Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Aug 23, 2008 23:37:24 GMT -8
I've often seen it stated on this forum, most recently in somewhat belligerent fashion by our guest poster 'Douglas', that commercial vehicles provide the lion's share of revenue on BC Ferries. While there might be some truth in this assertion, I've never once seen anyone cite any figures to back it up. So, I've done a little comparison; if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me.
According to BC Ferries' current published tariffs, the commercial rate on Route 1 is $4.85 per foot. On a 60 foot vehicle, that would work out to $291. Add the driver, and your total is $304.
In that space, you could easily park three underheight passenger vehicles, for a total fare of $129. Let's conservatively assume that there are five passengers in those three vehicles, making your total revenue $194.
But wait; commercial vehicles are wider than cars- on a vessel like the Queen of Alberni, you can fit eight lanes of cars, but only six of trucks . So we need to decrease the commercial vehicle revenue per lane width by, say, 25%. We now have $226 from commercial, and $194 from cars.
Commercial vehicles also use more vertical space. On the Queen of Surrey, there are gallery decks, which mean that you can park six cars in the space of that truck, and again, remember the truck is also using more of the ship's beam. Taking the gallery capacity and beam usage into account, we have $388 from cars, and $226 from the commercial vehicle. On top of that you have more revenue in the cafeteria and gift shop from the auto passengers.
Seems to me that the most lucrative model for a vehicle ferry would be one where tall, wide commercial vehicles did not need to be accommodated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 24, 2008 0:28:55 GMT -8
You are assuming full loads of cars though, Neil, and that is not the case at all, excepting perhaps Route-9/-9a. You usually will get a decent mix. In your figures, you also did not count OH private vehicles which charge out at higher than cars, but less than commercial. Granted that they do take up wider lanes for the most part.
Remember too, that on the main routes, whatever commercial vehicles go TO the Island, usually come BACK too.
You are correct, however, in that pax from cars generate more ancillary revenue above the car decks.
Skipping ahead a sec too, you take a semi that is 75-80' long, and that is one unit, no spaces in between. You take 4 20' cars, and they'll take up 90' of room, not 80' ...
It's a tough numbers game to play. You've done a good job of the math, but the real-world-iness of the situation throws simple mathematics to the dogs.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Aug 24, 2008 9:39:06 GMT -8
You are assuming full loads of cars though, Neil, and that is not the case at all, excepting perhaps Route-9/-9a. You usually will get a decent mix. In your figures, you also did not count OH private vehicles which charge out at higher than cars, but less than commercial. Granted that they do take up wider lanes for the most part. The mix doesn't really change the argument. Certainly, most of the time you have some of each, although, last time I came back from Departure Bay on a Sunday, there was not a single commercial vehicle on board that I saw. That is probably pretty unusual. In that instance, the most efficient ferry would have been one with six lane gallery decks, leaving only two for overheight private vehicles. Remember too, that on the main routes, whatever commercial vehicles go TO the Island, usually come BACK too. ... as does anything else, I think. You are correct, however, in that pax from cars generate more ancillary revenue above the car decks. It does. The per passenger spending on board is a considerable chunk of BC Ferries' revenue. Skipping ahead a sec too, you take a semi that is 75-80' long, and that is one unit, no spaces in between. You take 4 20' cars, and they'll take up 90' of room, not 80' ... I'm taking that into account, and putting three cars in the space of a sixty foot truck- that leaves space between most mid sized models. It's a tough numbers game to play. You've done a good job of the math, but the real-world-iness of the situation throws simple mathematics to the dogs. The problem with some of the arguments advanced on this forum is that there is no math, and no statistics involved, and people are going on personal perceptions and anecdotal accounts. I realize I'm not presenting the entire picture, but a comparison of the numbers is worthwhile. It has to be admitted that operation costs go up with the larger crew required for higher pax numbers, which works in favor of the commercial viability. Still, carrying large vehicles has drawbacks which make it less than the goldmine some might present it as being. |
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Aug 26, 2008 16:54:39 GMT -8
What is needed is a purpose built commercial traffic ferry. Don't forget to add the fact that commercial vehicles create a lot of wear and tear on the docks. It really does get complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Aug 26, 2008 18:55:06 GMT -8
B.C. ferries is trying to get into the trailer hauling business. A ferry can move faster and easier to move than scows and tugs.
