Orcas needs public transit today
||| FROM COLIN WILLIAMS for FRIENDS OF RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION |||
We believe residents should have choices—both in whether to raise additional taxes for enhanced service and in selecting among different implementation approaches.
In that regard, our transit planning groups need to develop and refine multiple transit plans, not settle on a single solution. These plans should be presented and considered by our community. As the Friends of Rural Public Transit, our initial proposal aimed to provide the county with an adequate transit pilot program that would not raise the local tax base [forPT.ORG Proposal]. (https://theorcasonian.com/gue
The Urgency is Real
Every year we delay implementing public transit is another year of:
- Limited mobility for non-drivers, including seniors and youth
- Continued isolation for community members without reliable transportation
- Missed opportunities to reduce our collective carbon footprint
- Increased personal vehicle use (predominantly fossil-fueled)
Our community deserves transit solutions today, not just visions of what might work tomorrow.
Assessment: Evaluating a Proposed Solution for Public Transit on Orcas Island
For three years, I’ve advocated for public transit on Orcas Island that meets what I call the AAA requirements: Affordable,
Accessible, and Available service for our community. Today, we have Climate Commitment Act gas tax funding that could have launched a transit pilot program . Yet we continue to wait, pursuing an electric vehicle vision that may delay real transit solutions for years.
What Effective Transit Requires
Any suggested public transit system plan for Orcas should analyze iteslf employing the AAA service requirements. As an example our plan translated the requirements into:
- Three routes covering the island’s key destinations: Central, East, and West
- Hourly service intervals throughout the day
- Approximately 12 hours of daily operation
- Strategic stops at community hubs like the Senior Center, providing vital connections for our elderly residents
- Summer capacity requiring a bus (Central) and perhaps two 15-passenger vans (East and West), with backups for reliable service
These aren’t wishful thinking—they’re the constraints any viable solution must address.
The Cost Reality: Understanding the True Constraints
Through preliminary analysis, we’ve identified that the most significant expenses in Public Transit are:
- Staff salaries (drivers)
- Infrastructure/vehicle purchase costs (capital expenditure)
Our proposed solution addressed these constraints through resource sharing with Public Schools, targeting one of the largest cost drivers while avoiding new taxes. The “bright idea” in that plan has potential to demonstrate a transit pilot quickly and affordably, using existing resources. This could give us valuable information in planning an ultimately more catered approach when we understand how the system was utilized. Moreover, this partnership would benefit our schools by generating revenue from their underutilized resources turning idle assets into income that supports education.
Supporting, Not Replacing, Existing Services
Let me be clear: I fully support Island Rides’ vital door-to-door service for community members who need it most. I applaud them regarding that development. Their work is essential. But let’s recognize that Public transit would actually strengthen their mission by providing a complementary service network, helping them focus resources on those with the greatest mobility needs.
Why the Electric Vehicle Plan Falls Short
The plan being developed by Island Rides (OPALCO Ruralite Magazine P.8 , Oct 2025) (https://issuu.com/utilit
Several factors make this approach impractical at this time ( although I welcome factual evidence to the contrary ):
- Operational Limitations: Running electric buses and perhaps even vans continuously for 12 hours daily isn’t currently practical. The limited deployment of electric buses, shuttles, and vans in public transit systems elsewhere confirms this technology gap.
- Local Experience: Multiple sources report that Orcas’s electric school bus has been a maintenance nightmare .
- Increased Capital Requirements: Meeting our three-route requirement with electric vehicles would necessitate purchasing additional vehicles due to charging downtime, significantly increasing capital expenditure.
- Affordability Crisis: The electric approach drives costs up, undermining what should be a core benefit—public transit that’s affordably attractive to residents. Without affordability, people will not use the service.
- Sticker Shock: Electric buses, vans, and ifrastructure carry a substantial price premium over conventional vehicles—a capital cost burden that may directly contradict our core mission of providing AAA transit.
A Pragmatic Path Forward
This isn’t about opposing electrification—it’s about not letting perfect become the enemy of good. We should:
- Attempt to Find a More Immediate Solution: Implement a public transit pilot using proven, currently available technology and existing funding
- Give Residents Choices: Develop multiple transit plans—including tax-neutral options alongside proposals requiring voter approval
Mobilizing Our Community: A Call for Creative Solutions
While our proposed partnership with Public Schools offered one path to resource sharing, we recognize this approach may not be feasible this coming year. That shouldn’t stop us. This is where our community’s creativity and collective resources can make the difference.
