|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 3, 2008 14:33:26 GMT -8
Wait a minute, how much were they going to up fares in terms of percentage each year? According to this there is supposed to be a FARE INCREASE CAP INCLUDING FUEL SURCHARGNES What is going up here?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 3, 2008 14:55:07 GMT -8
BCinNJ: With respect, I think you're missing the point here. You're accepting the premise that more money must be gotten out of islanders to pay for the ferries, and you're saying that denying levies, or any other scheme is 'snoopy the dogging', in the annoying censor vernacular of this forum. I'm trying to point out that fares are high enough, taxes are high enough, the island economy is being hurt, and any further gouging of the community, by any means, will only exacerbate the problem.
User pay for small island communities isn't some sort of unarguable economic imperative- it's a politically and ideologically driven policy of our provincial government. Residents and visitors are not under any obligation to accept it, or to collaborate in making it work by suggesting still more fees, direct or indirect.
Ferry fares to islands like Hornby have risen far faster than the cost of living, faster than BC Ferries' overall costs, and far faster than land transit fares. If BC Ferries based their fares on the length of the trip, in time, and they used the rate currently paid by Denman or Hornby customers, a one way fare for a car and two people between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay would be over $150. If they charged by the mile, again using the Denman or Hornby fares, it would be just over $400. By either of those calculations, islanders are paying far more than their share already.
As for the argument that the islands are expensive to service, and thus must pay a higher cost to make up some or all of that cost, again, they already are. I don't hear the transit authorities saying to people in south Surrey, "It's more expensive providing you with bus service than it is for people in the city core, so we're going to charge you x times more per mile to make up for it." Transit has zones, and the cost is higher to travel in more than one zone, but people busing along Broadway pay the same as people in the suburbs, despite considerable differences in the costs of servicing.
It bothers me when people make glib references to 'living in paradise', and how one shouldn't complain about costs, when, by some people's reckoning, one is supposedly getting a bargain in services per taxes paid. For a lot of people, Hornby is something of a compromised paradise, where finding an affordable place to live and some sort of gainful employment can be problematic. On a recent Christmas, almost 10% of Hornbyites used a free meal service. The school has shrunk from 150 to 45 kids. Residential rentals are hide to find, and as everywhere else, property values have soared- great for sellers, fine for the more moneyed class, but deadly for regular working class people. Organizations that depend on volunteers have had problems recruiting, as some of the more community minded folks who used to chip in have moved away, replaced by wealthier cocooners who are less likely to get involved. There is a lot of money on the island, but there is a fair bit of poverty, and a lot of people who are being seriously impacted by rising costs, of which ferry fares are a substantial part. The notion of dinging weekenders or seasonal visitors with levies or whatever other scheme that can be dreamed up would probably not be worthwhile or fair, and if it was substantial enough, would only drive people away, hurting island businesses.
If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion, I suppose we could institute all sorts of user pay levies, taxes, and fees for a multitude of services in rural communities all across Canada. We could empty out all the small towns and move people to the big cities, where services are easier to provide. It's easy to cost everything out, and put a price tag on everything. Heck, Hornbyites could probably figure out just what portion of their taxes are going to provide monolithic rapid transit systems to get people who insist on living in the 'burbs to their jobs in downtown Vancouver. A diligent eye on the bottom line is not a bad thing, but strict adherence to user pay in all situations is, I think, harmful to a civilized society, and often, not much more than false economy.
BC Ferries is legally mandated to ignore the effects it's fares policy has on coastal communities. That is a very bad thing for such an integral player in coastal life, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to reject your notion that all we can do is find a more equitable way to gouge more money out of communities that really can't afford more.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 3, 2008 16:35:47 GMT -8
Postscript to the above post:
With the new fares, for the first time ever, it will now cost more to get to Hornby and return from Buckley Bay than to take the ferry to Nanaimo.
Return, four adults, one car, Buckley Bay to Hornby- $97.00 Total distance- 4 miles. Total sailing time- 40 minutes
One way, four adults, one car, Tsawwassen to Duke Point- $95.00 Total distance- 38 miles. Sailing time- 120 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 3, 2008 18:28:45 GMT -8
Postscript to the above post: With the new fares, for the first time ever, it will now cost more to get to Hornby and return from Buckley Bay than to take the ferry to Nanaimo. Return, four adults, one car, Buckley Bay to Hornby- $97.00 Total distance- 4 miles. Total sailing time- 40 minutesOne way, four adults, one car, Tsawwassen to Duke Point- $95.00 Total distance- 38 miles. Sailing time- 120 minutes. A partial counter-point: The comparison of the 2 above routes re their cost vs the time/distance assumes that traffic volumes are the same. Traffic volumes will impact the recovery of costs, re the fixed-portion of costs. The lower the annual traffic volume, the tougher it is to recover costs for the route. And so this means that traffic volume needs to be considered when comparing fares along the lines of time/distance. Now this argument of mine assumes that "fairness" means that if you're part of a more popular group, things will cost less. And if you're part of a less populated group, things will cost more. I think that the argument that fares should be comparable to distance/time across all routes assumes away the reality that less popular items will cost more, simply because there isn't the sales-volume to help lower the cost-per-rider. Now of course the counterpoint to all this that the Denman/Hornby routes cost a lot less in operating costs and capital costs than a mainline route. But that might mean that the higher traffic volume on mainline routes just serves to make those routes profitable, instead of just breaking-even. So does that mean that the mainline fares are actually too high, because the higher volume means that they could probably afford to reduce those fares, and still recover the costs? If so, meaning that if the mainline fares are too high, then does this mean that the Hornby fares are "just right"? Again, this just addresses the comparison of fares to distance/time.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 3, 2008 21:26:10 GMT -8
People make all sorts of comparisons, and draw all sorts of analogies- major routes to minor, long to short, busy to not busy, ferries to highways, revenue to expenses, B.C. to Philadelphia...
All have some validity, but none tell the whole story, and some are very limited in their application. The above example is valid, at least, to compare distance and time travelled with price, but I admit it's not definitive. It's food for thought.
