Many people see this and similar proposed services as a necessary solution to the issue of the growth of a metropolitan area across an inland sea.  Others, those who seem to look only at their immediate needs, cannot see the necessity of planning for the future of our region.  The same people who delayed the Seattle Area’s long-needed light rail program by 30 or more years would not like to see similar delays in planning for Westward growth from the center of Seattle.

Ignoring the problem will not delay growth, it will only delay the solution.

In reading the article in the Seattle PI, there were many misguided comments below the article.  I took the time to address some of the questions asked there.  Unfortunately, witty barbs addressed to no-one-in-particular are not going to solve any problems, either.

Here are some examples of the kinds of questions that are brought up.  Really, it’s quite easy to make unrelated comments to a non-problem:

Q: Why not spend $4 million on job creation in Kitsap County? A: Why not! Do what they did for the ferry — present the idea to local government, find funding through grants or other means, and go for it! Good for you for getting this started.  In fact, that would truly be a good project for someone.

Q: Smaller boats, smaller crews, bad weather, transiting and crossing shipping lanes, not self-sustaining, no weekend service. A:You support larger boats that require larger crews and weekend service? Not very practical. This service should be a fine supplement to other overloaded services, and will get it’s share of traffic. But, why does this need to be self-supporting out of the farebox when the ferry, train and bus that you (and others) mention do not?

Q: One of the crew members told me that it took 350 gallons of fuel to make for the trip (from Port Townsend to Seattle) —- one way. What was “green” about that? A:Yes, the M/V Snohomish did use a lot of fuel. That is the reason it is not still around. (It was sold soon thereafter for use in San Francisco Bay.)   That is why there is a more appropriately-sized vessel on this run.

Q: Will the $15 fare include seasick pills for rough passages to Seattle in the fall, winter and spring? A: I would presume so. Just like they distribute free Dramamine on the Sounder train. What, they don’t?  Seriously, the former Victoria Express boat has been used in all sorts of weather crossing the Strait of Juan de Fuca, without major incident.  Likewise, the Spirit of Kingston is a sturdy craft that has seen all kinds of conditions.  That shouldn’t be an issue in Puget Sound.

Q: There’s nothing green about stimulating sprawl. A: No, there isn’t. But we do have sprawl and population growth in our region. Having a variety of mass transit options is still better than subsidizing more highways and auto ferries for single-occupancy cars into the Seattle area. Ignoring the solutions will not stop the problem.

Somehow, I crave a good intellectual debate on the pros and cons of different transit options across the Sound. Somehow, all of this sniping doesn’t satisfy that need at all. Nor does it answer any questions.

I am looking forward to the success of this new ferry option for commuters.

Share via email

There is no doubting the convenience of the car for getting to places locally at whatever whim you might have at the moment. On the other hand, for the bulk of the trip between the two cities, it sure is nice to let someone else do the driving for you. The only trick to this is simply a bit of advance planning.

The background story is that my car’s starter decided to quit on the night before my trip to Seattle for my 30th high school reunion. The next morning, the local car rental agency called and said they didn’t have a car to rent that morning, even though one was reserved online. While I was muttering about what I was going to find to drive, someone asked if this was the time to suggest that “Mr Transit” might just want to walk his talk and take the train to Seattle. After giving that about 10 minutes of thought, I shed all the excess stuff that I was carrying down to one bag and headed downtown.

I hadn’t been on the train to Seattle in a couple of years, and most of my train recollections revolve around the Coast Starlight of the past. The train, to me, was a slow mode of transport that was frequently too late to be of value. What I found out was that the Amtrak Cascades is really a great little train. The Talgo trrainset that they use is pretty comfortable. The trip is a fast 3.5 hours Portland to Seattle. It’s certainly not my Father’s Amtrak train! This trip made me remember just how efficient this trip can be, even though the train itself was full in both directions.

On my particular trip from Portland to Seattle, we started out at a 20-minute disadvantage, since there was a bridge up to allow a ship to pass on the Willamette River. This was easily made up, though, before we arrived in Seattle.

