Alternative Facts: In last week’s Beachcomber, WSF’s spokesperson Hadley Rodero is quoted as saying “one flaw of the pendulum model is that it will not allow ferries to have necessary dwell time at the dock to load and unload walk-on passengers and vehicles.” (“Researchers, islanders tackle problems facing ferries,” Sept. 27)

This is WSF’s first objection to the pendulum schedule that I heard since I presented it to WSF in 2017. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public; here are the facts: 1) The Eicher-Cooper study states that the pendulum can use dwell times that are consistent with the current schedule. We verified and hand timed the pendulum dwell times.

2) The study states longer dwell times can be accommodated if necessary, for example, for crew changes. Then the scheduled boat moves back by a few minutes, but the model remains intact.

3) Ms. Rodero is correct: The pendulum does not accept WSF’s current dwell times of up to 27 minutes. WSF seems to base schedules on dwell times it thinks are necessary to address gridlock at Fauntleroy. The pendulum accepts that pre-ticketed cars must stop at the booth and shows an alternative to deal with the resulting gridlock.

4) Statements that the pendulum does not allow sufficient dwell times are either deliberate alternative facts to end the discussion or indications that WSF has not examined the pendulum model.

Vashon: Make your voices heard if you think WSF should do better than stating there are no alternatives to its schedule by contacting your legislative representatives.

5) A prototype of what a pendulum schedule could look like is at tinyurl.com/schedule-study to allow you to compare it to WSF’s. There are pros and cons to the pendulum schedule; it may be possible to optimize it further or find flaws.

— Theo Eicher