As We See It: Some Comments from the San Juans’ Ferry Advisory Committee

By Jim Corenman,
(prepared for the Dec. 14 FAC-WSF meeting)

Our life here on the islands seems to revolve around the ferries, and everyone seems to have an opinion. Schedules are never quite what we want, costs are higher than we would like (and seem to keep going up), and vessel maintenance is sometimes just plain embarrassing. Changes in Coast Guard and union work rules have also resulted in schedule changes over the last couple of years. Our community is diverse, but one constant that seems to bring us together is that we don’t like folks messing with our favorite ferry sailing.

We now have another issue: budget cuts at the state level. The Governor has requested Washington State Ferries to cut $16.9 million from their operating budget for 2011‐2012 ($8.5m per year). This is 4% of WSF’s operating budget, but a 12% reduction in the state contribution. And the voters have spoken clearly on new taxes and increased fees: Whatever we want, we want someone else to pay for it.

WSF has responded with some budget reduction options that include system‐wide service cuts including here in the San Juans. The proposal would extend the winter schedule and reduce capacity by eliminating the second Port Townsend ferry, downsizing vessels here in the San Juan’s, Bremerton and Southworth, and idling one of the super‐class ferries.
Under the current proposal, our interisland boat will be downsized from the 90‐car Evergreen State to the second new 64‐car ferry currently scheduled for Port Townsend, and one of our 148‐car super’s would be downsized to a 130‐car Issaquah in the busy summer period. The winter schedule, with reduced service and no Sidney sailing, would be extended by two months, from late November to late April.

The impacts will be significant, and the County Council and our Ferry Advisory Committee are working with other ferry‐served communities and our legislators to maintain current service levels. It is important that the community be involved also, and what we would like to do here is provide some
background information so that we can have a sensible, constructive conversation with WSF and with our state elected’s.

To better understand the current issues and the impacts of these changes, we first need to step back and take a look at schedules, budgets, and service.

Scheduling seems like it should be simple, just get some boats and run them back and forth. And for most of the down‐sound routes, that is true: A ferry leaves Seattle for Bainbridge every 45 to 60 min’s for a 35‐minute trip. For our islands, however, things are a bit more complex.

The first consideration is that we have four ferry‐served islands, each with its own unique character and differing needs. San Juan Island is the largest, with about 42% of the ferry traffic. Orcas is next, at 36%, then Lopez at 20% and Shaw at 2%. The total traffic varies seasonally, but these proportions don’t vary much, each island gets a mix of residents and tourists. The traffic also does not follow population: San Juan Island has more businesses and is more self‐sufficient, while our neighbors on Lopez head to the
mainland to do more of their shopping.

The islands are also inconveniently located for ferry service, with the busiest route (Anacortes―Friday Harbor) also being the longest, and the most difficult to provide service to. A direct sailing from Anacortes to Friday Harbor takes about 65 minutes versus 40 minutes to Lopez. So a ferry can make a
round‐trip from Anacortes to Lopez and back in a total of about 2 hours (including loading/unloading
time), while the same trip to Friday Harbor is 3 to 3½ hours, depending on unloading time in Friday Harbor. And that is another “gotcha”: The Friday Harbor terminal is right in town, a boon for walk‐on’s but not so good for traffic, which means unloading the ferry takes longer than elsewhere.

The other side of the scheduling issue is resources: boats, crews and fuel are needed, which requires funding. About 65% of the operating budget goes to boat and terminal labor, about 20% to fuel, about 10% to maintenance, and 5% to overhead‐‐ the folks in Seattle who keep things going. Overall, fares pay about 2/3 of the operating expense and the rest comes from the state. Downsound routes pay a higher
percentage from fares, over 100% on the Bainbridge route, while our fare contribution is the lowest at around 50%‐‐ reflecting, in part, that this is indeed our only way home.

Our “normal” allocation of boats is five boats in the summer: Three super’s (Hyak, Yakima, Elwah) for mainland service with a capacity of about 148 cars each; an interisland boat (the Evergreen State with a capacity of around 90), and an international boat (the Chelan with a capacity of 130). In the spring and fall we lose one of the super’s, while the international boat makes only one Sidney run and spends the
rest of the day providing mainland service. In the winter we still have four boats (three on the weekend) but no Sidney run, and one of the super’s is crewed for only one shift instead of two.

There are three different unions involved with crewing: Masters, mates and pilots who represent the pilothouse crews; the Inland Boatmen’s Union representing the deck crews, and the Marine Engineers union representing the engine‐room crews. The pilothouse and deck crews work the same schedules, with two different crews typically working 8 or 10 hour watches each, for a total of 80 hours work per 2‐week period. Crews join the boat at the designed home‐port (e.g. Anacortes) and are relieved at the same port. Engineering crews man the boats around the clock with two 12‐hour watches, and are also relieved at the same port as they joined the boat. It’s a jigsaw puzzle.

