|
|
Post by Taxman on Jan 23, 2008 15:46:56 GMT -8
"Would it make good economic and/or environmental sense to run passenger ferries whose routes are essentially parallel to existing car ferries on high traffic corridors (eg. Vancouver-Nanaimo, Vancouver-Victoria)?"
No,
Lets ask some questions here to see why I reached this conclusion!
Will building this new service create more passengers for BC Ferries? No
Can Car capacity be reduced on other boats during the Christmas and Summer seasons? No
Will there be considerable staff reductions as a result of this implimentation? No, expensive staff will be duplicated (Masters vs. more cleaners)
Will doing this capture a market BC Ferries doesn't currently catch? Most likely not, BC Ferries captures a near monopolistic level of passengers.
Will customers be willing to pay more for a shorter trip? Yes, but not enough. Most people will not gain enough utility that they will pay that much more. Those travelling for business can write off travel expense, and will either pay for airfare (if they are important enough), will be traveling too far to make logical sense to not bring a vehicle or will not mind an extra 15 or 20 minutes on a boat.
Will the one-time capital purchase outweigh the discounted operational expenses of the future (does the project have a positive NPV, focusing only on expenses)? Unknown, but personally? probably negative.
Without better numbers this is hard to substantiate, but the business case does not appear to be there. The question is: IS it in the SOCIAL interest to develop a passenger ferry?
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jan 23, 2008 17:12:55 GMT -8
Marine transport is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation when considering cargo. Actually, I think train is better for that too. Hence the reason they're planning to increase the port facilities at Prince Rupert, to minimize the oversea distance to the Asian trade markets. |
|
|
|
Post by Taxman on Jan 23, 2008 17:34:15 GMT -8
Time is a major factor in that decision as well. Prince Rupert is considerably closer to Asia, cutting time for time in transit. (Marine is one of the slowest forms of Transportation)
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jan 23, 2008 17:50:40 GMT -8
Well then, if BC Ferries uses one of the slowest forms of transport, why doesn't it diversify and try "air ferries"? Flat-out unfeasible?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager 
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jan 23, 2008 17:57:08 GMT -8
Time is a major factor in that decision as well. Prince Rupert is considerably closer to Asia, cutting time for time in transit. (Marine is one of the slowest forms of Transportation) But still tonne for tonne, the most fuel efficient method of cargo hauling is by water: Water transportation is the most fuel-efficient method of transportation currently available in the United States. Ships can transport a ton of cargo 514 miles using one gallon of diesel fuel, whereas trucks can transport that same ton of cargo only 59 miles on the same gallon of fuel. Quoted from this website. My understanding is trains average ~400 ton-miles per gallon. A very good analysis of water haul, rail haul, and road haul cargo costs can be found here. This analysis takes into account additional costs and consumption incurred by the relocation of shipping assets when back-hauls are unavailable. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jan 23, 2008 18:01:43 GMT -8
For an example of a car and passenger ferry co-existing on what is essentially the same route, how about the Coho and the Victoria Express? Passenger fares are about the same on both of them too.
If it works on a much lower traffic corridor like Port Angeles-Victoria, why not ones that are heavily traveled like Victoria-Vancouver and Nanaimo-Vancouver?