Everyone in rural areas accepts that things are going to cost more, whether it's groceries at the store, or the cost of many services, including getting around. At a certain point though, you pass from paying a reasonable premium, into the realm of political dogma about cost recovery that threatens the wellbeing of established communities. I think that there is enough legitimate reporting, and enough valid comparisons, to show that we've passed that point on the coastal islands.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Apr 4, 2008 5:39:43 GMT -8
BCinNJ: With respect, I think you're missing the point here. You're accepting the premise that more money must be gotten out of islanders to pay for the ferries, and you're saying that denying levies, or any other scheme is 'snoopy the dogging', in the annoying censor vernacular of this forum. I'm trying to point out that fares are high enough, taxes are high enough, the island economy is being hurt, and any further gouging of the community, by any means, will only exacerbate the problem. Actually, I, too, will say with all due respect, I think you might have missed my point. I'm not suggesting that increasing taxes and fees should fall on the residents of these islands...I am suggesting that in order to level the playing field for those people who choose to make their home on these islands...and I include all the Gulf Islands, north and south in this analysis...one needs to consider how to make more monies available to offset the higher living costs. Unfortunately, we have ignored the cost associated with our infrastructure for far too long, and the costs of maintaining, let alone improving the systems we have in place are starting to catch up with a vengeance. BCFS is an example of this; so to is New Orleans. Different scales of disaster, but the root cause is the same. We want the services, but we don't want to pay for them. The most effective way I see to deal with this is for Hornby and the other islands to find a way to have non-residents provide the offsetting funds need to keep the system going. This doesn't have to be a levy, or tax...increased tourist activities may be able to accomplish this goal, too. Personally, I feel this second option to be more productive to the community as it would fulfill some of the labor issues, and give the people of the island a sense of accomplishment. User pay for small island communities isn't some sort of unarguable economic imperative- it's a politically and ideologically driven policy of our provincial government. Residents and visitors are not under any obligation to accept it, or to collaborate in making it work by suggesting still more fees, direct or indirect. Ferry fares to islands like Hornby have risen far faster than the cost of living, faster than BC Ferries' overall costs, and far faster than land transit fares. If BC Ferries based their fares on the length of the trip, in time, and they used the rate currently paid by Denman or Hornby customers, a one way fare for a car and two people between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay would be over $150. If they charged by the mile, again using the Denman or Hornby fares, it would be just over $400. By either of those calculations, islanders are paying far more than their share already. As for the argument that the islands are expensive to service, and thus must pay a higher cost to make up some or all of that cost, again, they already are. I don't hear the transit authorities saying to people in south Surrey, "It's more expensive providing you with bus service than it is for people in the city core, so we're going to charge you x times more per mile to make up for it." Transit has zones, and the cost is higher to travel in more than one zone, but people busing along Broadway pay the same as people in the suburbs, despite considerable differences in the costs of servicing. It does suck, I can't disagree with you there...my father lives with this every day, and has his complaints, but he would never think of moving; he makes do with the situation as it is... and, as you've likely seen, many argue that these fares are being disproportionately forced upon the islands through creative cost splitting. I feel this is one allegation that needs significant investigation to either refuse or uphold. It bothers me when people make glib references to 'living in paradise', and how one shouldn't complain about costs, when, by some people's reckoning, one is supposedly getting a bargain in services per taxes paid. For a lot of people, Hornby is something of a compromised paradise, where finding an affordable place to live and some sort of gainful employment can be problematic. On a recent Christmas, almost 10% of Hornbyites used a free meal service. The school has shrunk from 150 to 45 kids. Residential rentals are hide to find, and as everywhere else, property values have soared- great for sellers, fine for the more moneyed class, but deadly for regular working class people. Organizations that depend on volunteers have had problems recruiting, as some of the more community minded folks who used to chip in have moved away, replaced by wealthier cocooners who are less likely to get involved. There is a lot of money on the island, but there is a fair bit of poverty, and a lot of people who are being seriously impacted by rising costs, of which ferry fares are a substantial part. The notion of dinging weekenders or seasonal visitors with levies or whatever other scheme that can be dreamed up would probably not be worthwhile or fair, and if it was substantial enough, would only drive people away, hurting island businesses. lol...sorry, you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was, for a vacation, 750 bucks would buy you very little. Looking at the financial end of things, in return for your $750, you get the opportunity to enjoy some of the most beautiful country in the world. Increased costs will not keep tourists from coming...a case in point, the Jersey shore housing and rental cost have soared in the last 5 years, with the average house price rising from ~$150,000 to well over $400,000. Rentals have jumped from ~$600 per week to $1,200 per week, but people still come. This year might be different with the status of the economy, but that remains to be seen. Case number 2...Vegas pioneered the gambling vacation, but Atlantic City proved you can charge through the nose for for said vacation, and people will still flock to the trough. Vegas has paid attention, and now all those cheap attractions and meals have virtually disappeared...but still they come... The Jersey shore suffers similar problems with rental costs, as I'm sure all tourist towns do. That is why I suggested the room tax...this can be offset for monthly/yearly rentals, and maybe a subsidy can be introduced to further encourage reasonable rental rates for people who would like to make their life in the Islands. It's yet another way, albeit a little more direct than provincial and federal funding, to spread the wealth around. This idea's effectiveness has been commented on by other people on this forum. If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion, I suppose we could institute all sorts of user pay levies, taxes, and fees for a multitude of services in rural communities all across Canada. We could empty out all the small towns and move people to the big cities, where services are easier to provide. It's easy to cost everything out, and put a price tag on everything. Heck, Hornbyites could probably figure out just what portion of their taxes are going to provide monolithic rapid transit systems to get people who insist on living in the 'burbs to their jobs in downtown Vancouver. A diligent eye on the bottom line is not a bad thing, but strict adherence to user pay in all situations is, I think, harmful to a civilized society, and often, not much more than false economy. BC Ferries is legally mandated to ignore the effects it's fares policy has on coastal communities. That is a very bad thing for such an integral player in coastal life, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to reject your notion that all we can do is find a more equitable way to gouge more money out of communities that really can't afford more. Actually, I would respectfully have to say that is the "illogical" conclusion...I'm not sure how you jumped from a temporary residence based fee to one that would b charged to all residents; the idea is not to charge