The one thing that disappointed me at a personal level was an inability to take a decent photo out the window of the train. Now, I guess you can’t expect to do well at 60 mph, but I was hoping for better results than I got. There must be a way to do that. But the fact is that I would have never have had 3.5 hours to contemplate photography or reading or working on my laptop had I been driving. I look at that as time gained rather than as time lost. Furthermore, I arrived without having to deal with 50 miles of Friday rush-hour traffic approaching Seattle.

As far as making transit connections, taking the train connects you with the best of transit on both ends of the connection. Portland’s Union Station is right on the Tri-Met Transit Mall. In Seattle, likewise, it is only a couple of blocks to most of the available transit options from King Street Station. I found a bus on 3rd Avenue that took me directly to my hotel. It was a 45-minute trip, but if I had known I was leaving the car at home, I would have chosen the hotel differently. As it was, I got to two events just fine on the bus, with only one late-night taxi home the entire 3-day trip. A day of fun in Seattle was also done via transit.

By the way, if you ever do the trip on the train, unless you’re really pinching pennies, you might consider springing for the extra $14 for Business Class. I did on the way back just because I was getting sore and tired, and it was totally worth it. If not for the extra big seats, then just for the fact that you don’t have to stand in the endless line in Seattle to check in and get a seat assignment. On the other hand, the trip up was perfectly acceptable in regular coach class. Certainly no issues there with space or legroom, even for a rather large person such as myself.

I am going to be rethinking how I travel around Cascadia from now on. Yes, there are certainly times where you need a car to get around. However, depending upon your destination, it will often be more convenient and less expensive to simply take the train and other public transit to my destination. You might consider trying this yourself next time.

Share via email

The ferry M/V Coho started working the waters of the Salish Sea in 1959, and since the early 1970′s has been dedicated to the auto ferry run between Port Angeles and Victoria.  Today it is celebrating the 50th anniversary of it’s first run.  Arguably, it is the most important part of the tourism industry in Port Angeles and the Olympic Peninsula, and it is also an important part of the Victoria waterfront.

While the boat is 50 years old, it’s owners and crew has been able to keep it in much better condition than similarly old Washington State Ferries craft.  This is not a hit at WSF crews, they do a fine job (though the state could probably fund them a bit better).  No, this is about one private company that has put a lot of effort and cash into keeping this fine ship going.  They believe that it will be possible to safely get another 20 years of use out of her.

While business has been down lately, like it has been in the rest of the economy, the Coho and its crew still do their part to get visitors across the Strait of Juan de Fuca safely.  It is thought that the ship fills as many as 25% of the hotel rooms in Port Angeles, as well as bringing people from Seattle and beyond into Victoria to visit.  While there are other options for getting to Vancouver Island, the Coho lets you go there with a bit of style, a bit of history, and avoiding some of the busier border crossings on the mainland.

I recommend that anyone with the least interest in this part of Cascadia set aside some time for a trip on the M/V Coho sometime soon.  It is a practical way to get there and it is an important piece of our history.  Consider it a cheap sea cruise.  I believe that you will not be disappointed.

Share via email

The first Christmas is the Christian holiday.  Having attended a Christian-based elementary school in my youth, I believe I know about this one.  Christmas is the day, and the season, where we celebrate the birth of the Son of the Christian God.  We all know the story, Christian or not.  I think we can all accept the given that Christmas is an important date on the Christian calendar, secondary only to, perhaps, Easter.

Thus, I can also understand the unwillingness of those who have spiritual beliefs based in other religious faiths or those who lean toward the agnostic or atheist do not want to have this Christian holiday forced upon them.  It especially makes perfect sense to me that one without this Christian belief should not have to see their public tax money spent on religious belief, nor have their children forced to endure this tradition in school.  To this point, I can agree that this should not be the case.

