Guemes Island Ferry Committee

Carl Cady

Dixon Elder

Marilee Fosbre

Steve Orsini

Glen Veal, Chairman

February 9, 2003

To:       Guemes Island Ferry Management Analysis Report

Skagit County Public Works

1111 Cleveland Avenue

Mt. Vernon WA 98273-4215

Operations Analysis Plan 10/7/02 ------Comments

• Page 5 Policy Plans—
• Para 8.7 identification of sources to be used in establishing the “service Level” should be referenced.
• Under the comments section the use of the Capital facilities Plan 2001-2015 as the “guiding document” should include verification of growth projection data and monthly ridership data (stipulate the assumptions data source and any known limitations).
• Under comments section also reference the sections of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan and the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan supplemental EIS document that cover the Guemes Island Ferry (including “Transportation Demand Strategies”)
• The proposed Sub-Area Plan for Guemes Island should be an integral part of any ridership growth projections. This was a principle recommendation for the Whatcom county ferry system. In 2001 the current sub-area plan for Lummi Island was published in 1979.
• Page 6-7 Parking facilities
• There needs to be some comment concerning the need to make M/V Guemes user friendly for foot traffic.
• Change the last sentence to say “ The County needs to acquire land and develop additional parking facilities at both terminals.”
• Page 8 Automated Ticketing should read “Increased Ferry Capacity”
• Recommendation should be to increase Ferry capacity on an hourly basis. One solution is to change ticketing procedures.
• Page 30 Exhibit 5                
• The chart of reasons from survey questions totals 127.9%. Why?
• Page 32 Exhibit 6 -- Chart of Extended hours of Service
• Three top “Operation Priorities” of the county are mentioned. What are they? Who developed and approved? Are they shown elsewhere in the report or referenced?
• Page 43 Whatcom County Ferry to Lummi
• The Whatcom County Ferry Manager says that she tracks Skagit Ferry issues, is the same done by Skagit County? By whom and what has been the benefit?
• Page 45 Comparisons of ferry systems
• The comparisons of the ferry systems chart should include the Guemes ferry information for comparison as a fourth column.

· Page 52 Policies and Procedures assessment. The list of procedures should include “Procedures for Emergency Operation and Sailings”

• Page 60 Sailing Time Study
• 42 minute average crossing time is a typo.
• What are the assumptions for number of crossings per hour? Is the ferry full in both directions? For all three runs in an hour?
• Page 61 Exhibit 11 -- Transit time study
• How many vehicles and passengers were loaded on both sides? Any unusual vehicle sizes?
• Page 62 Conclusions on Trip Time
• What assumptions are made for ferry loading (vehicles and passengers) in both directions for the number of trips per hour estimate? Is this normal?
• Page 63 Conclusions
• Ferry can’t accomplish triple sailings in an hour with full loads in both directions using present procedures.
• Should not jump to solution of pre-ticketing as the best alternative without evaluating the other alternatives.
• Page 63 Level of Service
• In paragraph #1 include any reference in the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan and the State of Washington GMP that identifies how the “service standard” for the Guemes Ferry is to be established or remove this comment.
• Page 65 Current ferry schedule
• Replace exhibit 14 with the current published ferry schedule or change the wording that states ”Exhibit 12 represents the current ferry schedule, as posted, etc”.
• Page 67 Exhibit 14
• If the purpose of this exhibit is to make a comparison of two period of service, then the year 2001 should also be thru September 15. Alternatively up date 2002 to the full year now that we are in 2003.

.