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 23, 2008 18:45:41 GMT -8
Marine transport is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation when considering cargo. Actually, I think train is better for that too. Hence the reason they're planning to increase the port facilities at Prince Rupert, to minimize the oversea distance to the Asian trade markets. One of the Prince Rupert port's chief attractions is that its rail route is vastly under utilized. Currently there are 4 or 5 trains per day in each direction on this route, versus 15 or 20 per day in each direction on both CN & CP into Vancouver. There is 'loads' of room for port expansion on BC's north coast and I am talking not just about Prince Rupert. As far as intercity passenger only ferries are concerned it really should be done for social reasons. The so-called 'private' BC Ferries is maybe not the the organization that will do it, unless forced by their owners (the government, meaning us, the people of BC). We need to break away from the gas-guzzling, car-centered, CO2 spewing North American culture of the late 20th century. To do this we need to have attractive public transit options. Fast down town to down town service is attractive public transit. And just like any other public transit it has to be partially taxpayer supported. |
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jan 23, 2008 19:20:22 GMT -8
For an example of a car and passenger ferry co-existing on what is essentially the same route, how about the Coho and the Victoria Express? Passenger fares are about the same on both of them too. If it works on a much lower traffic corridor like Port Angeles-Victoria, why not ones that are heavily traveled like Victoria-Vancouver and Nanaimo-Vancouver? This is just a personal, anecdotal thing. But there are a few times when I have taken the Victoria Express over the Coho simply because the Coho runs a relatively few times per day, and the schedule of the VE just made more sense for us that day. (This despite my wife having mobility issues that make the Coho somewhat easier for us to use.) In the case of any Van-Vic route, the service is much more frequent. Frequent to the point that the wait time between sailings is not a big a factor. GThe ONLY exception to that I can see right off is the after 9pm crowd. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jan 23, 2008 20:27:15 GMT -8
But still tonne for tonne, the most fuel efficient method of cargo hauling is by water: Being in the trucking industry and knowing a thing or three about costs to move goods, I have to give this argument to BCinNJ. When longer distances are involved, and there is the option of shipping cargo by sea, it is the most cost efficient, assuming that distances are comperable. Rail is a good second, and can rank as lower cost depending on which area of the globe you are trying to traverse (ie: shipping something from Mexico to Canada, where there is a decent enough rail link versus sticking it on a ship running a non-traditional route). Road/truck is generally third (although most long distance loads are intermodal in some aspect, very few moving exclusively by road). Air is generally the most expensive, except where short-haul or very frequent runs are concerned. Pound for pound, this also holds true, with the exception again of rail versus sea where you can run say a 200 car set across a continent. Sometimes handling time/charges come in to play as well, but generally sea shipment is the most cost effective. As is true in most things, time is the inverse component of cost. Therefore the cheapest solution is the most time consuming, and the fastest is the most expensive. This holds true in this comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 23, 2008 20:35:53 GMT -8
One thing to keep in mind with these passenger only routes is 'who are the typical people using them'? A good chunk of the people are usually 'on business', and when you consider the cost of doing business they would typically lean towards using the seaplane from either Victoria or Nanaimo to Vancouver. It's more reliable than a boat and gets you there faster. Even though it costs a fair chunk more, business folk still find the seaplane worth it. The only catch: it doesn't fly at night (Helijet does though, but is more expensive than seaplanes). Therefore the fast passenger ferry would probably do decent business in the dark. Personally I think a passenger ferry from between downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria would lose to their seaplane competitors due to the 2.5 hour sailing time vs 35 min flying time, regardless of price. ......and the Nanaimo-Vancouver seaplanes are a bad choice for end-of-day business travel in the winter, as the last plane is 4:00pm or so, with check-in say 20 minutes earlier. It's tough to get a full day in of work in Vancouver (for me, who lives in Nanaimo) during the winter, if I'm flying WestCoastAir or HarbourAir. Darkness.....that gave Harbourlynx the business-travel advantage during winter. Of course there are lots of other pro/con factors. But the darkness-no-fly issue is a real one for me. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 24, 2008 21:24:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 8, 2008 14:59:27 GMT -8
I know of at least three time the foot passenger only idea has been tried. One problem is fuel cost. The faster a boat goes the higher its fuel consumption with consumption increasing dramaticaly at the top end. Small boats going fast tend to be rough and noisy. Small boats limit passenger capacity and revenue. Larger boats are more comfortable and quieter but increase fuel consumption and are slower. The fare costs would approach that of air travel without any of the time savings. Winter weather would be a real problem.
There is also the problem of locating and paying for docking at each end. The closer to the city center the more expensive. Another problem is shore transportation. Busses are inconvenient and taxis are expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Feb 8, 2008 22:34:01 GMT -8
Very interesting discussions fellas...but, hate to burst your bubble, but a pax only service to Nanaimo can work.
HarbourLynx didn't fail because of lack of ridership, in fact in year two growth almost hit 40% of year one. In addition, it's ridership exceeded the number of revenue passengers of the Royal Sealink that everyone marvelled at. Royal Sealink carried 220,000 pax in 11 months or the equivelant of 250,000 annual. Where it failed was in the non acceptance of BCFC from buying it and the Federal Govt's refusal to grant Fjellstrand importation duty free as they had previously promised.
BCFS didn't see a dramatic drop in traffic at the time because over 70% of HL's business was new. In the airline business they have seen routes grow by 8 times or more when an new carrier comes in, particularly if they stimulate the market with price.
HL went down because they bought a piece of junk, had to spend 3 times on it what they were supposed to have, start up costs depleted their capital, and little was left for marketing the product upon start up. When the engine blew, an of course they couldn't afford a spare, by that time, the shareholders were tired, most had lost their original investment, and they were done.
