|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Dec 26, 2008 15:39:47 GMT -8
Although this subject has come up on other posts', I thought I would create a dedicated post for this discussion.
Since the loss of the revenue stream from the MEV tax in 1999, the State has not come up with an alternative solution to the funding problem.
I have a few suggestions and I will list them as follows:
a)Have the two current Senators petition Congress for funding for the new vessels that the system needs. Our two Senators back in the 60's got funding to build the Supers back in the day, now is time to do the same thing. Since the new Presidential Administration has listed infrastructure as a priority, now is the perfect time to try it again.
b)Time to change the license tab fee structure. Like it or not, car tabs are too cheap now. I just renewed my two cars for 65 and 72 dollars each. Why not make the tab fee a flat 100.00 for all vehicles. I would gladly pay the 65 dollar difference if the money went directly to transportation projects, ie, ferries, Alaskan Way viaduct, etc.
c)You have got to spend money to make money. Some runs in the WSf system are a lifeline to their respective communities. Runs like PT./Keystone and the San Juan Islands are very tourist dollar dependent. We all saw what happened to PT. Townsend when the Steels were yanked. Building just one ferry for that route inexusable. The Steels could not keep up with traffic during the busy summer months. Build two boats and the tourism will return and the revenue from two boats will make that run money.
I am wondering if other members have any othe ideas?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Dec 26, 2008 17:51:52 GMT -8
The "built in Washington" requirement would have to be repealed for that to happen.
9 chances out of 10, good ol' Eyman would probably try to put an initiative/referendum on the ballot to repeal any raise in the car tab fee. Whether or not said initiative/referendum would pass I don't know.
As in the route turning a profit (which I don't think it has recently (if ever) under state ownership)?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 26, 2008 19:26:49 GMT -8
I agree that the second Island Home vessel must be ordered and constructed to actually solve a problem that has been going on far too long. I also believe that the "Washington only" limit on new construction must be removed before any additional new vessels (beyond the 2nd Island Home)are ordered. As noted above it automatically eliminates any Federal Highway funds that might be available for construction. As a citizen experienced in government owned/operated organizations I continue to wonder why such organizations need so many non licensed/ non certified middle managers. If their numbers were sharply reduced we could likely save millions that could be shifted to vessel operations. That's my political statement for the end of the year .
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 26, 2008 19:47:59 GMT -8
I am confused about US tax revenue. Can't they just raise the amount of taxes without a ballot measure, or is it a necessity. A lot of these problems could be solvable, like the earlier suggestion, but some form of $50 fee from everyone in the state.
|
|
|
Post by snowed on Dec 26, 2008 20:26:46 GMT -8
Ol' Eyman doth hath tail between legs.
Should of's: of course raise the car tabs tax to refelect some inflation. 40 bucks for a vehecle in 2008, compared to what in 1980?
The build in Washington has proven to be a rip-off of the tax payer. Staten Island has built boats now, 300 plus feet at 40 mill per copy. The WSF Island Home is prehaps the most expensive boat built per foot, outside of the the FED, ever!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 26, 2008 21:06:13 GMT -8
No, it never has. You have to figure that the reason Olympic Ferries gave it up in the first place was because they couldn't turn a profit on it. Keystone has one of the lowest riderships in the system.
I happen to have a copy of the route statement summary from 01-06. Net losses on the Keystone per those years are as follows:
2001: -3,503,000.00 2002: -3,543,000.00 2003: -3,400,000.00 2004: -2,917,000.00 2005: -3,369,000.00 2006: -5,023,000.00
Farebox recovery for those years: 2001: 53.5% 2002: 53.5% 2003: 55.6% 2004: 61.2% 2005: 58.3% 2006: 49.3%
Total riders: 2001: 836,000 2002: 799,000 2003: 792,000 2004: 797,000 2005: 786,000 2006: 773,000
Compare that to say Kingston-Edmonds riders for the same years: 2001: 4,757,000 2002: 4,589,000 2003: 4,430,000 2004: 4,462,000 2005: 4,334,000 2006: 4,257,000
|
|
|
Post by snowed on Dec 26, 2008 21:43:36 GMT -8
I take, EGFleet, that you are Plan B?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 26, 2008 22:26:58 GMT -8
As a citizen experienced in government owned/operated organizations I continue to wonder why such organizations need so many non licensed/ non certified middle managers. If their numbers were sharply reduced we could likely save millions that could be shifted to vessel operations. I don't know about 'millions,' but those very same middle-management wonks are the ones that are telling us 'there is no one big answer; only a host of small answers.' I see a small answer there too... lead on! ;D
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 26, 2008 22:54:02 GMT -8
I take, EGFleet, that you are Plan B? Not in the slightest. I think that the plan "B" shouldn't even be contemplated. I don't see any talk of shutting down seldom used highways in this state as a cost saving measure. There shouldn't even be a conversation about reductions to ferry service. (except perhaps the Sidney as trying to justify it as 'essential service' is a bit of a stretch.) They are highways providing essential links to the places they serve and should be treated no differently than I-5 or any other highway in the state. Keystone, whether it makes money or not, shouldn't be getting such a short stick. Interestingly, Mr. Mosely was on KUOW the other day and raised the possibility of running the Steilacoom II during the summers on a lease from Pierce County. Whether this was meant to be a long term solution or not wasn't discussed, but it was brought up as an option. Keystone irritates me because of the issue of having to build special boats for one run. (I don't think the Island Homes are ideal solutions for either Tahlequah or the Inter-island, both of which have done well with bigger boats. Inter-island maybe not so much in the winter, but my understanding is if a larger boat is at Tahlequah, it gets filled.) Were it up to me I'd just dredge the lousy harbor so that an Issaquah Class could get in there and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 4, 2010 16:11:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 5, 2010 7:35:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 5, 2010 12:20:23 GMT -8
