Hutchison: Transfer millions from ferries to buses - SeattlePi.com

King County executive candidate Susan Hutchison this week sent a letter to County Council members urging them to take money they're spending on ferries and use it instead for buses.

"Metro is facing cuts that could leave riders stranded at a time when our region is making tremendous strides to increase ridership. More than half of the $18 million annual ferry service levy which goes to fund future exploration or 'demonstration' routes in South King County and across Lake Washington can be reallocated to Metro. I believe these funds are best spent where people need them the most, preserving the bus service they rely upon," Hutchison wrote.

Hutchison, the former KIRO-TV broadcaster, said the popular West Seattle and Vashon routes "should be kept for the time being."

The county's ferry district has has financial responsibility for the passenger-only runs from Vashon Island to downtown and West Seattle to downtown. It is looking at expanding service elsewhere in Puget Sound and to add new service across Lake Washington.

UPDATE

Sandeep Kaushik, campaign spokesman for exec candidate and County Council Chairman Dow Constantine, says the West Seattle ferry returns more at the fare box than a typical Metro bus, and the Vashon ferry is cost-effective as well in comparison to Metro bus service to rural areas.

"Dow will not support ferry routes on Lake Washington unless there is significant demand and the service is shown to be cost effective. That is what is under assessment right now. Susan Hutchison apparently does not understand that ferry district funds can not legally be moved to support Metro bus service. This letter is just the latest indication that she knows little about County issues and lacks the qualifications to serve as King County Executive," Kaushik said in an e-mail.

Powered by Qumana

The Plot to Sink the Water Taxi - The Seattle Weekly

Political pirates want to beach the new mosquito fleet before it gets started.
By Mike Seely
Published on July 21, 2009 at 8:12pm
Last week, King County Executive candidate Ross Hunter ratcheted up his attack on the county's prospective mosquito fleet by claiming it would be more cost-effective to buy each Vashon and West Seattle foot-ferry passenger a Bayliner than continue to fund the fledgling King County Ferry District.

Hunter's been very clear about his intent to sink the Downtown–West Seattle Water Taxi if elected. "I think that adding the West Seattle foot ferry is a very expensive way to make one of the most expensive transit agencies in the country more expensive," he explains. "Expanding it to Lake Washington would be even worse. I'm trying to get the county to stick to its knitting and provide a great bus system."

Fred Jarrett, who like Hunter is a centrist state legislator from the Eastside running to fill Ron Sims' shoes, has also expressed his opposition to the county's ferry district, and columnist Danny Westneat piled on with an anti-ferry screed of his own in The Seattle Times last week. All of which makes the pleasant little Sightseer—the Argosy boat used on the West Seattle run—the most unexpected target of political vitriol this campaign season. But really, it all smacks of a very calculated attack on Democratic frontrunner and West Seattle resident Dow Constantine, for whom the vessel is a virtual floating advertisement. (While he's ahead of his fellow Dems in the polls, Constantine trails right-leaning Susan Hutchison by a good margin.)

"Ross Hunter and Fred Jarrett voted three times each in Olympia to create the county ferry district, because they were managing the state budget so poorly that the state had to slough off its basic responsibilities onto King County," says Constantine campaign spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik. "Senator Patty Murray also understands the value of the Water Taxi. [Last week] she got $2 million in federal funds for the Water Taxi, which has seen ridership rise 30 percent a year and just set a new record for ridership last month."

"Ross is using voodoo math to come up with these numbers—mixing up both capital costs and operating costs," adds Kaushik. "By Ross' method of calculation, it would probably be cheaper to get rid of Metro bus service and buy everyone a Bentley. The truth is that the Water Taxi recovers about twice as much in operating expenses from the fare box as Metro does from buses."

Powered by Qumana

Candidates Pit Ferries Against Buses in King County - KUOW News

Mass transit was looking good this weekend as the Central Link light rail line opened between Seattle and Tukwila. But the near future for bus service in King County is not so festive. Service cuts are in the works. This has sparked a fierce debate in the race for King County Executive. Some candidates want to redirect money for passenger ferries into the ailing bus system instead.

When they passed the Transit Now levy in 2005, voters in King County agreed to pay higher sales taxes to improve their bus service. But when the recession hit, those voters quit buying and revenue plummeted. King County Executive Kurt Triplett says Metro Transit faces a $170 million gap over the next two years. That means service cuts are imminent.

Triplett: "The key question, though, is where do you make those cuts. And this is where the region could end up in literally a civil war over transit service. And I'm going to try to propose something that works."