fees to the residents, but those who would flit in and out, paraphrasing what you stated before, "contributing little to the community as a whole". My proposal is to strengthen the community though reducing its dependence on the state/province, not by driving all the residents to a central location because it is easier to serve them there. Hornby and the other Gulf Islands are not the only ones suffering...judging for your comments, you are well aware of this. My community is poised on a similar precipice; we are slated to lose our state funding completely of which the end result will be a doubling our taxes. And I'm not talking $1300 to $2600...my taxes will skyrocket to almost $8000 per year, on a $140,000 assessment. This is a direct attempt by our state government to force our community to allow itself to be absorbed into one of the two neighbouring townships after a hundred and twenty years of self governance. What choices do we have? We can live with the increased taxes with the obvious hardships. We can amalgamate with one of our neighbours, at the cost of about 10-15 local jobs. We can encourage more local development of the open residential lots to increase our tax revenues; a hard sell in today's faltering housing market. Or we can attempt to build on our commercial interests to, again, increase our revenues, also a difficult sell. What do I think will happen? We'll probably be forced to allow ourselves to be absorbed into one of the larger townships. We lack the obvious advantage places like Hornby have...we are not a desirable tourist destination. I'm sorry, but for all the kvetching, people need to take this fact into account and make use of it. When it comes down to it, this is the basis of my argument above. You're more than welcome to reject my notion, but first you have to realize I am only offering a possible course of action to help offset the present predicament. It is neither proposed as an end all-be all, nor a miracle solution. I merely pose it as an individual measure to limit the losses Hornby is now enduring. Will it change the communtity...probably, but it is changing already, and by what you've said and what I've read, not for the better. My suggestion is intended to help mitigate this slide and hopefully foster a more productive community.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Apr 4, 2008 15:30:46 GMT -8
Unfortunately, we have ignored the cost associated with our infrastructure for far too long, and the costs of maintaining, let alone improving the systems we have in place are starting to catch up with a vengeance. BCFS is an example of this; so to is New Orleans. Different scales of disaster, but the root cause is the same. We want the services, but we don't want to pay for them. Whoa. Hurricane Katrina and the ferries. Think you could have picked a better analogy there. BC Ferries is a public transportation system, and for 48 years, it has been, with a few notable exceptions, a fairly well run one. Transit systems are never expected to pay their own way; people accept that for a society to function efficiently, there has to be a subsidized form of transport to get people around. In BC, there has been a political decision made that our marine transit system is going to be operated differently. "We don't want to pay for them"? In the next few years, fares to Hornby will have tripled in fifteen years. A rather expensive free ride. I agree with your assertion that people often ignore the cost of the infrastructure they use, and that public resources cannot subsidize services to the extent that is sometimes demanded. The ferries, however, return far more of their costs in revenues than land transit does, and the Coastal Ferries Act is demanding a still better return. Why the difference in expectations? The most effective way I see to deal with this is for Hornby and the other islands to find a way to have non-residents provide the offsetting funds need to keep the system going. This doesn't have to be a levy, or tax...increased tourist activities may be able to accomplish this goal, too. Personally, I feel this second option to be more productive to the community as it would fulfill some of the labor issues, and give the people of the island a sense of accomplishment. Increased tourist activities is really not a viable option. In a recent poll, 87% of islanders thought that the island was overtaxed by tourism as it is. Hornby's population quadruples in the summer, limited services are sorely tested, the ferry has more than 300 extra runs per year (mostly peak periods), and in some areas, people find their wells running dry in August. There is no more room at the inn in summer, and much of the rest of the year, Hornby is just another rainy bit of coast, with businesses shut down, and little to offer visitors. As to giving islanders 'a sense of accomplishment', that comment might rankle some, as the island pioneered comprehensive recycling and waste management, and has always prided itself on a tradition of volunteerism, community resourcefulness, and looking after it's own natural environment. Increased costs will not keep tourists from coming...a case in point, the Jersey shore housing and rental cost have soared in the last 5 years, with the average house price rising from ~$150,000 to well over $400,000. Rentals have jumped from ~$600 per week to $1,200 per week, but people still come. This year might be different with the status of the economy, but that remains to be seen. Case number 2...Vegas pioneered the gambling vacation, but Atlantic City proved you can charge through the nose for for said vacation, and people will still flock to the trough. Vegas has paid attention, and now all those cheap attractions and meals have virtually disappeared...but still they come... The Jersey shore suffers similar problems with rental costs, as I'm sure all tourist towns do. That is why I suggested the room tax...this can be offset for monthly/yearly rentals, and maybe a subsidy can be introduced to further encourage reasonable rental rates for people who would like to make their life in the Islands. Actually, I think increased costs certainly can keep tourists from coming. BC Ferries passenger counts have been mainly static for several years, as have been tourist counts to Vancouver Island, and many agree that increasing fares have played a significant role. Visitors to Hornby may not have decreased, but eventually you reach a tipping point where people are not willing to pay the premium to visit a nice beach. As for 'Vegas... good grief, the scale and nature of it's tourism is so vastly different from Hornby, I'm not sure there's any useful analogy. People desperate to see Celine Dion will put up with expensive steaks, but expensive ferries will certainly hurt the audience for the guy playing blues guitar at the Thatch Pub. As for room taxes- would that be something that would just be imposed on islands served by ferries? If so, how would one rationalize the fairness in that? And I really can't imagine who would be offering to subsidize the cost of residential rentals. I realize these are just suggestions, but my point is that there is just no source of significant revenue, or ways to redistribute costs, that would not have a negating consequence. Even if you're not directly imposing fees on residents, extra costs on part time residents or visitors can hurt island businesses, and artisans. My community is poised on a similar precipice; we are slated to lose our state funding completely of which the end result will be a doubling our taxes. And I'm not talking $1300 to $2600...my taxes will skyrocket to almost $8000 per year, on a $140,000 assessment. This is a direct attempt by our state government to force our community to allow itself to be absorbed into one of the two neighbouring townships after a hundred and twenty years of self governance. That's a tremendous wallop to the family finances, and not one that anyone should have to absorb. Living in a small community is not always the picnic that city people imagine. Tax assessments have skyrocketed on coastal islands along with property values, leaving many people land rich but cash poor. Escalating transportation costs only exacerbate the problem. The siren song of increased development, or, where possible, tourism, can lead to a community selling out it's very essence to make ends meet. What choices do we have? We can live with the increased taxes with the obvious hardships. We can amalgamate with