My money-saving suggestion? Abandon the $25 million reservation system plan.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 5, 2010 12:57:35 GMT -8
My money-saving suggestion? Abandon the $25 million reservation system plan. YES, YES, YES !!! and scrap that silly idea of building a fourth 64 car ferry. Like most government agencies, there should be less administration and more crews who actually perform important services for the public.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Nov 5, 2010 13:24:39 GMT -8
.... and scrap that silly idea of building a fourth 64 car ferry. They're not seriously planning to build a fourth, are they? I would find that unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 5, 2010 14:00:04 GMT -8
They have until sometime next year to exercise the option on the 4th boat.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 6, 2010 6:00:03 GMT -8
There hasn't been any talk of building a fourth boat for some time now. The hope is to still build a 144-car boat, but with the budget deficit I don't see that happening.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 6, 2010 7:49:33 GMT -8
My recently elected Legislative friends tell me the 4th KdT is dead, dead, dead. They'd like to kill off #3 if they could, the information about the miss-utility of the class is well known to them. With the budget down cycles, and what they said, do not look for another boat of any kind anytime soon. What they will be looking for is a way to run the Operation for less cost, while maintaining service.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 6, 2010 17:21:11 GMT -8
As we've said many times, #3 is already under construction. Killing it is no longer viable.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 7, 2010 8:26:59 GMT -8
Salish to be the Inter-Island ship? - the news reporter doesn't ask or consider the question of whether the Salish is suited to operate as the San Juan inter-island ship.... -------------- from here: blog.seattlepi.com/whidbey-pi/archives/227530.asp
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 7, 2010 9:26:05 GMT -8
Or they could have just submitted to having one large boat on the route and this would have been null ans void.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 7, 2010 18:34:43 GMT -8
Frankly it's a little amusing that they would be "shocked". The run has some of the lowest farebox return in the system. It's pretty much garunteed to be the first place some one would look to save $$$. Same thing is going on with Metro right now as the in city routes are more cost effective to run.
It'll be very interesting to see how much the legislature steps in on the cuts on the ferry system. Due to it's "visibility" it tends to attract more attention than say cuts to parks and rec services and so on.
Does anyone know when the next major ridership numbers will be published? That should be telling given the economic downturn. Sadly it may well be an excellent plan to idle a super and redistributed the new boats at the expense of really bad weekend traffic a few times a year (ok more than a few). Metro has finally begun shuffling buses on some of the routes I ride due to staff reductions last year by several large employers, it maybe time for WSF to do some of the same....
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 8, 2010 15:25:11 GMT -8
Didn't WSF lay up two Supers that were serving the Seattle-Bremerton route several years ago during a similar funding crisis? Lower than expected traffic may also have had something to do with their decision.
Are the Supers the most expensive class to operate at the present time? If this decision is actually made, I wonder if it would have any impact on future plans to build 144 car vessels?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 8, 2010 16:43:35 GMT -8
Didn't WSF lay up two Supers that were serving the Seattle-Bremerton route several years ago during a similar funding crisis? Lower than expected traffic may also have had something to do with their decision. Are the Supers the most expensive class to operate at the present time? If this decision is actually made, I wonder if it would have any impact on future plans to build 144 car vessels? Umm..."several years ago..." Yes. 28 years ago, in fact. I've always heard the most expensive ferries to run are the Supers. Barnacle might have more up-to-date info on that.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 8, 2010 16:51:59 GMT -8
Are the Supers the most expensive class to operate at the present time? I would suspect it depends on how you do the figures. If you work it from the angle of actual number of passengers/autos carried, then the Supers are far and away the most expensive to operate, simply because they are most San Juan boats. If you work it from the potential number of passengers/autos carried, the numbers bend a bit. I do believe, however, that the Supers are probably the most expensive to operate--or are in a dead heat with the Evergreens, or maybe the Rhody. The cheapest to run are the Issaquah-130s, from what I recall. But statistics are, to put it politely, malleable. It might, if the 144's that were on the board were actually Supers. They are not Super-class boats. The new 144 design that I've seen (okay, my copy of the drawings are as a 130, but still) bear about as much resemblance to a Super as the Chetzemoka II does to a Steel-Electric.