Triplett wants to freeze any expansion of Metro Transit, and cut service by 10 percent.

Triplett: "I want to apply that 10 percent cut across all routes, rather than picking winners and losers."

The cuts could be bigger — Triplett's plan assumes the King County Metropolitan Council will approve either a property tax hike or a fare increase.

The candidates for Triplett's county executive job haven't talked much about where to cut. They have said they don't like the current formula that requires almost all new bus service to be outside Seattle. But that doesn't mean they're taking Seattle's side.

Hutchison: "County government is very Seattle–centric. One of the reasons is they're located right there in downtown Seattle."

In a recent candidate debate, Susan Hutchison said that's why Seattle ended up with the lion's share of Metro service. All the candidates agree that Metro must bring more service to other cities in King County. Candidate Ross Hunter, a state legislator from Medina, says even if the bus formula is axed, East and South King County will keep pressing for more equity.

Hunter: "Most of the growth has occurred there and most of the growth is going to occur there so you're going to see increasing demand outside the city for routes. Now this of course is about how we expand service and we're not talking about expanding service in the near term, we're talking about cutting service."

Three candidates including Hunter say Metro's problems should take precedence over plans to expand the passenger ferry service.

Candidate and state senator Fred Jarrett called for halting the expansion recently at Seattle's public boat landing. Jarrett says he'd continue the existing passenger ferry service, but do away with plans for routes on Lake Washington and Puget Sound. Jarrett says that would mean an additional $15 million for buses.

Jarrett: "I don't know how I can go down to Burien or Bellevue or Federal Way or Bellevue or Auburn and say we're going to raise your taxes to be able to put new services on Puget Sound and oh by the way we're going to cut the routes that you're currently using, that just doesn't make sense."

Hutchison also says the new service isn't needed.

Hutchison: "There are thousands of people who have boats on Lake Washington and they could easily implement their own little mosquito fleet if it were feasible. It's not."

The passenger ferry issue is one of the clearest divisions in the race for King County Executive — both candidates who currently serve on the King County Metropolitan Council support studying the expansion. Larry Phillips says his support is conditional.

Phillips: "Every year what we see are increasing use of the water taxi in a way in which it's becoming a staple of our community and well used. The other routes that we've looked for we have not made a commitment that we're going to do them, what we've looked at is potential demonstration routes and we're going to find out whether they make sense. If they don't, I would be the first person to say we're out of that business."

And Dow Constantine, who chairs the ferry board, agrees that the agency won't roll out any new service until it's tested.

Constantine: "Compared to buses, there are places where buses are going to work best, where trains are going to work best, and there are a few places in this county with the odd geography and being surrounded by water, where boats are going to be the best options for transit."

He celebrated the $2 million in federal funds King County will receive for a new passenger ferry. It will serve the existing route between downtown and West Seattle. Meanwhile Fred Jarrett wants the county to suspend its hiring of a ferry system manager. The salary budgeted for that job is $135,000 per year.

I'm Amy Radil, KUOW News.

© Copyright 2009, KUOW

Powered by Qumana

Southworth Riders Wondering About Changes to Vashon Passenger Ferry - Kitsap Sun

SOUTH KITSAP —

The King County Ferry District will take over the Vashon Island-Seattle passenger-only route from the state this fall, bringing a new boat, new schedule and new prices. Dozens of riders who hop from Southworth to Vashon to connect with the downtown boat are faced with adjustments.

New fares and schedules were to be approved Monday by the ferry district’s board of supervisors, but it asked for more time. It did approve a boat lease for the Melissa Ann, which once operated between Bremerton and Seattle.

The proposed fare would be a slight increase — from $8.70 now with Washington State Ferries to $9 — but there’s a catch. The state waives the Southworth-Vashon leg now for those connecting to the passenger-only boat, but will start charging them $4.30 like everybody else. So it will cost them a total of $4.60 more to get to Seattle and back.

King County, which takes over on Sept. 28, is adding sailings, but like today, only four will work for South Kitsap folks — 7:10 and 8:10 (WSF has asked to change this to 8:15) from Vashon in the morning, and 4:30 and 5:30 from Seattle in the evening. And the 4:30 p.m. is a stretch because there’s a 33-minute wait at Vashon, making it a 65-minute trip. Some have complained to the ferry district.

Carol [URL]Kowalski of Manchester realizes King County’s ferry system isn’t going to coddle Kitsap riders, but she believes transit systems should mesh.

“The most disturbing point is what is the region’s responsibility to interconnected mass transit?” she said.

