|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 1, 2007 19:37:13 GMT -8
Column from the Vancouver Sun, Saturday 30 June 2007
Ferry fares are going up, even with a bit of government tinkering VAUGHN PALMER VANCOUVER SUN COLUMNIST VICTORIA -- Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon has ruled out increasing the provincial subsidy as a way of heading off another round of fare increases on BC Ferries.
“ I’m not in that frame of mind,” Falcon said, when I asked him about the possibility this week.
He noted that ferries already receive a sizable helping hand from the treasury.
There’s the provincial transportation fee, a second grant for the northern service, a third to underwrite travel by patients and seniors.
Including a fourth grant from the federal government, the total pass- along of tax dollars to support the ferry service is approaching $ 150 million annually.
Falcon didn’t rule out tinkering with the existing structure to provide relief on routes that will be hardest hit by scheduled fare increases. But he indicated there’ll be no overall boost in subsidies.
Today marks the deadline for the province to provide formal notice of any changes that would affect fares to the independent regulator, B. C. ferry commissioner Martin Crilly.
Crilly handed down a preliminary ruling on the next round of fare increases at the end of March. He approved increases of up to 15 per cent on the major routes, 26 per cent on the minor routes, over the four years starting April 1, 2008.
That news led to considerable squawking from ferry- dependent communities. By one reckoning, once those increases are implemented, ferry fares will have almost doubled between 2003 and 2011.
But Crilly provided a persuasive explanation for the commission’s ruling.
“ We believe the increases are necessary to keep the ferry services operating and financially healthy,” he explained.
“ First, underlying costs of ferry service will rise due to general inflation in the cost of labour, fuel and maintenance.
“ Second, the company is starting to replace old ships, which were bought at much lower prices many years ago, with new ships, and upgrading its terminals,” the commissioner continued.
“ This catch- up phase is required partly to recover from the lack of steady investment years ago” — the money wasted on fast ferries was not spent on useful vessels — “ and partly to meet new and more stringent safety requirements” — which have ticketed several ships for the wrecking yard.
A third reason is that fuel surcharges, approved by Crilly, did not keep pace with the doubling of fuel prices in recent years.
The province recently contributed a one- time grant of $ 5.5 million to cover the shortfall in the fuel account. The rest, the commission says, “ should be recovered from ferry customers in future.”
Crilly ruled out the option of putting the ferry corporation into a money- losing position.
“ If we deliberately force BC Ferries to operate at a loss for an extended period, this would not only ignore the principle of financial sustainability, but also put at risk its ability to provide service,” he wrote.
What about the impact of another round of fare increases on tourism and residents of ferry-dependent communities?
Not my table, Crilly said. “ We have no statutory or contractual duty to consider affordability [ to] fare- paying travellers or the broad social and economic impacts on communities, when making our decisions.”
But the commissioner left no doubt as to who could consider those impacts and decide to do something about it — the B. C. Liberals.
“ The provincial government” could readily decide “ how much public money to inject in order to ‘ buy down’ the commission’s preliminary fares to a level it considers in the public interest.”
The regulatory process provides three months for the government to decide whether to buy down the fare increase. Alternatively, Victoria could allow the ferry corporation to reduce service levels on some of the least- travelled routes.
The deadline for notifying Crilly on either set of changes is today. The commission will then do any additional calculations and reach a final ruling on the fare increases by Sept. 30.
I wouldn’t expect dramatic changes. In addition to shutting the door to a bigger subsidy, Falcon has also ruled out major reductions in service levels.
There could be some tinkering. But the main opportunity for relief arises from the $ 13 million that was recently recovered from the federal government.
Ottawa forgave all but $ 4 million of the import duties on the Sonia, the Greek- built vessel that was recently put into service as the Northern Adventure. In shipping the dollars back to BC Ferries, the federal government indicated it was intended to “ minimize” fare hikes on the northern ferry runs.
Falcon has likewise indicated that the returned duties should be used to reduce pressure on the bottom line.
On that expectation, Crilly should be able to scale back some of the projected increases, though probably not enough to satisfy islanders.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 2, 2007 10:58:06 GMT -8
And the provincial government obviously doesn't want to look like they have anything to do with ferries anymore (although they do), and BC Ferries management just does what it can to run a profitable corportation.
