The North Sound Passenger Ferry Opportunities Study

North Sound Passenger Ferry Opportunities Study

Final Report Wilbur Smith Associates Page 1

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE Chapter I – Introduction ..................................................................................2-4 Chapter II – Current Ferry Service in the North Sound.................................5-8 Chapter III – Current Travel Patterns and Estimated Ridership.................9-19 Chapter IV – Suggested Passenger Ferry Routes and Schedules ..........20-27 Chapter V – Passenger Ferry Operational Plan.........................................28-43 Chapter VI – An Operating Entity ...............................................................44-52 Chapter VII – Financing ...............................................................................53-57 Chapter VIII – Other Operating Entities/ Institutional Options.................58-63 Chapter IX – General Recommendations...................................................64-65 Chapter X – Glossary........................................................................................66 Appendix A- Operating Assumptions: Primary Routes 1&2................................67-68 Appendix B- NSCCP Passenger Ferry Steering Committee Members ...............69-70 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 70 Appendix C- Planned and Possible Terminal Sites ..............................................71-94



The North Sound Passenger Ferry Opportunities Study I. Introduction Project Background This investigation of possible opportunities to establish new passenger ferry service in the North Puget Sound has been sponsored by the North Sound Connecting Communities Project (NSCCP). The NSCCP is a coalition of elected, agency and citizen representatives from the five north Sound counties (Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, and Snohomish). Together they work on regional planning issues, ensuring that county transit and transportation systems work together to provide options and access to residents in the region.

The NSCCP was inaugurated in 1996 as a collaboration between the Cascadia Project of Discovery Institute (Seattle), interested citizens, private sector transportation providers, elected officials and governmental and planning bodies in the North Puget Sound area. Because many of its meetings have been at the Farmhouse Inn, between Mount Vernon and Anacortes, it has become known as "The Farmhouse Gang." The NSCCP has the support of key members of the Washington state Legislature, as well as Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell and Congressman Rick Larsen.

A two-tiered Steering Committee provides guidance for NSCCP:

1. One tier consists of staff from Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Snohomish and Island Counties, Skagit Council of Governments, Whatcom Council of Governments, and the Cascadia Center at Discovery Institute.

2. A second tier consists of elected officials from north Snohomish, Skagit, Island, San Juan, and Whatcom Counties who act as co-chairs and provide guidance to the staff members. All projects are carried out under contracts and interlocal agreements.

This ferry study is part of a larger collection of research, funded by a grant from the US Federal Transit Administration and administered for the NSCCP by the Whatcom Council of Governments (WCOG). The entire series of analysis is known as the North Sound Intermodal Connections and Commuter Study. It also includes research on other mobility topics:

Intercounty transit (as well as public-private partnerships). Improving passenger rail services in North Puget Sound. Developing a regional transportation data-base.

Programs or studies also completed or currently underway by the North Sound Connecting Communities Project include (with funding source):

North Sound Geographic and Demographic Report (Skagit

Transit/Federal Transit Administration)



North Sound Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Wash. State Dept. of Transportation/Snohomish County)

Regional Transportation Governance Study (Legislative Transportation Committee/Whatcom COG)

Plan and grant application for North Sound Traveler Information Kiosks and displays (Federal Transit Administration/Whatcom COG)

A Regional Commuter Rail Conference (April, 2001, held in conjunction with the groundbreaking ceremony for the Mount Vernon Multi-Modal Center)

General meetings of the NSCCP are held four times per year. Project Purpose Ferries play an important role in the NSCCP area’s mobility and access. Washington State Ferry (WSF) service is essential in San Juan County, and is becoming an increasingly important input to the local mainland economies. The WSF system helps to support the area’s tourism economy, facilitates access to goods and services, and serves commuter needs.

Several other ferry services provide for the movement of vehicles and passengers throughout the region. For example, Whatcom County provides ferry access to Lummi Island. A private operator runs private commuter service between Whatcom County and the San Juan Islands during the tourist season. A number of other private operators provide tourism and charter trips within the area.

Many people in the North Sound area believe that regional intermodal mobility, access to services, access to employment, access to education and training, downtown redevelopment, and tourism could be enhanced through an expansion of passenger only ferry services. The state itself had planned to continue offering limited passenger ferry service, and was in fact making efforts to expand it by including Referendum 51 (a measure that included expanded passenger ferry routes) on the fall of 2002 ballot. Unfortunately, with voter defeat of the referendum, the state DOT and Ferry Service decided to cease all passenger ferry service.

This Ferry Opportunities portion of the multi-modal study was undertaken to provide decision makers with a better understanding of need, opportunities, barriers and implementation options for regular passenger-only ferry service for commuting and other types of trips in North Sound. It also explored operating structure options other than the State being the primary provider of such service.

Other studies of passenger only ferry services have been under consideration around the Sound. Recently, Kitsap Transit has succeeded in reinstituting its passenger ferry service through contract with a private provider. Other interest has been shown by the Port of Tacoma and the state’s Native Tribes. Additionally, a study is to be undertaken that is geographically focused on the White Rock, BC Canada to Blaine, Washington and the Semiahmoo Resort in the USA. An important responsibility of this study is to coordinate with these other efforts.



Project Sponsor A stakeholder group comprised of local officials and citizens from the five county region have acted as a steering committee for the study. They have provided advice on the conduct and progress of this work. The Study Steering Committee is comprised of members representing agencies, local jurisdictions and elected officials in the five county region. A complete listing of Steering Committee members is included in an Appendix to this report. Project Scope The study will report potential passenger ferry route locations, as well as an assessment of possible connections with land based transit services. An action plan will be produced to outline the steps needed to implement passenger ferry service.

The study will provide decision makers with a better understanding of needs, opportunities, barriers and implementation options for regular passenger-only ferry service for commuting and other types of trips in North Sound. It will also explore options other than the State being the primary provider of such service.

Study tasks include:

Organize and direct a North Sound Regional Ferry Steering Committee The identification of possible routes, schedules and terminals Examination of justification and an outline of an operating plan Current travel patterns and possible ridership Suggested changes to state and local law to allow for implementation. The examination of other structural/operational models Consensus building and public outreach. Preparation of a final report

Findings

Two initial routes are suggested for initial consideration. The routes would require five vessels for weekday service. The capital requirements for this service would be $12 to $15M initially with an

additional $7 to $10M needed in the first six years of service. $2.3M annually would be needed to cover weekday operating cost for the two

primary routes suggested. Weekend service for the two routes would require an additional $233,000/year. Travel patterns in the North Sound seem to suggest that sufficient travel demand

exists in the corridors that these routes would cover. The analysis indicates that about 80% of the seats would have to be filled and

paid for in order to cover all system operating costs. The study identifies jurisdictional entities that have the legal authority to establish and operate passenger ferry service and also identifies financial sources for funding such service.



II. Current Ferry Service in the North Sound Several varieties of auto and passenger ferry service currently operate in the Northern Puget Sound. The State of Washington continues to operate auto/passenger service throughout the Sound. Several counties operate service as do private providers. Those services are summarized here for informational purposes. Their review does not imply that this study encourages any new or continued connection between them and the service analyzed by this study. State Service Anacortes/San Juan Island The Washington State Ferries serve four major islands in San Juan County; Lopez, Shaw, Orcas, and San Juan. All ferries leave from Anacortes on the mainland, however, not all sailings stop at all four islands. Differing schedules serve over the year with a summer schedule generally lasting through Labor Day and other reduced schedules serving for the remainder of the year. For the fall of 2004 there are four to six “runs” in the morning, approximately the same amount in the afternoon and again in the evening. Four ferries serve the routes. Long waits are normal especially in summer. Friday afternoon, evenings and Saturday mornings during the summer often see two to three hour waits at Anacortes, and comparable waits are seen returning from the islands on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Passenger fares for the state ferry system are based on age:

19 through 64 years old are charged an adult fare 5 through 18year olds travel at 80% of the regular passenger fare Passengers and drivers 65 or older qualify for reduced fares (half the regular

passenger fare) Disabled passengers travel at half the regular passenger fare, if they present

proper proof of disability. The fares change during summer, the busiest time of the year. The fares also change by day of the week, with a less expensive structure in place early in the week and higher fares charged Wednesday through Saturday. Fares are collected westbound only. This revenue collection scenario has evolved and simplified the state system’s revenue handling. The practice however, has created another dilemma. The Kitsap Ferry Company is a private-public collaboration between a consortium of private operators and Kitsap Transit. Started in 2004, it was formed to fill the void in service when the state ceased passenger ferry service between Bremerton and Seattle. The service does provide faster speeds but the westbound fares collection by the state system has caused riders to use the state system to travel eastbound, then to only use the new passenger-ferry service westbound. This has caused revenue for the new service to be less than expected. This conflicting “policy procedure” will have to be addressed if new service is instituted anywhere else in the Sound. Present full passenger fares for the Anacortes to San Juan service range from $8.60 to $9.50 for the westbound trip.



The vessels used in the state’s present service are auto/passenger ferries. They include: Two “Super Class” vessels

The “Yakima” built in 1967, 17 knot top speed, can carry 2500 passengers.

The “Elwha” built in 1967, rebuilt in 1991, 20 knot top speed, can carry 2500 passengers.

An “Issaquah Class” vessel The “Sealth” built in 1982, 16 knot top speed, can carry 1200 passengers.

A “Steel Electric Class” vessel The “Illahee” built in 1927, rebuilt in 1986, 12 knot top speed, can carry

616 passengers. The “Illahee” is slated for retirement, but no replacement is shown within the present ferry construction schedule. Travel patterns and ridership for this service will be discussed in Chapter 3. Anacortes/Sidney BC (Victoria) The WSF also offers daily service to Vancouver Island (Canada) from Anacortes through stops in Orcas and Friday Harbor. The service is offered once daily in the “off” season, but schedules change in the summer months. The WSF requires a paid reservation for vehicle travel but a reservation is not required for walk-on passengers. The fares are substantial: $37.25 each way for a vehicle of 20’ or less and a one-way passenger fare of $13.80. The vehicle fare increases by almost $10 in the summer season. Walk-on passengers may ride just to Friday Harbor, but vehicles can be restricted if international traffic to Canada has reserved the space. Usually one of the “Super Class” vessels is used for this service. Usual travel time from Anacortes to Friday Harbor is one hour and forty-five minutes. Total time to Sydney, BC is three hours. As will be suggested later there may be a better terminal site on the BC side should this route be served by passenger service in the future. Mukilteo/Clinton WSF provides service between Mukilteo and Clinton on the southern end of Whidbey Island. Service changes occur over the course of the year but generally the twenty minute “runs” are provided each half hour from 5:00 AM to past midnight. “Issaquah 130 Class” vessels the “Cathlamet” and the “Kittitas” are used for this service. They were built in 1980 and 1981 respectively. Both were “re-built” in the early 1990’s. Both vessels have a top speed of 16 knots and will carry 1200 passengers. Regular passenger fare is $3.00 with regular vehicles paying $6.00. Passenger fares are again only collected westbound, but vehicle fares are collected each way. The fares are adjusted seasonally with vehicle fares increasing to $7.50 in the summer months.



Port Townsend / Keystone State vehicle/passenger service from Keystone, on Whidbey Island, to Port Townsend is the only direct connection from the North Sound to the Olympic Peninsula. The service is operated by a “Steel Electric Class” ferry the “Klickitat”. This is one of the oldest ferry classes in the fleet. It was built in 1927 and rebuilt in 1981. This vessel and the remainder of the “Steel Electric” boats are scheduled for retirement. Though no specific replacement vessel is shown for the service, new vessels are planned for the overall fleet and it is assumed that one of those vessels will serve this route. Four new vessels, of the “Issaquah class” variety, are scheduled for delivery to the fleet between 2008 and 2010. Each new vessel will carry 130 vehicles and 1200 passengers. Low tides and ebb currents have caused disruption of this service over its history. Generally, riders can expect two to four cancelled trips per day, due to these conditions. In addition, new vessels will force reconfiguration of both the Keystone and Port Townsend terminals. Planning, citizen involvement and EIS work for necessary terminal redesign was started in 2003 and is still continuing at time of writing. Generally the service operates from around 6:00 AM to approximately 9:00 PM, with 10 crossings timed to run every hour and a half. Normal and regular off-season fares are $2.20 for passengers and $7.75 for regular (20’ or less) vehicles. This route served over 100,000 foot passengers in 2003, with the majority traveling in the summer months. County Service Under Washington State law (RCW) counties may form ferry districts and operate a ferry system. The actual construct and powers of these entities will be discussed later. Within the North Sound region two counties presently provide ferry service. Whatcom County – Lummi Island Ferry

Whatcom County is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the “Whatcom Chief” through its Public Works Department. The vessel was built in 1962 and has a capacity of 100 passengers and 18 vehicles. It is the only link for residents and others between Lummi Island and the mainland at Gooseberry Point, a trip of 0.9 miles and about 5 minutes. It is also the only link for a number of summer residents and vacationers.

The Whatcom County ferry system operates 365 days a year, and in 2001 carried over 224,167 pedestrian passenger trips and 139,806 vehicle or passenger car trips. Ridership shows strong seasonal variations with July and August by far the busiest months with over 10% of all vehicle and pedestrian trips occurring in each of these months. This means that one-fifth of annual use occurs in those two months.

Hours of operation are 5:40 AM to 12:10 AM on weekdays, 7:00 AM to 12:30 AM on Saturdays, and 7:00 AM to 12:10 AM on Sundays and five major holidays. Fares are



intended to cover 55% of the operational costs associated with ferry operation with the balance of the operational costs coming from state and local tax revenues. A variety of fares including multi-ride passes for passengers and vehicles exist, but generally, the fare is $1 for walk-on passenger (roundtrip) and $4 for a regular vehicle (roundtrip).

In 2001, a “20-Year Plan, Phase I Charrette Report” was prepared to evaluate the future of the service. Briefly, the report concluded that the service was beginning to get overloaded. Even though the vessel and terminals were in fairly good shape, planning should begin immediately to find replacement funding and operational improvements.