Most ferry docks in the fleet are 63,500kg rated they can handle what ever can travel over the road legally.
Underheight vehical traffic is down considerably but the commercial vehical traffic hasn't dropped.
With these private power projects happening on the lower coastal B.C. there is lots of truck traffic.
BCF should be looking at building vessels like the Seaspan Doris etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 26, 2008 20:27:12 GMT -8
B.C. ferries is trying to get into the trailer hauling business. A ferry can move faster and easier to move than scows and tugs. Most ferry docks in the fleet are 63,500kg rated they can handle what ever can travel over the road legally. Underheight vehical traffic is down considerably but the commercial vehical traffic hasn't dropped. With these private power projects happening on the lower coastal B.C. there is lots of truck traffic. BCF should be looking at building vessels like the Seaspan Doris etc. re strategy of BCFS building new truck-only vessels: - is the potential reward outweighed by the risk of ending up with a white-elephant of an asset? ie. the 1976 launch of Queen of Alberni was supposed to fill that same sort of need. And the 'Alberni was a victim of changing demand, and then a continuing problem in timing the changes to the ship to meet the changing demands. (Bannerman, "The Ships of British Columbia", page 119). So, if BCFS starts planning now, they might have a commercial-traffic focused vessel in-service by say 2013. That's assuming financing is available, which it likely isn't. Will the demand still be there for such a ship in 2013 and beyond? That's the type of business-risk that this type of ship brings to the already risk-laden company. Another thread on this forum had discussed the then rumoured possibility of BCFS using a surplus V-class ship to do drop-trailer runs from Tsawwassen's Berth-2 to the Sidney terminal. Here's that thread, which includes a cornucopia of other issues related to Sidney: ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=bcferriesnews&action=display&thread=1795 |
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Aug 26, 2008 21:11:42 GMT -8
One thing everyone has to remember is...
If BCFS builds a truck only ferry, will they be:
1) Increasing market for truck traffic? NO
2) Competing with private enterprise and diluting existing market share even further? YES
3) Competing against themselves? YES
Take a look at the slicing up the available market with the June Coastsavers at Duke Pt; what was the purpose? To get the lagging numbers up? To have a new, yet larger, increased capacity vessel running at something other than empty? How many of us simply diverted terminals to get a cheap fare? How much new business was created.
I for one cannot accept BCFS straying from what they do reasonably well - running scheduled mixed commercial/private vehicle vessels. Stay out of the truck market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 27, 2008 0:30:00 GMT -8
Neil: very good point/counter-point. I am not trying to poke holes, rather I think we are 'arguing' on the same side of the fence. My clarification of your points was more meant to the others that are not as "in tune" with the debate that you and I were advancing. You are indeed correct in your point-by-point dissection of my post!  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 27, 2008 0:35:41 GMT -8
What is needed is a purpose built commercial traffic ferry. Don't forget to add the fact that commercial vehicles create a lot of wear and tear on the docks. It really does get complicated. Unless BCFS is going to go after drop-trailer service (IE: up against WMG), then a purpose-built vessel is not a realistic alternative. Along with drop trailer service come other requirements, like a holding yard, shunt drivers etc, which I am not so sure that BCFS wants to get into AT THIS TIME. I also take exception to the fact that commercial traffic wears and tears the dock equipment --- yes the weights involved are higher, but if the dock equipment is constructed of "heavy duty enough" components, then it is NOT like a road, where heavier trucks wear ruts in the pavement. And, while we are on THAT topic, if the roads around here which are truck routes were BUILT PROPERLY, they would not rut-out as they do. However, most municipalities/cities cheap out and not only don't put enough road-bed down, but they put only thin asphalt above it. US Interstates are mainly CONCRETE or in the case of asphalt, they go twice as thick/deep (at least!) as regular surface streets. That said, I would think that most of the wear and tear on a properly constructed dock/ramp is not from the weight or frequency of traffic, but rather the deploy/retract cycle itself. Once the ramp structure is in place, the actual "work" of acting as a bridge on a properly constructed structure should not cause undue wear. |
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Aug 27, 2008 16:55:30 GMT -8
If the price of fuel keeps rising you will see car travel drop. The company has already said traffic counts are down from last year.
