|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 9, 2012 16:09:29 GMT -8
Impact of the increased Provincial subsidy:
- announced at $80million over 5 years. or $16million per year.
Existing operating subsidy is approx $150million annually.
So this is a 10.6% annual increase to the operating subsidy. That's good.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 9, 2012 17:07:08 GMT -8
Impact of the increased Provincial subsidy: - announced at $80million over 5 years. or $16million per year. Existing operating subsidy is approx $150million annually. So this is a 10.6% annual increase to the operating subsidy. That's good. Questions: 1 - The $150 million subsidy has been in place since 2003 unchanged, with no indexing for inflation. Is that correct? 2 - Operation of the ferry service and the capital cost of new vessels and terminal infrastructure has to be met from this subsidy and user fees. There are a few other revenue streams (federal govt, 'hotel' revenue generated on ships and at terminals). Are there any other sources? 3 - Is this very modest subsidy increase along with service cuts enough to keep user fee increases to no more than a CoLA, plus also permit funding for replacement ship construction? 4 - In order to cut costs sometimes you first have to spend a lot of money such as to build more efficient ships, such as for the Powell River routes. Does BCFS have the funding available to construct new and efficient replacements for the NIP & the Burnaby, not to mention a host of other vessels? Severe service cuts will (just like severe service fee increases) serve only to further depress the economy in ferry dependant regions. It looks to me as this is too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on May 9, 2012 17:16:00 GMT -8
Here is my opinion, and I must admit from the outset I don't follow BCFS as closely as I once did based mostly on the fact I follow Manitoba's really exciting news, now. However, I agree with Mike that even the Liberals who created BCFS must have known it was totally dysfunctional. In fact the Liberals have created SCBCTA and BCFS, both of which have probably caused more problems than they have ever solved with more issues for the end users - the riders than there ever was before. This is not an outright political comment - but a reality of the situation as I see not. Given where BCFC was when the Liberals were elected in something did have to change. Today's throw money at the problem is likely a good solution - and hopefully it will be positive for the users of the system, particularly off the main line. However, from the reading I have done today in the press I get this "we aren't really sure what to do" attitude from the government. There are a lot of statements thrown out that seem somewhat ambiguous. Obviously I am not depending on a government announcement on Day 1 to provide the details and specific context of changes, but these seems fairly abstract given what has come out of the government on BCFS previously. Seems like this may end up being the NDP's mess to fix. There are many, some public domain, many others are not. In what I do, it's possible to know before hand something before the public does, but that's within the scope of a confidential environment, but it doesn't cover everything. That in itself is not from any one specific location, quite often its getting pieces and blending them together to come up with something. I've received what I need to use, even before a presentation was actually finished. Heard anything that could provide more insight from what-you-do?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on May 10, 2012 11:05:51 GMT -8
As a frequent user of two of the 'minor' routes that cost BC Ferries such a dreadful amount of money (to hear them tell it), there are two things about the government's response to this that really get me riled. One, the focus on capacity utilization. Two, the notion that local island communites are going to have to step up and shoulder the costs of servicing.
First of all, residents of small islands are not 'to blame' for the fact that tourists and seasonal residents are drawn to them, causing periodic spikes in traffic requiring a bigger ferry than what would be required just for community needs. They're also not to blame for the fact that BC Ferries is not able to use boats to fit the season, since they have no spares. Perhaps at Texada, the Tachek would be sufficient for several months of the year, and if that were the case, the capacity figures would change significantly from what is reported with the North Island Princess. In any event, as I've pointed out before, in many parts of suburban Vancouver, hundreds of transit buses rumble around virtually empty much of the day, and when they're full in one direction at peak hours, they can be underused going the other way. No one's telling residents of south Surrey to pony up for the extra costs of servicing their neighborhood, or cutting off-peak service.
Which brings up my second point of contention. Island residents already are shouldering a significant portion of ferry costs. 'Minor route' users pay vastly more per mile and per minute than do users of the main strait crossings. Anyone dumb or uninformed enough not to have an Experience card pays almost as much for the forty minutes to and from Hornby as they do for the two hours from Tsawwassen to Duke Point.