Really it falls at the feet of the Liberals though. By doing nothing, they're "doing something" if you get what I mean. Even if their policy is "hands off" they have as much responsibility and influence on the ferries and coastal communities as any government ever has in the past. I wish they'd admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 2, 2007 11:07:14 GMT -8
...And I think that the upset Gulf Islanders know "who" to target their complaints to. Mr. Kevin Falcon. For those interested, here's some background on the guy who has de-facto control over BCFS: www.kevinfalconmla.bc.ca/EN/1432/
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 2, 2007 16:43:39 GMT -8
Kevin Falcon; aka Mr ....
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 25, 2007 13:40:26 GMT -8
.....and the ferry-fare increases were announced on the BCFS website today: www.bcferries.com/news/files/07-072annualtariffincreasewattachment.pdfFor Immediate Release 07-072 October 25, 2007 BC FERRIES TO INCREASE FARES ON NOVEMBER 1
VICTORIA – BC Ferries is reminding customers that passenger and vehicle fares will increase effective November 1, 2007. Fares will increase by an average of 2.8 per cent on the three major routes connecting Vancouver Island to the Lower Mainland and an average of 4.4 per cent on the remaining routes. Prices for prepaid discount ticket books on the minor routes and rates for assured loading on the Lower Mainland – Vancouver Island routes, will also increase November 1, 2007. Northern route price increases have already been set through September 30, 2008 in recognition of the planning requirements of tour operators. - 30 - Tariff Table Attached======================= (the table won't cut/paste neatly). But it's interesting that the tariff-table only shows the $-amount of the increases, not the resulting fares. Spin? or just a different way of presenting the numbers? At least it's easy to see which route got the largest $ increase, and which got the smallest $ increase. Vehicle fares:Largest $ increase: $1.95 - Tsawwassen to Outer Gulf Islands Smallest dollar increase: $0.40 - Inter Gulf Islands. And our litmus test: 3 Mainline routes: $1.00 for weekend and $1.25 for mid-week.
|
|
|
Post by GC on Dec 21, 2007 16:54:58 GMT -8
For Immediate Release Wednesday, December 19, 2007 COMMUNITIES BEING ‘SCROOGED’ BY COASTAL FERRY ACT PRINCE RUPERT— Having visited more than fifteen ferry dependent communities across the province in the last month, North Coast MLA Gary Coons is dismayed by stories of residents struggling to absorb increases on pre-paid fares, some as high as 11 per cent. “These stratospheric increases are seriously impacting communities,” said Coons. “An increase of 4.4 per cent a year is bad enough, but for communities like Sandspit and Skidegate, which don’t have a robust economy to begin with, the continuation of these yearly 11 per cent fair hikes would be absolutely crippling.” Coons, the New Democrat Critic for Ferries and Ports, spent much of the last month traveling to coastal communities across the province, listening to the concerns of local residents, ferry users and ferry advisors. What he heard was a rising tide of concern about the impact that skyrocketing fares are having on the economies of ferry dependent communities. “Many of these communities are dependent on the ferry system for their food, so even if residents choose to remain on island, they are still being hit by higher prices at the grocery store,” noted Coons. “The ferry system was built using taxes paid by British Columbians; it is entirely inappropriate for our marine highway to be unaffordable for most citizens of this province.” Coons also echoed the concerns he heard from several of the chairs of the Ferry Advisory Committee, who believe that next April’s fares will fall above the Commissioner’s allowance of 4 per cent and prepaid fare increases will also be in the double-digits. “BC Ferries has been using misleading numbers to mask the true magnitude of their fare increases. Out of 90 fare classifications only 3 fall at or under the allowable increase of 4.4 per cent,” said the New Democrat MLA. “The deception is especially clear when it comes to pre-paid fares, which are used primarily by island residents on the minor routes. These have seen the sharpest increases.” “It is absolutely critical that the government freeze fares immediately, before struggling communities take another hit,” said Coons. “A special legislative committee needs to be enacted to review the Coastal Ferry Act, the current rate of fare increases and the role of BC Ferries Services in our marine highway system as well as issues relating to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It’s time to end this costly Liberal privatization scheme.” For more info about "Fight Unfair Fares" ... go to www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/ferryfaresor contact Gary Coons gary.coons.mla@leg.bc.ca for attachments on all fares. —30— For example ..last fare increase (Nov/07) of “4.4%” was actually …for Route 26 ..Skidegate Landing-Alliford Bay Passenger – 5.2% increase Vehicle – 4.6% increase Passenger PREPAID – 10.5% increase Vehicle PREPAID -8.8% increase Car/driver 10 pac – 9.3% increase BC Ferries is “allowed” under legislation to do this! The prepaids are really getting HIT for increases on all routes!!! ============================================================================ Fares on Route 11 (QCI) have increased by 46% since 2003 and will increase