lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
IFCA
Mar 24, 2010 23:19:52 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 24, 2010 23:19:52 GMT -8
As a citizen, I have requested the State of Washingon, Via the State - County Road Advisory Board (CRAB), facilitate the formation of, for the lack of another name, the "Inter County Ferry Association", for Counties that operate Ferries.
I have contacted officials from the affected Counties, Whatcom, Skagit, Kitsap, King, Pierce and Wahkiakum, all, except King, which has yet to repond, are quite positive about the idea. San Juan has also expressed interest, although they have no Ferry, as yet.
The goals and operational format are yet to be defined, that will take imput from the Counties. My initial ideas were this is to be an information and resource sharing group which would include the possibility of shared reserve vessel (s) and standardization of dock slip size.
Although I have been in touch with those concerned and have been working on this for some time, I made the official request on Monday. I will keep you posted on the progress as we go along.
You comments are welcome.
Jim
|
|
|
IFCA
Mar 25, 2010 4:41:03 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on Mar 25, 2010 4:41:03 GMT -8
Okay, here we go:
(1) With what money?
(2) If the goals and operational format are yet to be defined, may I assume that the cost is likewise undefined?
(3) Competition with WSF with auto-carrying vessels is, last time I checked, still against the law. The only reason that passenger-only "competition" is legal is because WSF can't make a go of it, and the state wisely realized that nobody will survive trying it on their own because there aren't any deeper pockets.
(4) Why re-invent the wheel? We've already got an ICFA-type organization; it's called Washington State Ferries. And you can bet that Olympia would realize this post-haste, with the end result that the state would end up taking over the lot. (This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but be careful what you wish for.) I also would like to point out that some of these gigs are union, and I can also assure you that there would be a union expansion. (Which IMHO is also not necessarily a bad thing.)
(5) Consider that much of our shoreline is tribal fishing area. Any expansion would be subject to the same games that you're currently experiencing at Lummi. WSF can't even expand the existing facility at Anacortes without having to appease the Swinomish tribe--and my understanding is that not only do they want mitigation money, they want a fee every time a boat docks there.
Political minefield. Never gonna happen.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
IFCA
Mar 25, 2010 8:07:03 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 25, 2010 8:07:03 GMT -8
1. This is an Association, not an entity, costs of establishment are minimal. 2. True, see above. 3. Most of these Ferry operations predate the WSF. Ours, for example, started in 1919, and has been owned by the County since 1924. I know Skagit's is also elderly, and even Whatcom and San Juan co-operated with a Mainland - Orcas run in 1941. I strongly doubt the WSF would want to take over these operations, our County would love it if they did. Simply the State System is not keeping up with its commitments now, there are already several mandates, some from as far back to the 1950s, for runs that the State will not, or likely can not implement. 4. There would likely be no run expansion by the Counties, all of the goals could be accomplished by Inter-Local agreements. Individual operations would likely stand as they are, union or not. Counties, due to their limited tax and customer base have to operate far more efficiently than the State, this is to help these Counties do that. 5. This is on the draft goal list, routes that already exist are in the Tribe's sights, not just new ones. I know very well about this, was at a meeting with the County and the Lummi's last night. This allows the small operators a larger base to deal with the Tribal impacts. More minds at the problem may help come out with a better solution.
This idea is not new, several years ago when Whatcom was going to get a new boat, they and Skagit were going to enter into an Inter-Local agreement to keep and maintain the Whatcom Chief as a spare for emergencies and drydock periods. This is simply an expansion of that idea to the whole area. As they are far from Puget Sound, Wahkiakum will likely only participate in the information part.
Buying a Ferry is not like buying a dump truck or an excavator. These operations are often at the fringe of the capability and expertise of the County Public Works Departments, this is simply a way to help share knowledge and resources to acheive a better result for their customers.
Jim
|
|
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 8:03:47 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on Mar 26, 2010 8:03:47 GMT -8
You mention the possiblilty of a reserve-vessel pool... does anyone have a "reserve" vessel besides Pierce County (and WSF)?
King County has not replied... possibly because they don't operate any auto ferries and as such wouldn't really have any need to access the reserve pool (or be able to contribute to it).
I can't imagine why Wahkiakum would be wanting to participate, either--wouldn't a boat swap involve open ocean? I'd think their participation would be limited to handshakes and committee lunches.
And addressing point #4's response, I wasn't speaking of run expansion. I was speaking of facility expansion. The Swinomish tribe wants fiscal compensation if any of the over-water portion is expanded. (I don't know why they think a third slip in Anacortes would be of help, anyway--the logistical problems are all on the shore side.)
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 12:34:45 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 26, 2010 12:34:45 GMT -8
Actually, King County has now replied, they are currently without a director and until one gets on board they are going to sit on the sidelines.
As for a reserve vessel, no one has one right now as half of Pierce's fleet is off with the State. When the STII comes back, yes they will be the only one. Our Ferry, the Whatcom Chief with its 39 round trips a day (more during peak season), is run harder then any other Ferry I have ever seen. At 48 years old, it is beginning to show its age and needs to be replaced as the day to day runner on this route, soon. However, it could continue for many years as a reserve vessel and used to step in during emergencies, as a replacement vessel during dry dock periods, and occasional service to places that have none now. It can also carry passengers, just fine, and runs quite economically. This would likely become the first reserve vessel.
As for Wahliakum County and those Passenger only Counties, they can participate in the information and support part of the Association.
#4. This will likely become more and more of an issue as the Tribes go looking for compensation. With more Ferry Systems at risk, the response is likely to be better than if every one has to go it alone. This whole issue comes from our Governor's response to the Tulalip's objection to the Boeing Dock. That set the tone for further movement on the Tribe's insistence. We will all pay for this, thank you Christine, this is just the beginning of this. In our case the temporary and beginning settlement is, yes temporary, is $16,700 a month-$200,000 a year for our small route. No other comment on this...
In the end, I think the IFCA will be a positive group.
Jim
|
|
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 16:09:34 GMT -8
Post by fargowolf on Mar 26, 2010 16:09:34 GMT -8
IF I understand correctly, is this going to be something along the line of what the IFA (Inter Island Authority) was in Alaska?
At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Barnacle at this point, in regards to money, goals, operational format and costs. Having said that though, I'd love to learn more. Please keep us advised.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 16:24:23 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 26, 2010 16:24:23 GMT -8
I will post the goals as soon as the parties agree on them.
I am not familiar with the IFA, where can I find out about it?
Jim
|
|
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 16:53:37 GMT -8
Post by fargowolf on Mar 26, 2010 16:53:37 GMT -8
The IFA (Inter Islands Authority)was a group that wanted to expand ferry service in Alaska. They did get one vessel running, and, for a short time, took over the Alaska Ferries route from Ketchikan, to Hollis, on Prince of Wales Island. From what I understand, is that they ended up in financial difficulties and shut down, but I just Googled them and it seems they are still operating. Their homepage is here: www.interislandferry.com/index.htmlInfo about the IFA is here: www.interislandferry.com/aboutus.htmlI think there are other members on here who can provide more info than I can and their input would really be appreciated.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
IFCA
Mar 26, 2010 18:13:54 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 26, 2010 18:13:54 GMT -8
Thank you for giving me the link to the IFA.
The IFA is a far more encompassing outfit then the ICFA is intended to be. I doubt if the ICFA will have any empolyees, it will likely be made up of of County personal who work on or with their Ferry Systems and a few appointed citizens. In the future it may get to that, however that is not the current plan.
Jim
|
|