I think people are going to realize if B.C.F is going to operate as a full private company the ferry rates are going to go up. You think its expensive now.
Gordon Campbell the sellout king and his brainwave idea screwing around with BCF making it a " Private company ".
Somethings have changed for good but many things are worse than ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 27, 2008 17:30:35 GMT -8
I would have to agree that commercial traffic only stratagies are, in my opinion, outside the scope of what BC Ferries SHOULD be doing. While I realize that as a private company maximizing revenues is king, and therefore there could be argument made for competing more in commercial traffic the left leaning side of me would hate to see it.
BC Ferries, as a majority of us believe, should be an extension of the highways of the province. Trucks are already very heavily subsidized, although the greater industry would be the last to ever admit that fact. Generally private enterprise is expected to build and maintain its own infastructure (private shipping, railroads) but that is not the case for trucking. Sure they pay gas tax, registration fees and the such, but so do other private industries. In this respect trucks have had a hugely unfair advantage over rail for many years, but thats a tangent topic.
By BC Ferries getting into commercial only trucking they would essentially be using what I consider to be public time to push forward private enterprise. Why not build a rail only ferry? Aside from the obvious fact there is next to no rail traffic on the Island people would not see it as being in the public good. Yet, this perception doesn't always hold true for trucks and I do not understand why. Certainly trcusk can deliver goods often more quickly and to places rail cannot, but the same argument can be made the other way around as well.
I do believe that commercial traffic is the major boon for BC Ferries that many make it out to be, rather its advantage is that it is more or less assured, steady business as opposed to private trips. For that reason, particularly in the low season, I think BC Ferries is very greatful for the business.
BC Ferries should keep doing what they're doing. If a truck only operation was to start I would hope that at the minimum it was a seperate operating entity.
|
|
|
|
Post by hater on Aug 27, 2008 18:09:38 GMT -8
I do not understand how Trucking could be considered subsidized? The CPM (Cost Per Mile) in much lower for rail transport, and even though I am involved with trucking (Driver/Licensed Driving Instructor) I do advocate for inter modal transport. This year has been one of the toughest on Trucking in recent memory with the fuel costs, border delays and a slight reduction in productivity due to hours of service. In 2005, the last year I was running of Vancouver Island the cost was just about $300 one way (67 feet), the cost it's self is looked at as a cost of doing business on the Island, what the industry would like to see is a increase in capacity. Drop trailer is a good thing but will not work for all kinds of freight. Sorry for my disconnected rant!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 27, 2008 18:40:54 GMT -8
Trucks are already very heavily subsidized, although the greater industry would be the last to ever admit that fact. Generally private enterprise is expected to build and maintain its own infastructure (private shipping, railroads) but that is not the case for trucking. Sure they pay gas tax, registration fees and the such, but so do other private industries. In this respect trucks have had a hugely unfair advantage over rail for many years, but thats a tangent topic. While I agree with the ferry service on Rte-1/-2 being a highway extension (in reality, moreso than in practice), I cannot agree with your above statement. I would like to explore this more and see what you point to as proof of this? I don't take this lightly, as I have been in the industry for the last 21+ years. Are you saying that trucks/trucking don't have to build their own roads to travel on? Go on and find me ONE thing in your house that was not TRUCKED at some point in it's existance (other than your wife and kids!). Milk - trucked from the farm to the plant, from the plant to the supermarket. The feed for the cows came by truck, or at least the fertilizer to grow it, or the fuel to run the farm tractors. How about your pillows? Trucked from the the Chinese cargo freighter to the Wal*Mart. Your computer? Same thing. Find me one thing. "If you BOUGHT it, a truck BROUGHT it." It is more than a teamsters creed and rallying cry. So, should public money be used to finance road that trucks travel? You bet your sweet a$$. Unless you want your gallon of milk to cost upwards of $12 and your grocery store shelves to be bare.... |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 27, 2008 19:00:07 GMT -8
