferries tend to be particularly economically inefficient and environmentally unfriendly “Mass Transit,” and the role these highly subsidized routes play in contributing to urban sprawl is something that none of the advocates on this forum have yet been ready to address.
Some routes are particularly egregious. There is a regular commuter traffic between Bainbridge Island and Seattle that, absent a massively subsidized ferry system, simply wouldn’t exist. These people WOULD NOT merely drive around through the Tacoma Narrows, they simply wouldn’t be living in Bainbridge contributing to the Urban Sprawl. The median family income in 2005 in Bainbridge was was $83,415 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....Washington) compared to $62,000 for Seattle, yet everyone in the whole state is subsidizing these rich people to make sprawl worse. I can understand why the people themselves do it, they have the advantages of an urban work environment during the day, but can retire to their rural pastoral setting the other 120 hours a week. What I can’t understand is why other transit users support them, at least not if they truly believe the rationale for mass transit is to help the environment and to limit the US dependency for oil.
But poor people subsidizing rich people….even to have a beautiful and leisurely commute to their island paradise….that really doesn’t seem to make sense. But that’s what we are doing.
Can one of you ferry boat advocates explain this to me….or are you pro-Sprawl and anti-environment, so it doesn’t really matter?
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdp.....s/0035.pdf
In the last year available, the Washington State Ferries cost of operation was over a quarter billion dollars, $189 million in operating expenses, and 90 million in capital expenses. Since then, both wages and the cost of fuel have gone up, and the old diesel electric boats serving Port Townsend have deteriorated to the point that they are unsafe and we are looking at a quarter billion dollars in capital improvements for that run alone (which averages less than 1500 passenger round trips per day).
Of this $279 million, the farebox recovery was $32,520,094….. or roughly 11%.
Why are the rest of us subsidizing the ferries? Why aren’t the users paying more?
Farebox revenue for ferry riders in 2006 did not even cover the fuel costs of $39 million. Fuel is a lot more expensive now.
http://www.wstc.wa.gov/Agendas.....lCosts.pdf
Isn’t it time to RAISE ferry fares to at least recover fifty percent of actual O&M and capital costs?
@24:
Well, I’m not saying we can’t do it. I’m just saying that the guys who figure the “waterways are free” haven’t taken other things into account. I just want everyone to use some honest math and realistic numbers, decide on a plan, and then do it. This 30+ years of “putting off” any real mass transit in this area is for the birds.
In comparison, most of the country got the Interstate Highway System within a decade of it’s initiation in the 1950’s. Of course, they had to use Defense Dept. money to help fund it, arguing it would be necessary to help speed troops to repel a Soviet invasion. Maybe that’s what we should do now – argue that we need a new bridge AND commuter ferries so we can speed troops to respond to a terrorist invasion of the Pike Place Market?
@31
OK–I was being a bit snide. But I believe the plan is to try demonstration routes with existing boats, docks, and private operators similar to what has been done with the Water Taxi. Then if they prove successful a future decision can be made for permanent facilities.
But I like your idea of using terrorism money. When you look at the Bush administration budgets for the war on terror in states like Wyoming and Kansas it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch ;)
I don’t know if someone’s mentioned this, but waterfront routes tend to benefit the waterfront owners – the richest. In other cities (Vancouver’s SeaBus is a local example), these are well connected with mass transit. Here, they are not – so they benefit most those with the multimillion dollar waterfront dwellings.
The least Sims could do is demand Boeing to build him some new hydrofoils so his investments could at least cost the most and ride way above the water.
Beacuse of this new tax,tax and tax three new ones in a day by King Klownty, I just did all my Christmas shopping outside of King Klownty.
Ho Ho Ho
For every dollar new they come up with, I take away 10 more.
Ben @ 33
If you read the ferry district plan you would notice that the state legislation enabling the ferry district allowed them to fund supporting shuttle service. This means that shuttles like the ones in West Seattle that serve wide areas in West Seattle actually increase the usability of the ferries. The shuttles meet the boats and run people up to denser, more working class areas and greatly increase the reach of the boats.
But, even so…isn’t it good to get the rich out of their Excursions, Yukons, and Range Rovers?
I notice that none of the pro-ferry people wish to defend any of these three issues:
1. The pro-sprawl effects of ferry runs to Vashon and Bainbridge.
2. The fact that ferries have an even greater carbon footprint than automobiles.
3. The fact that ferries are MASSIVELY subsidized by non-users.
George, I’ll take a stab at this:
1. Not true, and you’re confusing the issue by lumping POFs with auto ferries. POF systems encourage water transit-oriented development (WTOD), by concentrating development around terminal locations. Besides, I know of no one who would cite Bainbridge and Vashon as “sprawl”.
2. Not necessarily true. In terms of emissions, ferries are far superior to single-occupancy vehicles and are about on par with 2-person carpools when looked at from a passenger-mile perspective.
3. “Massively” is a subjective term, so I can’t address it directly. However, all forms of transportation require subsidy, it just takes different forms depending on mode. Ever consider the MASSIVE subsidies it takes to maintain a mile of roadway?
Not to mention that if you actually read the plan, King County plans a fleet of low-emission, fuel-efficient catamarans which are far different to the facts cited by George.
All roads are MASSIVELY subsidized by non-users, as are most buses.