This is where the second Christmas comes in.  I look around me and I see quite a few people celebrating a Christmas that does not have any connection (or at best a very tenuous connection) to the birth of the Son of God.  I see a significant number of people celebrating a holiday based upon visiting family and friends, the exchange of gifts, tales of a man and his elves from the North, trees & other pagan symbols, and so on.  This Christmas is a very public and universal holiday, mostly ignores Christian belief, and has very little connection to the Christian holiday of the same name.

In fact, looking at the advertisements around us, it looks like the secular Christmas incorporates a majority of the seven deadly sins.  But I digress.

Despite the fact I don’t want to see the presentation of particular religions in public schools, a general celebration or acknowledgment of Christmas does not bother me.  I don’t think it’s appropriate to teach the benefits of one religion over another in school.  However, the secular Christmas celebration is now an ingrained part of our culture.  To ignore its presence would be to leave out a part of who we are.

The display of a crèche in the public square is likely not the best choice for a public, communal celebration of Christmas.  But let me talk about some of the other symbols of the holiday:

• Santa Claus, the North Pole, elves, reindeer, etc. –  If we look back a couple of hundred years, some of the cultures of northern Europe had a tale of St Nicholas, a Christian figure who is celebrated on December 6, a feast day which once included an exchange of gifts.  There is an indirect link between this figure and Santa Claus.  All of the stuff about magic elves, flying reindeer, polar castles and such are all part of popular secular culture.  No modern church makes a big deal of St Nicholas, nor is any part of the Santa Claus story part of their worship.
• The Christmas Tree.  — A tree was part of the Winter Solstice celebration by pagans and others several hundred years ago, and copied by some followers today.  While I have seen trees in a few churches during the holiday season, they are never a focal point of the worship or services.  The tree is associated with a secular Christmas celebration, I see very little connection between the tree and the Christian Christmas celebration.
• Christmas Carols. — In the history of music, Christmas carols can be categorized as sacred or secular.  Clearly, a song such as “O Come All Ye Faithful” is a call to celebrate a Christian holiday.  Clearly “Jingle Bells” or “White Christmas” is not.  Mt first thought is that these can be easily separated out.  However, from the music education standpoint, I believe it cannot hurt for children to understand both types of music.  To leave out the secular tunes would be to deny the origins of the ancient Christmas holiday, as well as to ignore a major part of cultural and music history.  I believe we can sing “Silent Night” in a school-based setting as a part of music education without making it a part of a religious education.

It is a fact that the vast majority of us celebrate something this time of year, whether it be a religious holiday or a secular holiday, or even just a nod to the Winter Solstice.  I do believe that it is important to not promote one religious belief system over another in our public facilities.  But it is wrong to try to deny that a holiday exists during this time.   School teachers and retail stores alike use themes based on the seasons and holidays to get fresh ideas for projects and events.  There is no sense in outlawing a winter holiday theme, or even a Christmas theme as part of winter-holiday-based presentation.

We really just need to understand the difference between the two Christmases.  One is the Christian holiday.  The other is the secular holiday.  The two can live in harmony and can be celebrated in tandem.  We can celebrate Christmas in a public setting without mandating religion and without denying ourselves a big public Christmas tree.  Perhaps we can live by one of the popular tenets of the holiday and just live together in peace on the issue.

Share via email

While their choices concentrate on who is best suited to understanding and acting on transit related issues, I find that these same people also tend to follow my general beliefs on the environment and on fiscal matters, too.

I have followed the King County Executive race with some interest.  Some of this is to find out that Dow Constantine would be a fine person for the job.  However, even more importantly, it is about his rival, Republican Susan Hutchinson, being so very wrong for the job.

Hutchinson has run a campaign of deception.  She has claimed to have no party preference, but very consistently has supported Republican and conservative causes.  She has not been honest to us with her beliefs on the issues, and changes her story to match whomever she is talking to.  She contradicts herself often.  She is relying on her name recognition as a former KING-TV news reporter, but that seems to be all she has.  I worry about her lack of honesty in answering questions, and her lack of knowledge on many issues facing King County Government.