There seems to be some significant contradiction in the response from the government. They're investing eighty million more dollars over four years and allowing cross-subsidization of routes, both to keep fares from rising too much... but fares are still going to rise, and service will be cut. How is this a solution, when it's now been admitted that rising fares are suppressing ridership? And does this admission mean that David Hahn was outright lying when he maintained otherwise, or is it just a different interpretation of things?
One positive, or at least hopeful note that I noticed was the suggestion that new vessels might be based on the recognition of future needs, as opposed to past traffic figures. It's insane to build boats the same size, or even smaller, as has been mooted for routes 9 and 17. Why can't we be at least as intelligent as they are in Washington state, and recognize that traffic might grow? Still, with the drastic cuts being examined, it's hard to believe that anything more than the minimum will be invested in new boats, and probably nothing will be built with population growth in mind.
If there must be cuts, I suppose there is room, although it will impact communities. Denman, Texada, and Quadra probably don't need service until 11:00 every night of the year. Perhaps some midday runs can be cut. There is very little room for cuts on the major crossings and all cuts will contribute to the narrative of coastal communities being expensive and difficult to get to, will have a negative impact on local economies, and will further depress ridership.
A vicious cycle, continued. Maybe, if we're looking for a positive spin here, we might compare this response to a substance abuser, where the necessary first step is admitting that there is a problem and things need to change. The Liberals have almost admitted that the existing service model is fundamentally flawed. As Dane suggested, it will most likely be up to the NDP to really deal with it, at which time they will no doubt be pilloried by the next right wing coalition for spending too much money.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 10, 2012 12:15:01 GMT -8
Well said Neil!
The current government is the sole author of this mess. It has been apparent for some time now that their 'privatization' experiment has been a resounding failure. They look to be unable to do anything significant to fix it. The next government (post May 2013) is going to have a very difficult time dealing with this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 12:41:14 GMT -8
The increased subsidy is 'about time' - as we all know, fares have gone way past inflation, but the subsidy hasn't kept up. First of all, residents of small islands are not 'to blame' for the fact that tourists and seasonal residents are drawn to them, causing periodic spikes in traffic requiring a bigger ferry than what would be required just for community needs. They're also not to blame for the fact that BC Ferries is not able to use boats to fit the season, since they have no spares. Perhaps at Texada, the Tachek would be sufficient for several months of the year, and if that were the case, the capacity figures would change significantly from what is reported with the North Island Princess. Which brings up my second point of contention. Island residents already are shouldering a significant portion of ferry costs. 'Minor route' users pay vastly more per mile and per minute than do users of the main strait crossings. Anyone dumb or uninformed enough not to have an Experience card pays almost as much for the forty minutes to and from Hornby as they do for the two hours from Tsawwassen to Duke Point. If there must be cuts, I suppose there is room, although it will impact communities. Denman, Texada, and Quadra probably don't need service until 11:00 every night of the year. Perhaps some midday runs can be cut. There is very little room for cuts on the major crossings and all cuts will contribute to the narrative of coastal communities being expensive and difficult to get to, will have a negative impact on local economies, and will further depress ridership. On your first point, I think if we had a new vessel to replace the Tenaka (and not the planned cable ferry), ship-shuffling around the minor routes would be easier and more efficient. -If we end up with the cable ferry, it's just gonna be another Island Sky situation - one that we don't need more of. For your final point, I disagree on cutting late night runs - it particularly drives young people off ferry-dependant communities. For example, Sunshine Coasters can't attend a 7PM show start in Vancouver and return the same evening. When there is little entertainment on the Islands and the city is only ten minutes away, I think it would be ridiculous to cut the 11PM runs. I know the SC is more than ten minutes away from Vancouver, but I still think there should be an 11PM sailing from Horseshoe Bay-Langdale on Fridays and Saturdays using the Capilano when the summer schedule isn't in effect, as it already provides a 10:35 pm sailing.
|
|
bargain
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 44
|
Post by bargain on May 10, 2012 13:42:52 GMT -8
Neil's comments above are dead on.