Skagit County – Guemes Island Ferry

The Public Works Department of Skagit County operates an auto/passenger ferry between Anacortes and Guemes Island. The service utilizes the M/V Guemes, a vessel that was built in 1979. It can carry 99 passengers and 22 cars the 0.7 mile distance across the channel. The service takes approximately 20 minutes and generally runs from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM weekdays, with later hours on the weekends. Fares vary depending on the season, but during the off summer season, walk on passengers pay $1.50 and a regular auto with driver pays $5.75. (School children use the ferry daily for free). Many variations in fare for size of vehicle, time of year and multiple trips exist. The fare is collected on the outbound trip from Anacortes only. In 2000 the ferry carried 106,410 various vehicles with drivers and 86,862 walk-on passengers. Like most systems on the sound there is a “strong seasonal peak” in ridership in the summer months. Over the past 25 years the ridership has grown by an average of over 4% per year. Private Service Several private providers operate ferries on the North Sound. Many of these operations are seasonal and geared to the summer months. Whale watching and tourist cruises are most common, and some trips to Victoria, BC pass through the San Juan Islands. The “San Juan Island Commuter” serves the Bellingham to Friday Harbor route with intermediate “flag” stops on a scheduled basis during the summer months. This particular service will be discussed later in the report. Several private providers hold WUTC certificates for service that is operated by other private operators, (by lease or other mechanism), operated as “parts” of other service, or are operated only sporadically. Though this process is somewhat confusing, the main objective is to hold on to valuable rights to operate. Importantly, private operators may hold certificates (the “operating rights”) for part or all of the service that will be suggested in the next chapter. Any new public entity initiating these new services may have to pursue one of several actions; negotiate with the certificate holder to operate the service, buy out their right to operate that service, or possibly condemn their certificate (paying them for its value). These issues may require further investigation and legal review depending on decisions reached regarding any new operating entity, routes and service.



III. Current Travel Patterns and Estimated Ridership This feasibility study for a new Passenger Only Ferry (POF) grew out of need for greater connectivity between the communities of the San Juan Islands, Northwest Washington State, and Canada. Since new ferry service will be costly to implement, it will only be feasible if it can be demonstrated to have reasonably high ridership throughout the operating season. There are three main questions which must be answered as part of any feasibility study:

1. Who will ride the ferries 2. How many people will there be? 3. What times of the day/year will they ride?

The first step in estimating ridership is to look at existing travel patterns within the region. We can then use these numbers as a guide to estimate how many people could be expected to ride on future routes. Possible Future Routes This report divides routes into 4 categories:

1. Primary Routes a. Bellingham to Friday Harbor b. Bellingham-La Conner-Oak Harbor-Mukilteo – (Seattle)

2. Secondary Routes a. San Juan Circulator b. Bellingham-via Gooseberry Pt. – Pt. Roberts – Blaine c. Mukilteo-Edmonds-Seattle

3. Future Routes a. Seattle to Des Moines b. Friday Harbor to Edmonds c. Primary Route 2 to Everett

4. Bartwood and Canadian Service a. San Juan Islands to Vancouver Island b. Circulator Extension to Bartwood Lodge, Orcas Island

Therefore, we are interested primarily in the amount of people who travel between the following cities and counties:



Exhibit 1: Cities and Counties Included in Proposed Routes

Ridership Methodology A feasibility study would ideally include a detailed origin-destination (O-D) survey to accurately capture the travel characteristics between the above communities, including mode, purpose of trip, and time of trip. Certainly, an investment grade survey of this sort will be required before any major capital investment can be made into the ferry system.

City County City County

Bellingham Whatcom Friday Harbor San JuanBellingham Whatcom La Conner SkagitBellingham Whatcom Oak Harbor IslandBellingham Whatcom Mukilteo SnohomishBellingham Whatcom Seattle KingLa Conner Skagit Oak Harbor IslandLa Conner Skagit Mukilteo SnohomishLa Conner Skagit Seattle KingOak Harbor Island Mukilteo SnohomishOak Harbor Island Seattle KingMukilteo Snohomish Seattle King

Friday Harbor San Juan Other Islands San JuanBellingham Whatcom Blaine Whatcom

Bellingham WhatcomGoosberry Pt, Pt Robert Whatcom

Mukilteo Snohomish Seattle KingMukilteo Snohomish Edmonds SnohomishEdmonds Snohomish Seattle King

Seattle King Des Moines KingPort Townsend Jefferson Seattle KingFriday Harbor San Juan Seattle KingFriday Harbor San Juan Edmonds SnohomishBellingham Whatcom Everett Snohomish

Friday Harbor San Juan Vancouver Island Canada

Friday Harbor San JuanBartwood Lodge, Orcas island San Juan

Origin Destination

Primary Routes

Secondary Routes

Future Routes

Bartwood and Canadian Service

Proposed/Possible Stops



A survey of this magnitude is not included in the scope of this report. Instead, various sources of information were used to assemble ridership data.

Census 2000 Journey to Work data Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Rider Segment Report 2000-2004 Implementation Plan: Passenger-Only Ferry Program, Washington State

Transportation Commission Dec. 1993 Washington State Ferries 1999 Travel Survey Draft Analysis and Results Report

Each source provided different information of relevance to estimating ferry ridership. It is also important to note that all of our estimates were extremely conservative and highly restrained. In reality, ridership could be significantly higher than those projected in this chapter. Census 2000 Data The 2000 Census collected “Journey to Work” data to assess commuting patterns across the United States. Since the data was collected at a county level, (as opposed to at a city level), the table in exhibit 1 was altered to show county to county flows, producing exhibit 2. Exhibit 2: Proposed Route County to County Worker Flows

Proposed/Possible Stops

Origin County

Destination County # Commuters

Origin County

Destination County # Commuters

Primary Routes Whatcom San Juan 82 San Juan Whatcom 0 Whatcom Skagit 3,005 Skagit Whatcom 1,848 Whatcom Snohomish 898 Snohomish Whatcom 484 Whatcom Island 247 Island Whatcom 211 Whatcom King 1,239 King Whatcom 311 Skagit Island 958 Island Skagit 2,094 Skagit Snohomish 4,447 Snohomish Skagit 2,265 Skagit King 1,689 King Skagit 566 Island Snohomish 5,021 Snohomish Island 510 Island King 2,152 King Island 358 Snohomish King 103,334 King Snohomish 30,951 Total Commuters 162,670

Secondary Routes San Juan San Juan 5,951 San Juan Skagit 63 Skagit San Juan 110 Whatcom Whatcom 72,084 Snohomish King 103,334 King Snohomish 30,951 Snohomish Snohomish 188,327



Total Commuters 400,820 Future Routes

King King 849,709 Jefferson King 424 King Jefferson 71 San Juan King 173 King San Juan 61 Island Snohomish 5,022 Snohomish Island 510 San Juan Snohomish 15 Snohomish San Juan 56 Total Commuters 856,041

Bartwood and Canadian Service San Juan Canada 26 Canada San Juan N/A San Juan San Juan 5,951 Total Commuters 5,977 Total of All County Flows 1,425,508

* Source: Census 2000

These figures provide an indication of the amount of people who commute daily between counties included in this feasibility analysis. They are “one-way” figures, taken from a morning journey to work survey. It could be expected that most people traveling one-way in the morning will at some point travel in the reverse direction. On Washington State Ferries, roughly 75% of people who commute one-way in the morning make the return trip on the same day.1 Using this percentage for our service raises the number of trips from 1.43 million to 2.5 million. Simplifying the above chart yields the following information:

Exhibit 3: County to County Worker Flows Simplified

Commuters will not be the only people taking the ferry. In fact, WSF statistics show that commuters only make up 33% of ferry travelers. Therefore, it is reasonable and conservative to estimate that a full 40% more trips can be added to this worker flows to estimate non-work travel demand. Adding those figures to this chart raises the total trips/day on the ferries to almost 3.5 million trips.

1 WSF 1999 Travel Survey DRAFT Analysis and Results Report

Route Commuters/Day Trips/DayPrimary Routes 162,670 284,673Secondary Routes 400,820 701,435Future Routes 856,041 1,498,072Bartwood and Canadian Service 5,977 10,460All 1,425,508 2,494,639

Total Existing Commuters/ Day



Exhibit 4: County to County All Passenger Flows Simplified

At least some of these trips can be expected to be captured by a new passenger-only ferry service. Using other sources of information will help to determine how many could be expected on each route, as well as predict if there will be seasonally variations throughout the year. Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics 2000 -2004 The Washington State Ferries (WSF) maintains the largest ferry system in the Puget Sound Region. 10 routes operate daily, carrying passengers and vehicles between roughly 25 different terminals. For some routes, such as the San Juan Islands to Anacortes route, the ferry offers the most important transportation link to the mainland for residents, employees, and visitors alike. Over 26 million passengers currently use this service every year.2 The new routes being examined in this study do not correspond exactly to existing WSF routes. However, they would operate on routes that are somewhat supplemental and complementary to the WSF service. The additional service would offer ferry users a greater variety of stops and a higher frequency of service than the WSF service alone. It could therefore be expected that some of the foot only passenger service currently using the WSF ferries would prefer to switch to these smaller, quicker boats. The WSF keeps detailed ridership statistics, including monthly and yearly “foot passenger” statistics for each route. These numbers are taken directly from ticket sales, and are therefore highly accurate. Routes with influence on NSCCP Ferry routes are listed in exhibit 4. Also listed in exhibit 4 are the four year (2000 – 2003) averages of ridership statistics on each of the routes:

2 Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Rider Segment Report. Retrieved from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/pdf/2001_ops_report/03_routes_schedules_&_ridership.pdf

Route Commuters/Day All Trips/Day Trips/DayPrimary Routes 162,670 227,738 398,542Secondary Routes 400,820 561,148 982,009Future Routes 856,041 1,198,457 2,097,300Bartwood and Canadian Service 5,977 8,368 14,644All 1,425,508 1,995,711 3,492,495

Total Existing Commuters/ Day



Exhibit 5: WSF Routes Effected by New POF service

These numbers are another ridership indicator that should be considered in our estimates. Washington State Ferries Seasonal Variation The WSF data also reveals a seasonal variation that is somewhat consistent between all routes. As Exhibit 5 shows, ridership on all routes begins to trend upwards in March-April, peaking in June, July and August before declining into the autumn months. This seasonality is an indicator of what seasonal variations we could expect in new POF routes serving the same areas.

Exhibit 6: Seasonal Variation in WSF Routes of Interest

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarch April

MayJu

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

November

Decem

ber

2000 Anacortes - Lopez

2000 Anacortes - SanJuans

2000 Mukilteo - Clinton

2000 Pt Tow nsend -Keystone

2000 Anacortes - BC

2000 Island circulator - BC

WSF Route Effected NSCCP Route Route Category 4 Year AverageAnacortes - Lopez Friday Harbor - Bellingham Primary 43,180Anacortes - San Juans Friday Harbor - Bellingham Primary 315,815Mukilteo - Clinton Oak Harbor - Mukilteo Primary 527,714Pt Townsend - Keystone

Friday Harbor - Port Townsend - Edmonds Future 104,503

Anacortes - BC Anacortes-San Juans-BC Future 18,485Island circulator - BC Anacortes-San Juans-BC Future 6,644



POF Ferry Implementation Plan Washington State Transportation Commission Though “The Ferry Implementation” Plan focused on two routes not included in this study (Vashon – Bremerton – Seattle and Kingston-Southworth-Seattle), it still contains information pertinent to this report. Most important is its statements about POF service as a Transportation Demand Management Mechanism. The report concludes that POF ridership demand is generated by 4 groups:

1. Riders transferring from the auto ferries (61%) 2. Existing POF riders (17%) 3. Induced new riders (18%) 4. Riders transferring from longer, road-based commute (4%)

These percentages were calculated from data received from shipboard surveys, driver surveys, and existing ferry ridership statistics. We can assume that the ridership profile of the POF service discussed in this report would break down into similar percentages. The Ferry Implementation Plan goes on to say that “adding passenger only ferry service…will change travel behavior, and encourage individuals to leave their cars at home for commute trips”.3 We could assume that this same behavioral change might be expected to occur on any new North Sound Passenger Only Ferry Service. Washington State Ferries 1999 Travel Survey Draft Analysis and Results Report of this report details the ridership qualities of the Anacortes to San Juan WSF route. Several finding of this chapter have bearing on ridership projections for the Friday Harbor – Bellingham route. Trip Purpose Distribution The detailed trip purpose and frequency calculations included in the draft analysis will help to predict peak hour travel demand. This will ensure that any proposed ferry schedule has enough capacity to handle peak- hour loads. “Capacity” in ferry service can refer to both the size of the vessel and the frequency of service. Below is a breakdown of current WSF ridership into three major “purpose” categories: Exhibit 7: Trip purpose distribution for San Juan – Anacortes 3 POF Program Implementation Plan, Washington State

Purpose PercentageWork/School Business related 32.9%Medical Appt./Personal Business/Other 29.6%Social/Recreational/Shopping/Sight-Seeing 37.5%Total 100.0%

Trip Purpose Distribution: Anacortes - San Juan Islands



This balanced trip purpose distribution means that travel times will also be distributed evenly. Transportation systems must be designed to accommodate peak hour travel. In transit systems, this often results in systems that are full during the morning and evening peak commuting hours, but empty for large portions of the day. The fact that on the WSDOT Ferries, only 33% of trips are for business signifies that the majority (67%) are free to travel during hours outside of morning and evening peak commuting hours. This helps to distribute hours and reduces the maximum capacity that must be built into the ferry system. Waiting Time Also interesting to note is the waiting time (time wasted) for walk-on versus drive- on ferry passengers. While 71% of walk-on riders spent 30 minutes or less waiting to board a ferry, 35% of vehicle –bound passengers waited 31-60 minutes, 13% waited 61-90 minutes, and 8% waited more than 90 minutes to board. This advantage of time saved could be instrumental in enticing people to ride the North Sound POF system. Predicting Ridership on New Routes Some preliminary ridership estimates can be made from the data summarized in the previous pages. These numbers are estimates based on available data, and are being included for illustrative purposes. An investment grade ridership survey would be required before moving into the capital investment stage. Primary Routes Minimum ranges for POF ridership were created from the Census data and WSF data explained above. Census Data Calculations For the Friday Harbor – Bellingham route, it would be expected that new ferry service would attract at least 50% of people traveling from San Juan County to Whatcom County, and 50% of people traveling from San Juan County to Skagit County. It could also capture 50% of the “other” (I.e. non-work) trips to both locations. These percentages are justified by the lack of transportation alternatives for traveling to and from San Juan County. A new, faster service such as the suggested Route 1 could attract a large percentage of all travel to and from San Juan County. It has also been suggested that improved access to the Bellingham Airport from the San Juans would also attract ridership.



Exhibit 8: Ridership on Primary Route 1

Category Passengers % Captured by New Ferry Service New Ferry Trips

Commuters: San Juan - Whatcom County 82 50% 72

Commuters: San Juan - Skagit County 173 50% 151

Other Trip Purposes 128 50% 112

Total Daily Ridership 263

Friday Harbor - Bellingham Route Ridership

For the Bellingham to Mukilteo route, the existing range transportation options means that a lower percentage of travelers would initially switch to a POF. However, the larger number of travelers means that even a very conservative 5% capture rate (used in exhibit 9) by the new POF would yield a very large pool of potential ferry riders:

Exhibit 9: Ridership on Primary Route 2

Category Commuters % Captured by New Ferry Service New Ferry Trips

Total Daily Commuters 162,588 5% 14,226

Other Trip Purposes 81,294 5% 7,113Total Daily Ridership 21,340

Bellingham - Mukilteo - Seattle Route Ridership

Another method of estimating ridership comes from the WSF data. As a new, faster, and possibly more direct option, it can be expected that POF service would attract some riders from the WSF system. As shown in exhibit 7, even a very conservative 10% capture rate yields considerable ridership on the primary routes.

