Transcript Funding for the WSF Program - Kitsap Regional Coordinating

FERRY SUMMIT PRESENTATION
By
Terry McCarthy
INTRODUCTION
2
INTRODUCTION
Thank-you
– Policy Makers
– Interested Citizens
3
INTRODUCTION
Caveat
– Hot buttons
– Sole proprietor
4
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation
– Background information
– Framework for discussion
5
INTRODUCTION
Structure of Presentation
– Operations
– Terminal facilities/Eagle Harbor
– Aging Vessels
– Funding
6
OPERATIONS
7
OPERATIONS
Service Schedule
– Number One State Tourist attraction
– 2nd Largest Mass Transit operator
– Largest Double Ended ferry system in the
world
– Trip Distributor
8
OPERATIONS
On Shore Service
– Fare Rate and Collection Process
– Vehicle/Pedestrian/Transit/Bike Access to
terminal
– Parking facilities adjacent to terminal
– Staging options
– Real time information
– Employee interface experiences
9
OPERATIONS
On Water Service
– Reliability
– On Time Performance
– Value Added Experience
10
POLICY MAKERS PERSPECTIVE
Operations
– Service versus cost balance
– Agency effectiveness (program delivery) and
efficiency (bang for the buck)
11
OPERATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Service Contract
– Budgetary Impact
Budget Drivers
– Fuel
– Maintenance
– Overhead
– Labor Costs
• Terminal Staff
• Vessel Staff
• Maintenance Staff
12
FERRY TERMINALS
13
FERRY TERMINALS
Ideal Terminal
– Environmentally friendly
– Canalized access for
Pedestrians/Vehicles/Bike
– Adequate staging area for customers and
vehicles
– Auto Slips of sufficient size and number
– An overnight tie-up slip
– Real Time Customer information on status of
vessel and transit connections
14
FERRY TERMINALS
Ideal Terminal (cont.)
– Adequate space for Employee needs:
Parking, Service Vehicles, Cash Handling,
First Aid, Equipment
– Security elements in place
– Automatic ticketing and vending
– Customer Service space
– Appropriate public bathroom facilities
– Seamless transfer points for Transit and Kiss
and Ride
15
FERRY TERMINALS
Status of Existing WSF Terminals
– Aging Facilities
– Geographically landlocked in growing Urban
Sprawl
– Wooden structures still in use
– Lack of modern amenities: bathrooms, real
time information, automation options
– Not environmentally friendly or as secure as
possible
– Inadequate staging space
16
FERRY TERMINALS
Status of Existing WSF Terminals (cont.)
– Not proper slip size and number of slips
– Lack of slip tie-up options
17
FERRY TERMINALS
Impediments to Improving
– Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness
– Shoreline management act
– Environmental agencies enforcement of rules
and regulations
– Work over water
– Lack of competitive bidding pool
– Engineering Realities
– Lead time
– Political willingness
18
FERRY TERMINALS
Existing Terminal Constraints on WSF
Operations (examples)
– Port Townsend/Keystone. Slip size and harbor
at Keystone
– Southworth. No auto access to Seattle no
Passenger-Only facilities
– San Juan Islands. Single slips, no tie-up or
maintenance options
19
FERRY TERMINALS
Existing Terminal Constraints on WSF
Operations (examples) cont.
– Seattle. Traffic queuing and staging, number
of auto slips
– Fauntleroy. Traffic queuing, transit access
– Edmonds. Single slip, railroad conflicts
– Mukilteo. Traffic queuing
20
VESSELS (Auto/Passenger Ferry)
21
VESSELS (Auto/Passenger Ferry)
Aging Fleet
– Current Condition
– Past/Future Condition
22
VESSELS (Auto/Passenger Ferry)
Double Ended Ferry
– Inland waterway
– Loading/Off Loading efficiency
– Auto/Passenger Capacity
– Route length requirements
– Stability and safety of vessel
– Amenities space
23
VESSELS (Auto/Passenger Ferry)
Double Ended Ferry (cont.)
– Redundancy
– Terminal configuration
– Customer satisfactory
– State Cultural Icon
24
VESSELS (Auto/Passenger Ferry)
Future Vessel Configurations
– Change must be incremental
– Terminal constraints need to be recognized
– Focus on energy efficiency and lessen
environmental impacts
– Amenities likely reduced
– Desire for service flexibility and fleet
uniformity
– Procurement process continued to be refined
25
FUNDING
26
FUNDING
Pre 1999 Funding Logic
Operations:
– State Subsidy 40%
– Large Cash Balance
– Gas Tax
– Fines and Fees
– Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET)
– Customer Subsidy 60%
– Fares and purchases
27
FUNDING
Pre 1999 Funding Logic
Capital:
– State Subsidy 100%
– Gas Tax
– Bond Funds
– Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET)
– Federal Funds
28
FUNDING
Impact of I-695
Operations:
– Cash Balance begins to be depleted
– Motor Vehicle Excise Tax eliminated
– Fare Box increases intended to move it to
80% recovery
29
FUNDING
Impact of I-695
Capital:
– Bond Funds pledged and not available for
new projects
– Motor Vehicle Excise Tax eliminated
– Begin to use funding normally provided other
highway programs
30
FUNDING
Current Situation
Operations:
– Expenditure Pressures exceeding funding
availability
– Fare increases has diminishing returns
31
FUNDING
Current Situation
Capital:
– Planned six and twenty year program
unfunded
– Project deferrals used to balance budget
32
FUNDING
Financial Tensions
– Fair equity
– Route service versus route service
– East side terminals versus west terminals
– “Vehicle” mobility versus walk-on passengers
– Who is at fault (management, labor,
organizational structure, others)
33
FUTURE UNKNOWN
(Terry’s Predictions)
34
FUTURE UNKNOWN
(Terry’s Predictions)
Role of Governor
Proposition 1 failure
Legislative Study
35
Questions?
36