one of our neighbours, at the cost of about 10-15 local jobs. We can encourage more local development of the open residential lots to increase our tax revenues; a hard sell in today's faltering housing market. Or we can attempt to build on our commercial interests to, again, increase our revenues, also a difficult sell. What do I think will happen? We'll probably be forced to allow ourselves to be absorbed into one of the larger townships. That is a nasty dilemma. What are the pros and cons of being absorbed, aside from perhaps not getting such a huge tax bill? We lack the obvious advantage places like Hornby have...we are not a desirable tourist destination. I'm sorry, but for all the kvetching, people need to take this fact into account and make use of it. When it comes down to it, this is the basis of my argument above. "Obvious advantage", you say. Hmmh. One of the downsides of being a 'desirable tourist destination' is that people tend to think that that's all you are, and they tend to think that you're probably, somehow, not paying the full freight for the privilege of being in such a nice place. When they're sitting in the orchard at the bakery, surrounded by dozens of people chowing down on wonderful pizza, they're not reflecting that the place is closed nine months of the year. No one expects someone on a fixed income in Surrey to have to pay a premium because bus service is expensive to operate in their area, but if you live on a coastal island, by george, there's got to be some extra bucks around somewhere... There is no great comprehensive solution to the challenges small communities face, but, after all, this thread is just addressing ferry fare increases. Hornbyites are organizing protests against the fares. People need to make it very clear to MLAs and the Premier that although they're prepared to pay a reasonable portion of the system's cost (which I believe they're already doing), communities are being targeted and harmed by a political decision to offload more costs onto users than other transit systems are doing, and, in fact, BC Ferries own research has shown that higher fares can easily reach a point of diminishing returns in the form of depressed passenger counts, which many believe we've already reached.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Apr 7, 2008 9:28:06 GMT -8
Whoa. Hurricane Katrina and the ferries. Think you could have picked a better analogy there. BC Ferries is a public transportation system, and for 48 years, it has been, with a few notable exceptions, a fairly well run one. Transit systems are never expected to pay their own way; people accept that for a society to function efficiently, there has to be a subsidized form of transport to get people around. In BC, there has been a political decision made that our marine transit system is going to be operated differently. "We don't want to pay for them"? In the next few years, fares to Hornby will have tripled in fifteen years. A rather expensive free ride. I agree with your assertion that people often ignore the cost of the infrastructure they use, and that public resources cannot subsidize services to the extent that is sometimes demanded. The ferries, however, return far more of their costs in revenues than land transit does, and the Coastal Ferries Act is demanding a still better return. Why the difference in expectations? Actually, I wasn't referring to Katrina at all, but all the other problems that are now coming to light as they work on rebuilding the infrastructure, and how much we expect the system to provide to us. A lot to do with that "free ride" mentality. To be honest, I don't think, in ideological terms, the difference is very great other than scale. How can I say that? BCFS is trying to foist the burden of the costs on the local user, either by choice or political will. New Orleans is definitely faced with having to place the burden of cost of repairs, not just of the levees and housing, but all the city's utility infrastructure on the user directly because of political will. That's my take anyways. You are right to question the difference in expectations. I would think that many people look at the ferries in a similar light as planes and cars...they are not an essential, but a luxury. Thus the "We don't want to pay for them" attitude from the population as a whole...in all honesty, would you expect you car payment to be subsidized, or your plane ticket (anymore ). Increased tourist activities is really not a viable option. In a recent poll, 87% of islanders thought that the island was overtaxed by tourism as it is. Hornby's population quadruples in the summer, limited services are sorely tested, the ferry has more than 300 extra runs per year (mostly peak periods), and in some areas, people find their wells running dry in August. There is no more room at the inn in summer, and much of the rest of the year, Hornby is just another rainy bit of coast, with businesses shut down, and little to offer visitors. As to giving islanders 'a sense of accomplishment', that comment might rankle some, as the island pioneered comprehensive recycling and waste management, and has always prided itself on a tradition of volunteerism, community resourcefulness, and looking after it's own natural environment. Careful now, don't twist my words; I come from one of those islands . What I meant was, I believe people feel much better about bringing a dollar home from a day's work than receiving a handout...it is good to have a strong community spirit, but I was viewing the issue of employment/enterprise as a distinctly different consideration than the other items you brought up. Careful, too, with the polls...while they are a good indicator of the general mood of a populace, they don't necessarily indicate the best path for a community to follow. You make a very valid point about the wells, as this shows a true taxing of the island's capacity during peak season...however, in the same sentence, you counter-point yourself by indicating there is room to grow in the "off-season". This is exactly what I would pursue. Actually, I think increased costs certainly can keep tourists from coming. BC Ferries passenger counts have been mainly static for several years, as have been tourist counts to Vancouver Island, and many agree that increasing fares have played a significant role. Visitors to Hornby may not have decreased, but eventually you reach a tipping point where people are not willing to pay the premium to visit a nice beach. As for 'Vegas... good grief, the scale and nature of it's tourism is so vastly different from Hornby, I'm not sure there's any useful analogy. People desperate to see Celine Dion will put up with expensive steaks, but expensive ferries will certainly hurt the audience for the guy playing blues guitar at the Thatch Pub. lol...I can't imagine anyone would be desperate enough to go see Celine in Vegas. I'll admit Vegas is an extreme example, but, that aside, my comparison of the Jersey shore to Hornby holds water. And, so far, price increases have not been able to slow tourism. In addition, you are throwing rising ferry fares into the mix, and my point is increase the costs somewhere else to offset this. lol...if you spread it around enough, you get the averaged cost coverage you need without one particular item really sticking out for people to really notice. Fleece where they least expect to be fleeced... As for room taxes- would that be something that would just be imposed on islands served by ferries? If so, how would one rationalize the fairness in that? And I really can't imagine who would be offering to subsidize the cost of residential rentals. I realize these are just suggestions, but my point is that there is just no source of significant revenue, or ways to redistribute costs, that would not have a negating consequence. Even if you're not directly imposing fees on residents, extra costs on part time residents or visitors can hurt island businesses, and artisans. Yes, this is possible, but in practice, this idea is working for communities, on an individual basis, not as a part of a larger tax scheme. The fairness lies in the claim to the right to protect and improve your community. Nantucket, which, realistically, is probably one of my better comparisons , has charged a 2% surtax on real estate sales dedicated to preservation of land and mitigation of development for years. And, as I stated before, the use of wage and use taxes in other communities to offset the additional