Exhibit 10: Passengers switching from the WSF to POF

Category Ridership% Captured by New

Ferry ServiceNew Ferry

RidersDaily Ferry

TripsBellingham - Mukilteo 527,714 10% 52,771 257Friday Harbor - Bellingham 358,995 10% 35,900 175Total 886,709 10% 88,671 431

Primary Route Ridership

A range of minimum estimates can be generalized from these two methods. These numbers represent a very conservative estimate of the minimum total pool of ferry riders. It is entirely possible that real ridership would be significantly more than these minimum values.



Exhibit 11: Minimum Ridership Ranges The somewhat low numbers for Friday Harbor – Bellingham are due to two major factors:

1. Lack of census origin-destination data 2. The lack of existing ferry service by which to predict future ridership

In reality, evidence for support of a POF service on this route is strong. A poll completed this summer by two online San Juan County journals reported that an overwhelming majority of respondents (181 out of 225, or 80.4%) said that they would ride a POF service from Friday Harbor to Bellingham4. This suggests that a larger poll would reflect a larger amount of “yes” votes, and a larger amount of riders. The minimum ranges offered above are highly constrained, conservative, minimum estimates. They are the best analysis that can be done with the available data. A detailed ridership survey of the inhabitants of the San Juan Islands and Bellingham would doubtless produce more reliable and possibly different numbers. Secondary and Future Routes Estimates from Census and WSF ridership using the methodology described above yields the following minimum ranges:

Exhibit 12: Minimum Ridership per Day on Secondary Routes

4 “Poll: Respondents Support San Juan – Bellingham Ferry”, retrieved from www.sanjuanjournal.com

Route Min. Daily RidershipFriday Harbor - Bellingham 175 - 263

Bellingham - Mukilteo 257 - 21,340

Minimum Ridership: Primary Routes

Route Minimum Daily RidershipSan Juan Island Circulator 625Friday Harbor - Anacortes 53Mukilteo - Seattle 17,625Bellingham - Pt Roberts, Blaine 3,784

Minimum Ridership



Exhibit 13: Minimum Ridership per Day on Future Routes

Conclusions Minimum ridership estimates for new North Sound ferry routes were derived from Census data, WSF ferry data, and two previous ferry ridership reports. Even under the most conservative conditions, all of the primary, secondary, and future routes produced a decent level of ridership. This would indicate that there is demand for POF service in the North Sound. Several other Puget Sound ferry characteristics will probably apply to any new POF routes, including:

An equal trip purpose distribution between work, leisure, and personal business- ensuring that time of travel is spread throughout the day

It is possible that 60% of passengers on a new ferry would be transferring from a vehicle/passenger ferry, while 20% might be induced to travel by ferry because of the new service

This modal switching to walk-on status might be caused by decreased average waiting time for walk-on versus drive-on passengers

We can expect some seasonality on all ferry routes, basically peaking through the April – August months

Most importantly, a more detailed, investment-grade survey and analysis should be completed prior to any conclusive recommendations or capital investment. This survey would include a fare sensitivity analysis to determine the correct fare structure to ensure maximum ridership and maximum farebox recovery for POF service in the North Sound.

Route Minimum Daily RidershipSeattle to Des Moines 44,610Friday Harbor - Edmonds 22 - 290

Minimum Ridership



IV. Suggested Passenger Ferry Routes and Schedules Primary Routes A map of routes and terminals discussed in this section is included as the next page. Primary routes are shown in red, Secondary routes are shown in blue, and Future routes and extensions are shown in green. There are also several potential terminal stops that are depicted in purple. A case for the addition of these purple “potential” service stops may be made either as additions in the future, or to bolster ridership and appeal from the initiation of service. It should be noted however, that the schedules included later in this section do not include service to these potential stops. Their addition could add as much as fifteen minutes each to the schedules depicted. There are several techniques to serve these potential stops if, and when, they are added to service:

They could be added to existing routes and schedules as new terminal stop additions

They could replace original stops They could also be added to the schedules as “alternate stops”, and only be

serviced by every other route run.



Route 1 – Bellingham / Friday Harbor

Route Length: 26.6 nautical miles Route Time: 55 minutes Fare: $5-$15 one way

This route is presently operated by a private provider from roughly May through September. It is primarily aimed at serving tourism to the San Juan Islands in the summer months. Later in this report we will discuss public-private partnerships and the possibility of a public operating entity contracting the operation of these passenger ferry routes to private operators. Presently, Island Mariner, Inc. is registered with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and is doing business as the “San Juan Island Commuter” and/or the “Victoria San Juan Cruises”. It operates service primarily during the summer months from Bellingham to Friday Harbor. It also provides “flag stop” service (reservations are required) to several islands along the way. Daily service to Eliza, Sinclair, Blakely and Lopez Islands is offered. Lopez Island has public services such as parks, but Eliza, Sinclair and Blakely Islands are residential islands without public services, accommodations or parks and to stop there you must either own property or know and be visiting someone on these islands. The suggested route configuration would operate year-round with a high-speed (35 + knot/40+ MPH), multi-hull, low wash vessel. The boat would carry between fifty and eighty passengers. There are at least three manufacturers in the Puget Sound region that presently manufacture such vessels. The route would be served by two vessels, initially operating on the following schedule:

AM: Friday Harbor to Bellingham = 2 runs Bellingham to Friday Harbor = 1 run PM: Bellingham to Friday Harbor = 2 runs Friday Harbor to Bellingham = 1 run

As an economic concern, the service could be limited to five weekdays per week, but ideally the service would be provided on weekends as well. Weekend times and frequencies could be adjusted to match demand. An initial schedule could be as follows:



Friday Harbor - Bellingham Weekday Schedule

Leave Arrive AM Friday Harbor Bellingham 7:00 AM 7:55 AM 8:00 AM 8:55 AM Bellingham Friday Harbor 8:30 AM 9:25 AM PM Friday Harbor Bellingham 5:00 PM 5:55 PM Bellingham Friday Harbor 5:00 PM 5:55 PM 6:25 PM 7:20 PM

The route is 26.6 nautical miles (nm) in length, and without intermediate stops would be expected to take 55 minutes. In Friday Harbor the terminal is expected to be the existing passenger dock used by the Victoria Clipper. In Bellingham, the ultimate destination would be a new ferry terminal in the redeveloped Georgia Pacific site. In the interim, service would terminal at the “International dock” at the south side of the Port of Bellingham property. At both terminal sites, park’n’ride lots, transit service and waiting facilities would have to be provided. Present passenger fares on the Washington State Ferry service from Anacortes to Friday Harbor run from a low of $4 for seniors, non-peak, to a high of $11.40 regular fare in the peak. Private service now charges $39 round trip adult regular fare when operating. It is assumed that fares could average between $5 to $15 regular fare, one way for a new passenger ferry service. A study commissioned by the Port of Bellingham (“Foot Passenger Ferry Service Feasibility Study, Bellingham-Point Roberts-Friday Harbor” July 1995) concluded that “very little commuter use on any of the links is expected”. However, these comments were made while assuming the use of larger and slower vessels, the use of the Fairhaven terminal site, existing state law, and existing development patterns and pressures. All of these contexts have changes over time, though it is unknown if they have changed enough to affect the ridership potential. Route 2 – Bellingham / La Conner / Oak Harbor / Mukilteo

Route Length: 57 nautical miles Route Time: 2hr 20 minutes

Fare: $15 to $20 one way No service presently exists on this route. The suggested route configuration would operate with a high-speed (35 + knot), multi-hull, low wash vessel. The boat would carry between fifty and eighty passengers.



The route would be served by two vessels, operating initially on the schedule below:

AM: Bellingham to Mukilteo (Seattle)= 2 runs PM: Mukilteo (Seattle) to Bellingham = 2 runs

At first, there would be no return trips from Mukilteo to Bellingham in the AM. Only afternoon trips northbound from Mukilteo to Bellingham would be scheduled. The service could operate five weekdays per week, but ideally would also operate a weekend schedule. Weekend times and frequencies could be adjusted to match demand. (Perhaps one boat daily) The service would operate the total 57nm route on a two hour and thirty minute schedule, (2:30) one-way, using the same downtown Bellingham terminal as Route 1. Presently there is no Sound Transit commuter rail service stop at Mukilteo, although it is anticipated and would probably be in service for the initiation of passenger ferry service. Currently, there are only three trains per day from Mukilteo to downtown Seattle. (One Sound Transit “Sounder” train and two Amtrak trains) More would be anticipated by the start of ferry service, although this schedule does not intermesh with those arrivals.

Bellingham - Mukilteo (Seattle) Mukilteo (Seattle) - Bellingham Leave Arrive Leave Arrive AM Bellingham Northern Lts. Cas. PM Seattle Mukilteo 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 3:00 PM 3:40 PM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 5:30 PM 6:10 PM Northern Lts. Cas. La Conner Mukilteo Oak Harbor 7:35 AM 8:05 3:45 PM 4:35 PM 9:05 AM 9:35 6:15 PM 7:05 PM La Conner Oak Harbor Oak Harbor La Conner 8:10 AM 8:35 4:40 PM 5:05 PM 9:40 AM 10:05 7:10 PM 7:35 PM Oak Harbor Mukilteo La Conner Northern Lts Cas. 8:40 AM 9:30 5:10 PM 5:40 PM 10:10 AM 11:00 7:40 PM 8:10 PM Mukilteo/ Edmonds Seattle Northern Lts. Cas. Bellingham 9:35 AM 10:15 5:45 PM 6:15 PM 11:05 AM 11:45 AM 8:15 PM 8:45 PM



The possible schedule times have also been added to this route to depict an immediate extension of this service from Mukilteo on to Seattle (shown in grey). An additional running time of 40 minutes would be added to the schedule to cover the 28nm to Seattle. A total of four vessels would be needed to operate these two primary schedules. Enough “slack” or “down time” exists in the schedules to at least initially allow for service and maintenance time. If weekday schedules were expanded, or weekend service added, a “spare” vessel should be added to the fleet. Missed runs and schedule interruptions and consequent rider dissatisfaction would be avoided. Secondary Routes Three secondary, supporting routes are suggested as possible routes for passenger ferry service in the North Sound. Each would add an additional vessel to the fleet needed to operate the Primary routes outlined. Route 1 – San Juan Circulator

Route Length: 30 nautical miles Route Time: 1hr 30 minutes Fare: $5 This route would operate on a daily schedule circulating between Anacortes, Friday Harbor, two stops on Lopez Island, Rosario, Shaw, and Orcas, before returning to Friday Harbor. This is a distance of some 30 nm, meaning with five-minute stops, a 35 knot vessel could complete this circuit in about an hour and a half. If a connection to Anacortes were added, the deviation would add approximately 20 round trip nautical miles to the circulator, for a total schedule “run” time of about two hours with stops. For calculation purposes only the route was assumed to proceed in a “counter-clockwise” route among the terminal stops. This circulator schedule could consist of four to six roundtrips per weekday, coordinating with arrival and departure times to Bellingham. These calculations bring into question the needed capabilities of a circulator vessel. Many of the island stops are two an a half to four nautical miles apart, hardly enough time for a 35 knot vessel to attain top speed. Still, to keep the fleet uniform, minimize shore wake disturbance within the islands, and to serve the longer segments to Rosario and Anacortes, using the same vessel used for other routes and service is suggested. If a spare vessel was available to serve the primary route schedules, it might only be necessary to have one additional vessel to operate this service. Future stops for the circulator could also include Bartwood Lodge, (on the north end of Orcas) Roche Harbor and possibly other “out” islands. No specific route or schedule has been developed. No fare level has been suggested.



Route 2 – Bellingham-via Gooseberry Pt. / Pt. Roberts / Blaine

Route Length: 65 nautical miles Route Time: 2 hours Fare: $5 to $10, depending on length of trip This route would connect Bellingham, the Lummi Island ferry dock at Gooseberry Point, to Point Roberts and Blaine. No set schedule or route is suggested. For calculation purposes a “clockwise” route was assumed; Bellingham to Gooseberry, to Pt. Roberts, to Blaine, back to Gooseberry. This route covers approximately 65 nm, and with stops could operate on a two hour schedule. The segment of route from Pt. Roberts to Blaine is approximately 12 nm, and could be served in approximately 20 minutes. The route could be reversed in the PM to serve school trips from Blaine to Pt. Roberts. The route could also serve stops at Semiahmoo, Whiterock, BC and Cherry Point. One additional vessel could operate three to four round trips per day. No specific route or schedule has been developed. No fare level has been suggested. Route 3 - Mukilteo / Edmonds / Seattle This route would be an extension of Primary Route 2, and would continue from Mukilteo to Seattle. An additional stop at Edmonds would allow connection to Kingston via the WSF regular service. A possible schedule for this service has been added to the Primary Route 2 schedule. No separate specific route or schedule has been developed. Unless operated as a separate service, this extension could use vessels assigned to the Primary Route 2 service. These secondary routes would require two additional vessels. If both the Primary and Secondary routes were in operation, a “spare” vessel would be needed to assure stable operation. Future Routes Route 1 – Seattle / Des Moines

Route Length: 17 nautical miles Route Time: 30 minutes Fare: $5 (additional) This route could be an extension to all routes that reach Seattle. It could first stop in Seattle then proceed to Des Moines, or by-pass Seattle and proceed directly to Des Moines. It operates over 17nm and could add 30 minutes to any schedule, or operate on an hourly round trip schedule from Seattle. Though this would increase total trip time, no additional vessel would be needed for this service, however schedules, and possibly total roundtrips possible per day would have to be adjusted. No specific schedule has been developed for this “extension”.



