The Washington State Department of Transportation released an update to its long-range ferry plan over the weekend with two choices for the next 22 years: Make minor improvements at a cost of $3.3 billion or pare the system to bare essentials, which would cost $1.3 billion.

The two scenarios have inspired much agreement among residents in ferry communities across the state — neither plan is perfect, residents say.

Whether it’s potential fare increases, a proposed reservation system, the high cost of building new ferries out of state, or possible cutbacks in service, the ferry plan contains something for just about everyone. To hate.

Most of the anger has been directed at the piece originally called “Plan B” in the draft document, which entails service cuts and fare increases throughout the ferry system as the state struggles to deal with massive budget shortfalls.

Others, however, have not been too thrilled with “Plan A,” which many critics say keeps the status quo on ferry service even though the number of riders is expected to grow by 24 percent on the Clinton-Mukilteo route by the year 2030.

Some have called for the creation of a “Plan C,” and ferry riders have launched an online petition to Gov. Gregoire that has already drawn more than 1,240 signatures.

The state has already held 10 public hearings on the long-range plan, which was sent to the Legislature this week for further discussion. Lawmakers are uncertain when a final plan will be decided upon.

“One thing that people must understand is the terrible budget deficit the state faces,” said State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, a Camano Island Democrat and 10th District lawmaker.

“For every letter I get about ferries, I get two or three concerning education, social services and — a huge issue — unemployment. And at this moment there is no will from voters or lawmakers to raise taxes,” she said.

Most of the changes made since the plan was unveiled in mid-December focus on modifications to proposed capital projects.

There are no changes in the updated plan affecting the Clinton-Mukilteo route, although a planned walkway connection to the Clinton Park & Ride was eliminated for a savings of $9.9 million.

Scenario A (formerly titled Plan A) of the new draft report calls for two 144-car vessels in the summer on the Clinton-Mukilteo route, then a single 144-car and one 124-car in the fall, winter and spring.

Service would be cut on the route under Scenario B, with the route served by two 124-car ferries year around. Extra service on the weekends in the summer would be cut starting in 2013, the same time that a full-time reservation system would be implemented.

Ferry officials said changes are needed because the ferry system has an aging fleet, increased overall ridership and worn-out terminals.

In the first option, the state maintains its current role as owner, operator and principal funder of ferry services in the Puget Sound region.

Scenario B proposes an alternative where the state takes responsibility for the core marine highway system while a locally-funded entity would take on a new marine transit system.

“My role is to be honest and clear about what is happening to the ferry system,” said David Moseley, the state’s director of ferries for the past 11 months.

“It is not financially sustainable and hasn’t been for a number of years. Things aren’t OK and my job is to deal with it,” he added.

“This is just the beginning of the discussion with users, communities and the Legislature,” Moseley said, adding that state transportation officials would not recommend the adoption of Scenario B.

He said his staff read and considered the input received at public meetings, the last of which occurred 10 days before the report was released.

Many complained that the ferry was being treated as the poor stepchild of the state’s transportation grid, and that ferry routes should be given the same amount of support as state highways. Others asked the state to consider building ferries out of state to save money, or complained about the department’s proposed reservation system.

“We heard loud and clear about the reservation system and intend a much fuller discussion about it as the process continues,” Moseley said.

“There was mixed response; merchants in Port Townsend want us to keep the system on the Keystone route. Others expressed concerns,” he added.

Ferry officials believe reservations will solve most of the problems associated with overcrowded boats and jammed terminals, especially during the busy season and routes serving tourists.

The major financial outcome to the state is reduced capital costs, the report states. An orderly system of reservations equals fewer boats and smaller terminals. Most of the savings in the capital program can be traced to the smaller fleet, which results in fewer new vessel procurements and lower fleet operating costs.

Moseley said routes affected by a reservation system would be phased in gradually over time and the number of sailings requiring reservations would at first be low, then gradually increase.

To read the complete text of the state’s long-range plan, visit www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/planning/ESHB2358.

Jeff VanDerford can be reached at 221-5300 or jvanderford@southwhidbey record.com.