Huh. Looks like the Seattle Times editorial board pretty much picked up and repeated my central argument against Gov. Gregoire’s “Puget Sound Ferry District” proposal… though not exactly in the same words:
This proposal assumes that Washington residents who live nearer an expensive part of the highway system should pay more of the cost, not counting user fees, than people who live farther away.
If that is reasonable, should the people nearer the bridges over the Columbia River at Wenatchee and Pasco pay for them with a special property tax? Should North Bend, Cle Elum and Ellensburg be put in a special gas-tax district to support maintenance of Snoqualmie Pass? Should Spokane have a penny higher on the sales tax to support the upgrading of U.S. 395?
I would’ve used the word “fuck” a few times, and been condescending to voters in the rest of the state, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thanks.
That said, when it comes to proposing an alternative for funding the ferry system in the face of a $5 billion state budget shortfall, the Times’ editors turn instead to Alfred E. Neuman for their inspiration:
The state will not be able to do all it wants, and the ferry system will be short. That’s life — and it’s the same problem the other state agencies have.
The ferry system should fight it out for funding, the same as other state programs.
Huh. Unless the Times is proposing that agencies “fight it out for funding” in a steel cage match, and the state sell tickets, that’s not much of a solution. The editorial appears to presume that the ferry system is a necessary state service and that fares already constitute a large enough portion of its operating budget, so to just dismiss its shortfall by saying “That’s life…” well, that’s no solution at all.
I agree that the ferry district proposal is both unfair to the communities the ferries serve, and sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to erosion of broad, statewide support for all state services, but at least the Governor is making an effort to keep the ferries running. Which is more than I can say for the Times’ editorial board.
I do have an issue with the expensive passenger-only ferries that take people from Vashon directly to downtown Seattle. Those should be paid for by higher fares, and not by tax dollars of any sort.
It is one thing for the ferry system to provide necessary transportation links from Vashon Island to the closest areas of West Seattle, Southworth and Tahlequah. And quite another thing to provide direct, high-speed service to downtown Seattle.
If someone chooses to live on Vashon, and work off the island, fine. They can wait in line at the ferry terminal with everyone else, and take their cars (and pay $15 or more for the roundtrip) or use the Metro bus routes.
But if they want to save 30 minutes to an hour each way on their daily commute to their high-paid jobs in downtown Seattle, they can bloody well pay a sufficient fare on the passenger-only run to cover the full cost of operating that portion of the ferry system.
It is totally inappropriate for general tax revenues to fund such luxury for the elite, regardless of whether the money comes from the statewide gasoline tax or from local property taxes.
Richard @1,
Accepting your assumptions for the sake of argument, perhaps it is cheaper to subsidize passenger only ferries at a higher level than absorbing the increased costs of putting more cars on the roads and ferries? It’s a transportation system.
@1
The same arguments could be made about plowing the passes – why do people “chose” to drive over Snoqualmie Pass when they could very well drive around via I-84? Why should the rest of us subsidize their short-cut by paying to plow the pass when it snows.
Also, “general tax revenues” do not pay for transportation in WA; our state general budget and transportation budgets are segregated.
Maybe because we are required to maintain Interstate 90 in a usable condition?
SuperSteve @ 3
Plowing the pass on I-90 costs a LOT LESS than subsidizing the passenger-only ferry from Vashon to Seattle, and helps transport a MUCH HIGHER volume of people, not to mention goods.
Goldy, I’m not sure I think the I-5 bridge analogy is a great one (I do use the bridge regularly, so maybe I’m not entirely neutral, but I also don’t live in a district likely to be taxed to support it). Every Washingtonian benefits from the major arterial roads, as they are the way that goods and services (like groceries, gasoline, etc.) are brought into the state. Those roads benefit everyone. This is not the case with the ferry system, which almost solely benefits people who live on ferry routes. I don’t get any products I need on a regular basis from the San Juans, and I don’t live on Bainbridge so having regular ferry routes there doesn’t benefit me either.
I-5 connects Washingtonians to supply sources in California and Oregon. I-90 does the same with sources to our East. The ferries connect us to small parts of Washington that don’t produce huge quantities of goods.
Note: I’m not arguing in favor of Gregoire’s proposal, as I enjoy being able to conveniently and inexpensively visit the aforementioned San Juan and Bainbridge Islands. I’m just saying the analogy could use some work.
Maybe I just want to see Barbara Bailey freak out more about losing her socialized ferries.
When I first heard Gregoire’s proposal, I suspected she was using an old political trick: target a very popular service for elimination, or propose the most obnoxious revenue-raising tool possible, in order to get everyone to come to their senses and provide a more reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working this time.
The ferry system is important not only for transportation, but also as a tourism draw. As anybody who visits the Puget Sound region what they liked about it, and you will get “the ferries” mentioned in the top five – even if they didn’t actually go on a ferry ride.
Part of me is tempted by Gregoire’s proposal, because it would finally lay to rest the argument that Eastern Washington farmers pay for our ferry system. But as Goldy and the Times pointed out, it’s not just the ferries. It is every road, bridge, mountain pass, tunnell, etc. in the state which is at risk.