by more than 90% by 2011 (NOT INCLUDING ANY FUEL SURCHARGES). Fuel Surcharges from July/05 to June/06 were 6%/3%/9.6% = 18.65 in less than a year! Route 10 (Pt Hardy-PR)– 46% since 2003 and 80% plus by 2011 Route 26 (Skid-Al Bay)– 75% since 2003 and 124% plus by 2011 Route 40 (Mid Coast)– 40% since 2003 and 75% plus by 2011 These do NOT INCLUDE ANY FUEL SURCHARGES from 2008-2011 =================================================================== Fares are set to once again skyrocket on April/08...MORE THAN THE ANNOUNCED 4% for minor routes!!!! Very similar to the above but probably even more! FAC chairs say 10-12% is estimated for PREPAIDS!!! THE Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC) CHAIRS MET ON Nov 14 with the Commissioner and BC Ferries and CHAIRS found “shocking” news (quote from FAC chairs that I met on my tour). November 14 2007 (on Commissioner's website) Seminar Held for Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs Held in Nanaimo, this half-day session responded to questions on how the Commission compares the fares actually charged by BC Ferries in relation to fare caps. You will find questions raised for the meeting, and Commission responses, in a six-page Q&A paper.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 21, 2007 19:19:37 GMT -8
HOLY ****. SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO THE PROFITEER HIGHWAY! I am sure they would love to be tolled just for using their cars on the roads. David Hahn does not need millions. I want to see if he gets any bonus increases. If he is trying to profiteer off the system or anyone else I want to see the numbers. With it being private, it cannot be accounted for. Therefore, in the best interest of the tax payers would be good to make it a public system again since it is already controlled by the province as is in terms of decision making. Especially in this fare increases that are completely astronomical.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 21, 2007 19:22:03 GMT -8
Let me see , GC guest? Would that be Gordon Campbell? No, someone else with those initials?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 21, 2007 19:32:06 GMT -8
Thanks for posting that, Mr. Coons. Much appreciated. I'm happy to see that the fight against fare-increases is pointed at the correct target: ie. at the Provincial Gov't, and not at the BCFS company. It's only at the BC Gov't political level that changes can be made re fare-levels and the whole fare-subsidy mix. Good work, Gary.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Dec 22, 2007 10:45:24 GMT -8
when BCFS was a crown corporation they were not allowed to make money. now as a semi-private corporation they can make money. we need new ships. why not make it a user pay system. why should that guy living in salmo have to pay an increase in taxes to fund new ferries that he will probably never ride. an increase of $1.00 is nothing when you look at it compared to many other examples.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Dec 22, 2007 12:47:48 GMT -8
Right, Kyle. Let's go 'user pay' and bankrupt every island community on the coast, including Haida Gwai. Do you think the guy in Salmo pays for all the public infrastructure he uses up there? You're being totally unrealistic.
The worst aspect of the 'privatized' BC Ferries is that it is legally bound to ignore the greater community good in focusing on it's own bottom line. Damage to communities from higher fares is not taken into account, even though BC Ferries is an integral part of community life on the coast.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Dec 22, 2007 14:01:17 GMT -8
I don't mind paying for the guy in Fort St. James' new highway or bridge, nor do I mind paying for the numerous inland ferries provided free of charge when there is a road around the lake/river. Nor do I mind paying some of the cost of providing service on the coastal routes. I do mind it when the operator of the ferries tries to take some of that money for it's own profit. I don't deny that we need new ships, because of the lack of foresight of previous leadership, but I don't think it's fair that I pay for it all out of my own pocket. I helped that guy in Fort St. James buy his new bridge, I would hope that he would help pay for my new ferry.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Dec 22, 2007 14:40:07 GMT -8
with bc ferries now a "private" corporation it is no longer up to the taxpayers to fund new ships and infrastructure. i summer in the gulf islands and commute to the mainland every 6-7 days, some of my family lives on the gulf islands. we are not rich people but we all feel it is up to the user to pay for the improvements.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 22, 2007 20:29:30 GMT -8
Compare the ferry system to the public transit system (and I know this has been done before!). While the largest part of it has to be user pay (note that I don't specify largest revenue or largest appearance....), there is still a 'general' funding component that has to come from sources OTHER than the direct users of the system. While someone living in Cranbrook may be paying for ferry service in Sandspit, that is the way that it is and has to be in terms of large scale transportation issues. What is to say that the specialty cattle-feed additive that is manufactured/produced in Sandspit is not fed to the cattle raised in Calgary that the guy in Cranbrook is eating when he buys his hamburgers at the local Safeway??