Route 2 – Friday Harbor / Edmonds

Route Length: 70 nautical miles Route Time: 2 hrs Fare: $25 to $35 This route would be regularly scheduled service between Friday Harbor and Edmonds. It would be required to coordinate between the proposed Bellingham/ Friday Harbor route and the San Juan Circulator to take advantage of their “feeder” possibilities. The route could also coordinate with the Sound Transit Commuter Rail service to downtown Seattle and with the Bellingham /Mukilteo (Seattle) route to provide several possibilities to reach Seattle directly. This route would directly connect both Seattle and Friday Harbor. Intermediate stops would be beneficial to assist in increasing total ridership of this route. With a minor deviation the route could stop at Port Townsend and thus provide a direct connection from the Islands to the Olympic Peninsula as well as another connection from the mainland. This route covers 56nm one way between Friday Harbor and Edmonds, 70nm to Seattle. The Friday Harbor/Seattle trip would require a 2 hours one-way schedule, and might be able to complete two round trips per day. One additional vessel, minimum, would need to be added to the fleet to operate this service. Because of the length, and the “open water” nature of this route, another “spare” vessel might have to be added to the fleet. Additionally, a larger (149 passenger) vessel might be considered and evaluated for this route to provide a more stable and comfortable ride while crossing the open waters of the North Sound. No specific schedule or fare level has been suggested. Depending on the schedule and stops, two vessels might be needed. Route 3 – San Juan Islands / Vancouver Island, Canada. (Sidney, BC) This route would mimic present State service and may not be acceptable as competition. It has been included for future consideration at the request of San Juan County representatives. This route might originate in Bellingham; proceed to Friday Harbor where customs and immigration could process, then on to Sidney or another Canadian port. Incoming US customs and immigration could also occur in Friday Harbor. An additional vessel would be needed to provide this service Route 4 – Primary Route 2 to Everett. The addition or “deviation” to Primary Route 2 would send all or some of the Bellingham – La Conner – Oak Harbor – Mukilteo “runs” to Everett instead of Mukilteo. This could become an intermediate stop or an “every-other-run” option. It would add 1.5nm to each trip. Not schedule modifications have been calculated, and it appears that no additional vessel would be needed.



V. Passenger Ferry - Operational Plan Any new POF service in the North Sound should be implemented conservatively. Service initiation should be incremented in manageable pieces to gauge reaction, verify ridership and assess benefits. The two “Primary Routes” suggested in Section IV could be started with weekday service only. Once capital infrastructure is in place, weekend service can be easily added for just the incremental cost of operations. Additional weekday service, other than one possible later run in the day, would require additional vessels. This section will focus on the suggested Primary Routes. It will:

Suggest vessels; identify their operating characteristics and potential cost. Further identify terminal areas Outline expected development costs and auxiliary support requirements like

park’n’ride lots and transit feeder service. Forecast operating costs and address maintenance and service needs for the

vessel fleet. Aggregate these costs to identify the financial requirements to initiate such a

system. Though the Secondary and Future Route suggestions will be examined, complete capital and operating forecasts for those routes will not be produced. Suitable used vessels might be purchased to start the service. However, even though this would reduce initial start up costs, this strategy might not be best for success in the long run. A uniform fleet would have better marketing appeal, be less costly to maintain, be more fuel efficient (lowering operating cost) and because of evolving design, provide for lower shoreline wake impact. This last fact is very important given suggested routes’ proximity to shoreline communities and recent WA State experience with shoreline erosion with high speed passenger ferries. Only a general specification for a vessel fleet will be suggested in this report. A specific vessel specification would need to be developed once agreement on regional funding and service implementation has been reached. A decision regarding vessel size and capacity is vital. A smaller vessel costs less, requires less crew, and is more and fuel efficient. A larger vessel is more stable and will provide a more comfortable ride in the sometimes rough North Sound. The theory suggested here is that it is better to have more, smaller vessels operating more frequently. A different case might be made however, for each of the terminal sites suggested. Some of the terminal sites presently serve passenger ferry vessels. Many of the sites have minimal facilities. Some others might require extensive improvement. Fortunately, several are in the process of renovations or improvements. The advent of this type of service has elicited promises that compatible additions or modifications will be made. It is suggested that terminal site development proceed in a “utilitarian” manner. That strategy would urge that terminal sites “make do” with what can be “borrowed, begged or scrounged” and as ridership materializes and improves, continual upgrades can be planned and occur.



This analysis will calculate operating expenses for labor based on each vessel needing a two-person crew and adequate staff for service and maintenance. However, it should be assumed that one operating scenario is that the service, including the management, operations, maintenance, service and administrative staff, could all be contracted from, and provided by, a private sector provider. Some management and administrative cost would be incurred by an operating entity. Capital Costs – Vessels The following three pages provide information, pictures and some operating data for the type of vessel suggested for this service. Each is manufactured by one of three different shipyards here in the Puget Sound. They are vessels with many of the same operating characteristics and are relatively the same initial cost.

Nichols Brothers Boat Builders Freeland, Washington 18m Catamaran Ferry

This design is one of many that Nichols Brothers can manufacture.

Base price $2,575,000 Loaded speed 30 knots 50-70 passengers Waterjet propulsion 57.4’ length, 17.8’ beam, 2’ draft Fuel use - 67 gal. /hr.

Nichols Brothers also has a similar 72’ Catamaran Ferry that carries 167 passengers but only has a 22 knot speed for $2.3 M.



All American Marine, Inc. Bellingham, Washington 62’ Teknicraft Catamaran

All American has made several high speed vessels like the one shown below. They are presently manufacturing a 149 passenger vessel for demonstration in 2005 on the Seattle/Bremerton passenger ferry route. The specific vessel reviewed below is presently used in the summer months for passenger ferry service in Alaska, and was used in 2002 in demonstration service between Seattle and Port Townsend.

Base price $1,900,000 Top speed 50 knots, cruise 40 knots 63 passengers Waterjet propulsion 62’ length, 22’ beam, 3‘ draft. Fuel use – 80 gal. /hr. (@ 40knot cruising speed)

This vessel is the fastest suggested here!



Kvichak Marine Industries

Seattle, Washington 64’ Passenger Ferry

Kvichak also manufactures several designs, including hovercraft and larger “jet-cat” vessels. This design is presently used by Long Beach Transit (CA) in daily “AquaLink” passenger ferry service.

Base Price $1,800,000 Cruise speed 30 knots 75 passengers Prop driven 64’11” length, 24’ beam, 4’6” draft Fuel use - 45 gal. /hr.

Formal specifications and bidding would be the only way to determine a sure acquisition cost for vessels like these. For purposes of this analysis we have assumed vessels for this service can be acquired for $2M each.



Capital Cost – Terminals One advantage of using smaller vessels is that they are more likely to be able to use existing terminal/docking facilities. Many of these facilities exist around the Sound, and even though some are private facilities, it can be anticipated that some of these private owners may allow public use of their facility because of the development potential of increased foot traffic. Others may wish to charge use fees. Excessive use fees or opposition can be answered with flexibility in either moving the terminal site or eliminating the stop. Many of the suggested terminal locations are presently public facilities, and a few are either under construction or renovation and have indicated a desire to become passenger ferry facilities. Appendix C of this report contains information pages on each suggested terminal site. Photographs, nautical charts and local area road maps are included for each site. Each site will eventually need passenger waiting areas, park’n’ride facilities and transit feeder service. Many of the suggested terminal facilities are either on or near current transit service. Past experience in park‘n’ride facility design for transit use allows us to predict that the average construction cost for curbed, paved and landscaped surface parking is $5,000 per space. Land acquisition costs vary by location and can be at a premium in urban areas or close to the water. 100 spaces require an acre of land, and that acre can range from several hundred thousand dollars to well over $1M in cost. Again, we urge a utilitarian pragmatism; graveled, unfinished lots may be all that is necessary to start a service with finished formal lots being added later. For this analysis we can assume an average cost of $750,000 for a “finished” park’n’ride lot. Passenger waiting facilities should include covered, heated waiting areas and minimum service storage facilities for vessel supplies. Beyond that, other amenities can be included over time. Many of the facilities we suggest for terminal areas do or will include minimal passenger facilities. Added amenities could include restrooms, beverage or food services, news and magazine sales, dry cleaning and laundry and even child day care facilities. (These could be provided by private vendors at a profit to a ferry operating entity) The incentive for transit to serve passenger ferry facilities is the potential ridership which they should provide. By definition, foot passengers must either walk or bicycle to their connection or destination be picked up by a private vehicle or use transit. As mentioned earlier, many of the terminal sites were chosen for their proximity to existing transit service. We assume that transit authorities would welcome route changes that increase their ridership. In a later chapter, transit authority participation in an operating entity that would actually be responsible for the passenger ferry service will be examined.



Primary Route Terminals When evaluating terminal locations for possible use by a new passenger ferry service it is assumed that such a service would take at least 24 months to implement. As stated earlier, there are some terminal sites that might initially cost nothing at all but the good will and approval of existing owners/users. Incremental development and improvement of terminal sites would be expected to occur over time and with proof of operating success. Route 1 – Bellingham / Friday Harbor

Friday Harbor

Within Friday Harbor, and just to the north of the Washington State ferry dock, is the Port of Friday Harbor facility and passenger ferry dock presently used by the Victoria Clipper. This terminal appears more than adequate for regular passenger ferry service to and from Friday Harbor. There is a covered passenger waiting area scheduled to become fully enclosed. The “Five Year Waterfront Intermodal Transportation Study” of 1998 recommended the use of this dock and one other possible area at the marina for passenger ferry service. One problem however, is that there is a premium on close, all day parking, especially in the busy summer season. Future capital funding could be sought to develop a park’n’ride facility nearby. Depending on the final legal status of a passenger ferry operating entity, federal funding might be possible. A 100 vehicle park’n’ride facility is assumed to cost between $500,000 and $1M. There are at least two public pieces of land relatively close to the Friday Harbor terminal site that could be developed for parking. As part of the above mentioned “Five Year Study” the Inter Agency Committee also identified several “remote holding areas” for possible future use by the WSF, and their desire to plan, fund, and construct an “intermodal terminal site” within the town. Friday Harbor (and San Juan County) has no public transit service, but San Juan Island is served by private transit within short walking distance from the dock in the summer months. The Port’s facility appears to be the ideal place for a terminal. Private operators have in the past been charged per passenger operating fees by the Port for use of their facility, but no such cost has been included in these estimates.

Bellingham Depending upon the configuration of future development, a passenger ferry facility could eventually be included in the Georgia Pacific redevelopment site. A good argument could be made that whatever development is chosen could benefit from a passenger ferry terminal being part of the project. Again, certain categories of federal capital funding might be available for development of a transit terminal and park’n’ride facilities, depending on the structure of a



passenger ferry operating entity, and a ferry parking facility could be part of the total package. In the interim, the passenger ferry service could use the Bellingham Cruise Terminal at Fairhaven. This dock and facility is presently used by the Alaska Marine Highway ferry service. Parking is available, but would be crowded during the peak summer season. WhatcomTransit presently provides service to this site, although a reevaluation may have to occur if the service were to prove popular. This Bellingham site is within a short walk or shuttle ride to the Western Washington University Campus, and also a short ride to major medical facilities. It is directly across from the AMTRAK station.

Both of these sites would need additional development, especially if the service were to become popular and well used. For initial start-up however, pending possible environmental review, new service appears to be able to start immediately. Route 2 – Bellingham / La Conner / Oak Harbor / Mukilteo

Bellingham This location has been discussed above; the same facility would be the end-of-line terminal for this route.

Whitmarsh Junction (Northern Lights Casino)

This site is due east of the present casino site. Initial discussions have occurred with casino management, but only very preliminary contact has occurred with the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and no approval by the tribe for use of this site has occurred. Construction is now underway between the casino and the Swinomish Channel on a major hotel. Additional development of both a water amusement park and pleasure boat marina is slated to occur on southern portions of the site to the RT 20 “Berentson Memorial Bridge”. This site is less than 100 yards south of the existing Burlington Northern “swing” bridge. Almost anywhere along the Channel at this site would provide an excellent passenger ferry terminal site. It is very close to RT 20 which has an excellent highway interchange for easy transit and vehicle access. On weekdays, the casino parking lot might be used for parking and would provide the casino and nearby gas station/convenience store with evening customers. The site is an excellent “intercept” location for travelers from the San Juan Islands, the north end of Whidbey Island and Anacortes. If regional rail service was established on the BNSF tracks north of Everett to Bellingham, the spur crossing the Channel north of the casino could one day serve Anacortes and this site with regional rail service. An existing dock and pilings exist on the Channel, north of the east road from the casino, toward the rail tracks. The top of the dock sits at road level and at low



tide may not provide enough draft for the suggested vessels. This pier structure could be used as a base for a passenger waiting facility, but the need for a new floating dock for an actual passenger ferry dock is likely. This site would need some capital improvements before it could be used on a temporary basis. Floating dock and passenger waiting facility cost is estimated to be $225,000. Future capital funding to assist the tribe in parking lot and marina development might provide incentive for their approval for this terminal site

La Connor

The Town of La Conner is less than four nautical miles south down the Swinomish Channel from RT 20. The Town and its location in the Skagit County region is not expected to generate large passenger volumes. However, vessels must proceed through this channel very slowly, making a stop more feasible. In addition, the town already has public dock facilities. This stop would provide close access for the Swinomish Tribal Community and has a variety of road access points from the eastern County. The La Conner Marina is owned and operated by the Port of Skagit County and has several hundred feet of moorage that runs parallel (N&S) on the east (town) side of the Channel that would make an excellent terminal area. Restaurants shops and public areas abound along the channel, though no formal passenger waiting area exists. Parking is also plentiful along the streets and in several lots, although crowded during tourist events and during the spring and summer months. It is felt that with Town and Port approval, this would make an excellent stop for this route. It could be used immediately “as is”, with other capital improvements implemented as ridership proves significant. No capital costs have been included for any improvements in La Conner at this time.

Oak Harbor Since 1998, the City of Oak Harbor has pursued the planning, design and construction of a waterfront municipal pier at the foot of Dock Street on City owned tidelands. The facility would serve recreational boaters, seaplanes and passenger ferries. In addition to a fixed pier and floating extension, the facility would include parking, a passenger waiting building and a shoreside building with restrooms, food service, additional waiting area, meeting areas and even an interpretive center. Through various grants and local funding ($678K to date) the City has brought the project to almost final approval and is considering a variety of federal, state and local funding to build the facility. (Estimated total cost between $6 and $7M). The facility would be served by Island Transit, and would make an excellent ferry terminal. No further funding beyond the amount projected would be necessary. A passenger ferry service would be expected to participate in the funding for the



“ferry” portion of the facility cost. For planning purposes in this analysis $2 to $3M has been included for a portion of the terminal development.

