|
The following letter, originally sent to Island Rides and local transportation officials, raises questions about Orcas Island’s transportation future that deserve community-wide discussion. Rather than keeping this conversation limited to government agencies and nonprofits, Friends of Rural Public Transportation has chosen to share these thoughts publicly—inviting all of us to consider how we might build a transportation system that serves residents, manages visitor impacts, and protects what makes our island special. Whether you rely on existing services, have concerns about traffic and environmental impacts, or simply care about the future of our community, this letter touches issues that affect us all. Please read on and consider joining this important conversation.
Dear Island Rides CC WSDOT, SJC, RTAP,
Thank you for your detailed response. I am following up on our information request and your last email, and I’m attaching the Human Services Transportation Plan for your review. While some may interpret this plan as having already addressed public transportation feasibility, I believe there’s value in exploring this further.
To provide context for our discussion, some sources approximate Orcas Island’s year-round population as 5,000 residents, swelling to over 10,000 during summer months. The WSF provides comprehensive ridership data through the Orcas terminal (links included below), which I’ve been analyzing alongside visitor data from our marinas—including Deer Harbor, which services approximately 140 vessels daily during peak season. This is just one of three major marinas serving our island community.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/
As an island accessible only by water or air, Orcas naturally functions as a transportation exchange point. This unique geography presents both challenges and opportunities for creating efficient transportation networks.
I appreciate Island Rides’ commitment to electrified transportation and its environmental benefits. I would respectfully suggest, however, that public transit represents a complementary—not competing—solution for carbon reduction. A well-organized public transit pilot, regardless of technological medium, would provide invaluable data about feasibility and environmental impact.
While I look forward to innovations that may transform public transit—imagine the impact of passenger-safe, self-driving buses and shuttles on transportation networks—we cannot afford to wait for perfect solutions that remain years away. Delaying a public transit pilot today in anticipation of future technologies may cause us to miss critical opportunities to address current needs and gather essential operational data. The perfect must not become the enemy of the good.
When considering transportation efficiency, we should examine the full cost-benefit equation. For instance, subsidizing walk-on passenger fares combined with partial public transit subsidies may prove more cost-effective than subsidizing vehicle fares across the WSF.
I understand your concerns about increased visitor traffic. I share this concern and believe county planners should consider measures such as limiting vacation rentals. However, I ask you to also consider the concentrated carbon and road use impact of thousands of visitors arriving in a limited timeframe. Public transit could encourage more ecologically responsible tourism—even visitors who arrive by car might utilize public transit here. In particular if we encourage the use of such transit.
Regarding financial sustainability, creative solutions exist. Could we implement a tiered fare structure where visitors, who often expect higher costs while traveling, pay premium rates? This may seem impossible at first. However, could the county subsidize verified resident fares or offer season passes? These approaches align with our shared environmental values while building the efficient transportation networks needed to reduce overall vehicle traffic.
The factors at stake extend beyond logistics—they encompass societal equity, environmental stewardship, financial sustainability, and human opportunity. Our goal should be developing transportation solutions that benefit Orcas Island first, but also considering Washington State, and ultimately our nation. This calls for an integrated perspective—one that weighs these interdependent factors not in isolation, but as parts of a larger whole.
I’ve submitted seperate information requests to the parties CC’d here: Island Rides, SJC for road use metrics, and WSDOT for additional ferry use metrics. My aim in collecting information is building a comprehensive public information database to support informed decision-making and maximize our collective human opportunity. I’m also looking for research regarding existing studies on passenger exchange rates (with and without vehicles) to inform route planning.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with your team to discuss our information requests and explore collaboration. Your community-driven rideshare program represents genuine innovation—particularly noteworthy because it emerged from public, not private, initiative. The electrification of your service is indeed the right technology at the right time and place.
While door-to-door service for our most vulnerable residents remains essential, I believe it represents one component of a comprehensive transportation solution rather than the solution itself. To continue the spirit of innovation.
I look forward to continuing this important dialogue.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Colin, this is an important issue, but if you want citizen, rather just official, involvement,it would be helpful to provide an email or other communication hub so that the conversation you request can go beyond the odd comment in response to an Orcasonian piece.
Where is the funding coming from for this? Sounds like another big tax because there is no way that fares fund this.
Jack Hunt,
Thank you for the feedback. I can be reached at colin@forpt.org or we have the public facing Facebook Group http://facebook.com/groups/forpt where someone might participate as well.
Hi James Druthers,
Aside from fares,
We currently pay the Climate Commitment Act gas tax at 50 cents per gallon that’s supposed to support paying for things like public transit.
We’re exploring possibilities regarding funding models including grants, donations, and working with the WSDOT to support a transit pilot, as well as fare support.
Is it possible to find a temporary lease of vehicles to run such a pilot without purchasing vehicles outright??
We have been exploring those possibilities through evaluating potential cooperative solutions with public schools or the Washington State DES for example.
Furthermore there are state and federal funds that go to supporting transportation for needy populations. For example WSDOT helps support Island Rides.
We believe that looking at the big picture like above. That we should be looking at innovative ways to support more efficient transportation networks
.
That a well planned network will actually lead to a more affordable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly future.
Taxing the working class at 50 cents per gallon, then saying we need to work toward “societal equity”. Are we listening to ourselves here? Clown world.
Food Barolo, it’s not clear if you’re criticizing this piece. But we do pay the 50 cents tax but where is that money going? I suggest we employ it for the purpose above.
Public transportation is EXPENSIVE.
Orcas Island land area is 57.3 sq. miles. Best guess of year round population is about 6,000. That’s a density of about 105 per square mile (includes all ages).