While I agree with the ferry service on Rte-1/-2 being a highway extension (in reality, moreso than in practice), I cannot agree with your above statement. I would like to explore this more and see what you point to as proof of this? I don't take this lightly, as I have been in the industry for the last 21+ years. Are you saying that trucks/trucking don't have to build their own roads to travel on? Go on and find me ONE thing in your house that was not TRUCKED at some point in it's existance (other than your wife and kids!). Milk - trucked from the farm to the plant, from the plant to the supermarket. The feed for the cows came by truck, or at least the fertilizer to grow it, or the fuel to run the farm tractors. How about your pillows? Trucked from the the Chinese cargo freighter to the Wal*Mart. Your computer? Same thing. Find me one thing. "If you BOUGHT it, a truck BROUGHT it." It is more than a teamsters creed and rallying cry. So, should public money be used to finance road that trucks travel? You bet your sweet a$$. Unless you want your gallon of milk to cost upwards of $12 and your grocery store shelves to be bare.... To touch on your last comment first, I am not discreditting the truck industry, saying it is unimportant, or anything of the sort, I am just saying it recieves a lot of "unspoken" subsidy that is not true for the rail industry... so with that, this reply is off topic - just a warning  . Recieving subsidy is not a bad thing, in fact, I am a huge proponent of gov't involvement and subsidy in many things, I just absolutely hate it when I hear that truckers are not given support. The real meat of my point is the entire highway system. For the most part, with obvious exceptions it is not tolled. Roads used primarily by commercial vehicles require the most maintenance, and despite gas taxes and registration fees collected there is a huge deficit between the direct revebue that's attributed to roads as a form or transportation and the amount of money that is spent on them. Given that the rail industry is generally, but again not always, responsible for upkeep and maintenace of the routes they use there is not direct government assets (which in turn is government cash) being used as there is for trucks. If trucks were to compete in a similar climate as rail has to survive in there would be a second, privately funded road system. Obviously this is not practical, no one in their right mind would advocate for this in most cases, but it would be the best mannor of comparing. This gets to my first post in this thread. I like the pure-private ferries that operate for truckers as they pass the actual cost of operating onto trucks. In the District of North Vancouver, for which I can speak with authority, roads that see truck traffic require about 50% more funding than roads that have near equitable traffic with few commercial vehicles. The District makes no direct return from trucks in terms of revenue, therefore the cost of that transportation infastructure is 100% on the municipality, which is effectively a subsidy. I am not saying anything should change, but really my initial comment was getting at my long held feeling that the trucking industry recieves this major benefit that seems to go almost ignored at times when we hear about how tough it is with gas prices and such (not to minimize the effect of that, either though). If the trucking industry had to pay for infastructure like railways did they'd be almost non-viable for long haul. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 27, 2008 19:03:29 GMT -8
I should add, Hardy you also made mention to "should your money be used to subsidize trucking.....?" To give a clear answer, I do think it should be. But, I also think there should be support for the rail industry too, these posts haven't meant to detract at the trucking industry, but rather to the show the lack of equality in the playing field which we generally take for granted.
At the end of the day the movement of commercial goods and other products is private, and it should be paid for as such. There, private ferries should be allowed to develop a market and flourish.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Aug 27, 2008 22:50:42 GMT -8
Unfortunately I have seen dock weight ratings changed dramatically simply to change route patterns.I have seen dock weight ratings totally ignored. There is the real world and then there is BCFS fantasy world where safety and reality seem to count for little.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 28, 2008 18:45:58 GMT -8
I am at a loss, Dane, to see the logic of this. If the trucking industry were to have to pay for it's own roads, those costs will be passed directly onto the consumer -- as I said, once you are paying $10 for a jug of milk, lemme know if you are still feeling the same way.
Back to the roads, unless they were truck-use only with all private vehicles banned, then there is no way that the trucking industry should be made to pay for them. Who else uses the rail lines, other than the railroad? Can I mount track-wheels on my truck and go cruising willy-nilly up whichever rail spur I want?
You are comparing apples to bananas.
Now onto the maintenace of the roads - if the roads were BETTER BUILT, they would not require such an intensive level of maintenance, when travelled upon by properly loaded trucks. Yes, trucks create more ground PSI and wear out low-intensity roads, however, if the roadbed and asphalt were spec'ed out proper in the FIRST PLACE when they were built, the truck traffic would have a negligible affect on the roads; bottom line, the road networks in all of Western Canada are UNDER-built to save costs. Only a few of the latest truck routes in Northern Alberta are properly built.
