Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 18:14:48 GMT -8
there are suposed to be 3 routes that made money I just assumed that #30 was one of the 3 Stephen Hume also sways this route is cited as one of the 3 'money spinners although the route lost $180 million in 2012 & 13 would a smaller vessel allow Haida Gwaii to be a daily route in the Summer and maybe be used on the Winter service for both routes? Only routes 1 and 2 make a profit. Route 3 used to technically make money, but it doesn't since it lost its subsidy. For your second point, that's definitely the way to go, but keep in mind that the larger vessel ( Northern Expedition) is actually more cost effective to operate than the NorAd, and is more reliable in heavy weather. The Northern Fleet is relatively new, so I don't expect any changes soon on that side of things, except maybe a new vessel in the next ten years to replace the venerable Nimpkish. Not to mention the deep cuts, including the abolishment of route 40, and the creation of "route 10A." Interesting times ahead in the North.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Mar 5, 2014 18:31:36 GMT -8
there are suposed to be 3 routes that made money I just assumed that #30 was one of the 3 Stephen Hume also sways this route is cited as one of the 3 'money spinners although the route lost $180 million in 2012 & 13 would a smaller vessel allow Haida Gwaii to be a daily route in the Summer and maybe be used on the Winter service for both routes? In none of Stephen Hume's recent articles does he say that route 30 made money. Your figures are also wrong; route 30 lost about $11 million on operations the last two years, and $55 million overall, in that period. (BC ferry commission reports)
In an earlier article, Hume points out that back in 2007, Alaska did a cost analysis which showed that while they subsidized operations that year to the tune of $96 million, the ferry system generated $173 million in economic activity. I don't believe the province has ever done any sort of analysis of what BC Ferries generates, so how can they possibly know what the system actually costs? The is absolutely no logic to what they're doing, beyond an idiotic Rob Ford-like mentality of 'watching the taxpayers' pennies'.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 6, 2014 7:49:50 GMT -8
there are suposed to be 3 routes that made money I just assumed that #30 was one of the 3 Stephen Hume also sways this route is cited as one of the 3 'money spinners although the route lost $180 million in 2012 & 13 would a smaller vessel allow Haida Gwaii to be a daily route in the Summer and maybe be used on the Winter service for both routes? I know Routes 1 and 2 are the ones that make $$ but what is the third profitable route for BCF? Route 3?? That's always been what I thought. EDIT: Never mind, I didn't look at @sccommuter's post above. Scratch that question.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 6, 2014 18:30:04 GMT -8
Public transit and ferries will never be able to make a profit to operate privately excluding some ferry routes. So, I do not see how these two routes make money since they profits would go to subsidies other routes that are not making a breaking even from fares, subsidy.
In my horrible opinion, BC Government should think that logic for ferries and bring it back to the government. I think the BC government is hurting the economy even more with BC Ferries being privately operated because the province does not decide on the fare and service provide to the public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 21:26:54 GMT -8
In my horrible opinion, BC Government should think that logic for ferries and bring it back to the government. I think the BC government is hurting the economy even more with BC Ferries being privately operated because the province does not decide on the fare and service provide to the public. I'm not too sure why you think your opinion is horrible. Take it easy on yourself I definitely agree with what you have said though.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Mar 6, 2014 23:01:43 GMT -8
In my horrible opinion, BC Government should think that logic for ferries and bring it back to the government. I think the BC government is hurting the economy even more with BC Ferries being privately operated because the province does not decide on the fare and service provide to the public. I'm not too sure why you think your opinion is horrible. Take it easy on yourself I definitely agree with what you have said though. Transportation needs government subsidy. Period. Whether it's roads or ferries or transit, without any subsidy the user cost goes up. Do you expect to pay a toll on the city road leading to your house? Of course not. Yet how was this road funded already? Using subsidy coming from taxpayers. Of course ferries cost more to run than to maintain a city street, and that difference is what the fares fund. However that 'base' cost of maintaining anything should be assumed by the government.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Mar 13, 2014 20:27:36 GMT -8
Fun with figures, Liberal style... and a typical lesson on how easy it is for Christy's team to lie about ferries when they have toadies like the Times Colonist's Les Leyne doing the, umm, 'reporting'.
In response to the protest Tuesday in Victoria, Transport Minister Todd Stone trotted out all the usual nausea inducing nonsense about how the government is making the ferry system viable for the future. One little tidbit that he was able to trot past the intrepid Mr Leyne was that route 40 carried 500 cars last summer... meaning that every vehicle was subsidized to the tune of $2500.
Now, I realize that Mr Leyne has the benefit of all the research resources of the Times Colonist's library to check his facts, but in approximately ninety seconds, I was able to ascertain, from BC Ferries' own figures, that route 40 actually carried 2643 vehicles in the last reported summer, not 500. Mr Stone, and Mr Leyne, were only off by a measly 510% or so.