She reminds me of a former TV news anchor and reporter in Portland.  Lars Larsen was a reporter who seemed so honorable and fair toward the issues when making reports.  He seemed so trustworthy in his views.  You could believe that he was being fair in his reporting.  I am sure that the same can be said about Susan Hutchinson.

However, Larson left his position at KPTV News and became a radio talk-show host.  In this position, he revealed a preference for the ultra-conservative views.  His views are so far to the right that it took me a long time to understand that he was not just kidding or being ridiculous for the sake of gaining attention.  He has often stated that he really believes in these extreme views.

Of course, Hutchinson and Larson are two different people.  But I feel the need to warn people I meet that the persona that you see from a TV news anchor has little to do with the actual personal beliefs of the reporter you see on the screen.  Since Hutchinson has a proven history of support for extreme right-wing causes, and is not being open to that fact now, making me very suspicious of her.  The lesson: Take the time to re-learn the true beliefs of the former TV performers.

Please make sure you vote and be sure to return your ballot by November 3.

Share via email

In the current proposed legislation, we are developing a framework upon which future decisions will be made.  In other words, there really is no plan for taxing us by the mile right now, but the legislature is being asked to approve a plan to allow a by-the-mile tax just as soon as local governments decide they want to do it.  They are being asked to sign a blank check and fill in the blanks later.  This is no way for a government to raise funds for any purpose.

I agree that there is some merit in a plan that taxes motorists by the amount that they use the roads.  There is also merit in a plan that would charge more for using the roadways during busy times.  Our Oregon’s governor says that he is interested in getting away from a model where the gas tax pays for much of the highway maintenance.  That is where  the error in the plan comes in.

It is so simple to keep the gas tax in place.  In fact, it might be good to allow local governments to collect fuel taxes to support local maintenance projects.  It is so simple.  You drive more, you use more fuel, thus you pay more tax.

The gas tax has an extra added benefit.  The tax actually rewards fuel conservation and promotes less use of gasoline.  Thus it is good for the environment.  A vehicle that uses more fuel pays more in taxes for the same amount of driving than a more fuel efficient vehicle.  What could be easier?

The governor thinks it will be easier to place a device in every car that will measure how far that car has been driven, as well as where and when the vehicle has been driven.  Besides the fact that this all seems just a bit too Orwellian for my tastes, some government agency is going to be all of a sudden doing a lot of bookkeeping to track these expenses.  If there really is a compelling need to tax based upon mileage that the vehicle is driven, we might find that all vehicles are already equipped with a rather unobtrusive meter to track mileage.  We call it the odometer.  We could check it when we register our vehicles.

One concern of continuing reliance on the gas tax is the fact that, as we switch to fuel efficient or alternative fuel vehicles, we are going to collect less tax revenue to pay for highway maintenance.  After all, an electric or hybrid vehicle uses less gas, but should be expected to make some contribution to fund highways.  I do not disagree.  To make this work, we will need to raise the statre gas tax.

My “no tax increase” friends will now look away and say that I just want to see taxes raised again.  Actually, this is not entirely true.  I would propose that if total tax revenue goes down because of vehicles using less fuel, that we simply raise the fuel tax enough to offset this loss in revenue.  For example, we might know that we need X number of dollars per year to fund road maintenance.  Due to fuel efficiency, we collect 20% less in taxes.  It seems quite reasonable that we would increase the tax per gallon by 20% to make up for this shortfall.  Yes, the price per gallon goes up, but the total tax that the driver pays would stay the same.

Sadly, it looks like Kulongoski and his followers will continue to look for the complicated solution when the simple solution will be cheaper.