Touring watches were commonly used up until two years ago, and now just on the interisland. A touring watch is two back‐to‐back watches totaling 16 hours work in 24 hours with a rest period between, and then 24 hours off. The intent is to allow the crew to join the boat in one port, work one shift and then spend the night aboard the vessel somewhere else, work the morning shift and return to the originating port for a crew swap. This provided some flexibility for scheduling, but the concern is crew endurance and USCG has prohibited touring watches on most of the runs, with the exception of the interisland which overnights in Friday Harbor.

The elimination of touring watches removed one degree of flexibility for scheduling, and as a result most of our schedules have changed over the last couple of years from what they were for many years before that. Better in some cases, worse for others—that is the nature of change. There would be no advantage to changing back, however—the required rest period was also lengthened to 8 hours, and 16 hours per
day is not enough crew time for many of the runs. And the unions have agreed to a combination of 7 and 9‐hour watches as an alternative, which provides most of the flexibility of the touring watches.

And of course we need to balance mainland service with interisland service. Interisland service is what binds our community together, while the mainland service gets us to Costco and brings the groceries and tourists.

And budgets of course are limited. When the MVET (motor vehicle excise tax, the “car tag” fee) was voted down first by referendum and then by legislature ten years ago, ferries lost its major source of sustainable income. This was never replaced by the legislature, fare increases are painful, and the
proposed budget reductions will reduce funding further.

We may not agree with all of this, but it is the reality that WSF needs to work with. When you fold all of those things together—limited funding, 8 or 10‐hour watches that work out evenly, swapping deck crews and engineers at the appropriate times and terminals, sailing times and capacity appropriate for
the various needs, and last but often forgotten, no more than one boat in each slip—scheduling is necessarily a compromise.

Doing all this requires planning, and simply maintaining the status‐quo is not an option because ferries get rusty. The Hyak is one example but the classic failure‐to‐plan is the saga of the Steel Electrics and the continuing struggle to restore the lost service. And planning is no good without funding those plans. The current WSF Long‐Range Plan was published in June 2009, which outlined the next 20 years. Vessel capacities were forecast to remain about the same, with the 100‐car Sealth becoming our summer interisland when the E‐State retires in a few years, and new 144‐car ferries eventually replacing the super’s. Reservations are proposed in order to help manage peak‐sailing overloads. One problem of course is that much of this continues to be unfunded.

There is one other recent development that is interesting and timely. The governor asked the PVA—Passanger Vessel Association, the organization of ferry operators—to assemble a panel of experts and review all aspects of WSF. The report was generally favorable but included a long list of recommendations, mostly minor and a few that were more significant.

The two recommendations that stood out as having a large potential impact for our future were governance of WSF, and nationwide bidding of new vessels. The “governance” recommendation was a suggestion to look at alternate methods of governing WSF. Currently the head of WSF (David Moseley) reports to the Secretary of Transportation (a political appointee) with input and oversight from the governor, the Transportation Commision, the entire legislature, the Animal Protection Society, and a few others. For example, a board of directors representing the served communities might just be able to provide better guidance and oversight than the current arrangement.

The other area that might be worth discussion is the state law that requires new ferries to be built in Washington state. This is great for supporting local shipyards, but comes at a price: The three new 64‐ car ferries will cost $220 million by the time they are done ($79 for the first, $141 for the next two,
without engines which WSF already had on hand), on a single‐bid contract with Todd Shipyards. The more‐complex “Island Home”, built by the Steamship Authority a few years ago on a national bid, was $35 million‐ with engines. Adjusted for shipyard inflation a reasonable expectation would be $40‐45m.

That’s an extra $80‐90 million to support local shipyards. Commendable, at what cost?

So what can we do to help ensure that we get the ferry service that we need? In one critical aspect our needs are different than anywhere else: our county is connected only by a single ferry route—no roads or bridges to drive around the ferry, not even an alternate ferry. Aside from Kenmore Air or a private boat, it is our only transportation option. But also remember that funding is limited, and asking for additional funds for our service means someone else gets less. So we need to be respectful of this.

Attend the meeting on December 14 in the County Council chambers in Friday harbor, if you can. If you cannot attend in person, then log onto the county website and watch it there, and send your questions and comments via email. Remember that this is a meeting with WSF, and while it is always tempting to blame them for everything, we would suggest that is counter‐productive.

The goal is to preserve our service and this cannot be done without the governor’s and the legislature’s help. In this respect, we and WSF are on the same side of the table with one important difference: WSF cannot lobby for more funding, but we can.

We also need to make the best use of the resources that are available. Part of this is continuing to work with WSF to optimize schedules, that’s a WSF/FAC partnership with your input. We all can’t have our own personal ferry, but we can work together as a community. We also need WSF to work as efficiently as possible, and need to encourage whatever changes are needed to make that possible.