Use of the capacity utilization metric for any serious analysis of the system or policy decisions is spurious, at best.
It's an overly simplistic metric that seems to be used because it aligns nicely with an airline style transportation model. A model where in reservations are the norm, fees are charged for extras and every flight (sailing) is expected to sail full to maximize profits.
Capacity utilization metrics do a disservice to the complex ebb and flow of traffic volume through the day, week and year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 13:53:51 GMT -8
I do not ride on the ferries as much as I would normally do, because of the RISING COST TO RIDE THEM! Plain and simple., To shell out $30 for a return trip between the Mainland and Vancouver Island is getting to expensive. Now if you have a family wanting to go on Vacation, they would opt to keep the money they would have spent for the Ferry, and Travel elsewhere. Get the Biggest Bang for the Buck.
To Shell out another rediculous amount of cash just for a 10 minute jaunt over to Denman, Hornby, Quadra, Gabriola Islands is getting too much.
In other words, If the Ferry fares would to revert back to Say, 1990 levels, then I would indeed ride more.
Once onboard you have to shell out even more cash for food. And what realy Pssed me off was when I was on the Queen of Cowichan last year, the Cashier had the Gull to inform me BC Ferries Now Charges for Coffee Refills.
BC Ferries is doing everything they can to detor passenger ridership.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 10, 2012 15:14:40 GMT -8
Once onboard you have to shell out even more cash for food. And what realy Pssed me off was when I was on the Queen of Cowichan last year, the Cashier had the Gull to inform me BC Ferries Now Charges for Coffee Refills. If the cashier is just doing his/her job, why is it "gall" ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 15:52:00 GMT -8
Once onboard you have to shell out even more cash for food. And what realy Pssed me off was when I was on the Queen of Cowichan last year, the Cashier had the Gull to inform me BC Ferries Now Charges for Coffee Refills. What do you mean my " now charges for coffee refills" Do you really think it's recent? Knowing BC Ferries, I can assure you it has been a long, long time (can't pinpoint when it happened though ;D) that they started charging for refills. BC Ferries has always found new ways to grab the extra change in your pocket, and charging for coffee refills isn't anything new in that department. Perhaps another member could give a rough time frame as to when they started charging for refills?
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 10, 2012 16:12:27 GMT -8
Are you sure that wasn't the Queen of Chowican? Maybe Raymond Chow knows...
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 10, 2012 16:20:17 GMT -8
:)last nite's global news capsule explaination of the changing ferry tolls and routes, gave a summary that I have understood from day one of wac's grand scheme of ferry service! It is impossible to run this system as a pvte. operator would do, as they would only milk the profitable routes, the main island crossings, but the small or lesser routes could only be served under considerable subsidy, and therin lies the absurdity of vueing this as a pvte. operation! wacky kind of set the political mess in sway when he set up unrealistic tolls to the gulf islands in the early days, partly for his freiends and cronies, many of whom were the gulf island pioneers! but it was a damned good scheme when we could aford it, in the beginning! :)mrdot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 16:41:32 GMT -8
"Now Charges for Coffee Refill"? My point exactly, That is how often I ride on the ferries now.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 10, 2012 16:52:11 GMT -8
"Now Charges for Coffee Refill"? My point exactly, That is how often I ride on the ferries now. Coffee refills are still free in the table-service dining rooms on the B-class ships.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 10, 2012 17:28:02 GMT -8
Coffee refills are still free in the table-service dining rooms on the B-class ships. Why? Any accountant or person in the accounting department knows coffee and the labour making it costs money. Re-fills are expensive. Haha, that's why they are referred to as "bean counters".