Without doing any more research or math, that brings the vehicle subsidy down below $500. That's a lot, but we have to take into account that these people, to a large extent, are tourists, many from Europe, and they are spending a lot of money on their journeys. Research produced by business organizations on the north coast and in the Chilcotin- Cariboo regions indicates that the subsidy is an investment that returns much more than the base number to the economy overall.
I realize that is a point that some will debate, but what should not be up for debate is the propriety of a government minister telling outright lies to bolster the policies of his party, when coastal communities are demonstrably being damaged. And shame on Les(s) Leyne for his lazy acquiescence.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 14, 2014 6:20:33 GMT -8
Good on 'Neil' for his post,reporting on the Transport Minister's response to the protest in Victoria on Tuesday and the unbelievable slop that Mr. Leyne dished up for his Times Colonist readers. Unfortunately Mr. Leyne is not the only media scribe guilty of lazy acquiescence when it comes to reporting on Maritime issues in this province. Some of our more 'senior' forum members could only imagine Mr. Stone trying to serve up his route 40 drivel to the likes of the late, venerable Jack Webster for example! Mr. Stone would wish he'd chosen a different career. 'Neil', reading your posting ruined my first coffee of the morning but all's forgiven in the name of exposing Stone's, (I'll be nice here), "mis-information" that masquerades as truth when it relates to issues that are immensely important to the lives of coastal British Columbians.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 14, 2014 13:12:32 GMT -8
Wow, you'd think that journalists would be better at their job than that! Although we have a free press, it seems like they are really just trying to push political views through the way they report (or don't report) certain news stories. This happens a lot here in America too.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 15, 2014 13:59:31 GMT -8
If you're looking for a fun read on this rainy Saturday, this was posted on the Powell River Peak Facebook page earlier today (highlights in bold): From here:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 17, 2014 17:43:24 GMT -8
An interesting bit of creative journalism on the Discovery Coast "Nimpkish to the Rescue" situation: HERE- don't let the author's inference that Nimpkish would travel as far as Port Hardy put you off. Keep reading; it's entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 25, 2014 11:12:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 25, 2014 16:39:34 GMT -8
Wow, he really doesn't care about the people he's governing. Will he ever understand the economic impact of BC Ferries on the communities they serve?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 26, 2014 7:27:02 GMT -8
Mr.Stone should resign forthwith and save our coastal communities any more indignities of his ignorance!
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Mar 26, 2014 9:28:05 GMT -8
Mr.Stone should resign forthwith and save our coastal communities any more indignities of his ignorance! ...and if he resigned, he would be replaced by someone with exactly the same mindset. The ferry policy and the contempt for ferry dependent communities comes from the heart of the Liberal party- from Christy Clark on down, and was on display before she became leader. (Falcon, et al) I'm afraid a different face would solve nothing.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 26, 2014 13:19:26 GMT -8
There are apparently concerns amongst West Van businesses about moving Route #2 to run from Tssawwasswn <> Duke Point. Is this a feasible move(long term) Duke point woild need a ton of work to be able to handle all that traffic?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 26, 2014 14:02:33 GMT -8
There are apparently concerns amongst West Van businesses about moving Route #2 to run from Tssawwasswn <> Duke Point. Is this a feasible move(long term) Duke point woild need a ton of work to be able to handle all that traffic? I am not aware of any plans to remove Route 2 from it's current configuration, besides the estranged rumours and proposals that come up of a Richmond-Gabriola/Valdes operation that shows up every 5-10 years. Where are you hearing about such "concerns"? Obviously, if this were a realistic, then it would be of concern to West Vancouver, but the notion that Route 2 is being moved to Route 30 is just not factual.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 26, 2014 14:18:27 GMT -8
There was some news in recent months that said the province will be rethinking its major routes, and needs to do so before a required seismic upgrade (or rebuild) is done on the upper compound at Horseshoe Bay. ie. before very large $$ are invested in a Horseshoe Bay rebuild, the Province needs to be very sure that Horseshoe Bay will remain as a major terminal for multiple routes. So all this is being considered. I know I saw this, and thought that I'd posted it. I'll keep searching and post a link here when I find it. ============ Today's news release mentions a $200-million improvement to Horseshoe Bay, and that any service cuts or changes to Routes 3 & 2 & 30 would need to be done in connection with any planned changes to Horseshoe Bay. We'll find out what this means in a few months, but who knows if this will drastically change the status-quo, and whether Horseshoe Bay will be made to run fewer or more routes? I have no idea, at this time. But the eventual news could be significant. There have also been new stories recently (in last few weeks) where Horseshoe Bay merchants are starting to worry about what might happen if the Province decides how much should be spent at Horseshoe Bay. from HERE--------------------- ...and another recent news story HERE
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 26, 2014 14:33:33 GMT -8
This info is from a North Shore news Article March 16 . could these 2 routes be operated between Tsw & Duke point would there be enough capacity at Tsawwassen to handle all traffic from a combined route#2 & 30
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 26, 2014 14:49:21 GMT -8
This info is from a North Shore news Article March 16 . could these 2 routes be operated between Tsw & Duke point would there be enough capacity at Tsawwassen to handle all traffic from a combined route#2 & 30 I don't think this would ever actually happen--at least I hope not. Route 2 is a more direct way to get from Vancouver to Nanaimo than Route 30, so you serve customers better by having a quicker route. But BC Ferries has shown how little they care about customer service, so you never know what could happen. Regardless, why would they want to mess with a route that is one of their only two profitable routes?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 26, 2014 17:12:46 GMT -8
The way I see it, this is more a question of whether Route 2 should stay in Horseshoe Bay and not so much a merging of Route 2 with Route 30. Horseshoe Bay definitely isn't going anywhere, but I can see it being downsized if the Upper Staging Area is not maintained.