Transportation is one of those fickle things were there are a lot of intangibles that come into play. Just because you do not use the system directly does not mean that you are not benefitting from it INDIRECTLY.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Dec 23, 2007 0:26:19 GMT -8
.... some of my family lives on the gulf islands. we are not rich people but we all feel it is up to the user to pay for the improvements. Any of your family live on Kuper Island, Kyle? If so, then I guess they're all in favor of paying for the Kuper, since it should be user pay for improvements. Wouldn't take much more than, oh, $350 a round trip for the next twenty years or so, not counting inflation and future fare increases... no problem, eh? But why stop with ferries? Hardy mentioned the buses; they gobble up way more money as a percentage of each ride than the ferries do. Three zone fare- $16. That'll teach those lousy suburbanites to live in Surrey, where they're expensive to service. And, while we're at it, how about them elementary schools? Virtual black holes of taxpayer dough. If you wanna breed, then be prepared to pay for the little beggars' reading lessons, I say. I mean.. lets carry your logic to it's community minded conclusion. Taxpayers certainly do fund new ships and infrastructure, since taxpayers, through the province, pay BC Ferries' subsidy. Taxpayers, through the province, are also the only shareholders that the 'private' BC Ferries has.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 2, 2008 13:08:27 GMT -8
from today's (April 2) Globe and Mail:
Rising rates creating impassable gulf for B.C. ferry riders MARK HUME
VANCOUVER — Only a 10-minute ferry ride separates Tom Skillman from his home in Campbell River, on Vancouver Island, and his workplace at a fish-processing plant on Quadra Island. But with B.C. Ferries' rates spiralling upward, Mr. Skillman sometimes thinks of the swirling waters at the north end of Georgia Strait as an economic gulf that is getting increasingly difficult to cross. While ferry rates rose all along the West Coast yesterday, going up between 4 per cent and 7.3 per cent, nowhere was the increase felt more than in small communities like Campbell River. Fares on minor routes have gone up 11 per cent in the past year, following a hike five months ago, and some have risen more than 80 per cent since 2003.
Members of the Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs, a group that represents the concerns of small communities in consultations with B.C. Ferries, say minor route rates have increased so dramatically in recent years that they are starting to affect how people live and where they work.
Mr. Skillman, human-resources manager at Walcan Seafood Ltd., is a case in point. He says the cost of crossing from Campbell River to Quadra, one of the Gulf Islands, is now so high, it is cheaper for him to own two vehicles, one on each side of the strait, so that he can cross the water as a foot passenger. "I didn't buy a super expensive car," he said of his second vehicle, which he leaves in a parking lot on Quadra. "But the fact of the matter is you can buy a car, insure it, put the gas in that car and you're going to save more money having that second vehicle than if you drove over with your primary vehicle." The cost of getting a car with two passengers from Campbell River to Quadra by ferry has jumped from $10.65 in April of 2003 to $19.40 this week.
At the southern end of Georgia Strait, Priscilla Ewbank, who runs the Haggis Farm Bakery and general store on Saturna Island, is also struggling to swallow steadily increasing ferry rates. She said residents, who are angry, are starting to feel trapped. "You think twice before you go into town." Ms. Ewbank said ferry costs have made it harder to hire and keep workers. "Those people, who are the heart of the community, if they can't get back and forth in a realistic manner - and I'm not talking about every day, or twice a day, or three times a week, I'm talking about once a week - then it starts to create a hardship and there's less and less reason to live here. "We have a thriving business. We can sell all the organic bread we can make, and probably twice over that, and we can't find another baker. Part of the reason for that is affordable housing and another is transportation." Ms. Ewbank said it is unfair of the government to apply a "user pay" principle to small coastal ferry services, when the costs of maintaining big northern highways, or building the Sea-to-Sky Highway on the Lower Mainland, are absorbed by the Ministry of Transportation. "We just want a fair deal." The cost of getting a car and two adults from Saturna to Swartz Bay on Vancouver Island has gone from $20.10 in 2003 to $31.50 this year.