impact of the part-time resident is working...with the caveat of prudent usage! I pointed out one possible usage of such an income before, but others include providing local grants to encourage entrepreneurs to start small businesses, or make offerings of off-season promotions to vacationers. There's a whole gamut of possibilities out there when you take the step back to access the situation. That's a tremendous wallop to the family finances, and not one that anyone should have to absorb. Living in a small community is not always the picnic that city people imagine. Tax assessments have skyrocketed on coastal islands along with property values, leaving many people land rich but cash poor. Escalating transportation costs only exacerbate the problem. The siren song of increased development, or, where possible, tourism, can lead to a community selling out it's very essence to make ends meet. Let me first comment on the idea of selling out. I pointed out Nantucket before, as the situation there strikes me as similar...a large city just a ferry ride away from a popular summer getaway. Development also threatens to cost the island of a lot of its charm, but by instituting the real estate tax I mentioned before, and by galvanizing the community against willy nilly development, the island has managed to maintain much of its historic charm. There's selling out, and then there's making do, and finally, taking advantage of... That is a nasty dilemma. What are the pros and cons of being absorbed, aside from perhaps not getting such a huge tax bill? Okay, the pros and cons...to be honest, I'm not too sure how an amalgamation would affect the daily lives of our community. But, given how congested this area is, and the lack of a physical barrier as enjoyed (detested? ) by communities like Hornby, integration of some services has already occurred. Thirty or forty years ago, it would have been a drastic change as, at that time, we would have been much more rural community being absorbed into the burbs than we are today. I think will see significant degradation in certain services. Right now, I know there will be a police patrol at least once an hour on our street...which, not that our neighbourhood is rampant with crime, but, unfortunately, it is a reflection of life in the eastern US seaboard. And there's not too many places I've lived where your trash gets collected three times a week...though it's mostly because there's only one truck... Also, we would definitely lose some of the direct interaction with our elected officials...right now, I know way too much about the mayor's stomach problems, though he did notice the flowers we planted last week. But it's hard to access all those little tidbits you take for granted without real paying attention too. "Obvious advantage", you say. Hmmh. One of the downsides of being a 'desirable tourist destination' is that people tend to think that that's all you are, and they tend to think that you're probably, somehow, not paying the full freight for the privilege of being in such a nice place. When they're sitting in the orchard at the bakery, surrounded by dozens of people chowing down on wonderful pizza, they're not reflecting that the place is closed nine months of the year. No one expects someone on a fixed income in Surrey to have to pay a premium because bus service is expensive to operate in their area, but if you live on a coastal island, by george, there's got to be some extra bucks around somewhere... You are right, people vacationing tend to miss some of the subtler facts about living in a seasonal tourist destination. But, as many of the local tourist towns here are realizing, if they don't want to be "seasonal", they need to make a significant effort to promote themselves in the off-season. And, so far, they are successfully making changes; there are now boardwalk businesses that spend at least nine months of the year open, and the owners are not migrating to Florida in the winter to follow the customers. As an aside, one of the best New Years events I've been to was held in Ocean City, NJ, a town that until recently pretty much shut down for the winter. So I stand by my statement of it being an "obvious advantage". And, unfortunately, given the placement of many tourist communities, I expect they, by default, must pay a premium for their continued existence. I guess it comes down to what you are willing to accept in order to live the life you wish too. There is no great comprehensive solution to the challenges small communities face, but, after all, this thread is just addressing ferry fare increases. Hornbyites are organizing protests against the fares. People need to make it very clear to MLAs and the Premier that although they're prepared to pay a reasonable portion of the system's cost (which I believe they're already doing), communities are being targeted and harmed by a political decision to offload more costs onto users than other transit systems are doing, and, in fact, BC Ferries own research has shown that higher fares can easily reach a point of diminishing returns in the form of depressed passenger counts, which many believe we've already reached. lol...okay, okay, I think we can come to a general consensus, to paraphrase what was said to me recently, "no matter how much we pay in taxes and fees, it's never little enough." To which I responded something along the lines of, "well, then, it's time to quit sitting here on my duff complaining, though it is a lot safer than standing on my soapbox where I might fall off and hurt myself!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 31, 2007 21:47:59 GMT -8
Tomorrow fares go up on all routes. It's going to cost almost another 50 cents to walk on on the major routes and another dollar to take your car. Minor routes are seeing slightly smaller fare hikes (although they are going up by a greater percentage). They do this once or twice a year... another dollar every time. Guess it's a good way to do it without people noticing. Here's a somewhat misleading quote from the BC Ferries news release on October 25: 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. .. no kidding. Assured loading books (10 trips) are going from the ~$800 to ~$1200 tomorrow (sorry my numbers aren't too accurate.. I can't find anything on the web stating this). Listen to Bill Good tomorrow on CKNW - he is very very mad about this. Tomorrow David Hahn will be in the hot seat.. not sure on the time.. probably between 8:30 and 11:00. Apparently when people had found out about this huge rate increase, they rushed to buy them and the Tsawwassen terminal had sold out the old assured loading ticket books by about 10AM this morning. People on the Island especially are really upset about this. Deb Marshall was quoted in the news saying that this was being done to discourage people from using them since they play havoc with traffic planning (Bill Good's point is that they play havoc with our traffic planning every day!). I think it's pretty unfair to boost the price of these tickets 50% with one day's notice.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Oct 31, 2007 22:02:41 GMT -8
Just to clarify, the price for 10 ALTs (Coast Card) is currently $819.00. As of November 1st, it will jump up to $1,250.00... I think it's pretty unfair to boost the price of these tickets 50% with one day's notice. Notices of upcoming increases were released to the public on October 25th... www.bcferries.com/news/files/07-072annualtariffincreasewattachmentrb.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 31, 2007 22:23:22 GMT -8
Yes, I read that release but I didn't see anything saying the price of 10 ALTs would go up 431 dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 1, 2007 15:46:58 GMT -8
Yes, I read that release but I didn't see anything saying the price of 10 ALTs would go up 431 dollars. .... I think that this percentage increase should have been applied to all routes. Seriously though, while there should be a higher tariff applied to ALT's or any other non-reserved "queue jumping" measures, I feel that the price for this is WAY out of line at this point, after the increase that is. The previous rates were at least somewhat within the realm of reality. It has now gotten out of hand, and with the levels of service that are currently being provided, the ferry system is indeed becoming ELITIST. Soon, you will need to earn more than $50,000 per person per year to be able to afford to travel onboard BC Ferries ....