Share via email

One of the current plans includes the building of up to four 64-car capacity vessels and a smaller number of 144-vehicle craft.  For some shortsighted reasons, we need at least two shallower vessels to serve the growing Port Townsend to Keystone run.  But the Puget Sound area has been experiencing wild growth for decades.  To believe that the current service levels will be sufficient for the next 25 years is folly.  We don’t really have enough capacity now.  We need ferries that carry 100 of more cars per trip, and we need them soon.  We are, unfortunately, destined to make the same mistakes of our past over and over again.

In the last 25 years, the Puget Sound region has doubled in size.  25 years ago, I took Greyhound to get from get from Seattle to Tacoma.  Now there are enough local bus routes that a ride will be available every 15 minutes all day.  The end of the world was in Redmond and Issaquah 30 years ago.  Now the urban landscape continues on for many more miles.  25 years ago, Seattle was a much smaller place. Now, its “suburbs” extend beyond Everett and Tacoma, and into the foothills of the Cascades. Even West of Puget Sound, there was no such place as Silverdale 30 years ago, and Kitsap County as a whole was a much less populated place. There are now people commuting into Seattle daily from as far as Jefferson and Clallam Counties.  There has been great growth and expansion of the Puget Sound city in the last 30 years.  There will be much more in the next 30 years.  We need to plan for it now.

Even if somehow, someway it made sense to have a fleet of 64-car vessels, we (our government) are planning now not for next year but for our needs for the next 25 years. Certainly, the plans that have been considered to date have no resemblance to the rate of growth in our region for the next 25 years.

To think that our state highway system will ever get by without significant additions to it’s ferry fleet, or without larger vessels, is pure folly.  This is the same thinking that is just now getting us around to building a new Sound Link light rail system.  A system that will be swamped to capacity from the day will be completed.

Yes, Virginia, we need more ferries, and we need a fleet of mostly 144′s. Or bigger.

And, frankly, we need to stop thinking that we can restrict growth, it better our lifestyles, or increase or inhibit tourism simply by restricting the size of of the ferries to Port Townsend. It doesn’t work that way.  We need to dredge Keystone Harbor for our future needs.  But I will leave that rant for another day.

Down South here in Portland/Vancouver, we are running into a similar situation as Port Townsend by trying to replace the last drawbridge on an Interstate highway in the US with something a bit more modern than the current 6-lane 92-year-old span. For future growth, we probably need the widest bridge that they can conjure up (like a proposal for a 12-lane bridge with light rail access). One group of folks, though, is advocating for only an 8-lane bridge, saying that something more will just encourage more unchecked growth. Yeah, right.

Whether it be bridges or ferries, we gain nothing by trying to artificially limit the size of the bridge or the size of the ferry. We will not stop the need for more capacity by just wishing it away.

Yeah, maybe a coupe of 64′s will be useful. In the same sort of way that the Hiyu has been useful. But it is time to stock up on vessels that really meet our needs.

I also suppose that, for the most part, I’m just preaching to the choir here anyway, though.

Share via email

This is another story of a tow truck driver who took matters into his own hands and towed an allegedly illegally parked vehicle from the parking lot of an apartment complex.  Well, he didn’t get very far, as the driver of the vehicle came out and stopped him from driving the car away.

This is really a must read, and not only because it covers all of the excuses at his trial for auto theft.  The punch line is that the car he was trying to tow had red and blue lights on top and was clearly marked with the words “Gresham Police” on both sides.

Yes, this is a “stupid criminal” story, but his excuses are very telling.  Among the excuses given in the article:

• The driver insisted there had been a white SUV parked between his tow truck and one of the police cruisers before he started to back up. He had intended to pick up the SUV by backing his lift under it. But he said the owner apparently moved the SUV in those few seconds, and he ended up with the patrol car.
• The driver for Retriever Towing, hadn’t turned on his truck’s lights, to avoid tipping off owners that their cars were about to be towed. “My lights, they’re bright. . . . I don’t want people coming out, because if it’s their car, I’m going to have to release it,” he explained.
• He told the judge that it was past 2 a.m. and very dark at the apartment complex.
• Exhaust from his tailpipe was obscuring his rear view.
• The driver said he had hurt his neck earlier and couldn’t turn to see what he was loading.