Mukilteo

The Washington State Ferry system spent $2.2M in the 2001-2003 budget for improvement and preservation work at the Mukilteo ferry terminal. The improvement funds were used for both the relocation of the terminal and inclusion of multimodal facilities. The Cities of Mukilteo and Everett, the Port of Everett, WSDOT and Sound Transit are all presently involved in long-term planning for a dual-slip ferry terminal, a commuter rail station, and multi-modal transportation terminal. A passenger ferry dock and waiting facility would have to be added to any terminal in this area in order to accommodate passenger ferry service. However, this site is close to the center of the Snohomish/Everett industrial and commercial job market. It will also be interconnected with extensive transit and State ferry service, and is thus a desirable passenger ferry terminal site. Design for portions of the improvements are scheduled for completion in 2005 with additional construction scheduled to begin in 2007. Design, permitting and construction of a separate passenger ferry dock and waiting facility at Mukilteo could easily run $3 to $4M. Should passenger ferry service become a reality in the North Sound, inclusion of a terminal at this site would be vital. As an interim terminal, an old boat dock exists at the City Park (Old Lighthouse). It would need extensive renovation and construction in order to serve regular passenger vessels. Depending on its final configuration, parking is also needed at or near the Mukilteo site. Some Community Center and City Park parking is close by, as is limited paid parking. For the long term, a capital cost of $1M+ for a park’n’ride facility could also be expected unless it was included within an overall multi-modal site. Community Transit, Everett Transit and private employer sponsored shuttles serve the existing State ferry terminal dock at Mukilteo. Sound Transit presently has stops at only Everett (end of the line) and at Edmonds. Track improvements to the BNSF railroad will allow the addition of a Commuter rail stop at Mukilteo expected for late 2007. At that time Sound Transit is projecting four trips a day between Seattle and Everett. An alternative terminal for this route could be Edmonds. The present State ferry facility at Edmonds has no ability to dock passenger ferry vessels of the kind suggested for this service. The City of Edmonds, WSDOT and Sound Transit are also presently planning the development of “Edmonds Crossing”, a multi-modal terminal at Point Edwards. This site would be South of the present ferry dock and at the present refinery site, and would accommodate ferry, local and express bus, Sounder Commuter rail, AMTRAK and parking facilities. Although not completely funded at this time, it is expected to be completed within the next 10 to 15 years. Passenger ferry accommodations should be included in this site.



Though Mukilteo and Edmonds are thought to ultimately be excellent passenger ferry terminal sites, until the future multimodal developments are implemented, or temporary terminal sites at these locations are made available, initial passenger ferry service may have to continue on to and terminate at Seattle.

Seattle

Pier 50, south of the Coleman dock (Pier 52) has been the terminus for the passenger ferry service operated by the State ferry system. Presently, only the Seattle/Vashon route operates out of this facility. The private/public passenger ferry service, sponsored by Kitsap Transit (The Kitsap Ferry Company) now operates from pier 56. Importantly, the Pier 50 facility is fully functional, has a passenger waiting area, and is fully accessible to transit, local paid parking and other services. It should be retained and made available for use by non-state passenger ferry providers.

Primary Route - Operating Costs The operating costs discussed here are based on the general schedule suggested for the Primary routes operating weekday service.

Annual Operating Costs: 2004 Dollars Primary Routes 1 & 2: Weekday Service only

Item Costs Transportation $715,000 Maintenance (vessels) $156,500 Fuel (@ $1.50/Gallon) $521,664 Service (vessels) $104,000 Terminal Upkeep and Use Fees $84,000 Insurance $195,000 Management, Admin and General $511,000 Total Annual Cost $2,287,164 Weekend Service $233,139

The costs for the operation and maintenance of vessels could be included in a contract and furnished by a private provider. They are outlined and estimated here for informational purposes and do not include profit for a private provider. The cost to operate four vessels plus one spare vessel includes; wages and benefits for crew, maintenance and supervisory personal, servicing the vessels, fuel, terminal upkeep and possible use fees, insurance and management and administrative costs. Maintenance of the vessels and daily servicing could be included in a service contract provided as



part of a purchase agreement with the vessel builder. Assumptions used in building operating cost projections are provided in Appendix A. Operating costs for weekend service on Primary Routes 1 and 2 have not been fully estimated here. If one were to assume two roundtrips per weekend day between Friday Harbor and Bellingham on Route1, and one roundtrip per weekend day between Bellingham and Seattle on Route 2, those services would add an incremental increase of approximately $233,139 to annual operating costs. That cost would be primarily composed of operating labor (one additional crew), additional fuel, maintenance and vessel service. Secondary Routes – Vessels and Terminals This section will provide a general discussion and overview of the requirements to operate the Secondary route suggestions contained in this analysis. Vessel requirements were discussed earlier within route descriptions, and will be reiterated here. Terminal requirements will be reviewed, but no assumptions of required capital improvement costs will be provided. Route 1- San Juan Circulator This route would require one additional, full-time vessel. Other than at Friday Harbor, dedicated passenger ferry terminals do not exist in consort with State ferry facilities in the islands. However, many private facilities do exist that could well serve as terminals for this service. It is assumed that some dock owners would not welcome such a service; others may decide to allow use for a negotiated fee. The development potential of allowing such service may be a selling point for these private facilities. None of these private owners have been contacted about the use of their facilities. For this route the following terminal sites are suggested;

Friday Harbor – this would operate from the same passenger ferry dock used for the Friday Harbor/ Bellingham service. The Port of Friday Harbor’s terminal to the north of the state ferry dock.

Lopez Island – The state ferry dock has no facility for handling passenger ferries. A small open bay exists immediately to the east of the state dock and water depth there is adequate for a passenger vessel. A new floating dock, a transfer gangway, passenger waiting facility, and access walk would have to be provided.

Lopez Island Village – The west side of the island provides a possible area for an immediate passenger ferry terminal area. Accessed by a channel into Fishermans Bay, both the Islands Marine Center and the Lopez Islander Resort have facilities that could accommodate a passenger vessel.

Shaw Island – Immediately to the east of the state ferry dock is a private marina. Richardson Fuel appears to have the ability to handle a passenger vessel.

Orcas Island – To the West, and immediately adjacent to the present state ferry dock is a private dock, is Island Petroleum Services. This dock is almost a



hundred feet long and is ideal for a passenger ferry terminal. It is a short walking distance to the state dock. At least three other marinas serve the south end of the island and may be available for use as a passenger ferry terminal. The route map also identifies Bartwood lodge on the northern side of the island as a potential, future terminal site.

Rosario – The Rosario Resort could welcome direct passenger ferry service to its facility. Their “excursion and day use dock” and “T” dock offer possibilities for terminal use.

Roche Harbor – Several sites exist for a passenger ferry terminal site within the Roche harbor marina.

Anacortes – Several docks and facilities exist in and around Anacortes for a passenger ferry terminal. However, because of its requirements for parking, passenger waiting area, access to transit and coordinated position with the state ferry service, a new passenger ferry floating dock and access gangway should be sought immediately east of the present state ferry dock.

Route 2 – Bellingham – via Gooseberry Point / Pt. Roberts / Blaine This route would require one additional full-time vessel. Terminal sites for this route include;

Bellingham – This would operate out of the same terminal as the other passenger ferry service, the Bellingham Cruise Terminal at Fairhaven. (With the possibility of eventually moving to the GP site in downtown Bellingham.)

Gooseberry Point – Neither the Lummi Nation or Whatcom County has been approached about the use of this facility. It is presently used for an auto-passenger ferry between the mainland and Lummi Island. A passenger ferry dock and access would have to be provided.

Point Roberts – The best facility for a passenger terminal would be the “guest dock” at the Point Roberts Marina Resort.

Blaine – The Blaine Marina would appear to be a perfect terminal for passenger ferry service. The Marina may however, be unable to accept a vessel longer than 36 feet, which means that new or reconfigured space would have to be made available.

It should be noted that both a terminal site at the Semiahmoo Resort and at Cherry Point have also been suggested as possible additions for this route. Route 3- Mukilteo / Edmonds / Seattle Terminal areas for this extension to Primary Route 2 have been previously discussed.



Future Routes Route 1 – Seattle / Des Moines This would not require an additional vessel if it were an extension to routes going to Seattle. Des Moines – The City of Des Moines is presently designing changes to their municipal marina. The City has discussed their willingness to add a facility for a passenger ferry terminal to their plans. The marina is situated only a few miles (10 minutes) from SeaTac airport and a connection to this terminal would provide almost direct access to the airport from the north by water. Route 2 – Friday Harbor / Edmonds Two additional vessels would be needed to operate this route. The service would use the same terminal facilities in Edmonds and Friday Harbor as described previously in this report. This route could, however add an additional stop in Port Townsend to its configuration. Terminal sites could be developed at either the Port Hudson Marina or the Port of Port Townsend marina. This will add a little time to any schedule, but the ridership gain may help offset costs. Route 3- San Juan Islands / Vancouver Island (Sidney, BC) One additional vessel would be needed for this service. This route could originate either in Bellingham or Friday Harbor, using the terminals already discussed. Both have Customs, Immigration and TSA facilities. No research has been done on a Canadian terminal for this route, but it has been suggested that Oak Bay Marina on the Canadian side might be a likely terminal. Route 4 – Primary Route 2 to Everett This would be a deviation of Route 2 from Bellingham. A terminal site would have to be identified close to downtown Everett, perhaps in the Port of Everett marina.



Capital Costs Capital cost for the investments explained for the routes, terminals and service suggested are summarized in the table below. Capital items are segregated into two time frames; for service initiation, (first 1 to 3 years), and for the next short period of time. (3 to 6 years).

Capital Costs: Primary Routes

Route 1: Bellingham - Friday Harbor

Item Quantity Initial costs (1-3 years)

Long-term costs (3-6 years)

Vessels POF 2 $4,000,000 $0 Terminals Bellingham GP Dock 1 $0 $3,000,000 Bellingham Park and Ride 1 $0 $2,000,000 Friday Harbor Park and Ride 1 $0 $1,000,000 Route 2: Bellingham - Northern Lights Casino - La Conner - Oak Harbor

- Mukilteo - (Seattle)

Item Quantity Initial costs (1-3 years)

Long-term costs (3-6 years)

Vessels POF 2 $4,000,000 $0 Spare POF 1 $2,000,000 $0 Terminals Bellingham 1 $0 $0 Northern Lights Casino: Floating Dock 1 $225,000 $0 Northern Lights Casino: Park and Ride 1 $0 $500,000 La Conner: Passenger Shelter 1 $0 $100,000 Oak Harbor: Municipal pier and terminal 1 $2,000,000 $0

Oak Harbor: Park and Ride 1 $0 $500,000 Mukilteo $0 $0 Total $12,225,000 $7,100,000



$12 to $15M will be needed to initiate service for the two Primary routes. An additional $7 to 10M will be needed as service on the routes matures and becomes permanent. During this later period, terminal sites may change and existing sites may need additional and/or improvements. Fares In reviewing the fares for existing state and private service, the following fare ranges for a new service are suggested.

• Primary Routes o Friday Harbor / Bellingham - $10 each way o Bellingham / Northern Lights…

Mukilteo / Seattle Variable fare -from Bellingham - $20 -from N. Lights & La Conner - $15 -from Oak Harbor - $12.50 -from Mukilteo - $10

• Secondary Routes o San Juan Circulator - $5 o Bellingham…/ Pt. Roberts / Blaine

Variable fare -from / to Bellingham - $10 -from Pt. Roberts To Blaine - $5

• Future Routes

o Friday Harbor / Mukilteo /Seattle - $20 o Seattle / Des Moines - +$5 o Friday Harbor / Canada - $15

Fares can be administered through the sale of tickets collected on the vessels. Tickets can be sold through transit authorities across the operating district or from vending machines placed at terminal and other sites. The fares can be discounted for elderly or children and can also be discounted for multiple purchases. One perspective concerning fare and total revenue comes from examining the maximum revenue that could be achieved by the service. This example is provided for illustrative purposes only.



If all seats provided by Primary Routes 1 & 2 were filled for every weekday run provided, and at full fare, total revenue would be $2,730,000. This compares to a projected operating cost of $2,287,164, for a surplus (operating profit) of $442,836. Another perspective is that if only ¼ of the seats were full at full fare for all weekday runs the total revenue would be $682,500, for a total deficit (needed subsidy) of $1,604,664. Again, these calculations are included for illustrative purposes only. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that this service will require a subsidy.



VI. An Operating Entity Before a passenger ferry system can become reality in the North Sound, it will be necessary to form a structure or entity that has the legal responsibility to operate the system. This is particularly important because of the number of jurisdictions that could be involved in this ferry service. Even though this study was commissioned by the four Northwestern Counties of the state, the routes also serve the central Puget Sound counties of Snohomish and King. Under the Revised Code of the State of Washington, counties, PTBAs and even ports, have unique and broad powers to form entities for the provision of passenger ferry transportation services. This analysis has focused on some of these powers to suggest what kind of structure is needed. One of the requirements of this study was to analyze w needed changes in Washington State law that might be necessary to implement passenger ferry service in the North Sound. We have found many existing statutes that could be used toward this end and conclude that no additions or changes to State law are necessary at this time. The Regional Transportation Governance Study In 2001, the State Legislature authorized the Whatcom Council of Governments, on behalf of the North Sound Connecting Communities Project, to study, develop and implement a model of regional transportation governance with the purpose of providing “regions with the ability to plan, select, fund and implement (or contract for the implementation of) projects identified to meet the region’s transportation and land use goals.” The study concluded that the North Sound had “one great and consistent concern… with the intentions of the State government regarding funding,” and that “ferry services – routes, schedules, types of services and costs” – are also of great concern. Ferry services are critical for the movement of people and goods and as an element in the region’s tourism economy. There is a great interest in additional passenger-only-ferries to serve commuters, to improve access to regional services and to enhance local economic development projects.” This study was the result of those comments. The Governance study basically asked if the region saw a compelling need to change and perhaps unify the region in order to better solve transportation problems. The study concluded that regional leaders saw no reason for change and that “interlocal agreements between existing agencies will satisfy most needs so long as the group continues to agree on its mission. … There are no constitutional or legal barriers to voluntarily agreeing to work together in ways (such as pooling resources generated in differing taxing districts) as a means of financing the local share of regional projects.” The report also concluded that this recommendation could need to be reconsidered should conditions change. One of the conditions that the study indicated might require reconsideration was the creation of any “Transportation Benefit District.” If there is agreement that passenger ferry service is needed in the North Sound, we believe that the region should consider the creation of a special “Passenger Ferry



District”, but we also believe that there may be several ways to do that within the existing laws and structures recognized by the governance study. Consolidated Water Public Transit Benefit Area We will focus on the possibility of creating an entity in the North Puget Sound to operate the passenger ferry service outlined in this report. The 2002-2004 Washington State legislature, in response to the State Ferry System’s announcement that they were discontinuing passenger ferry service, modified the state’s PTBA legislation in order to allow Kitsap Transit (and others if they to desired,) to operate passenger ferry service. RCW 36.57A.200 Passenger-only ferry service -- Authorized -- Investment plan.

A public transportation benefit area having a boundary located on Puget Sound may provide passenger-only ferry service. For the purposes of this chapter and RCW 82.14.440 and 82.80.130, Puget Sound is considered as extending north as far as the Canadian border and west as far as Port Angeles. Before a benefit area may provide passenger-only ferry service, it must develop a passenger-only ferry investment plan including elements to operate or contract for the operation of passenger-only ferry services, purchase, lease, or rental of ferry vessels and dock facilities for the provision of transit service, and identify other activities necessary to implement the plan. The plan must set forth terminal locations to be served, projected costs of providing services, and revenues to be generated from tolls, locally collected tax revenues, and other revenue sources. The plan must ensure that services provided under the plan are for the benefit of the residents of the benefit area. The benefit area may use any of its powers to carry out this purpose, unless otherwise prohibited by law. In addition, the public transportation benefit area may enter into contracts and agreements to operate passenger-only ferry service and public-private partnerships and design-build, general contractor/construction management, or other alternative procurement process substantially consistent with chapter 39.10 RCW.