As a transportation major many years ago at U/W, public transportation studies showed a density of about 465 per square mile would be minimum population density to support a public transportation system, and that’s with 20% firebox recovery. Almost certainly some form of tax pays for 80%, and that tax is usually on residents.
I have no clue what current studies show, but in general. all transportation costs have markedly increased.
Not opposing an Orcas Island public transportation discussion, but this idea appears to be seriously financially unfeasible.
Correction: firebox vice firebox. (Typos are my specialty)..
Robert,
Thank you for bringing your transportation expertise to this discussion—your U/W background and knowledge of traditional density metrics (465/sq mile for viable transit) provides valuable context. You’re absolutely right that conventional public transit models would struggle with our year-round density of 105/sq mile. But traditional density metrics don’t factor in the nature of being
However, I believe the traditional density calculations miss critical factors unique to our island transportation exchange in that we’re an island backed by a ferry system, marinas, and an airport.
1. The Real Population We’re Serving: The 105/sq mile figure overlooks thousands of daily visitors during peak season. When WSF data shows we’re processing 500 to 1000 passengers daily through the Orcas terminal—many arriving without vehicles—we’re actually dealing with a transportation demand exceeding our year round resident population. These visitors add to our environmental impact both through the ferry system and by increasing car usage on our roads. Which we must admit has an environmental impact.
2. Hidden Subsidies We’re Already Paying: You mention the 80% public subsidy typical for transit, but we’re already heavily subsidizing transportation through WSF vehicle fares. Every visitor vehicle we subsidize through the ferry system costs taxpayers significantly more than a walk-on passenger. If we redirected even a portion of vehicle subsidies toward supporting walk-on passengers with connecting transit, we might achieve better financial and environmental outcomes.
3. Transportation Exchange Optimization: As an island accessible only by water or air, Orcas naturally functions as a transportation exchange point. The question isn’t whether we can afford public transit—it’s whether we can afford NOT to optimize this exchange. Current inefficiencies (visitors bringing cars for lack of alternatives, residents driving to the ferry to pick up guests, duplicate trips) represent real costs absorbed by ourselves, our state and federal governemtns.
4. Fare Innovation Potential: Your 20% farebox recovery assumption reflects mainland residential transit. But consider:
Visitors to island destinations perhaps routinely pay $20-40 for resort shuttles
Walk-on passengers have already saved in vehicle ferry fees
A tiered fare structure (premium visitor rates, subsidized resident passes) could achieve perhaps 40-60% farebox recovery
Partnerships with lodging and tourism businesses could provide additional revenue
5. Seasonal Scaling: Rather than year-round fixed routes based on resident density, imagine a system that scales with actual demand—robust summer service funded largely by visitor fares, minimal winter service for essential resident needs.
The data I’m gathering on passenger exchange rates, walk-on percentages, and seasonal patterns will help us model realistic scenarios. A summer pilot program would provide Orcas-specific data on actual vs. theoretical ridership and costs.
The assumption that summer visitors will park their cars in Anacortes and walk on a ferry for other than perhaps a day trip seems illogical. From my relatively frequent observations, summer visitor’s vehicles are often packed with luggage and camping gear. The idea that visitors will park, often in the hill lot because the lower lots are full, and haul their baggage (and often kiddos) to the terminal, and then carry same off the ferry and into a car, van or bus likely going to some central location where they would have to transfer to another form f transit seems unlikely when they can just drive on and off a ferry and go directly to wherever they are destined to go. And most might like their own car to go to restaurants or maybe visit Moran state park .
Orcas and other San Juan County ferry served islands have been a visitor destination for well more than a century. The world’s population keeps growing and the wealthy keep getting richer, and many travel. Summer visitors are simply a fact of life of living on a desirable island destination, and someday it’s likely to get so crowded we might have to consider installing our first traffic light.
Hi Again Robert Dashiell,
> The assumption that summer visitors ..
I’m not sure if you’ve seen the ferry load and unload during our summers. But there are existing flows of walk on passengers arriving and leaving Orcas. But don’t take my word for it.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/wsferries/viz/WSF-Public/Index
On the tableau dashboard above, select the Anacortes – San Juans Route , then the Orcas terminal. You will see that we have hundreds of Walk On Passengers per day during the summer, today and without public transit on the other side. I think I saw a “local maximum” of 686 walk ons around July 12th for example.
This contributes to traffic and congestion at the landing when vehicles arrive at Orcas landing to pick all of these passengers up.
I don’t claim that all visitors will leave their vehicles on the other side. But there is a bus that takes visitors to the Anacortes terminal.
> And most might like their own car to go to restaurants or maybe visit Moran state park .
We’re suggesting a 3 route system with perhaps a shuttle or a bus. Read https://forpt.org/goodenough.html . Any prospective route plan will have a means to get to Moran State Park. Furthermore, I believe that practically every restaurant would be accessible from the 3 route plan.
And furthermore, in Deer Harbor
We have approx 140 moored vessels at Deer Harbor Marina during the summer, with insufficient parking. And members from our own county from Waldron Island coming through that same Marina on 2 “mail route” trips per day. And there are 5 marinas: Deer Harbor, West Sound,
But I’m also suggesting that like all other Public Transit in the state. That we make the service free for anyone under 18. And specifically in support of our own youth population. And that we offer resident cards for our locals, or similar so we can ourselves ride the system at low or no cost.
I know, that I for one would use the system I am designing…
Here’s an uninformed fare example for the time being.
$7 regular fare (visitors)
$20 day pass (visitors)