Tony Law, an elected trustee who lives on Hornby Island, midway up the east coast of Vancouver Island, said he has seen people move away because of increased ferry costs. "It's having a big impact. There's a significant drop-off in the summer [in ferry traffic] ... suddenly we've lost our day-trippers, people who used to come over to walk on the beach, buy some pottery and have a meal. It's hurt businesses, that's for sure." A round trip for two adults in a car on the Denman Island ferry is now $18.85, up from $10.17 in 2003.
Jo Mrozewski of Alert Bay, a member of the Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs, said fares began to rise rapidly starting in 2003 as B.C. Ferries moved to a user pay system and implemented fuel surcharges. She said the large volume of traffic on the major routes, between Vancouver and Vancouver Island, make them profitable, but the minor routes are money-losers and the burden of that is being increasingly shifted to users.
Deborah Marshall, director of media relations for B.C. Ferries, said fare increases are necessary because of rising fuel costs as well as operating and capital expenditures. She said the province provides the company a service fee of about $110-million to help support unprofitable routes, but "we ... have to make up the difference in the fare box."
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 2, 2008 14:53:45 GMT -8
They have a point about the Sea To Sky except for two points.
1. The Olympics (love them or hate them) will be generating a kazillion dollars in tourist dollars for BC and transportation will be vital. Would the Islanders like to host a major event on the Island of a similar nature? I somehow don't think that would go over.
2. Lets compare the volume of traffic on the sea to sky on a daily basis and then compare that with the volume on the various ferry routes. On a per capita basis would enable apples to apples comparison. You would have to factor in the local taxes as well to make sure the playing field was even. If there was more development on the Islands then a better and more profitable service would likely ensue and perhaps fares could be lower. However the Islanders I know often don't want development. The hate the tourists and the interuption they bring but need them to make a living. When I raise these two things with them they smile and say then that would ruin living on the island. Development with a levy for better transportation would help solve the issue. Million dollar properties then would pay more than locals who are barely making ends meet.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 2, 2008 18:32:48 GMT -8
If there was more development on the Islands then a better and more profitable service would likely ensue and perhaps fares could be lower. However the Islanders I know often don't want development. The hate the tourists and the interuption they bring but need them to make a living. When I raise these two things with them they smile and say then that would ruin living on the island. Development with a levy for better transportation would help solve the issue. Million dollar properties then would pay more than locals who are barely making ends meet. Are you seriously suggesting that the only alternative to an unconscionable escalation of fares is rampant development and the replacement of island residents with millionaires who can fatten the tax base? Sounds like a solution straight out of the Fraser Institute, with their bloodless fascination with bottom line social engineering. I would also question your conclusions on the mindset of islanders. I don't think many people 'hate tourists'. Many folks who run businesses from small craft industries to larger service operations, or those who are employed in island businesses, are quite cognizent of the need for visitors' money, but seek a compromise between the 'haul up the drawbridge' mentality and a sellout of everything that makes the islands special. We don't itemize every penny of the cost of bringing visitors or residents to Whistler and load it onto local residents. Are we going to choose to choke the life out of small coastal communities with prohibitive transportation costs that we don't force on locales that happen not to be separated by water? That's a political and social decision that might be supported by strict accounting principles, but certainly not by any concern for communities as they are currently constituted.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 2, 2008 21:17:47 GMT -8
Yeah I am a fan of rampant development for bloodless millionaires in order to sell out the islands and choke the life out of small communities. I make Donald Trump look like a pushover. What isn't a gazillion dollar house, or a heliport, or private airport has to be a golf course. That's all there is that is worthwhile right? Oh except for some small area where a Disney like theme park can be built to show what "Island Life" is. Seriously when does development always = "rampant", or development = "choking out locals". You must have an automatic word replacement program on your computer because I said, nor intended anything of the sort. Hyperboly and extreme language doesn't change the fact that a solution has to be found. I wasn't speaking for all Islanders I was commenting on the four in particular I know well, their neighbours I met at someone or others retirement bbq at the house I was staying, and one well known Canadian who is a resident. One friend has a business he travels for about one week of the month and then runs remotely from his house that has nothing to do with locals or tourists. His wife relies on