[2003 c 83 § 201.]

NOTES:

Findings -- Intent -- 2003 c 83: "The legislature finds that passenger-only ferry service is a key element to the state's transportation system and that it is in the interest of the state to ensure provision of such services. The legislature further finds that diminished state transportation resources require that regional and local authorities be authorized to develop, operate, and fund needed services. The legislature recognizes that if the state eliminates passenger-only ferry service on one or more routes, it should provide an opportunity for locally sponsored service and the department of transportation should assist in this effort. It is the intent of the legislature to encourage interlocal agreements to ensure passenger-only



ferry service is reinstated on routes that the Washington state ferry system eliminates." [2003 c 83 § 101.]

***

RCW 36.57A.210 Passenger-only ferry service -- Taxes, fees, and tolls.

(1) A public transportation benefit area may, as part of a passenger-only ferry investment plan, recommend some or all of the following revenue sources as provided in this chapter: (a) A motor vehicle excise tax, as provided in RCW 82.80.130; (b) A sales and use tax, as provided in RCW 82.14.440; (c) Tolls for passengers and packages and, where applicable, parking; and (d) Charges or licensing fees for advertising, leasing space for services to ferry passengers, and other revenue-generating activities. (2) Taxes may not be imposed without an affirmative vote of the majority of the voters within the boundaries of the area voting on a single ballot proposition to both approve a passenger-only ferry investment plan and to approve taxes to implement the plan. Revenues from these taxes and fees may be used only to implement the plan and must be used for the benefit of the residents of the benefit area. A district may contract with the state department of revenue or other appropriate entities for administration and collection of any of the taxes or charges authorized in this section.

[2003 c 83 § 202.]

***

The legislation encourages the use of interlocal agreements to implement the provision of passenger ferry service. It is also possible that individual PTBAs could join together, using interlocal agreements, to jointly provide passenger ferry service.

In this case, Whatcom Transit, Skagit Transit and Island Transit could join together to achieve this goal if they agreed to pursue it. It would also be important for San Juan County to join in this effort by forming a PTBA. It is true that this concept has been discussed before in the County, and that some citizens may have strong feelings about the issue. However, the formation of a PTBA could be limited to the provision of ferry service, and not have any consequences on the private land transit currently in operation.

Regardless, the RCW provides a mechanism for the Counties to gather together to consider the issue. It must be noted that the population of San Juan County is just over 14,000 people, and that the 40,000 population requirement in the first line of this section may have to be changed or ignored.

***



RCW 36.57A.020 Public transportation improvement conference -- Convening -- Purpose -- Multi-county conferences.

The county legislative authority of every county with a population of forty thousand or more shall, and the legislative authority of every other county may, within ninety days of July 1, 1975, and as often thereafter as it deems necessary, and upon thirty days prior written notice addressed to the legislative body of each city within the county and with thirty days public notice, convene a public transportation improvement conference to be attended by an elected representative selected by the legislative body of each city, within such county, and by the county legislative authority. Such conference shall be for the purpose of evaluating the need for and the desirability of the creation of a public transportation benefit area within certain incorporated and unincorporated portions of the county to provide public transportation services within such area. In those counties where county officials believe the need for public transportation service extends across county boundaries so as to provide public transportation service in a metropolitan area, the county legislative bodies of two or more neighboring counties may elect to convene a multi-county conference. In addition, county-wide conferences may be convened by resolution of the legislative bodies of two or more cities within the county, not to exceed one in any twelve month period, or a petition signed by at least ten percent of the registered voters in the last general election of the city, county or city/county areas of a proposed benefit area. The chair of the conference shall be elected from the members at large.

[1991 c 363 § 73; 1975 1st ex.s. c 270 § 12.]

*** A passenger ferry system should operate much like a landside transit system. Regular land transit would interconnect and derive ridership from a water based system. For these reasons and for financial reasons to be discussed later, we believe that a joint consolidated structure derived from interlocal agreements among PTBAs shows promise for an operating entity for passenger ferry service. Consolidated County Passenger Ferry System Counties in Washington State have the ability to establish county ferry systems. As described earlier, several counties in the state (including Whatcom and Skagit) have done so, and presently operate auto/passenger ferries to serve island populations. The provisions of the RCW also allow counties to operate passenger ferries.

***

RCW 36.54.020 Joint ferries -- Generally.

The board of county commissioners of any county may, severally or jointly with any other county, city or town, or the state of Washington, or any other state or any county, city or town of any other state, construct or acquire by purchase, gift, or condemnation, and operate any ferry necessary for continuation or connection of any county road across any navigable water. The procedure with respect to the exercise of the power herein granted shall be the same as provided



for the joint erection or acquisition of bridges, trestles, or other structures. Any such ferries may be operated as free ferries or as toll ferries under the provisions of law of this state relating thereto.

[1963 c 4 § 36.54.020. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 31; RRS § 6450-31.]

***

RCW 36.54.030 Joint ferries over water boundary between two counties.

Whenever a river, lake, or other body of water is on the boundary line between two counties, the boards of county commissioners of the counties adjoining such stream or body of water may construct, purchase, equip, maintain, and operate a ferry across such river, lake, or other body of water, when such ferry connects the county roads or other public highways of their respective counties. All costs and expenses of constructing, purchasing, maintaining, and operating such ferry shall be paid by the two counties, each paying such proportion thereof as shall be agreed upon by the boards of county commissioners.

[1963 c 4 § 36.54.030. Prior: 1917 c 158 § 1; RRS § 5479.]

***

RCW 36.54.040 Joint ferries over water boundary between two counties -- Joint board of commissioners to administer -- Records kept.

The boards of county commissioners of the two counties, participating in a joint ferry, shall meet in joint session at the county seat of one of the counties interested, and shall elect one of their members as chairman of the joint board of commissioners, who shall act as such chairman during the remainder of his term of office, and, at the expiration of his term of office, the two boards of county commissioners shall meet and elect a new chairman, who shall act as such chairman during his term of office as county commissioner, and they shall continue to elect a chairman in like manner thereafter. The county auditors of the counties shall be clerks of such joint commission, and the county auditor of the county where each meeting is held shall act as clerk of the commission at all meetings held in his county. Each county auditor, as soon as the joint commission is organized, shall procure a record book and enter therein a complete record of the proceedings of the commission, and immediately after each adjournment the county auditor of the county in which the meeting is held shall forward a complete copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the commission to the auditor of the other county to be entered by him in his record. Each county shall keep a complete record of the proceedings of the commission.

[1963 c 4 § 36.54.040. Prior: 1917 c 158 § 2; RRS § 5480.]



***

RCW 36.54.110 County ferry districts -- Authorized -- Powers -- Governing body.

(1) The legislative authority of a county with a population over one million persons and having a boundary on Puget Sound may adopt an ordinance creating a ferry district in all or a portion of the area of the county, including the area within the corporate limits of any city or town within the county. The ordinance may be adopted only after a public hearing has been held on the creation of a ferry district, and the county legislative authority makes a finding that it is in the public interest to create the district. A ferry district is limited to providing passenger-only ferry service. (2) A ferry district is a municipal corporation, an independent taxing "authority" within the meaning of Article VII, section 1 of the state Constitution, and a "taxing district" within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution. (3) A ferry district is a body corporate and possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes as well as all other powers that may now or hereafter be specifically conferred by statute, including, but not limited to, the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, to enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued. (4) The members of the county legislative authority, acting ex officio and independently, shall compose the governing body of any ferry district that is created within the county. The voters of a ferry district must be registered voters residing within the boundaries of the district. (5) For the purposes of this section, Puget Sound is considered as extending north as far as the Canadian border and west as far as Port Angeles.

[2003 c 83 § 301.]

***

RCW 36.54.120 County ferry districts -- District may construct, purchase, operate, and maintain passenger-only ferries and wharves.

A ferry district may construct, purchase, operate, and maintain passenger-only ferries or wharves at any unfordable stream, lake, estuary, or bay within or bordering the ferry district, or between portions of the ferry district, or between the ferry district and other ferry districts, together with all the necessary boats, grounds, roads, approaches, and landings appertaining thereto under the direction and control of the governing body of the ferry district, free or for toll as the governing body determines by resolution.

[2003 c 83 § 302.]



***

RCW 36.54.130 County ferry districts -- Tax levy authorized -- Uses.

(1) To carry out the purposes for which ferry districts are created, the governing body of a ferry district may levy each year an ad valorem tax on all taxable property located in the district not to exceed seventy-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value. The levy must be sufficient for the provision of ferry services as shown to be required by the budget prepared by the governing body of the ferry district. (2) A tax imposed under this section may be used only for providing passenger-only ferry services, including the purchase, lease, or rental of passenger-only ferry vessels and dock facilities, the operation and maintenance of passenger-only ferry vessels and dock facilities, and related personnel costs.

[2003 c 83 § 303.]

***

RCW 36.54.180 County ferry districts -- Not subject to Washington utilities and transportation commission.

A ferry district is exempt from the provisions of Title 81 RCW and is not subject to the control of the Washington utilities and transportation commission. It is not necessary for a ferry district to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.

[2003 c 83 § 308.]

***

These sections would seem to allow several counties to consolidate together to form a regional passenger ferry system. However, there are two problems that may arise:

1. Because of fiscal pressures, counties with existing auto/passenger ferries may wish to consolidate those services into a new multi-county agency, an action which may not be in the interests of the counties presently without such service.

2. Pressure for continued quality state ferry service might diminish, and allow the state to relinquish its responsibilities.

In addition, the tax sources allowed for county systems may not be as flexible, palatable or productive as those allowed under the PTBA statutes.



Consolidated “Ports” Passenger Ferry System According to RCW 53.08.020, ports in the State of Washington may also operate passenger ferry systems. RCW 53.08.020 Acquisition and operation of facilities.

A port district may construct, condemn, purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate sea walls, jetties, piers, wharves, docks, boat landings, and other harbor improvements, warehouses, storehouses, elevators, grain-bins, cold storage plants, terminal icing plants, bunkers, oil tanks, ferries, canals, locks, tidal basins, bridges, subways, tramways, cableways, conveyors, administration buildings, fishing terminals, together with modern appliances and buildings for the economical handling, packaging, storing, and transporting of freight and handling of passenger traffic, rail and motor vehicle transfer and terminal facilities, water transfer and terminal facilities, air transfer and terminal facilities, and any combination of such transfer and terminal facilities, commercial transportation, transfer, handling, storage and terminal facilities, and improvements relating to industrial and manufacturing activities within the district, and in connection with the operation of the facilities and improvements of the district, it may perform all customary services including the handling, weighing, measuring and reconditioning of all commodities received. A port district may also construct, condemn, purchase, acquire, add to and maintain facilities for the freezing or processing of goods, agricultural products, meats or perishable commodities. A port district may also construct, purchase and operate belt line railways, but shall not acquire the same by condemnation.

[1963 c 147 § 3; 1961 c 126 § 1; 1955 c 65 § 3. Prior: 1953 c 171 § 2; 1943 c 166 § 2, part; 1921 c 183 § 1, part; 1917 c 125 § 1, part; 1913 c 62 § 4, part; 1911 c 92 § 4, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 9692, part.]

RCW 53.08.295 Passenger carrying watercraft.

A port district may acquire, lease, construct, purchase, maintain, and operate passenger carrying vessels on interstate navigable rivers of the state and intrastate waters of adjoining states. Service provided shall be under terms, conditions, and rates to be fixed and approved by the port commission. Operation of such vessels shall be subject to applicable state and federal laws pertaining to such service.

[1980 c 110 § 3.]

***

Most importantly, port districts have a variety of funding mechanisms available to them to use to fund ferry service. Additionally, each of the four counties in the region has the ability to establish ferry districts, and each, by interlocal agreement, would be able to jointly provide a passenger ferry service.



North Sound Water Transit Authority One last possibility to form an operating entity would be to seek new legislative authorization allowing for the creation of a Waterborne Transit Authority for the North Sound. This could combine the best from the PTBA, County and Port Authority powers and structures. Taxing structures could be based on landside sources for each of the four counties, i.e. sales tax. Financing possibilities to support these structural options will be discussed in the next chapter.



VII. Financing For the Primary Routes suggested in Chapter IV, capital requirements for initial start-up would be approximately $12 to $15M with an additional $7 to $10M needed within the next few years. Annual operating costs for the weekday service are estimated to be in the range of $2.4M per year. It is doubtful that fare revenue alone could cover these operating and capital requirements. The enthusiastic support of the citizens, the local communities and Counties in the North Sound would be needed in order to assure a source of local funds that would cover operating costs and either match federal or state capital grants or even finance the capital needed. An important first step would be to develop consensus on whether this service should exist, and an agreement that the member jurisdictions of the NSCCP will find a way to cooperatively make it happen. The possibility would be more attractive if federal funds from the national transit program could be sought for the vessel and terminal costs. In addition, a state capital funding program could be requested. What sources of local funds might be found to cover operating costs, match capital grants and implement this service? PTBA Funds Considering the organizational structures discussed in Chapter VI, one possibility is to form an operational entity, by interlocal agreement, from the transit districts in the North Sound, (Whatcom Transit, Skagit Transit and Island Transit). San Juan County would also join by forming their own, new PTBA. Under state law described in previous chapters, all these transit authorities have the power to provide passenger ferry service. Certainly, this process could at some point raise questions of service distribution and equity. However, the important thing now is to discern if agreement can be reached that this service is wanted and needed by the North Sound as a region. This could lead to agreement between all the authorities and the local citizens to form this entity. As outlined previously, PTBAs in Washington have the ability, with voter approval, to levy up to .09% sales tax for their use in providing regular “bus” type transit. None of the authorities in the North Sound are at that limit; all have capacity left in their taxing limit. Each of the North Sound Authorities could request voter approval for use of up to .01% sales tax from the .04% for passenger ferry financing authorization and not interfere with the remainder of their .09% cap provided for regular “bus” type transit. If voter approval was given for the new ferry tax it could be utilized for the operation and capital match to implement this service. The following table offers information about current tax levels, and remaining amounts available. It also projects trends for receipts. The data for San Juan County has been manually calculated and added to the table for comparison purposes. The amount depicts what would be collected if San Juan County were to collect .01% of their present tax receipts and apply it towards transit. As shown in the table, the receipts (for CY 2002) would be significant: almost $278,000. However, San Juan County might have to levy a greater amount than the .01%. They could also



pursue the creation of a PTBA just to for the benefit of a legal entity to relate with the other PTBAs that might come together under this scenario.