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on May 10, 2012 18:29:13 GMT -8
:)last nite's global news capsule explaination of the changing ferry tolls and routes, gave a summary that I have understood from day one of wac's grand scheme of ferry service! It is impossible to run this system as a pvte. operator would do, as they would only milk the profitable routes, the main island crossings, but the small or lesser routes could only be served under considerable subsidy, and therin lies the absurdity of vueing this as a pvte. operation! wacky kind of set the political mess in sway when he set up unrealistic tolls to the gulf islands in the early days, partly for his freiends and cronies, many of whom were the gulf island pioneers! but it was a damned good scheme when we could aford it, in the beginning! :)mrdot. From my perusal of old tariff tables, I think most of the initial fares set by BC Ferries were continuations of rates from the private companies- Black Ball, CP, and probably Gulf Island Ferries. I don't think those fares were unrealistically low, given that the BC Ferry Authority was publicly financed. ...For your final point, I disagree on cutting late night runs - it particularly drives young people off ferry-dependant communities. For example, Sunshine Coasters can't attend a 7PM show start in Vancouver and return the same evening. When there is little entertainment on the Islands and the city is only ten minutes away, I think it would be ridiculous to cut the 11PM runs. I know the SC is more than ten minutes away from Vancouver, but I still think there should be an 11PM sailing from Horseshoe Bay-Langdale on Fridays and Saturdays using the Capilano when the summer schedule isn't in effect, as it already provides a 10:35 pm sailing. That would involve paying for an expensive overtime shift, and having the boat sail back empty from Langdale, all for the sake of transporting a handful of Sechelt Peninsula concert goers. Given that island communities are likely to be scrambling to preserve the service they now have, I don't think anyone is likely to be supporting that kind of service expansion. Use of the capacity utilization metric for any serious analysis of the system or policy decisions is spurious, at best. It's an overly simplistic metric that seems to be used because it aligns nicely with an airline style transportation model. A model where in reservations are the norm, fees are charged for extras and every flight (sailing) is expected to sail full to maximize profits. Capacity utilization metrics do a disservice to the complex ebb and flow of traffic volume through the day, week and year. True, but it sounds impressive, doesn't it? "35% capacity utilization? The occasional empty sailing? Terrible!" We live in a thinly populated country with far flung communities that are often difficult to service cheaply, in many ways. Until we decide to empty out the countryside and collect everyone in urban areas that are more 'efficient', that will be an inconvenient fact of life in Canada. Ferry fares to small communities is an issue that needs to be considered more carefully than by quoting simplistic traffic statistics.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 10, 2012 19:16:31 GMT -8
Interesting that this move by the government isn't getting much public support. At least, that's my impression when I see the poll on CKNW and hear some of the feedback on the radio and on websites like the CBC. In the era of "net zero mandates" and government cutbacks, people aren't too pleased that the government is willing to throw $80 million at BC Ferries.
It seems that the Liberals have been successful as painting BC Ferries as a business that should be making a profit and not part of the provincial highways system. Highways, back roads, bridges, and even inland ferries are almost exclusively 100% subsidized by the government in all their construction, maintenance, snow removal, etc.
My brother-in-law works for one of the road companies in Kamloops and it's quite the operation with all sorts of machinery, morning and night shifts, and many employees. And they only take care of maybe half of the highways and back roads around Kamloops. I don't want to diminish my brother-in-laws skills, but I'd say they're comparable to that of a deckhand... a few months of training on different types of machinery - and although I don't know how much he makes, I think it's probably comparable to a deckhand on a ferry.
My point is, that the highways set-up all over the province is like this - basically like crewing and operating a ferry. There's at least two of these companies in Kamloops I think, one in Merrit, and on and on. This must cost the government hundreds of millions per year, yet now a lot of people have a problem looking at the ferries in that way, even though they're user-pay to a large degree.