tourists 100% for her income, and the other two couldn't make a go of their business without the season influx. If they all could work independant of tourists they would. Since none of them cared I grew up in BC and only that I live in back in that eastern region. When they weren't making jokes about "the centre of the Universe", the Leafs (who are in many ways a joke) they were regailing me about with stupid tourist stories. One even told me he seriously thought tourists shouldn't be allowed to bring cars onto the island and should either be forced to bike or take shuttle buses like they "make you do at Niagara Falls". A number of municpalities, areas and even whole provinces have resident and non-resident property, sales, levies and other taxes. Florida has non-resident taxes that don't apply to locals. The cottage country north of me has different levies depending on how much of the year you live there to differentiate between locals (who tend to have lower incomes) and cottagers who typically only spend summer weekends. Buy an acreage and develop some time share homes and that development should contribute to a "ferry levy". The example given to me by the Islanders was why should their neighbour (wasn't invited to the bbq) who has a multimillion dollar property and only weekends there in season because he is from Seattle, not pay substantially more to live there. Since I had glazed over by the discussion already and was preoccupied with escaping at all cost, I didn't point out my friends weren't born there and 5 and 9 years ago would have been the interlopers. Nor did I remind them that the guy wasn't part of the ferry equation because he flew his own float plane in on weekends. As far as I am concerned he should pay a levy to offset the fact that the bulk of his taxes go elsewhere and he benefits (in theory) from subsidies paid by BC taxpayers. I don't know how the taxes are set up and would assume he pays property taxes based on acreage and value of home. I am suggesting a non-resident levy of some sort. Same with cottagers who don't actually live there year round. Make the taxes too high and it would have a detrimental effect. The Islands are not the same place they were 20 or more years ago. To go back in time and apply solutions made back then doesn't make sense and won't work. The demographics have likely changed. IMHO should development in Whistler help pay for the sea to sky. Probably. Should Vanoc? Probably. It is quite possible the economic spin offs of the better road may even warrant doing it without any help. To make the statement that there is money for the Sea to Sky and immediately make the conclusion that money is owed Islanders isn't logical unless numbers are also part of the equation. One of our forum members thinks a local residents card should be part of the ferry system for the islanders to get preferential fares. That is at least an idea to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 2, 2008 21:32:02 GMT -8
Well I know someone on here is also in favour of a residential card.
In San Francisco, to visit the zoo, city citizens must show proof of residency in order to get a discounted rate. Everyone else got to pay twice as much. How do they do this? My suspection is they pay taxes to it. So why not have transportation taxes that residents pay go to ferry service? Then, give them proof of residency cards on the islands so that ferry fares are not a large burden. I noticed only one problem with this system though.
If the islands rely on the tourism, how do they attract it? Route 9 and 5 are only making 25% with fare box revenues. Operating ferries to islands is not cheap. It's costly. In summer, I thought of this idea to increase frequency that may work.
Queen of Cumberland: Swartz Bay- Mayne and Galiano Island Mayne Queen: Mayne- Long Habrour Tacheck: Mayne-Saturna Island Bowen Queen: Mayne-Pender Island Queen of Nanaimo: Tsawwassen to Galiano and Mayne or Mayne and Long Harbour
Yes I know, this is crazy and most likely NEVER going to happen, but would it make any sense at all?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 2, 2008 21:47:51 GMT -8
Would the Islanders like to host a major event on the Island of a similar nature? I somehow don't think that would go over. 1n 1994 Vancouver Island hosted an event that was arguably bigger than the Vancouver/Whistler Olympics. The Commonwealth Games involved more athletes, more officials, more sports, and I also understand, more participating countries. Remember that the winter Olympics is about 1/10th of the size of the summer Olympics. BC Ferries was instrumental in getting people to those Island games in 1994. Another point regarding the expected 'huge influx' of tourists to the Vancouver Olympics. Ask yourself this question: How many people do you know, or even know of, who went to Salt Lake City for their Winter Olympics in 2002. Go further, ask yourself how many people you know, or know of, who have been to Salt Lake City following their Winter Olympics in 2002. The Olympics will not bring about any big tourist boom, but they will keep the Sea-to-Sky hwy busy for several weeks, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 2, 2008 21:59:59 GMT -8
David Hahn floated the idea of a residential discount for all BCers a few years ago on the Bill Good show, but it was shot down by all the tourism boards... they didn't want BC to be seen as discriminating against the all-important tourist.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 2, 2008 22:06:28 GMT -8
There already are commuter rates for the islands, and they have gone up as much, if not more than the regular rates.