NameTowns

Represented2003

% Tax

Sales Tax Revenue,

2003 .01%Tax2010

% TaxSales Tax 2010

(Projected).01% 2010

Tax

Whatcom Tran Auth Bellingham 0.06 $13,549,622 $2,258,270 0.06 $17,742,517 $2,957,086Skagit Transit Mt Vernon 0.02 $3,731,758 $1,865,879 0.02 $4,661,724 $2,330,862Island Transit Oak Harbor 0.06 $3,918,485 $653,081 0.06 $4,036,624 $672,771Total $4,777,230 $5,960,719San Juan County* Fri. Harbor $277,285

$5,054,515Jefferson Tran Auth Pt. Townsend 0.06 $1,895,010 $315,835 0.06 $2,364,224 $394,037Everett Transit Everett 0.03 $6,870,000 $2,290,000 0.03 $8,309,551 $2,769,850Community Transit Rural Sno. 0.09 $53,083,143 $5,898,127 0.09 $70,705,658 $7,856,184Intercity Transit Olympia 0.06 $17,026,610 $2,837,768 0.06 $20,870,000 $3,478,333Kitsap Transit Bremerton 0.08 $24,000,000 $3,000,000 0.08 $30,892,000 $3,861,500Pierce Transit Tacoma 0.06 $58,189,718 $9,698,286 0.06 $81,996,718 $13,666,120KC Metro Transit Seattle 0.08 $298,752,501 $37,344,063 0.08 $410,006,929 $51,250,866

Total $481,016,847 $66,438,594 $651,863,230 $89,237,610*San Juan figures are for 2002

PTBD Funding

The new provisions that were added to the PTBA legislation that allowed authorities to operate passenger ferry service also made new and expanded taxing sources available for use by PTBAs. The expanded source is additional “ceiling” in sales tax. As stated in the RCW: “The tax …is in addition to other taxes authorized by law,… must be approved by the voters and may not exceed four-tenths of one percent”. It appears that all of the PTBAs (and San Juan County if they were to form a PTBA), could levy up to the .04% level solely for the purpose of providing passenger ferry service and seek their voter’s approval based on that premise Some in San Juan County have also suggested another tax source that might be used to fund passenger ferry service: local Hotel and Motel tax. San Juan County and the Town of Friday Harbor have only collected the “local” Hotel and Motel tax for the last two years. Under state law these taxes are restricted to “the promotion of tourism or construction and operation of tourism related facilities.” It could be validly argued that for San Juan County, a passenger ferry system is an important tourism related service. Unlike mainland receipts, this resource does provide significant funding for San Juan County. This tax is collected in two “tiers”; the “state-shared contribution” is rebated back to counties by the state. It is not an additional sales tax, it is just a portion of what the state collects that is returned to counties. In 2003 this amounted to $425,000 for San Juan County. Local jurisdictions may also levy a similar additional amount. This is the tax that the county only recently started to levy. In 2003 this “local” collection amounted to $418,000. (Rates are the same but the discrepancy is unexplained in the data). The county presently uses these funds to market tourism in the “shoulders” of the summer season.



This amount taken alone, or when combined with some sales tax revenue, would go a long way to provide much of San Juan County’s portion of ferry service costs. Another possibility is that San Juan County could, if they desired, form a PTBA, but solely for Passenger Ferry “Water Transit” service. By using a combination of sales and Hotel/Motel tax the county might be able, on its own, to provide both the direct service to Bellingham and the circulator service within the islands. Another funding option open to all PTBAs is the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. This tax may be imposed up to a limit of .04% of the value of a motor vehicle. Transit authorities “may submit an authorizing proposition to the voters and, if approved, may levy and collect an excise tax, at a rate approved by the voters, but not exceeding four-tenths of one percent on the value of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the taxing district, solely for the purpose of providing passenger-only ferry service.” The MVET has come under fire in recent years, and as a result might be considered an unreliable source of funding. The existing PTBAs in the North Sound have indicated that any sales tax approved by their voters for passenger ferry service adds to an already visible tax burden and might diminish voter enthusiasm for future levy increases for “bus” transit purposes. It is possible that voters at any future election might choose not to fund bus transit levy increases but simultaneously support tax increases for non-traditional transit services like rail or ferries. Success of any tax proposal always depends on the case made and the justification provided. PTBA Boards might wish to review the proposal, fill gaps in data and seek public reaction regarding the contents of this study. Lastly, the PTBAs urged that before any implementation of service, more detailed ridership data should be collected to verify the revenue projections contained in this study. Such an effort should also include the quantification of the carry over when ferry passengers transferring to bus transit service for the land portion of their trip and the consequent system increase in ridership. County Funds Under the provisions of the RCW presented earlier, counties that chose to operate passenger ferry service have only one source of revenue to do so. An ad valorem tax “not to exceed seventy-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value” is the only option. Again, this may only be used for passenger ferry service. As outlined earlier, two of the Counties in the North Sound, (Whatcom and Skagit) presently provide auto/passenger ferry service. In both cases the provision of the service creates a significant category within each County’s public works budget. Though the existing service has given the counties the experience of providing a public service, melding high speed passenger service with the more capital intensive and slower auto ferry service might create operating conflicts. In addition most counties that operate these extensions to their road systems find that operating this service on a frequent and intensive schedule has created an active constituency. Though counties remain a possible operating entity for passenger service, some permutation of PTBAs remain the more logical choice.



Port Funds Other than the specific authority to operate passenger ferry service, ports do not have any specific source of revenue under code to do so. However, they already have several sources of revenue available to them, and those sources do not require voter approval. The primary purpose of ports in the State of Washington is not to provide transportation service for passengers. The stated legislative intent for ports is to promote economic development. For example, they often build and then sell or lease warehouses and office buildings. The businesses that use them generate local jobs. In order to pay for construction and infrastructure (basic installations such as power, water, communications and roads), ports have the authority to levy a tax of up to $0.45 per $1000 of assessed value on property in the port district. This money pays not only for development costs, but for maintenance and day-to-day operations of all port facilities. The taxes that are levied do provide some support, but ports also generate revenue through lease-rental and other fees, proceeds from bonds sold for capital project construction, and grants and gifts.

Washington first authorized citizens to form port districts in 1911. Most ports use their property tax levy to pay for development of capital facilities. Special property tax levies are allowed for dredging, canal construction, land leveling or filling purposes. These levies must be approved by the majority of voters within a port district and again cannot exceed $0.45 per $1,000.

Ports pay sales taxes on their purchases and a Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax on services they provide to their customers. Those who lease port property pay a special tax called a "leasehold tax," which is about equal to a property tax. Ports collect these for the state and then they're distributed back to state and local governments.

When ports build a facility and then lease it to others, they collect fees and charges for the building and land. Examples include airport landing fees, moorage fees at marinas, and fees for using piers and equipment to load and unload ships.

Ports are authorized by law to issue a variety of municipal bonds, which are used almost exclusively for capital construction projects and are paid for by property taxes. Revenue bonds are issued to build a facility where the revenues generated by the project service the debt directly.

After adhering to strict guidelines and complying with federal restrictions, a port can set up a special assessment to issue industrial development revenue bonds. These do not generate revenue for the port, but they do provide a way to help finance development, operation or expansion of industry in the district. The company the bonds were issued for is responsible for payment. No taxes or port funds are used to retire these bonds.

Ports use a variety of grants and gifts, like property, to support infrastructure development. Although the federal government does not have a formal program to



provide ports with direct financial assistance, some ports have received indirect assistance through federal agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington's ports also receive financial help from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, the Community Economic Revitalization Board and the Washington State Department of Transportation.

In general ports do not operate transportation services directly. They provide the facilities and the financing for others to conduct their transportation business. In 2003 the Port of Tacoma investigated the possibility of their sponsoring passenger ferry service in the South Sound, but no formal cost or ridership study was conducted. Several years ago the Washington Ports association also conducted an analysis of port participation in the provision of passenger ferry service, but again nothing was implemented.

Public / Private Partnerships

Throughout the course of this study an underlying assumption has been that some form of public / private partnership could and should be developed to implement passenger ferry service. None of the financing mechanisms reviewed or jurisdictional operating entities analyzed preclude the utilization of private providers to operate and maintain the service. Most private operators would agree that some form of subsidy would be required for all but the most heavily used routes. The only question that remains is the most efficient form to allow that subsidy to occur.

Any of the public operating entities discussed would still want to remain in control of any service offered, setting service standards, schedules and the like. They would still have to remain responsible for assembling the funding and “procuring” the private assistance. Any public entity might want to use their ability to secure federal transit assistance to procure vessels and their “right of Imminent Domain” to procure terminal, park’n’ride and other necessary sites, as efficient and locally cost reducing techniques. Vessels and terminal sites could then be turned over to private providers under contract for operations and maintenance.



Chapter VIII. Other Operating Entities/ Institutional Options The acceptance and establishment of new passenger ferry service in the North Puget Sound would involve the cooperation of at least 4 different counties, multiple cities and transit agencies. Cooperation could be aided by the establishment of a separate entity charged with the planning, construction, operations and maintenance of the fleet. An example of a possible agency is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA). As is described in later sections, many parts of the WTA including the formation, management structure, and funding, are similar to what could be expected in a NSCCP ferry system. This chapter will examine the San Francisco WTA as a possible inspiration and role model for the North Puget Sound. The BC Ferries of British Columbia and the Alaska Inter-Island Ferry Authority are also described briefly in this chapter, as examples of ferry entities that have some attributes that could transfer to the North Puget Sound Region. San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Formation and Management Structure

The WTA was formed through the enactment of California Senate Bill 428 in October 1999. This bill gave the WTA the responsibility to develop a long-range plan for the implementation of expanded water transit and to update that plan on a regular basis. Other Goals of the WTA included:

To be a focused regional agency dedicated to safe, cost-efficient and environmentally sound water transit.

To manage continued investment in clean-marine technology, advanced vessel design, systems planning, safety and disaster response planning, terminal design and intermodal planning.

To continue to build constructive relationships with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) elected officials, community leaders, regulators, public interest groups, etc.

Section 66540.24 of the California Government Code mandates the role of the WTA as follows; “The Authority shall operate a comprehensive San Francisco Bay Area regional public water-transit system that includes water-transit terminals, feeder buses and any other transport and facilities supportive of the system.” Considering that the San Francisco Ferry System is currently projected to grow to 13 integrated routes with some 15 ferries and 7 terminals, this responsibility is clearly a very large one.

When the WTA was conceived, it was intended to evolve through different stages of development and responsibility as the legislature, and ultimately the voters, approved of its work.



The San Francisco WTA is directed by an 11-person Board of Directors appointed by the Governor, the California Legislature, and local agencies that currently operate ferry services. Each director is appointed to an 8-year term. The WTA also has a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist them in decision-making.

WTA staff originally included an Executive Director overseeing 4 departments, during the first, initial planning phase. The structure was not meant to be static. It was meant to evolve over time and respond to changes in operating environment. For example, during the second, “Operating” phase, the number of departments in the WTA has expanded to 5 in order to reflect the changing responsibilities of the Authority.

WTA1. Marine Engineering2. Community and Gov. Relations3. Planning & Development4. Business Services

WTA1. Marine Engineering2. Community and Gov. Relations3. Planning & Development4. Business Services

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee

CommunityAdvisory

Committee

CommunityAdvisory

Committee

Board ofDirectorsBoard ofDirectors

GeneralCounselGeneralCounsel

Organizational Chart: Initial PhaseOrganizational Chart: Initial Phase

WTA1. Operations

a. Ferryb. Intermodal

2. Engineering3. Community and Gov. Relations4. Planning & Development5. Administration & Business Services

WTA1. Operations

a. Ferryb. Intermodal

2. Engineering3. Community and Gov. Relations4. Planning & Development5. Administration & Business Services

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee

CommunityAdvisory

Committee

CommunityAdvisory

Committee

Board ofDirectorsBoard ofDirectors

GeneralCounselGeneralCounsel

Organizational Chart: Operating PhaseOrganizational Chart: Operating Phase



Milestones of the WTA The WTA took on increasing responsibilities as it completed the initial stages of its mandate. When it was created in 1999, the California Legislature required the WTA to undertake extensive technical studies on ridership demand, cost-benefit, vessel design, environmental impacts, safety and operations. Extensive public outreach was also required. By 2003, the WTA had completed these studies and had submitted the final implementation and operations plan: “A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System”. This plan was approved by statute (Senate Bill 915, Chap 714, stats of 2003). This allowed the WTA to move into the next stage of design, funding, and implementation. With voter approval of the Regional Measure 2 in March 2004, San Francisco Bay voters gave their support to use new bridge tolling revenues to fund the ferry service. In addition, subsequent local sales tax measures in San Francisco, Contra Costa and San Mateo gave another clear signal to move forward on the project. The planning, design and environmental studies for the highest prioritized routes began in July of 2004. If all necessary environmental and regulatory approvals are granted, the WTA expects to move forward with terminal construction and vessel acquisition in the next few years. Transferability to the Puget Sound Region There are several similarities between the San Francisco WTA region and the Puget Sound Region which would suggest that this is a possible structure for operating passenger ferry service in the Puget Sound. Dense Populations around Water Similar to the SF Bay Area though not of the same magnitude, the North Puget Sound boasts population concentrations and jobs clustered along its coastline. The economic resources and populations found along the shores of these water bodies are among the most vibrant in the Pacific North West. Though an investment grade ridership survey was not completed for this report, it can be said with some certainty that there would be substantial ridership for many of these routes. Environmental Innovations Garner Public Support The innovative environmental safeguards evaluated by the WTA, and intended to be implemented, have included running ferries on clean- burning soybean fuel, as well as the use of PuriNOx Technology, a low emissions fuel additive that can reduce nitrogen oxides emissions by up to 30 percent and particulate matter up to 65 percent. This has earned the WTA tremendous backing and support in environmentally- minded SF Bay Area. The North Puget Sound region, home to an equally strong environmental movement, would be anticipated to respond well to similar environmental mediation methods.