You don't pack passengers on a vehicle ferry for nothing as stated. What does a C class carry in actual vehicle numbers - 360 aeq or about 300 vehicles with a mix of commercial? Now, how many crew for 300 pax (driver)? The Quinsam has 6? Ok, so the difference in crew to a 35-37 max for an extra 1100 pax. That doesn't come without cost. That's wages, benefits, and all that for an extra 31 crew members....
Ahhh yes, the subsidies, like the 25-27 million/yr from the Feds that is supposed to go to Horsehoe Bay/Departure bay as their portion of providing the extension of the Trans Canada....
How about 15 million last year for the Seniors Travel Subsidy...oops, I mean the exclusive subsidy to BC Ferries for the carriage of seniors, because after all, even though it's a Senior Travel subsidy, the only place they can use it is on BC Ferries. If the customers had been able to choose which ferry to use as opposed to being forced by the government to use BCFS, then HarbourLynx could have had access to the 375,000 passengers that took advantage of it annually.
Duke Pt is a bad place to consider for a pax only ferry. If you look at the numbers of foot passengers, Duke Pt to Tsw vs Duke Pt to H/Bay, there's a huge difference. Mainly because Dep bay is an easy place to pick up from, just ask the bus lines. The difference in pax carried from Dep Bay to the bus depot is nothing compared to Swartz to downtown Vic for example.
One thing to take note of, in the old days, the faster you travel the more fuel you burn, true to a point. Many high speed ferries are flat lined, fuel burned per nautical mile through much of their operating range.
Would love to talk more on the subject of pax only.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 10, 2008 13:02:31 GMT -8
I agree that the real killer was the problems they had with repairs and maintenance. Isn't it interesting that the government refused to allow them to bring in a ferry without paying duty but allowed BCFS to bring in a ferry without paying duty?
|
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Feb 16, 2008 9:57:08 GMT -8
The starboard engine on the HarbourLynx blowing certainly sealed the fate of the operation. Victoria Clipper has a warehouse full of spares for their boats as they can't keep them running without them. Duty was paid on the HL, but not the Royal Sealink boats. They were brought in on temporary permits (good for 18 months) on the grounds that Ottawa had advised that they would exempt the duty, due to the unique nature of the ships. After significant lobbying from the shipbuilding industry, the Feds renegged on their promise and advised that duty of 25% would have to be paid, it was then that the company folded up their tent and left town.
The biggest challenge to ANY private ferry operator in British Columbia are the governments and crown corps, BCFS included.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 6, 2008 5:32:21 GMT -8
I was thinking, if they were to add pax ferries at frequent enough intervals to supplement Routes 1 and 2, would they be able to reduce the car ferry sailings on those routes to two boats each running on bihourly schedules? Maybe move the Celebration to Route 2, since Route 1 would be adequately served by the Spirit vessels.
Would there be too much time added to a Vic-Van pax sailing to be worthwhile if there were to be stops along the way at Sidney and Ganges?
Also, would a pax ferry be able to run late at night without the environmental, noise and cost issues that affect the car ferries?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on May 6, 2008 15:44:30 GMT -8
OK, number 1. It is very rare that foot passengers are left behind due to a full ferry, it might happen once or twice in a summer. The vehicle capacity is what makes people get left behind.
Going Vic-Van instead of SWB-TSW would make the sailing in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 hours not including stops as you say in Ganges and Sidney. The trip from harbour to harbour routing through active pass is about 140km, or about 74 nautical miles, as opposed to 24 miles from TSW to SWB.
BCF doesn't run at night for one main reason: there is no demand. Have you ever been on a 10:00 pm sailing during the summer? 20% is a good sized load, and there might be 10 (if that) foot passengers. For the rest of the year, quite often the Spirits don't load up the upper deck at all on the last sailing. Do you think there'd be a demand for a boat at 2:00am?