If this type of thinking had prevailed in the 1800’s, then the Trans-Continental railroad would never have been built, and Eastern Washington would have been seperated from the West Coast because the handfull of people in the Cascades could never bring it upon themselves to tax themselves the millions of dollars required to build a railroad through the mountains.
rhp6033 @7,
No it wouldn’t. The Ferry system could be entirely paid for through fares on passengers and taxes on the those in the counties it serves, and a majority of Eastern Washington voters would still believe that they were paying for it, just the way they believe that they’re somehow paying to build us light rail.
Furthermore, a regional ferry district would not assure as the ability to fund the system locally at a level we deem fit, because the rest of the state could always approve a statewide initiative restricting our local taxing authority, just as they attempted to do to Sound Transit via I-776.
Politics isn’t about the truth. It’s about perception. Why is that so difficult for Democrats to understand?
Don’t forget to send young Blethen an invoice Goldie, and if you post it here (rather awkward to do that at the new place) we can all share in the fun.
Xar@6, the fucking floating bridges connect Seattle to the fucking Eastside and fucking Mercer Island (which should have taxing districts for lids, cuts, and bridges in this new era), we’re connected to the Bear Republic via I-5 and the markets east in the same fashion for trucks, if somewhat less directly, our trade is more often conducted via air and rail. Another example of our car overlords having won their war on people.
@9: Not sure exactly what you’re trying to say. You’ve correctly stated the connecting bridges attached to Washington, but I’m not sure where you’re going with that.
But the majority of cargo in the U.S. moves by truck, not rail or air. No doubt, in part, to the fact that we have done a crappy job of maintaining rail infrastructure in the Northwest. There’s a reason that cargo ships transporting goods from Asia to Chicago and points east stop in Prince Rupert and ship via rail through Canada instead of stopping in Seattle or Tacoma. We’d be wise to invest in rails, but we haven’t thus far.
From the bits and pieces I have picked up it sounds like Gregoire jumped onto the fees for services bandwagon with both feet in her State of the State Speech today. State services will become a cafeteria with a cash register at the end of the line. Well, so much for community and looking after each other. “You wanna shoot baskets kid put your quarters in the damn machine.” “Granny, you wanna keep that home care aide six hours a week, that’ll be $82.50/hr. Your social security check is only $460/month, tough shit Grandma.”
@1&5
Can you back up your claims with links? Or even the numbers and where you got them?
Though it’s kind of a straw-man argument, since King County pays for that ferry and the post was about the state ferry system.
Xar said: “…But the majority of cargo in the U.S. moves by truck, not rail or air….
I’m not sure if you are talking in terms of volume, weight, or dollar value. More and more cargo of higher dollar value is being shipped by air, especially consumer electronics. Air freight prices have dropped so low that it can compete with ocean shipping for all but the heaviest cargos. But that may be changing this year, the air cargo market is recovering, especially in Asia. Hong Kong has now surpassed Memphis as the airport which handles the most cargo traffic in the world (Memphis is the Fed Ex hub).
But I agree that we need far more investment in our rail infrastructure. We are still creaking along on the same railbeds and rails that we were a century ago. You can see the problems whenever Sounder service is halted due to mudslides on the tracks – which seems to happen a dozen or so times a year.
In the meantime, the Chinese are putting together bullet train systems that have reached 300 mph in tests. They still have a long way to go to get their infrastructure built, but the speed in which they are using our money to do it is pretty impressive.
Goldy @ 8: “…Politics isn’t about the truth. It’s about perception. Why is that so difficult for Democrats to understand?”
Because we Democrats deal in reality, not just perception. We look at all the evidence, form a hypothoses, test it, then reach a conclusion. It’s kind of hard for us to do it the other way around, as the Republicans do: start with an ill-informed opinion, then cherry-pick only the evidence which supports our decision.
It’s a bit like growing up. Once you’ve done it, it’s hard to be child-like again.
They expect to easily blow through that by the end of winter.
@8…. no it couldn’t be paid for entirely with fares. Nor anything close. And why should only that part of our transportation break even? Can you think of a road that is completely self-funded?
Oh wait, I can think of one. The Narrows bridge. See a theme developing?
January is “Fuck the Peninsula” month and this year the legislature is getting going early.
PS Always wanted to say “fuck” on a Goldy post. Figured I had to do it before he went corporate. :)
It’s correct that no gas tax revenue went into building the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, but WSDOT certainly has been spending a lot of gas tax money to improve SR 16 on both sides of the bridge, and the largest project, to replace the Nalley Valley Viaduct and improve connections with I-5 is still less than half finished. So I don’t think there is any case to be made for ignoring the Olympic Peninsula.
As far as ferry fares go. It’s the operating budget, used to actually run the boats, that is 70% paid for with fares. The capital budget, which includes such thinge as, new or rebuilt boats and upgrading terminals, is 100% percent paid for by taxpayers.