I understand that this driver was trying to get out of a felony conviction when he made these excuses.  However, I believe that if this is the kind of justification we get for towing cars, then the problem is worse than we think.

Why is it a problem if the driver comes right out and he has to release the vehicle?  Only if we are stealing cars rather than enforcing the law.

Why does it matter where a car is parked at an apartment complex at 2:00am, as long as it hasn’t been there for a long tome?  Only if we are stealing cars rather than enforcing the law.

Why wouldn’t a legitimate tow operator verify the identity of a vehicle before it was towed.  Only if we are stealing cars rather than enforcing the law.

Yes, I understand that this particular incident, the driver was bad and did something clearly wrong.  He has been subsequently fired by his employer.  However, we have seen enough other cases of questionable tows here that we seriously need to answer one question.  Is Retriever Towing stealing cars or enforcing the law?  Where is the line drawn?

Share via email

The main problem with this situation is that the individual drivers are making the decision whether or not to tow a particular vehicle.  In a typical situation, the driver patrols the lot where the company has a contract to provide service.  When the driver sees a violator, he will immediately pick up the vehicle and tow it to the lot.  When he does so, he will be paid a large commission based upon the number of cars he can tow in this manner.  Obviously, this does not create a situation where the driver is acting in an objective manner.  indeed, the system seems to reward drivers who take vehicles, whether or not they are legitimately taken.

Indeed, there are too many cases where cars are present in a parking lot for legitimate purposes — making deliveries, picking up passengers, a tenant driving a vehicle other than their usual car — where a car might be parked in a place where it shouldn’t.  In most cases, there is little or no clear signage describing what activities are not permitted on the property, only unposted rules that must still be followed to the letter.  None of these situations are taken into account by the tow truck driver.  Indeed, if a driver should return to the car while the tow truck driver is present, the usual situation is that they will be met not with a discussion of why the car was improperly parked, but with a diatribe (typically in salty language) of the driver complaining that he will not be getting his commission.  This situation needs to stop.

We have recently seen the story of the lady in Wilsonville who had her car towed away from her while she was being the victim of an assault.  Even the presence of the police officer on the scene was not enough to prevent the tow operator from taking the vehicle away from the scene.  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  A recent Oregonian article gives many more examples.  Any situation that permits this type of activity without having someone apply some common sense is deplorable and should not be allowed.

The following is a statement from a Portland cab driver that I know.   It illustrates just how silly this situation has become:

I drive a taxicab in Portland that is designed to transport passengers in wheelchairs and other disabled persons.  A couple of months ago, I was assisting a wheelchair user out of the vehicle and into his apartment in a Portland Housing Authority managed building in Northwest Portland.  I had just picked him up from a hospital and he was unable to push himself, so I helped him down my ramp and up to his door about 50 feet from the taxi.

I was, of course, not a tenant of the building, and a sign did warn that any vehicle parked there would be towed.  It did seem reasonable to me, however, that I should be able to park there long enough to discharge my passenger from the van and wheel him up to hid nearby door.  Apparently that is not the case. While I was still within clear sight, a Retriever Towing truck backed up to my taxi, intending to hook it up and lift it with the wheelchair ramp still extended.

A tenant yelled to me that there was a problem and I returned to see what was going on.  I returned to explain that I was there only for a minute, but that did not resolve the situation.  Fortunately, a relative of my passenger came out to assist and take him into the house.  This allowed me to close the doors and pull away before I was towed.

My friend tells me that this is not an isolated case, and that one of their company’s taxicabs was actually towed last Summer, when the driver had parked outside an apartment building long enough to go up to their passenger’s front door to tell them he was there.  Hardly a situation where anyone was being harmed by the car being there temporarily.  However, this story is played out, in the City of Portland alone, about 11,000 times per year.