King County and Washington State Ferries have been meeting monthly about the changeover.

“We are concerned about all of our passengers, and we consider Southworth and Vashon to be our customers, so we will continue to work very closely with the ferry district to make sure our passengers are given due consideration,” WSF spokeswoman Marta Coursey said.

Her counterpart at the ferry district said many things have to click, including bus and car-ferry schedules, preventing ferry overloads, and the times people start and leave work.

“Taking all those things into consideration and asking riders what they want, these proposed times seem to hit the market as best as possible,” Kris Faucett said. “We looked at when the Southworth boat arrives and tried to schedule it so they would link up fairly well.”

The Melissa Ann, leased from Four Seasons Marine, carries 149 passengers at about 28 knots. Kitsap Ferry Co., with help from Kitsap Transit, ran it between Bremerton and Seattle until March 2007, when it couldn’t afford to continue.

Powered by Qumana

Touring Watch Decision “A Win” for San Juan County - Islands Weekly.com

Jul 19 2009, 1:00 AM · NEW
It appears that Washington State Ferries will be able to avoid drastic reductions in morning sailings from the San Juans this fall, thanks to a decision announced Monday by the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard has notified Washington State Ferries that it can continue to schedule “touring watches” on its Anacortes to San Juan Islands routes on a trial basis. Touring watches allow the WSF to schedule crew members to finish a shift in the San Juans, spend the night, then begin a new shift here the next morning. Previously, the Coast Guard had ordered WSF to end touring watches system-wide because of concerns raised by crews on other ferry routes.

According to San Juan County Council Member Howie Rosenfeld, the Coast Guard’s reversal was due in large part to the involvement of the San Juan County Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC) and the County Council.

FAC Chairman Ed Sutton told the Council Tuesday, “This is a great win, we’re not done yet, but I think we dodged a bullet. This has been an extraordinary team effort.”

According to Sutton. the only major change on the latest draft of this year’s fall schedule is that the last sailing from Anacortes on Mondays-Thursdays is at 7:25 p.m., an hour earlier than last year. Later sailings will be available Friday-Sunday.

In June, after the Coast Guard had ordered an end to touring watches, the Ferry Advisory Committee issued a statement describing the impact of the resulting ferry schedule saying: “Typically over 60% of the Friday Harbor traffic boards ferries to arrive in Anacortes prior to midday. The draft Schedule allocates only 26% of total eastbound capacity to these hours. The net effect will be to make it difficult for San Juan Island residents to make mid-morning appointments in Anacortes or conduct a full day’s business on the mainland. “

In briefing the Council Tuesday, Council Member Rosenfeld emphasized that the long-term continuation of touring watches is not a foregone conclusion. “By the end of the fall schedule the Coast Guard will re-evaluate and decide whether touring watches will continue,” he said. “If they decide not to, then the winter schedule will be a transition to no touring watches in the spring

Powered by Qumana

U.S. Supreme Court Decision RE: Maintenance and Cure Payments

***PRESS RELEASE***

Significant Decision Impacting Seamen’s Right to Receive Punitive Damages for Employers’ Disregard of Maintenance and Cure Payments

On Thursday, June 25^th, the United States Supreme Court decided a case styled Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. et al. v Edgar L. Townsend 2009 WL 1789469 (U.S. June 25, 2009).  This case marked the Supreme Court’s decision to protect a seaman’s right to receive damages for an employers’ willful and wanton disregard of a maintenance and cure obligation.

Petitioners allegedly refused to pay maintenance and cure to respondent Townsend for injuries he suffered while working on its tugboat. Townsend filed suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging arbitrary and willful failure to provide maintenance and cure. He filed similar counterclaims in the declaratory judgment action, seeking punitive damages for the maintenance and cure claim.

The District Court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, but certified the question for interlocutory appeal. Following its precedent, the Eleventh Circuit held that punitive damages may be awarded for the willful withholding of maintenance and cure.

At issue in the Townsend case was whether an injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.

Central to resolving this case were three settled legal principles. First, punitive damages have long been available at common law. Second, the common-law tradition of punitive damages extends to maritime claims. And third, there is no evidence that claims for maintenance and cure were excluded from this general admiralty rule.

The general rule that punitive damages are available at common law extends to claims arising under federal maritime law. The Supreme Court relied upon a previously decided case, i.e., Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v Prentice, (147 U.S. 101) in making the above statement. The Prentice court held that courts of admiralty are to proceed upon the same principles as courts of common law, in allowing exemplary damages.