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 1, 2007 21:31:55 GMT -8
David Hahn on Bill Good's show today basically said that this past summer, the use of ALTs (Assured Loading Tickets) was becoming a problem. The reservations on a sailing would be full, people without reservations would be waiting for hours, and then at the last minute a lot of people would come with ALTs, forcing those who couldn't afford or get reservations to wait even longer. He said that ALTs were intended for unplanned business trips (can be written off) and perhaps in emergencies, but not as a "first class" ticket to budge in line. I can accept that argument somewhat.
I too, don't like the queue jumping at all. Paid reservations are bad enough. Forcing people to pay 53% extra is probably not a bad idea in the long run. I just know that they got a lot of people mad by giving very short notice. Hahn said they sold in excess of $1 million worth of ALTs yesterday alone.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 7, 2007 21:49:57 GMT -8
Here's news of an "error correcting" fare hike: www.bcferrycommission.com/what_s_new.htmlNovember 5 2007 Commission Revises Fare Cap Ruling on Major Routes for the Period 2008-2012
The Commission will make a change to BC Ferries’ price caps for the four years 2008 to 2012 included in Order 07-01 of September 18, 2007. The change corrects a Commission error in determining BC Ferries’ allowable costs for the second performance term. It affects only the major route group and raises the price cap as follows:
On April 1, 2008 the price cap will increase by 7.3% (up from 6.4% in Order 07-01), and On each of April 1, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the price cap will increase by 2.7% (up from 2.0%) plus 0.49 times the latest reported annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for British Columbia.
All other conditions of the previous order remain in effect. The Commission intends to issue a formal order to set the revised price cap for the major route group by no later than December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
Post by BrianWilliams on Nov 8, 2007 19:58:05 GMT -8
I'm not quite clear on the purpose of the ALT program.
As John explained earlier, perhaps its use as a last-minute business option is effective (helps BCF keep some travel away from Helijet or Harbour Air?).
But its disruption on busy days may be the reason for the punitive price increase - with the idea that it will go away.
More important to the BC economy, I think, is assured loading for some commercial vehicles - most especially shellfish haulers who load live oysters and crabs on the Island, and have to make YVR for a scheduled cargo flight to distant markets.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 8, 2007 20:38:59 GMT -8
More important to the BC economy, I think, is assured loading for some commercial vehicles - most especially shellfish haulers who load live oysters and crabs on the Island, and have to make YVR for a scheduled cargo flight to distant markets. The commercial reservation program currently has no fee associated with BOOKING the reservation. The only fee incurred is a $25 charge if you do not "cash in" your reservation within 30 mins of your reserved sailing. The downside is that you must reserve 120 mins prior to the sailing required. (see note below) This being the case, several transportation companies (myself included at times) block reserve far more reservations (space or time) than they need. As these reservations can be cancelled without penalty up to 30 mins prior to the reserved sailing, there are times when if I am NOT SURE which sailing I will be catching, I book 3 or 4 sailings, and then simply cancel the reservations that I do not need a minimum of 30 mins prior (or further ahead, if I catch a sailing and have later reservations). This is theoretically "abuse" of the system, but is playing within the current rules. It is just the way that things are done. I know that this happens on a large scale, with several bigger trucking companies block booking early AM or late PM sailings MONTHS in advance, just so that they have them IN CASE they need them. Cancel them if they don't, or, "trade" them to other trucking companies. I've even heard of people selling off their commercial reservations during certain peak travel times. I have personally also kept plugging away at the reservation system either by internet or phone to snap up "freshly cancelled" space shortly before the 120-min cut off -- often with great success. Do we need a commercial ALT program? I'd say no ... the current system works more or less well.
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Mar 28, 2008 20:53:37 GMT -8
When looking at fares for a potential trip to see the Tsawwassen on Route 17, I noticed a significant change in the fare structure on the major routes (1, 2,& 30). Effective April 1st, the fares are now 'Year Round'! Time to throw away the three fare levels throughout the year. This does seem rather surprising to me, but at least you know what it's going to cost every time!
|
|
Mirrlees
Voyager
Bathtub!
Deck Engineer- Queen of Richmond
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by Mirrlees on Mar 29, 2008 14:12:03 GMT -8
I think this might be due to lower vehicle numbers over the past year. BCFS has to make-up for the shortfall somehow; I wonder if Coastsavers are next...?
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Apr 1, 2008 19:43:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Apr 1, 2008 21:04:15 GMT -8
Bite the bullet and stretch out on your back on the lifejacket box on the sun deck and enjoy the sun, the rumble of the engine, and the scenery. I support the 'bite the bullet' notion, but if only those life jacket boxes on the sundecks were still on the C Class ferries! They were one of my favorite spots to sit on the sundeck, but after each ferries' MLU they became a thing of the past on those ships. I still enjoy them on the V and S classes though.
|
|
|
Post by staffer on Apr 2, 2008 17:59:17 GMT -8
When looking at fares for a potential trip to see the Tsawwassen on Route 17, I noticed a significant change in the fare structure on the major routes (1, 2,& 30). Effective April 1st, the fares are now 'Year Round'! Time to throw away the three fare levels throughout the year. This does seem rather surprising to me, but at least you know what it's going to cost every time! That is a good thing about year round fares. We have had many complaints about the inconsistent fares whether it be seasonal changes or weekend\weekday changes. People were tired of the 25 to 50 cent difference of fare, depending on the day. Employees in the ticket booths have mentioned that in the past, when a customer paid the higher weekend fare on a weekday, the customer would tell the employee to keep it or save it for someone who does not have enough for the actual weekend fare. And that weekend scenario has happened many times. I can see the complaints coming from route 3 customers since the fares are different now and in the summer.2
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 18, 2007 17:51:21 GMT -8
These are two letters from the current copy of Island Tides (http://islandtides.com/) that reflect the growing concern on the impact of high fares on the future of the small island communities on the coast.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 18, 2007 17:53:44 GMT -8
Sorry for the poor copy and paste (at least you don't need to sidescroll! - it's from a PDF. If anyone is interested, Island Tide has their current issue and past issues in PDF format. islandtides.com/
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on May 19, 2007 10:40:58 GMT -8
The letter from Dr Walford was excellent, and points out the hardship to coastal islands in the mushrooming ferry fares. 'User pay' for ferries is insanity- it's not expected of our bus riders, and shouldn't be expected of people who need to travel over water. It's already been pointed out that ferries recover far more of their costs from fares than does land based transit.