The Oregon Legislature (as well as Washington) will be considering a bill to regulate “bounty hunting” by towing companies during the current session.  In itself, the concept of a property owner enforcing parking regulations on their own property is not a bad thing.  However, the rules need to be clearly posted, and a system needs to be in place to ensure that there is actually a problem before the vehicle is towed.  Requiring specific posting of the property is one solution.  Instilling some common sense may be another, although that might be harder to legislate.  Requiring a complaint from someone other than the tow operator themselves, perhaps a call from the property owner or manager, would make a lot more sense and be fair for all concerned.

There is a reason that we don’t give our police the right to both charge an individual with a crime and also get a percentage of a ticket.  At least I would credit the officer with the insight to know what is reasonable behavior and what is not.  In the case of the tow-truck drivers, we are allowing them to collect the “fine” even if a “crime” was not committed.

This group has shown that they cannot be responsible enough to determine themselves when a car should or should not be towed.  There are too many cases of auto theft here being hidden as legitimate towing services.  It should not be too hard to require a third party (the police or a property owner/manager) to make a complaint before the tow is allowed.  It is absolutely clear that some plan must be put into place to keep the public from being victims of this practice any longer.

Share via email

None of us like to pay taxes.  For nearly two decades now, the mantra of the “conservative” parties in America has been that taxes are bad and that taxes should be lower.  That it true to a point.  However, we do not want to go overboard.  State government is in a position to assist us in getting things done cheaper than if we all paid for the same services individually.

One example is health care.  None of us are thrilled about the cost of health care.  But we all need to pay for it.  We purchase insurance policies to help smooth out the costs, but for some people who are not members of traditional groups, this is difficult to come by at a reasonable cost.  this is what makes a government health plan so attractive.  Sure, it would cost us more in taxes.  However, the increase in our taxes would be less than what we are payig for our individual policies.  The moral of this story is that we need to be looking at our total costs, not merely how much of it is being passed through the government.

I use this analogy because something similar is happening with Washington State Ferries.  This transportation provider serves commuters in the Puget Sound area, facilitates commerce throughout the region, and serves as a network of bridges through one of the most populated areas of Cascadia.  Certainly it is not used by everyone on a frequent basis, but it is necessary for many.

Like other agencies, the ferry system is being asked to show where cuts can be made to balance the budget in these difficult economic times.  They have come up with two possible plans.  One, known as Plan A, addresses the fact that to remain viable, the ferry system needs to replace old boats on a periodic basis and maintain current schedules.  In fact, due to the tremendous growth that is still happening in the Puget Sound area, there is a growing need for commuter, commercial, and personal transportation in the areas served by WSF.  The other plan, known as Plan B, offers only limited replacement of aging ships, increasing maintenance costs, and actually cutting service.  This would, however, balance the budget without increasing fees or taxes.

Our leaders are now beginning to quiz the users of this service on what they would like to see.  The answers from the first of these public meetings held by WSF is described in this Kitsap Sun article.  When the users on one of these ferry routes were brought together, they did have some ideas for reducing costs.  However, they also noted that due to increased growth and increased usage of public transportation, keeping the current service level was an absolute minimum, and in fact, additional service would be required in the not-too-distant future.  The reason?  It is ultimately less expensive for us to support our public services than it is for each of us to try to pay for it ourselves.

The article starts out by asking “Why would the ferry system want to take a boat from a route that’s already packed and is expecting rapid growth?”  Well, the immediate answer is that according to the Plan B long range plan proposed be WSDOT, they will have to do that to reduce costs below expected current revenue.  The question I have to ask is why we would consider cutting a necessary service that saves us money in the long run in the name of not raising taxes.  The question we really need to be asking is what will benefit the taxpayers the most over the long run.  Abandoning necessary public services is not one of them.

Saving money is a good goal.  Providing a level of public services that serve us well is a good goal.  Cutting necessary services so we can save a few dollars in taxes is foolish.  A small investment now will save us a lot more in the end.  Encourage you legislators to be thrifty, but do not allow them to cut services so much as to strangle the economy.

Share via email