Want closer examples -- why are bus-stop pull outs on major roads pads of CONCRETE, instead of the asphalt that the adjacent roads are? One guess -- Translink pays for the pullout pads, and pays once, while the roadway around it is repaved every 2-3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 28, 2008 21:09:06 GMT -8
I am at a loss, Dane, to see the logic of this. If the trucking industry were to have to pay for it's own roads, those costs will be passed directly onto the consumer -- as I said, once you are paying $10 for a jug of milk, lemme know if you are still feeling the same way. That has nothing to do with what I am saying so it could explain why you're at a loss. If you want to look at it as a factor of the eventual consumer cost than with your logic rail shipped goods are overpriced because they're paying for the infastructure. Back to the roads, unless they were truck-use only with all private vehicles banned, then there is no way that the trucking industry should be made to pay for them. Right, which is why I am saying that it doesn't make sense to do that, but as a factor of comparing expenses it could be a useful exercise. And there was a time when if you started a railroad you could in fact run on other peoples, often government subsidized, rails. Want closer examples -- why are bus-stop pull outs on major roads pads of CONCRETE, instead of the asphalt that the adjacent roads are? One guess -- Translink pays for the pullout pads, and pays once, while the roadway around it is repaved every 2-3 years. With some excpetions, ussually the Universities, Colleges, and transit junctions/exchanges municipalities pay for everything including the concrete pad. Your point here is well taken. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Aug 28, 2008 21:11:46 GMT -8
Hardy, it might also be fair to point out that the trucking industry never had the good fortune to be given gazillions of acres of prime real estate along rights of way, to keep forever or dispose of at their pleasure, like at least one railroad that I'm familiar with. Subsidies come in many forms. Railroads also simply do not exist along most stretches of the B.C. coast, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the comparison.
The cost of trucking goods into small communities on ferries is indeed passed on to residents, so any move toward putting commercial traffic on a self financing basis, with no subsidies, would be another severe blow to regions that are already hurting from continuious fare increases. I'm sure that's not what Dane is suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 29, 2008 15:37:51 GMT -8
I just want to be sure that the "industry" in general is represented correctly, and not blasted unfairly. A lot of people seem to have a negative attitude towards trucking and truck drivers. I just want to make the point/counterpoint to clearly keep things in perspective for our casual readers or those without the benefit of firsthand knowledge.
Dane: back to your railroad cost factor vs road/truck cost factor -- a truck, under best circumstances, say an East Coast Turnpike Double, will haul 2x 48-51' trailers behind 1 power unit. Call it two drivers (team) just for sake of argument; so you have 102' of transport space and 2 employees hauling it. How long is the average freight train, and how many railroad crew onboard? 100 cars? 6 crew or so? Accurate?? There's also a lot less "stress" on rail crews - no intersections, passing lanes etc or silly "car" drivers to deal with except at crossings...
So, if you figure out the cost per mile of train freight versus road freight, I think that the winner is clear. The only shipping method cheaper than railroad is ocean, which is not at all practical in most applications.