I can't speak too much about route 2 since I don't know the traffic patterns all that well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 9, 2008 20:20:59 GMT -8
OK, number 1. It is very rare that foot passengers are left behind due to a full ferry, it might happen once or twice in a summer. The vehicle capacity is what makes people get left behind. Going Vic-Van instead of SWB-TSW would make the sailing in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 hours not including stops as you say in Ganges and Sidney. The trip from harbour to harbour routing through active pass is about 140km, or about 74 nautical miles, as opposed to 24 miles from TSW to SWB. If it can be done in 2.5 hours or less, then it may be worth it. Forget Ganges though. It's too far off course. Here's my idea for a conceptualized passenger ferry network for southwest BC.BCF doesn't run at night for one main reason: there is no demand. Have you ever been on a 10:00 pm sailing during the summer? 20% is a good sized load, and there might be 10 (if that) foot passengers. For the rest of the year, quite often the Spirits don't load up the upper deck at all on the last sailing. Do you think there'd be a demand for a boat at 2:00am? They could use smaller vessels, though. I'm sure there are a few that could use a late night/early morning sailing after a game or concert, to connect with a flight, or to deliver the goods before the shops open for the day, to name some examples. I thought the possibility of the horn going off as the boat enters Active Pass or arrives at dock pissing off area residents and disturbing the wildlife might have something to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 12, 2008 10:46:21 GMT -8
OK, number 1. It is very rare that foot passengers are left behind due to a full ferry, it might happen once or twice in a summer. The vehicle capacity is what makes people get left behind. Going Vic-Van instead of SWB-TSW would make the sailing in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 hours not including stops as you say in Ganges and Sidney. The trip from harbour to harbour routing through active pass is about 140km, or about 74 nautical miles, as opposed to 24 miles from TSW to SWB. Okay, maybe Vic-Van would be a bit excessive, and might not really save a worthwhile amount of time, if any. How would Sidney-Steveston (in Richmond) do? Express buses could then connect Sidney to Victoria and Steveston to the nearest Canada Line station in Richmond. (Perhaps the Canada Line can even be extended to Steveston in the future.) |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on May 12, 2008 17:28:50 GMT -8
.Okay, maybe Vic-Van would be a bit excessive, and might not really save a worthwhile amount of time, if any. How would Sidney-Steveston (in Richmond) do? Express buses could then connect Sidney to Victoria and Steveston to the nearest Canada Line station in Richmond. (Perhaps the Canada Line can even be extended to Steveston in the future.) Do I honestly have to explain to you how the existing service works now? the 620 will connect to a Canada Line station, and already goes to the airport and Ladner Exchange, at both places you can transfer to express buses that will take you downtown. the 70 on the Swartz Bay side is a rapid-bus express service, sometimes along the freeway, to downtown Victoria. Your suggestion would not add any improvements over the existing system, other than the fact that it would be a much quieter ride on the Pax Only boat. |
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on May 13, 2008 6:59:01 GMT -8
Normally on Sunday nights, CMBC will run express buses direct from Tsawwassen into Downtown. I've taken this a few times last summer getting back home to North Van from some Forum trips.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 15, 2008 15:30:14 GMT -8
.Okay, maybe Vic-Van would be a bit excessive, and might not really save a worthwhile amount of time, if any. How would Sidney-Steveston (in Richmond) do? Express buses could then connect Sidney to Victoria and Steveston to the nearest Canada Line station in Richmond. (Perhaps the Canada Line can even be extended to Steveston in the future.) Do I honestly have to explain to you how the existing service works now? the 620 will connect to a Canada Line station, and already goes to the airport and Ladner Exchange, at both places you can transfer to express buses that will take you downtown. the 70 on the Swartz Bay side is a rapid-bus express service, sometimes along the freeway, to downtown Victoria. Your suggestion would not add any improvements over the existing system, other than the fact that it would be a much quieter ride on the Pax Only boat. The idea would be to reduce costs and fuel. Reduce the car ferry sailings to a bihourly schedule. Raise the rates to carry on cars. (A 2500 lb car should cost more than just 3-4 times as much to carry than a 150 lb person anyways.) And put the savings towards these pax ferries. And going between Sidney and Richmond in, say, 1:20 would be an improvement over going between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen in 1:35 for the passengers. And Sidney and Steveston are town centres in their own right, with a better selection of shops, eateries and attractions for transfering passengers than the ferry terminals, and can use the tourism boost. Hopefully, fewer people will want to drive with the high gas prices anyways, and the demand for this kind of service will increase. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 15, 2008 15:44:05 GMT -8
Normally on Sunday nights, CMBC will run express buses direct from Tsawwassen into Downtown. I've taken this a few times last summer getting back home to North Van from some Forum trips. I've never heard of it. They don't advertise it anywhere, do they? |
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on May 15, 2008 22:16:34 GMT -8
They don't advertise it at all, but I did use that service twice last summer on forum trips.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 16, 2008 4:24:46 GMT -8
They don't advertise it at all, but I did use that service twice last summer on forum trips. An inside secret between Translink and a select group of riders? |
|