For levies to pay for the cost of transportation to the islands, you would indeed need rampant development. And I can assure you that as a recreational property owner, my taxes are already quite high enough- I just don't know where people get off thinking that islanders or semi-islanders are getting some kind of free ride on services.
If we want to completely change the demographics of the islands so that only the well to do can afford to live or visit there, fine, keep raising the fares and add property levies. Many families have already been chased off Hornby by a combination of employment conditions, ferry fares, and the mindset of absentee owners renting out properties as vacation retreats as opposed to rental residential usage.
It's a red herring to talk about people wanting to go back twenty years. What we're concerned about is how we go forward.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 3, 2008 7:53:48 GMT -8
Not to get too far off topic but I attended the Commonwealth games in both Edmonton and Victoria. In Victoria I commuted from my grandmother's in Duncan. I was given tickets to badminton - not one of the highlights for me. My impression was that Edmonton seemed like a more major event - perhaps because I was younger and more impressionable. The Commonweath Games helps with facilities (Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton etc.) and training venues that still have an impact on sport today. However, the games only have a fraction of the reach that the Olympics does, and has a similar smaller impact on tourism and conventions. When I have a moment I will start a tourism and the olympics thread and post some of the papers and research I have seen regarding the olympics and spin off benefits. Included in that is a paper by a European that has some great information. Particularly a chart that highlights the recognition of Calgary over Edmonton as a result of the olympic coverage. Part of the credit for Canada's excellent placing at Turino is in part a legacy of the training facilities and infrastructure from Calgary. Also the increased funding and sponsorship of Canadian athletes as corporations realize the imact it will have.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Apr 3, 2008 9:02:30 GMT -8
For levies to pay for the cost of transportation to the islands, you would indeed need rampant development. And I can assure you that as a recreational property owner, my taxes are already quite high enough- I just don't know where people get off thinking that islanders or semi-islanders are getting some kind of free ride on services. I have to comment on the whole taxes deal...okay, assuming an assessed value (assessed, not market) of $350,000 (which a bit of quick research seems to hold up), and using the following tax rates, $70 per $100,00 Rural Tax and $294 per $100,000 Provincial School Tax, I arrive at $1323 per year. Now deduct the $570 HO grant, for a final total of $753. Am I close? I wish I paid that little! Granted, I probably pay less in income tax, but my property taxes would at least 5 times that for a similar assessment before you take any grants into account, though you would be lucky to see 20% back in re-reimbursements. And we have similar services as Hornby, no water, couple police officers, small public works, volunteer fire, and a similar population base, economically and numerically. I don't know how long you've owned your property, or whether you are still paying a mortgage, but I would expect both that you didn't pay today's prices, and your mortgage payment is reasonably small as a result. Can't spend a week in paradise for $750! Now that said, following up on some of the suggestions about levies and non residential taxes. Here, in the Philadelphia area, the City of Philadelphia instituted a wage tax which taxes individuals who work in the city, but live in the suburbs. The idea is to make up for the additional strain on the infrastructure (utilities, public transportation, roads) created by these people who aren't contributing back in the form of property tax. In an unincorporated territory, this might be hard to institute, but one could possibly create a levy against the week-end resident to help offset some of the cost incurred by their presence on weekends only. Probably not too much to your liking given you probably fall into this category. Now, let's look at another scheme. What about a regional rental levy? This would be charged to those people rent their houses out instead of occupying them. To avoid penalizing locals, place an exclusion for monthly rentals, and limit this to individuals so that there are no loopholes for corporations to slip through. Using these monies to offset the tax breaks BCFS gets on property already, and either reducing property taxes for all property owners, or instituting an additional form of subsidy for the local ferries are all possible uses of this levy. Just random thoughts, but the point is, we can't snoopy the dog about it without offering solutions...otherwise you are just complaining! ;D
|
|