Multiplicity of Agencies Coordinated by WTA The WTA is an excellent example of how an overseeing entity can address the issues involved in attempting to coordinate multiple public transportation agencies over several jurisdictions. The Puget Sound Region as a whole, or even just the four counties involved in this study in the North Sound, could benefit from an “umbrella” structure like the WTA. Sales Tax Revenue A major funding source available to the WTA are two sales tax measures approved by Bay area voters in November, 2004. San Mateo County agreed to a half-cent sales tax measure, while Contra Costa County ratified “Measure J” to include a $2 billion over 25 years for transportation improvements in the county including ferries. Sales tax revenues available from and administered through North Sound PTBA’s have been suggested as a major source of funding for passenger ferry service in the North Puget Sound. Demand Driven by Traffic Congestion One of the factors that has contributed to the popularity and success of the WTA, is the perception that they are actively working to address the tremendous traffic and congestion issues in the SF Bay Area. The Northern Puget Sound also has increasing traffic congestion, concern over reliance on the automobile, and associated environmental degradation. Non- Transferability to the Puget Sound Region Some aspects of the WTA are specific to the San Francisco Bay Area and might not be directly transferable to a similar entity in the North Puget Sound. None of these would be a “fatal flaw” for North Sound passenger ferry service, but they would need to be considered if a NSCCP ferry service were to progress. Tolling Revenue One of the major funding sources for the WTA is the accepted $1 toll increase on the state owned Bay bridges. This is adding millions of dollars to the WTA capital and operations budget. There would appear to be no similar tolling revenue available in the Puget Sound region that would produce similar revenue. Ridership Volumes Though the North Puget Sound region is home to dense, economically vibrant communities, ridership will probably never reach the same absolute levels as in the SF Bay Area. There is simply less population traveling between cities of the North Sound than there is between the Bay area’s major cities like Berkeley and San Francisco. Though absolute ridership numbers may be smaller, it will be important to remember that the relative numbers are still substantial. The service would still offer mobility to a great many people in the North Sound Region.



BC Ferries An Evolution Back to Private Provision of Service Though much older and more established than the San Francisco WTA, the BC Ferries in British Columbia, Canada might in some ways serve as a role model for new ferry service in the NSCCP region. BC Ferries came into being on July 18th, 1958, when the British Columbia Ferry Authority took over privately operated service under mandate from the Provisional Government. This was done in response to growing population, increased use of the ferries, and an increased need for continued reliable service. The first boats began operation in 1960, as part of a 2-terminal, 2-boat and 200-employee venture. Today, even though the system does not operate passenger only service, it does operate 35 vessels and serves 47 ports of call. After operating as a Provincial public service for over 40 years, The BC Ferry system, like most transportation services in the Province, changed back to a more private operating structure in 2003. A new Coastal Ferry Act established the British Columbia Ferry Authority and transformed the existing Crown Corporation into an independent, self-financing company. The new Authority is governed by a nine-member board composed of industry experts and nominees from government, coastal communities and labor and it controls the sole voting share in the operating company, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. the new, independent commercial company. The private company, BC Ferry Services Inc. offers ferry service under a service contract with the Province of BC. Through this contract, the government pays BC Ferry Services Inc. a defined annual subsidy or “service fee” in return for making specified numbers of ferry sailings on specified routes, with a maximum total value of some $106 million per year. The major routes (the three routes between Vancouver Island and the BC Lower Mainland) are self-supporting and receive no service fee from provincial taxpayer funds. The terms of this long-term contract are to be reviewed next in 2008, and thereafter every four years. The ferry service offered in British Columbia has often been cited as an example for service elsewhere, especially for that offered by the State of Washington. They now have restructured into a public/private venture that may combine the best of both, a public subsidy where and when needed, and private ownership and management. Some permutation of this structure might be applicable to the provision of passenger ferry service either in the entire Puget Sound or just the North Sound. The Alaska Inter–Island Ferry Authority The Inter-Island Ferry Authority was formed in 1997 because of the need for improved transportation to island communities in southern Southeast Alaska. Though the State of Alaska provides major auto/passenger ferry service through the Alaska Marine Highway System, the islands in the southeastern part of the state formed an Island Ferry Authority (IFA) which is a public corporation organized under Alaska's Municipal Port Authority Act.



The Alaska Department of Transportation provides financial support for routes operated by the IFA. Alaska's Congressional Delegation has also secured funding for IFA vessels. As outlined in a previous chapter, ports in the State of Washington have the ability to operate passenger ferry service. This “twist” on that theme allows the creation of another entity under the port authority legislation. Could this be added to the State of Washington legislation?

Also possibly relevant to ferry service provision elsewhere, is the effect of Alaska’s Native Claims Settlement Act to ferry service provision in Alaska. Native Corporations in Alaska act as a legal substitute for reservations in the lower 48. In Alaska, in addition to holding lands and resources for the tribe, they manage businesses for their shareholders (tribal members). One of these businesses is the provision of tourist cruise and ferry services. At least one tribe, the Klukwan, own, operate and maintain regular passenger ferry service as one of their profit making businesses.

These examples offer some organizational or jurisdictional variations with possible application to the North Puget Sound



CHAPTER IX. General Recommendations The initial projections of ridership and system service produced in this analysis seem to indicate that fare revenues and other minimal public funding could sustain a viable though minimal passenger ferry service in the north Sound. However, taxpayer approval of the local funding sources identified would have to be secured. It is important to note that this study has not tried to quantify the benefits of this service to the North Sound. In addition, not all service benefits would be uniformly distributed across the region, complicating justification for voters not directly benefited. Perhaps the most promising benefit to the region would be the economic development promulgated by the service and the reduction of congestion to other modes of regional travel. Both of these benefits have not been calculated in this analysis. The region’s transit systems (PTBAs) have strongly suggested that before implementation of passenger ferry service is considered, that the region should invest in an Origin and Destination (O&D) based ridership projection for the proposed routes. This modeling would verify that the proposed routes are serving the most needed corridors and that the revenue projections are valid. Taxpayers in this state and region have been reluctant to approve new or additional taxes. The implementation of a passenger ferry service would have to be based on the need for additional travel options in the corridors served in four county region.

Steering Committee Findings/Recommendations

At the March 17, 2005 Steering Committee for this study the Steering Committee recommended forwarding this report and study to the NSCCP Committee for consideration and possible action. Members of the Committee pointed out that other studies of passenger ferry service had been done in the past, and perhaps now was the time for action. The was a question of whether funding for this service might be better applied on other transportation investments in the region, but overall, the Committee supported the study conclusion that the North Sound entities should seriously consider this service. Several additional “findings were suggested for addition to the report. They include;

• As the region moves forward toward possible implementation of this service, the State needs to become a financial partner in the endeavor.

• An early “demonstration” of one of the suggested routes should be done

in conjunction with further studies on ridership and market, and should not wait for these study efforts to conclude

• The Committee wanted to re-emphasize the intent to implement any

service using a public/private operating scenario. Though underwritten, planned and overseen by some public entity, operational involvement by the private section seems essential for success.



• Future environmental assessment will surely be needed when a project is defined and implementation impacts are better known. It is assumed that environmental mitigation costs will add to total project costs.

• It should be assumed that if actual service is pursued that there will be

trade-offs made between the speed and amenities of the vessels, environmental impacts, operational and schedule parameters. etc. This study’s assumptions and conclusions may change and evolve as implementation is approached.

• Federal highway construction mitigation funding should be pursued as a

funding source to initiate this service. Upcoming reconstruction of I-5 through Everett, the upcoming Olympics in British Columbia, and increasing regional traffic, all require that progress be made on this issue.



CHAPTER X. Glossary of Terms

1) BNSF: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

2) CY: Calendar Year

3) DOT: Department of Transportation, the public agency responsible for planning

implementation, and maintenance of a states transportation network.

4) IFA: Island Ferry Authority, the public corporation organized under Alaska’s Municipal Port Authority Act. The IFA is the main ferry operator of ferries in the southeastern part of the state. The IFA is supported financially by the Alaska Department of Transportation, as well as by funds secured but Alaska’s Congressional delegation.

5) Nm (Nautical Miles): A nautical unit of measuring distance. 1nm = 1.151

miles, 6,076 feet, or 1.852 kilometers.

6) NSCCP: North Sound Connecting Community Project,

7) O&D Survey: An Origin and Destination survey that attempts to quantify the daily travel patterns of people by asking them about their daily origins, destinations, duration of trips, average miles traveled, etc. O/D surveys are often done via mail, over the phone, on mass transit systems, or by “in car” surveys.

8) PTBA: Public Transportation Benefit Authority.

9) RCW: The Revised Code of Washington, which is a compilation of all

permanent laws now in force in the state of Washington.

10) WCOG: Whatcom Count Council of Governments, the MPO for Whatcom County and the grant administrators for this study.

11) WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation

12) WSF: The Washington State Ferries, the state entity which operates the 10-

route, 20-terminal WSF system. There are currently no passenger ferries, only mixed automobile and passenger ferries.

13) WTA: The Water Transit Authority formed in the San Francisco Bay Area in

1999. The WTA is a separate entity with the sole purpose of planning and implementing Ferry service in the Bay area.

14) WUTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.



Appendix A Operating Cost Assumptions: Primary Routes 1 & 2

Weekday service only, 2004 dollars

Service and schedules as outlined in Chapter IV. Crews work split shifts, more than 8 hours/day pays time-and-a-half. Operating Expenses Labor Wages # Cost Vessel crew (5) Captain 45,000 5 $225,000 Fringes @ 40% 18,000 5 $ 90,000 Crewmember 35,000 5 $175,000 Fringes 14,000 5 $ 70,000 Overtime (for Route 2) $ 60,000 Office staff 25,000 1 $ 25,000 Fringes 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Equipment & supplies $ 60,000

(auto, phone, PCs, copier, postage,etc.)

_____________ Total $715,000

Maintenance (annual for vessels) Industry calculation; 30% of fuel cost. $156,500 Fuel - 4940 hours of weekday service annually. - $1.50 / gal. price paid by WSF 11/04, per supplier. - 64 gal./ hr. use rate average for 3 vessels examined for study. $521,664 Service (vessels - cleaning, fueling, etc.) $104,000 Maintenance contract plus supplies Terminal Upkeep & Use Fees $ 84,000 Insurance Per Accordia, largest marine broker in NW $195,000

Management, Admin & General General Manager 85,000 1 $ 85,000 Fringes (@ 40%) 34,000 1 $ 34,000 Financial Officer 70,000 1 $ 70,000 Fringes 28,000 1 $ 28,000 Port Engineer 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Fringes 20,000 1 $ 20,000



Acct’ Clerk 40,000 1 $ 40,000 Fringes 16,000 1 $ 16,000 Admin. Assist. 22,000 1 $ 22,000

Fringes 9,000 1 $ 9,000 Legal & Account services ($4,000 / mo.) $ 48,000 Marketing services “ $ 48,000 Equipment & supplies $ 41,000 Office space $ 26,000 ______________ Total $537,000 ______________ TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 2,287,164



Appendix B

NSCCP Passenger Ferry Steering Committee Members Brian Cladoosby Swinomish Tribal Community Bruce Agnew Discovery Institute Dale O'Brien Skagit Transit Dan Pike Scog (Skagit MPO) Daryl Williams T Tulalip Tribes Dave Williams Oak Harbor Marina Drew Schmidt Victoria San Juan Cruises Gary Tomsic City of Blaine Gordon Rogers WCOG (Whatcom MPO) Ian Munce City of Anacortes Jeff Monsen Whatcom County JIm Miller WCOG (Whatcom MPO) Cathy Cavanagh San Juan County Econ. Devel. Council Kelley Moldstad SCOG (Skagit MPO) Kim Cederstrom Whatcom Transit Martha Rose Island Transit Mike Morton Island County Mike Shelton Island County Patricia Decker City of Bellingham Patricia Paul Tulalip Tribes Rep. Barbara Bailey Washington House of Representatives Rep. Doug Ericksen Washington House of Representatives Rep. Jeff Morris Washington House of Representatives Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen Washington State Senate Steve Jilk Port of Bellingham Steve Simpson Port of Friday Harbor Terilynn Lazo US Navy Region NW Todd Carlson WSDOT Wally Gillette Town of Friday Harbor

Stakeholders

Alan Chapman Lummi-nsn.gov Alan Lichtner San Juan County Andy Bennett Art Anderson Associates Brian Wilbur Swinomish Casino Chuck O'Hara Swinomish Tribal Community Doug Francis Oak Harbor Ed Knight Swinomish Tribal Community John McCoy Tulalip Tribes John Solin SeaTac Shuttle Kirk Vinnish Lummi Tribe Marty Loesch Swinomish Tribal Community



Matt Mullett All American Marine Matt Nichols Nichols Brothers Boat Building Mike Bennett Mosquito Fleet Patrice Thorell City of DesMoines Peter Mills Tulalip Tribes Preston Schiller Western Washington University Raul Ramos Puyallup Tribe Rex Rhoades Western Washington University Richard Civille San Juan County Econ. Devel. Council Richard Jefferson Lummi Tribe

Acknowledgements

The consultants wish to thank the steering committee members and interested stakeholders for their time and participation in this study.

For Wilbur Smith Associates: Thomas M. Jones, PhD Sophie Hartshorn, MCRP Wilbur Smith Associates would also like to thank: Ralph Duncan, Art Anderson Associates Andy Bennett, Art Anderson Associates For their technical input into the study.



Appendix C Planned and Possible Terminal Sites

This Appendix includes a one page visual description of every possible terminal site mentioned in this report. A road map, photograph, and marine chart showing water depth is included for each stop.


Wilbur Smith Associates Appendices: Ports of Call

Bellingham, WAFairhaven Terminal

Bellingham, WA 98225



Blaine Harbor, WA235 Marine DriveBlaine, WA 98230



Burien, WA



Des Moines, WA22307 Dock Avenue South

Des Moines, WA 98198



Edmonds, WA336 Admiral Way

Edmonds, WA 98020



Everett, WA1720 West Marine View Drive

Everett, WA 98201



Friday Harbor, WA91 Front Street

Friday Harbor, WA 98250



Gooseberry Point, WAHaxton Way

Bellingham, WA 98226



La Conner, WA613 North 2nd Street

La Conner, WA 98257



Lopez Island, WAFerry Road

Lopez Island, WA 98261



Lopez Island, WA2793 Fisherman Bay RoadLopez Island, WA 98261



Mukilteo, WAState Route 525701 Front Street

Mukilteo, WA 98204



Oak Harbor, WA1401 Catalina Drive

Oak Harbor, WA 98277



Orcas Island, WA1 Waterfront Street

Orcas Island, WA 98280



N. Orcas Island, WABartwood Lodge and Estates

Orcas Island, WA



Point Roberts, WA713 Simundson Drive

Point Roberts, WA 98291



Roche Harbor, WA248 Reuben Memorial DriveRoche Harbor, WA 98250



Rosario Harbor, WA1400 Rosario Road

Eastsound, WA 98245



Seattle, WA801 Alaskan Way, Pier 52Seattle, WA 98104-1451



Semiahmoo Resort, WA9540 Semiahmoo Parkway

Blaine, WA 98230



Shaw Island, WAFerry Dock Road

Shaw Island, WA 98286



White Rock, BC



Whitmarsh Junction, WA

The North Sound Passenger Ferry Opportunities Study

Documents

Transcript of The North Sound Passenger Ferry Opportunities Study