I’m calling on all groups and organizations that support public transit— transportation collectives, environmental groups, senior services, youth organizations, business associations, religious organizations, and concerned citizens—to come together and explore creative solutions. We need to pool our resources, share our expertise, and find innovative ways to launch a pilot program sooner rather than later.
The Climate Commitment Act funding provides a foundation, but community investment—whether through time, resources, or creative problem-solving—could be what gets us a viable solution. We don’t need to wait for a perfect government solution which never comes or idealized technology without a timeline. We need people in our community willing to step up and say, “How can we help make this happen now?”
Conclusion: Keep Exploring Options
The current electric vehicle plan appears to be an inadequate solution that fails on both accessibility and affordability. It will likely delay implementation of any adequate public transit system. Even if implemented, we’re unlikely to achieve the necessary three-routesystem with hourly service intervals that our community needs. Thetechnology simply isn’t mature enough to meet our requirements at a reasonable cost.
We need to continue developing alternative plans, and present them to our community. Plans with real choices—including tax-neutral options alongside proposals that might require voter-approved tax-based funding. But most importantly, we need people and community organizations to actively participate in creating solutions rather than waiting for them to appear.
The goal should be finding solutions that work for Orcas, not forcing premature technology adoption that serves neither accessibility nor affordability goals. With community support and creative resource sharing, we can launch a pilot transit program that serves our island’s needs today while building toward tomorrow’s possibilities.
**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.**
We published an updated version on our website: https://forpt.org/orcasonianII.html . Thanks kindly to the Orcasonian for publishing our opinion !!
Because the San Juan Islands are defined by water, terrain, seasonality and ferry dependence, any discussion of public transportation must move beyond convenience and frame mobility as a structural component of community viability. The isolated nature of our geography means that transport isn’t a “nice to have”; it is the difference between participation and withdrawal.
You mention the CCA funding as a foundation—could you clarify whether a specific grant under the CCA has been applied for or awarded for Orcas Island? And if not, what is the timeline and status of that application process, considering we all know that being ‘ready’ is the most critical piece?
Until the funding and economic alignment are clear, the creative side can only orbit the same idea. No one here can afford to keep investing unpaid time in hypothetical systems. When structure meets value, participation follows.
And as for “good enough,” maybe that’s the point—we don’t need to chase perfection, but we should perfect what’s simple enough to work. It’s only transportation, after all—but it’s also everything that connects us.
Studies of rural and island transit systems consistently show a return on investment that belies the apparent challenges. For instance, when rural transit dollars are invested in service operators, nearly four dollars of economic activity are generated for each dollar spent. (https://utc.uic.edu/news-stories/rural-public-transit-yields-a-multitude-of-financial-and-other-benefits/) Further, in isolated settings, providing accessible transportation has been shown to reduce healthcare access gaps, employment churn and social isolation. (https://irpp.org/research-studies/affordable-safe-transportation-options-remote-communities/) These are precisely the factors facing our community: missed appointments, under-employment, and the erosion of local social networks.
On Orcas and adjacent islands, the question isn’t if transit should exist—it’s how it should be structured so that it endures. A system that fails to align with the rhythms of ferry schedules, tourist season peaks, energy grid constraints and dispersed settlement will not survive and people will revert back to what is already good enough. The conversation about “which technology” or “which pilot” often obscures the more urgent question of alignment: alignment with funding eligibility, regulatory requirements, and local lived experience. The literature underscores that rural transit doesn’t thrive by replicating urban models; it thrives through tailored service models that reflect geography, population density and demand patterns. (https://ruralmobility.scot/images/Spotlight_on_Rural__Islands_Transport_by_SRITC_June_2022.pdf)
It is entirely feasible for San Juan County to implement a system that moves from idea into impact. The groundwork—stakeholder groups, nonprofit partnerships, county involvement—already exists. What remains is a shift from proposal toward operational readiness: ensuring the model meets criteria for grants, distinguishing what is affordable and sustainable, and recognizing that delaying service is itself a cost. Every year without reliable transit is a year of compounded disadvantage for those least able to absorb it.
