Revisit plans for a new terminal

As much fun as it must be to bash the ferry system for an "irresponsible gamble by putting off the inevitable replacement of four 1927-vintage Steel Electric ferries" (Sunday editorial, "Ferry fiasco: It never should have happened") dismissing that same entity's previously proposed "new terminal capable of handling larger boats" on the west side of Whidbey Island as irrelevant to the current situation hardly makes your editorial one to admire.

As you indicated, there is yet no new terminal on Whidbey Island's west side capable of handling larger ferries in the system "after six years and $5.5 million of studies," but why?

Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen led the populist charge against the ferry system's plans for that new terminal, but now only gets ink quoting her analogies about the loss of the ferry route and our state highway system. The fact is, an environmentalist-driven populist charge, which Sen. Haugen only too gladly jumped on at the time, played an irresponsible game of "chicken" with the ferry system's comprehensive plans and the looming demise of the Steel Electric ferry boats.

So, while your editorial has already decided that "Money earmarked for new, 144-car ferries will have to be redirected to build at least two smaller ones," perhaps we should revisit the plans for a new terminal on the west side of Whidbey Island, which could likely be built a lot sooner than special-replacement ferries for a route that comprises only 2 percent of the traffic moved by the entire state ferry system.

William Burnett
Oak Harbor