If you want, I can try to dig up these numbers for you, but I think the point in general has been made. Overview: for a low cost per mile basis, the railroads can self-fund their infrastructure. This is not at all practical for road/truck transport...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 29, 2008 15:45:35 GMT -8
Dane: back to your railroad cost factor vs road/truck cost factor -- a truck, under best circumstances, say an East Coast Turnpike Double, will haul 2x 48-51' trailers behind 1 power unit. Call it two drivers (team) just for sake of argument; so you have 102' of transport space and 2 employees hauling it. How long is the average freight train, and how many railroad crew onboard? 100 cars? 6 crew or so? Accurate?? There's also a lot less "stress" on rail crews - no intersections, passing lanes etc or silly "car" drivers to deal with except at crossings... So, if you figure out the cost per mile of train freight versus road freight, I think that the winner is clear. The only shipping method cheaper than railroad is ocean, which is not at all practical in most applications. If you want, I can try to dig up these numbers for you, but I think the point in general has been made. Overview: for a low cost per mile basis, the railroads can self-fund their infrastructure. This is not at all practical for road/truck transport... I am sure I have the numbers somewhere too, but I wouldcome to most of the same conclusions you do. Minute for minute I'd also agree that there is more potential stressors for truck drivers, particularly in urban areas but we should not discount the constant issues that rail crews are dealing with too, particularly in an environment where things have been cut down about as much as they can be. The point of my first post as I keep saying is I just don't want huge gov't $$$ going into the movement of trucks because it creates an unfair subsidy. If they're going to do it for trucks, why not rail? If they did it for both, I wouldn't care. |
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Aug 29, 2008 17:41:18 GMT -8
Dane: back to your railroad cost factor vs road/truck cost factor -- a truck, under best circumstances, say an East Coast Turnpike Double, will haul 2x 48-51' trailers behind 1 power unit. Call it two drivers (team) just for sake of argument; so you have 102' of transport space and 2 employees hauling it. How long is the average freight train, and how many railroad crew onboard? 100 cars? 6 crew or so? Accurate?? There's also a lot less "stress" on rail crews - no intersections, passing lanes etc or silly "car" drivers to deal with except at crossings... So, if you figure out the cost per mile of train freight versus road freight, I think that the winner is clear. The only shipping method cheaper than railroad is ocean, which is not at all practical in most applications. If you want, I can try to dig up these numbers for you, but I think the point in general has been made. Overview: for a low cost per mile basis, the railroads can self-fund their infrastructure. This is not at all practical for road/truck transport... I am sure I have the numbers somewhere too, but I wouldcome to most of the same conclusions you do. Minute for minute I'd also agree that there is more potential stressors for truck drivers, particularly in urban areas but we should not discount the constant issues that rail crews are dealing with too, particularly in an environment where things have been cut down about as much as they can be. The point of my first post as I keep saying is I just don't want huge gov't $$$ going into the movement of trucks because it creates an unfair subsidy. If they're going to do it for trucks, why not rail? If they did it for both, I wouldn't care. The numbers are somewhere on this forum; I know, I posted them. But do you think I can find them when I search for them!  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 30, 2008 4:46:29 GMT -8
The point of my first post as I keep saying is I just don't want huge gov't $$$ going into the movement of trucks because it creates an unfair subsidy. If they're going to do it for trucks, why not rail? If they did it for both, I wouldn't care. Define HUGE ... I don't mean to be ignorant about this, but I DO believe that gov't should be giving a fuel tax break to the trucking industry as a whole -- diesel for rail transport is not subject to certain taxes, and a rolled-back tax on diesel for trucks would not be out of line -- especially with the way prices are artificially inflated. Gov't should also be made to make sure that the trucking cooridors that DO exist are maintained at a higher standard (IE: Properly paved) to support the trucks that do use it. No more of this slap-dash thin pavement that buckles and ruts that easy. The hours of service regs being what they are, Metro Vancouver is one of the most truck-UN-friendly places, as there are no truck stops west of Chilliwack. Try finding a place to hide a 80' unit this side of 'Wack. Won't happen, other than a SMALL handful of spots at some of the commercial cardlock stations, or some very creative parking arrangements that AREN'T anything resembling a truck stop! With your clarifications of your initial point, I believe that we are almost on the same footing; however, I am still strongly advocating on the side of trucking, but not to the detriment of another industry. I do think that for the longest time trucking has not gotten a fair shake from governments or the general public at large. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 6, 2008 0:11:15 GMT -8
Just a random fact I did not know, perhaps others did. I got some access to the minutes from BCFC Board meetings in the 1990s today and BC Ferries (Corporation) actually put forward a fairly aggressive bid in 1998 (+/- a year) to acquire CP Rail Marine Operations which is what Washington Marine acquired for their current service BC Ferry (Services) wants to compete with.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 8, 2008 9:28:22 GMT -8
An excerpt from a 1995 assessment of using high speed ferries on the English coast:
I have a full copy of the report; let me know if you're interested.
|
|
. Recieving subsidy is not a bad thing, in fact, I am a huge proponent of gov't involvement and subsidy in many things, I just absolutely hate it when I hear that truckers are not given support.