I see two options: The First is to maintain the status quo in Horseshoe Bay with Routes 2, 3 & 8 and go ahead with the seismic upgrades to the upper staging area. The Second is to have Horseshoe Bay only serve Routes 3 & 8, followed by dismantling of the Upper Staging Area.
Of course with Option 2 there are more problems, either a new Vancouver Terminal would have to be built for Route 2 or all Nanaimo service would be rerouted through Tsawwassen. (Duke Point would probably close if this was the case) Personally, I think a new terminal in a more central location would be preferred in this case since through Tsawwassen you'd be adding at least an hour of travel time to get to places such as Downtown Vancouver, the North Shore, Squamish and Whistler. Of course a new terminal adds more questions. Where would you put it? Do we have to reroute Highway 1? Does having Route 30 make sense anymore?
Overall, my thinking is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Keep it the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 26, 2014 17:21:04 GMT -8
The way I see it, this is more a question of whether Route 2 should stay in Horseshoe Bay and not so much a merging of Route 2 with Route 30. Horseshoe Bay definitely isn't going anywhere, but I can see it being downsized if the Upper Staging Area is not maintained. I see two options: The First is to maintain the status quo in Horseshoe Bay with Routes 2, 3 & 8 and go ahead with the seismic upgrades to the upper staging area. The Second is to have Horseshoe Bay only serve Routes 3 & 8, followed by dismantling of the Upper Staging Area. Of course with Option 2 there are more problems, either a new Vancouver Terminal would have to be built for Route 2 or all Nanaimo service would be rerouted through Tsawwassen. (Duke Point would probably close if this was the case) Personally, I think a new terminal in a more central location would be preferred in this case since through Tsawwassen you'd be adding at least an hour of travel time to get to places such as Downtown Vancouver, the North Shore, Squamish and Whistler. Of course a new terminal adds more questions. Where would you put it? Do we have to reroute Highway 1? Does having Route 30 make sense anymore? Overall, my thinking is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Keep it the way it is. If the main point of the exercise is to save $250million in seismic upgrades, then building a new mainland terminal is Not part of the plan. The upper compound upgrades at HSB would be cheaper than building a 3rd mainland terminal. ---------- I have read comments from either BCF or Provincial Gov't that said that they only need "2.5 routes" to Vancouver Island. ie. they don't need 3 fully serviced routes. But they need more than just Route 1 & 2. So somehow route-30 gets downsized, or route 30 gets blended into Route 2. In any case, this will be played out over the next 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 26, 2014 17:28:12 GMT -8
Route 2 is a more direct way to get from Vancouver to Nanaimo than Route 30, so you serve customers better by having a quicker route. But BC Ferries has shown how little they care about customer service, so you never know what could happen. Just pointing out that any changes to routes (eliminations, more/less sailings, new routes) are done by the Province, not by BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 26, 2014 18:26:59 GMT -8
Thanks FH for posting those news items. Two bridges and a SeaBus is apparently not enough for me to keep track of affairs on the North Shore. Now that we've established the province's mandate for the elimination of services that don't see adequate ridership, I can see how the elimination of Route 30 would make sense to them in the off season: the route operates primarily for commercial traffic during the off season, with Route 2 bearing most of the weight for the city connection of Vancouver-Nanaimo. For example, even though I live closer to Tsawwassen, I use Route 2 probably 75% of the time in the off-season, due to the higher sailing frequency, and transit connections into the city. In fact, I have traveled on a Vancouver-Nanaimo ferry about once every six weeks, and I haven't used Route 30 since early October. If private enterprise is the goal in mind here, wouldn't it make more sense to allow Seaspan to take over operation of this commercial connection, at least in the off season? The inherent problem, of course, is providing such a private enterprise with the opportunity to run a monopoly for eight months of the year - perhaps negotiation of fares or subsidization with the province is the right way to go.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 26, 2014 19:46:21 GMT -8
Route 2 is a more direct way to get from Vancouver to Nanaimo than Route 30, so you serve customers better by having a quicker route. But BC Ferries has shown how little they care about customer service, so you never know what could happen. Just pointing out that any changes to routes (eliminations, more/less sailings, new routes) are done by the Province, not by BC Ferries. Oh yeah, I forgot. It's such a weird way of doing things...
|
|