The only statute that could have served as a basis for overturning the common-law rule was the Jones Act. However, the plain language of the Jones Act does not provide a basis for overturning the common-law rule. The Townsend court’s previous decisions have repeatedly observed that the Jones Act preserves common-law causes of action such as maintenance and cure, and supports the view that punitive damages awards remain available in maintenance and cure actions after the Act’s passage.

Punitive damages have long been a remedy available at common law for wanton, willful, or outrageous conduct. The common-law punitive damages tradition extends to claims arising under federal maritime law.

The petitioner, Atlantic Sounding Co., cited Miles v Apex Marine Corp. (498 U.S. 19) in their argument. The Townsend court held that Miles did not limit recovery to the remedies available under the Jones Act. The Townsend court further held that Miles did not address either maintenance and cure actions in general or the availability of punitive damages for such actions. The case grappled with the question of whether general maritime law should provide a cause of action for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness. This case was not dealing with the availability of remedies for wrongful-death actions brought under general maritime law. Thus, the reasoning in Miles did not apply here.

The Townsend court held that the quest for uniformity in admiralty law does not require narrowing available damages to the lowest common denominator approved by Congress for distinct causes of action.

The Townsend dissent failed to acknowledge that the general common-law rule made punitive damages available in maritime actions. The dissent never explained why maintenance and cure actions should be excepted from this general rule. The fact that they want to limit recovery for maintenance and cure to whatever is permitted by the Jones Act would give greater pre-emptive effect to the Act than is required by its text, Miles, or any other court decisions.

The majority opinion in Townsend noted that punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law. Further, nothing in the Jones Act altered this understanding. Thus, damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation should remain available in this case as a matter of general maritime law. The Townsend court affirms the judgment of the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Townsend opinion leaves the reader satisfied, knowing the Supreme Court continues to look out for seamen and their rights under general maritime law.

###

Gordon & Elias, L.L.P., represents clients in all aspects of personal injury and wrongful death. They are a boutique law firm with a nationwide practice focusing on Jones Act-Admiralty-Maritime Law (http://www.OffshoreInjuries.com), and the associated Jones Act Blog (http://www.JonesActQuestions.com). Gordon & Elias, L.L.P., was formed in 2000. Attorneys Steve Gordon and R. Todd Elias bring over 39 years of combined experience to the representation of their clients. The firm has the experience and resources to pursue recovery from large corporate defendants and/or their insurers.

###

Powered by Qumana

WSLC Executive Board votes to oppose I-1033

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009

The Executive Board of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO has voted to oppose Initiative 1033, a measure on this fall's ballot that would restrict government spending in such a way that it would slow Washington state's economic recovery and threaten the state's education and health care systems, as well as other critical public services.

"Our executive board wants to immediately begin explaining to union members the damage that Initiative 1033 would do to the State of Washington," said WSLC President Rick Bender. "This misleading initiative has been a proven failure in other states and couldn't come at a worse time, threatening our state's economic recovery from the national recession."

I-1033, pushed by initiative profiteer Tim Eyman, would impose spending limits on state, city and county governments by forcing revenue above a certain limit to go toward property tax cuts. Among other things, I-1033 would lock into place the drastic legislative budget cuts to our state's schools, health care safety nets, prisons and criminal justice systems, and other critical state services.

According to the No on Initiative 1033 web site:

I-1033 would slow economic recovery and leave us in a permanent recession. This year Washington faced a devastating budget deficit. Unfortunately, I-1033 would lock in this year's budget as our baseline. The worst of times in Washington, would become the best that we can hope for.

I-1033 threatens education and health care. Unemployment is still on the rise, families are being kicked off health care, teachers across the state are being laid off, and nursing homes and hospitals are being forced to reduce their care. As the economy recovers, we could restore funding to these services -- but under I-1033 the current situation would become permanent.

I-1033 is a proven failure. A similar initiative passed in Colorado in 1992. Since then, Colorado's economy has been devastated and funding for services ranging from education, to the judicial system, to health care, and libraries has plummeted. The situation was so critical that in 2005 voters put the law on hold so their state could recover.

Similar initiatives been defeated at the ballot in Maine, Nebraska, Oregon and most recently California -- and they've been blocked from the ballot in Ohio, Missouri, Oklahoma, Montana, and Michigan. Between 2005 and 2009, state legislation similar to I-1033 was introduced in 28 states (AL, AZ, CA, FL, GA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PH, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI). Colorado remains the only state to have adopted this terrible idea.

Powered by Qumana