The current set up of BC Ferries was supposedly created to remove politics from the system. User pay is a political philosophy. They actually had no intention to remove politics; it just had to be the right brand.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 27, 2007 17:36:37 GMT -8
Someone at the Victoria Times-Colonist must read "Island Tides", as there is a TC article today, re the same Hornby/Denman Dentist (or "Horntist", depending on which Island he's on): 2 stories today: ========================== www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=bcb8a38f-6429-4326-8525-1a1a42afd1ea&k=59416Ferry riders' lament: Rising fares are unfair Small-island dwellers say they're being squeezed by hikes Jack Knox Times Colonist Sunday, May 27, 2007 It's a lament as familiar as complaints about the weather and rising gas prices. Gulf Islanders are raising the alarm about the fares they pay to use the ferries that connect them to the rest of the world. But now there's a growing sense that rising fares are affecting the way of life on the coast's necklace of small islands. Some worry that the rising cost of small-island living, accelerated by the fare increases, is driving away young families and screening out all but the wealthy. If ferry fares go up as recommended over the next few years, the compounded increase since 2003 could average 85 per cent on 22 minor routes, say representatives of ferry-dependent communities. The price has risen steadily since the provincial government overhauled B.C. Ferries in 2003, changing it from a Crown corporation to a semi-autonomous business. The legislation setting up the new authority also instructed B.C. Ferries to phase out the practice of using earnings from the major Vancouver Island-mainland routes to subsidize the minor routes. And it mandated a gradual reduction in the government subsidy paid to B.C. Ferries to keep rates down. The result has been big fare increases on the minor routes. Just one example: Taking the two 10-minute ferries that connect Vancouver Island and Hornby would cost $34.50 for car and driver in 2003. Now it's $47.70. Residents say that in moving toward a user-pay system four years ago, the Liberals violated a social contract. "People moved to the island in good faith, understanding the ferries were part of the highway system," says Hornby Island retiree Peter Brady. Now, there's a widespread sense of betrayal as residents and businesses grapple with higher fares. Add that to the skyrocketing real estate prices, and some say a way of life may be on the verge of disappearing ================================= Here's the 2nd one: www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/monitor/story.html?id=c25cb328-55e5-4686-9000-81b3825ca4dfA dentist changes the way he practises. Young families move out. Day-trippers think twice about short hops. Up and down the coast, ferry riderships are taking a hit from higher fares. To offset the hikes, regional governments urge ferry subsidy increases. Are they the answer? Dr. Peter Walford has had enough. For the past two decades he has shuttled between Hornby and Denman islands in the converted 1974 Blue Bird school bus that serves as a mobile dental clinic. Normally, the bus switches islands every week, but next month, for the first time, Walford will shift to two-week stays, in part because the 10-minute ferry crossing that cost $35 just three years ago is now pushing $60. That's not what has him mad, though. No, what really ticks him off is the exodus of young working people. "Last week two families came in and said goodbye." It's the rapidly rising ferry fares that are driving them off the islands, he says. So he has written a letter to his 1,400 patients: "On Hornby, we are now bleakly staring at a programmed, intentional community death from dwindling tourist dollars and escalating ordinary transportation costs." In short, he argues, ideologically driven ferry fare increases are squeezing the economies of the islands, turning Hornby and Denman into exclusive playgrounds for the rich. It's a lament being heard up and down the coast as B.C. Ferries -- and, indirectly, the provincial government -- ponder yet another round of fare increases. If the next four years of fare hikes go through as recommended, the compounded increase since 2003 could average 85 per cent on 22 minor routes, far outstripping the rate of inflation, say representatives of ferry-dependent communities. What was a $19 car-and-driver fare between Port McNeill and Alert Bay in 2003 could reach $33.60 by 2012. The Capital Regional District, Comox-Strathcona Regional District, Islands Trust and a variety of municipal governments have all called on Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon to increase the province's ferry subsidy or at least look at the damage high fares are doing to coastal communities. They argue that ridership on the small routes has dropped or flatlined even while the population of some Gulf Islands has grown at a rate two, three, four times as fast as that of Canada or B.C. Instead of paying higher fares, people just aren't travelling as often. Nowhere, perhaps, have the increases been felt more than on Denman and Hornby, where day-tripping tourists from Vancouver Island and commuters to jobs in Courtenay all feel the pinch. As of June 27, the return trip from Vancouver Island to Hornby for two adults in a car will be $61.60 once the fuel surcharges are added. That might not deter the two-week tourist, but it's high enough to choke off the traditional flow of short-stay visitors -- bad news for an island whose economy is almost entirely dependent on tourists in the summer, when the population of 1,100 has been known to swell sevenfold. "We're already seeing quite a reduction in our day traffic," says Phoebe Long, manager of the Hornby Co-Op. "That's a straight-out reflection of ferry costs. The families certainly don't come over for day trips any more." No more picnics on Tribune Bay for the Comox Valley set. Long is echoed by Jan Kennedy, who has owned Jan's Cafe for 18 of her 30 years on Hornby: "All the businesses notice that the number of people coming for the day is down." The demographic of the island is changing, Kennedy says. Young families are being priced off Hornby; she now finds it hard to find staff for the cafe. The new residents are older and wealthier; Jan's mechanic husband doesn't work on many beaters any more. Everybody, it seems, drives a new Beemer. School enrolment, which once stood at 148, is now below 50. "Anyone below a certain income level cannot sustain the cost of transportation," Kennedy says. Transportation costs aren't the only factor. Young people might be leaving Hornby, but the population is still climbing -- jumping 11 per cent, to 1,074, between 2001 and 2006 -- pushing up property prices. Ferry fares can be chump change when compared to mortgages. Complaints about fares are unlikely to draw much sympathy from those who argue that coastal communities have long enjoyed an idyllic lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers who subsidize their ferry service. Even after four years of increases, the fares on the minor routes only cover between 35 and 47 per cent of the operating costs (a range expected to rise to 46 to 59 per cent by 2012 as the push toward user-pay continues). The distaste for the subsidies was apparent when the provincial government sort-of-privatized B.C. Ferries and introduced the Coastal Ferry Act in 2003. The corporation still gets $25 million from Ottawa and a $92-million service fee -- read subsidy -- from the province, but the overall trend has been toward a self-supporting system. The main Swartz Bay-Lower Mainland-Nanaimo runs break even, and total revenue from fares on all routes has risen from $316 million in 2003 to an expected $382 million in the fiscal year ending next spring. Those kinds of numbers might warm the hearts of Liberal politicians or the taxpayers of Terrace or Trail, but they don't impress people who live in places like Alert Bay and Quadra Island. Give this to the Socreds, say the latter: They understood the link between transportation infrastructure and the economy, that the former primes the pump for the latter. (Ferries traffic peaked in 1996, tailing off after the NDP government brought in multiple fare increases.) Coastal communities argue that in moving toward a user-pay system in 2003, the Liberals broke a social contract. "People moved to the island in good faith, understanding the ferries were part of the highway system," says Hornby retiree Peter Brady, waiting in his car at Denman's Gravelly Bay terminal. That ferry subsidy is the only extra that island residents get for their tax dollars, Brady says. Unlike the Lower Mainland, there is no massively subsidized public transit system. There's no $33 million worth of dike work, as government is providing for those who chose to live in B.C.'s flood plains. Hornby Islanders don't get two-thirds of their $1.2-billion sewage-treatment costs picked up by outside taxpayers, as is the case with Greater Victoria. They don't get any help with sewage costs at all. In fact, ferry fare increases have added $500 to the cost of building a home septic system on Denman, and $1,000 on Hornby. Residents point out that the province operates 14 inland ferries for which it charges no tolls at all. Many argue that if people are to be penalized for living in sparsely populated places, then all those who live north of Williams Lake should pay a highway toll. And everyone, absolutely everyone, drags up the new road to Whistler as evidence of government hypocrisy. "I do wonder why my tax dollars are paying for a Sea to Sky Highway for rich people to go skiing," says Denman Island's Margaret Bilan, waiting at the Buckley Bay terminal, on her way back home from having a tire repaired in Courtenay -- "town" to Denman residents. Rapidly rising fares hurt those who ride the ferry to their jobs, she says. "I know people who can't afford to commute to work. It's causing financial hardship for people who have lived on the island for years." Realtor Donna Tuele, a nine-year resident of Hornby, backs her up. "I'm seeing young families move off the Island." Some specifically blame the ferry fares. (A 2005 survey showed half of all Denman and Hornby residents said ferry fares might contribute to a move off-island.) Tuele figures her own ferry bill this year will run $3,000 to $5,000. Ouch. The cost of living is changing the nature of the islands, says Bilan, a Denman resident since 1993. "Only people with more money can afford to be property owners now." Greg Kendrick, 15 years on Hornby, has seen the demographic shift reflected in the volunteer fire department, which has shrunk to half its previous size while suddenly growing greyer. The newcomers bring with them the expectation of city-level emergency services -- but assume others will do the work. "Rich people don't volunteer much." You'll hear that same story from Sointula in the north to Saturna Island in the south: Families leaving, part-time residents moving in, community services stressed -- and it must be stressed that ferry fares are just one factor, often a minor one, in the changing demographics. There aren't a lot of high-paying jobs on the islands, and it's hard for the young to compete when the demand for bucolic retirement and recreational properties pushes up real estate prices. When farmer Jackie Campbell was growing up on Saturna, she would ride a pony to a school with 30 students. Now there are just a handful enrolled. It used to be that summer cabins on Saturna were shacks. "Now people's summer homes are bigger than our house." Priscilla Ewbank, who migrated to Saturna from Berkeley, Calif., in 1970, says high ferry fares are filtering out those with limited income -- weekenders, or people like her kids, who have to think twice before making the trip from the city. "It never bothers the rich," she says. "For anybody who works for a living, it gets harder and harder." On Saturna, they're even worried about the dampening effect of ferry fares on the island's legendary Canada Day lamb barbecue. Saturna, pop. 359 (actually 360, since there was a birth notice in the store window), feeds upward of 1,500 people each July 1. It's the biggest fundraiser of the year for an island that relies on volunteers to provide the kind of services that city-dwellers get from government, everything from the community club and library to the volunteer fire department and recycling depot. Ewbank and husband Jon Guy own the Saturna General Store, the Haggis Farm Bakery and a piece of another store and pub down by the ferry dock. It now costs Jon $300 to take the store's 29-foot truck to Vancouver. "It's gone up hugely," he says. The Hornby Co-op's Long can relate: "Our transportation costs have doubled in the past five years." Those increases get passed to customers, making the island less affordable. She blanches at the idea of paying another 6.7 per cent a year, as is proposed. "That would translate into major increases for us." The effects of the higher fares -- now an average of 50 per cent over 2003 rates on the smaller routes -- vary by place. Ferry rep Jakob Knaus says families from the Lower Mainland no longer take the car to visit grandparents on the Sunshine Coast; instead, it's Grandma and Grandpa who do the visiting, travelling as walk-on passengers between Monday and Thursday, when seniors board for free. In Alert Bay, Jo Mrozewski says ferry costs scuttled a proposal for a high-end restaurant -- the key to increasing visits by pocket cruise ships bearing Europeans hungry for aboriginal tourism. All this is coming to a head now because the provincial government is negotiating the next four-year term of its agreement with B.C. Ferries. Once that is done, the script will be written through 2012 -- and the Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs, the representatives of the communities served by the smaller routes, don't like what they see. The preliminary recommendation of ferry commissioner Martin Crilly is that fare increases on the smaller routes be capped at 3.6 per cent on April 1, 2008, and 6.7 per cent in the three subsequent years. Those figures assume no change in the province's contribution; the government has until June 30 to decide whether to alter the subsidy or the level of ferry service. Critics say the ferry commissioner's mandate precludes him from considering the economic impact on coastal communities when calculating the fare caps -- a fatal flaw in the process, akin to setting a hospital budget without taking the effect on patients into account. Back at his mobile dental clinic, Walford figures the government should scrap the Coastal Ferry Act altogether, back away from what he calls a privatization binge that has failed the people of the coast. "They made a bad call and they're too proud to admit it." jknox@tc.canwest.com © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007 ========================
|
|