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 9, 2010 7:32:26 GMT -8
"With the budget down cycles, and what they said, do not look for another boat of any kind anytime soon. What they will be looking for is a way to run the Operation for less cost, while maintaining service."
Lifc
Please encourage your newly elected friends in the legislature to reconsider their position on new constriction. The Washington State Ferry System has been forced into a terrible fiscal blunder (The construction of the KdT Class) both in terms of capital spending and long term O&M costs due to a lack of a proper vessel replacement and new construction program.
WFS desperately needs new vessels. It needs the right kind of vessels purchased at a competitive price on a planned schedule. The "Steel Electric Crisis" was 25 years in the making thanks to bad management at WFS and bad governance by the Washington legislature. If the sudden realization that the Steel electrics were really, really old created a crisis imagine what an Evergreen State Class crisis would look like. Now consider Super Class Crisis. A Super Crisis it would be indeed!
Without serious new construction beginning by mid-decade WSF will be on the verge of a MAJOR service crisis that will make the last three years look mild. To dig them selves out of the coming crisis the legislature will either have to buy whatever they can as fast as they can and get the wrong boats at rip-off prices like they are now or they will be sinking hundreds of millions into 50, 60 and even 70 year old boats that are ever more expensive to operate and maintain.
Hopefully our new legislators will look beyond just the capital expense of new vessels and weight that cost against the capital costs that will be avoided by replacing rather than continuing to overhaul elderly boats. I hope our new legislators will also consider the reduction in operating expenses that new, more modern and efficient boats will bring along with the potential revenue increase that will come by using larger boats on key commuter routes. And I hope they consider the revenue that has been lost in recent years due to service reductions, interruptions and emergency dead head moves. All that will get worse without a plan for the timely construction of the RIGHT new vessels.
The planned 144s are the right type of new vessel. They have the size and speed to work in the San Juan's and on the central Puget Sound commuter routes. They offer the most cost effective type of propulsion in the WFS fleet (Diesel Mechanical/Layshaft/CP Props), the most reliable and easy to maintain main engines in the fleet, common spare parts and maintenance procedures, Super size car capacity and fast loading to reduce cycle time and deck crew work load. The sooner WSF gets 144s the faster they can increase revenue and reduce capital and operating expenses.
Lifc, I have read several of your posts that include your opinions on 2 stroke Vs 4 stroke main engines on the Island Home based ferries. Please consider this, that the main engine choice for the Island Home was likely based primarily on the low RPM torque required to start the bow prop and a 710 V-12 EMD was simply the smallest engine choice available to do that. Look at every picture of the Chetzemoka practicing landings. Notice the Black smoke? That is the bow engine being overfuled to keep it from stalling when trying to start the prop.
The Kdt class boats aren't going to be a less fuel efficient way to move 64 cars across the the water than the Steel Electrics because the S-Es had 4 cycle mains and the KdTs have two cycle engines. The KdTs will be less efficient because they have engines of twice the horse power as the Steel Electrics to do the same job. But the engines seemed speced not around making designed speed but simply starting the bow prop.
It is startling to think that the KdT class boats engines were on hand with the intention that they were to go into vessels with over twice the car capacity of the KdTs and equal or better speed. To put the efficiency of those V-12 EMDs in context lets look at the horsepower per automobile of the KdTs, the 144 and throw in the Issaquahs and Supers for comparison.
Chetzemoka 6000 HP/64 cars 94 HP/car 144 Class 6000 HP/144 cars 42 HP/car Issaquah 5000 HP/124 cars 40 HP/car Super 8000 HP/144 cars 55 HP/car
No wonder the Chetzemoka will use more fuel per car. It has 39-54 more installed horsepower per car than the other vessels of similar power in the fleet, even the speedy Supers!
The reduced maintenance costs that 144s will bring stands out when comparing them to the other classes. Not only will they be newer but they will be simpler with fewer parts to maintain. Lets consider the same classes of ferries from the standpoint of cars carried per main engine cylinder.
Chetzemoka 64 cars/24 cylinders 2.67 cars/cylinder 144 Class 144 cars/24 cylinders 6 cars/cylinder Issaquah 124 cars/32 cylinders 3.88 cars/cylinder Super 144 cars/64 cylinders 2.25 cars/cylinder
Lifc
Please encourage your newly elected friends in the legislature to look at a four things.
1. The capital expenses projected if the Evergreen State and Super Classes are kept in service to 60 years of age and beyond.
2. How those costs could be avoided with a new construction plan.
3. Ferry toll and tax revenue lost through service reductions and interruptions or added with additional capacity, efficiency and reliability.
4. The estimated cost of 144 car ferries purchased through nation wide competitive bidding.
The only thing that will cost Washington ferry toll and tax payers more than building the wrong thing (again) will be for the legislature to do nothing. We need to end the Todd headed construction monopoly and get the right boats built at a competitive price!
|
|