Dear Editor,

I wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Herald’s April 8, 2009 edition regarding the need for greater scrutiny of the costs of the Water Taxi. A King County official responded to that letter alleging that the Water Taxi was economically viable.

A recent July 15, 2009 column in The Seattle Times indicated that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) prepared an evaluation of Puget Sound regional passenger-only ferries in July of 2008. The King County official’s letter did not reveal the existence of that PSRC study for very good reason – the conclusions were entirely disturbing and unfavorable to the Water Taxi.

According to a report, the Water Taxi handles roughly 660 passengers per day at its peak, not including the parts of the year when travel on Elliott Bay is less than ideal. It costs $1.67 million to operate.

The King County Ferry District was established in 2007 and may levy a property tax of up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for ferry district purposes. Taxpayers subsidized operational costs of the Water Taxi.

This isn’t the end of it. To keep the Water Taxi running, the West Seattle terminal will require improvements costing $8 million, and the vessel capital costs will cost $2 – 4 million, according to the PSRC report. These facts were not revealed to your readers by the King County official.

What is even more troubling is that King County is actually seriously considering additional water taxi routes, for example across Lake Washington. Operating subsidies to those routes would be staggering.

Because of small ridership and large operational costs, the routes could cost $140 and even $325 per trip per passenger. To embark on such a foolish transportation alternative would deter rational people, but not King County.

At a time when members of the King County Council are bemoaning the fact that their recent budget cuts human service programs, and the King County Executive and some of the council members are proposing additional sales taxes to sustain human services programs, it seems entirely irrational for the county to subsidize inefficient and ineffective transportation programs when the county budget should prioritize the human service needs.

Philip A. Talmadge
Seattle