Look beyond the headline of “bus service” and consider this: reliable mobility enhances local wages by linking remote neighborhoods to jobs, lowers vehicle ownership burden for households, mitigates isolation for older adults, strengthens our climate commitments and protects our natural environment by reducing vehicle miles travelled. The published benefit-cost figures for rural transit reinforce this: in many small and rural systems, benefits exceed costs. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263656542_Cost-Benefit_Analysis_of_Rural_and_Small_Urban_Transit)
For our islands, this means we should frame transit as a multi-domain investment: social infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, health infrastructure. The decisions made now will ripple across age-cohorts, income-levels and generations. We need to design service that is simply “predictably part of how we live.” That requires us to hold multiple models in conversation rather than fixating on a single “pilot pattern”; to build resident-centric, island-centric service rather than importing urban assumptions; and to engage deeply with funding and logistics so that we can move from talk into service without another false start.
What comes next depends on our collective capacity to think together rather than compete. If we can align vision with feasibility, Orcas could become a model for rural mobility and ecological coherence across the Salish Sea. In sum: our community deserves transportation that works for the people here—When mobility aligns with geography, human need, and operational reality, it becomes more than transit. It becomes the connective tissue of the island community.
Thanks for your interest Robin Baldwin . Here are responses to your questions:
> “You mention the CCA funding as a foundation—could you clarify whether a specific grant under the CCA has been applied for or awarded for Orcas Island? You mention the CCA funding as a foundation—could you clarify whether a specific grant under the CCA has been applied for or awarded for Orcas Island? And if not, what is the timeline and status of that application process, considering we all know that being ‘ready’ is the most critical piece?”
I believe when I looked previously. Some of the funding that Island Rides has received has been CCA funded. You should have the same capability I have to research this. Then I suggest you look it up and inform us. Or I might put it on my lengthy TODO list.
> “And if not, what is the timeline and status of that application process, considering we all know that being ‘ready’ is the most critical piece?”
We are not currently working towards the grant writing process. However, if there is enough interest in our organization to support that process. We will consider engaging in that process.
But hopefully whoever is working on transportation considers the FORPT opinion. Because I believe it’s motivated in the best interest of Transit Planning for our community.
Kindly
As far as we know, there isn’t an active CCA transportation grant window open right now, so that part’s a bit of a moot point. But readiness doesn’t stop when funding pauses; it’s built through the planning, coordination, and partnerships that make the next opportunity viable.
Which makes me curious — beyond publishing statements, what work is forpt.org doing to align with county processes or prepare for the next funding cycles? The real leverage happens between grants, when the groundwork is laid quietly for when doors reopen.
I’m hopeful we’ll hear back soon from the REDLG (feasibility) and RHT (health) grants, both of which could create the foundation for wider collaboration once awarded. When that time comes, it’ll take a network of creative minds and pragmatic doers to reshape how we all move together into the future.
Until then, the logistics continue in the background — and while we stay grounded in the work, let’s not forget to be dreamers too. That’s how real change has always begun here.
Once again, great ideas having to rely on outside money for funding. This type of initiative should be funded from county tax dollars. Sadly our county tax dollars are all too often used for frivolous purposes and core services get a back seat.
I’m sure you’ve been asked this before, but is there a reason why Island Rides is not taking this on? This seems like a logical extension of the work that they already do with the board knowledge they have. If they’re not willing to do it, It would be good to understand why? And if not, would they be willing to fiscally sponsor you? It would certainly make things easier for you administratively. But, maybe you are already a 501(c)(3).
Thanks Foo Barolo, we agree that Public Transit is a core service. We’re doing our best to bring the focus of our transportation groups on track to solve this problem.
We are the only county in Washington State without Public Transit.
Ed Andrews, thanks for your response.
This opinion piece has been shared with Island Rides board members Jay Kimball and Bruce Benton. I have not yet received a response. I will send them a message and ask them to answer your questions about their organization directly.
Regarding FORPT forming a 501(c)(3). I have one party , a professional project manager interested in acting as secretary. However we haven’t found a person yet interested in acting as a treasurer. Without a quorum, we can’t start a board / organization.
As an aside to all the parties: I am having an issue with the Reply mechanism in the comments. Pardon me if you don’t receive an email regarding my response. Then I am having trouble writing a reply directly to your comments on the website. I will message Lin and offer technical assistance.