I know, people will point out that communities on Vancouver Island also need highways maintenance, which is true. I'd suggest that the snow-clearing budget for the islands is a lot lower than anything past Hope. You could draw a comparison between the Island Highway and Highway 97 in the Okanagan - it connects the towns in the region, but without the Number 1 or Number 3 or Number 5 highways, they'd be dead to the world. The ferries are simply the highways that connect the Island to the rest of BC and the world. They shouldn't be considered something that has to make a profit day and night.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on May 10, 2012 20:36:32 GMT -8
Capacity Utilization Route #3 In the off season there are probably a number of sailings that are quite empty. would a ship with a samller capacity(270 vehicles) like the Queen of New West. she is faster than the Esquimalt was so shoudn't have any trouble holding to schedule.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 10, 2012 21:16:43 GMT -8
Capacity Utilization Route #3 In the off season there are probably a number of sailings that are quite empty. would a ship with a samller capacity(270 vehicles) like the Queen of New West. she is faster than the Esquimalt was so shoudn't have any trouble holding to schedule. If Sunshine Coasters weren't being a bunch of whiny upchucks, we'd have the Queen of Alberni on the route, and probably around 3/4 to 5/6 of the current volume of sailings during the off-season. They really don't need the huge spaces of the Queen of Surrey/Coquitlam on such a short route. It's all a matter of how stuck-up people can be.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on May 10, 2012 21:38:58 GMT -8
...My point is, that the highways set-up all over the province is like this - basically like crewing and operating a ferry. There's at least two of these companies in Kamloops I think, one in Merrit, and on and on. This must cost the government hundreds of millions per year, yet now a lot of people have a problem looking at the ferries in that way, even though they're user-pay to a large degree. I know, people will point out that communities on Vancouver Island also need highways maintenance, which is true. I'd suggest that the snow-clearing budget for the islands is a lot lower than anything past Hope. You could draw a comparison between the Island Highway and Highway 97 in the Okanagan - it connects the towns in the region, but without the Number 1 or Number 3 or Number 5 highways, they'd be dead to the world. The ferries are simply the highways that connect the Island to the rest of BC and the world. They shouldn't be considered something that has to make a profit day and night. ...and if the province cut back maintenance to the extent that inland communities were isolated in rough weather or if they began charging tolls to cover a portion of highway costs, I don't think you'd hear people saying, "Well, you choose to live in Grand Forks/Blue River/Kitimat, so quit griping and pay up." Frankly, I don't think we're ever going to change the minds of people who cling to the notion of island residents as privileged elitists, because those people can't be bothered to do the elementary research to discover that these communities are, on the whole, below the provincial average in income, and therefore not, surprisingly enough, able to absorb whatever transportation costs the province chooses to saddle them with. The way things have gone since 2003, many islanders might see it as a relief to just get some assurance that for the next few years, ferry costs won't increase beyond the cost of living. The idea of ferries being seen as highway links with all costs being born by the province is not attainable.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 10, 2012 22:09:36 GMT -8
The idea of ferries being seen as highway links with all costs being born by the province is not attainable. Sorry if I sounded like I was advocating free ferries - I know that not feaseable or reasonable. I've just found that the general sentiment now (outside the forum), perhaps influenced by the changes made by the Liberals in distancing the government from ferry operations, is that ferries should pay for themselves and that they shouldn't be considered part of the highway system in any way.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on May 10, 2012 22:46:28 GMT -8
The idea of ferries being seen as highway links with all costs being born by the province is not attainable. Sorry if I sounded like I was advocating free ferries - I know that not feaseable or reasonable. I've just found that the general sentiment now (outside the forum), perhaps influenced by the changes made by the Liberals in distancing the government from ferry operations, is that ferries should pay for themselves and that they shouldn't be considered part of the highway system in any way. Boy, do we ever disagree on this one. My reading of the situation is that there has been a gradual turning away from the Liberals' mantra on privatization, and on their decree that the ferry system should be self financing. I've even seen the big corporate media being increasingly critical, and I think that the Liberals' management of BC Ferries is one component of their current unpopularity. Time will tell, but I believe an NDP platform plank that BC Ferries should be run more like a public utility again- within reason- will prove to be popular next election.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 11, 2012 7:27:39 GMT -8
Here is the link to the 1st reading of BILL 47 — 2012 COASTAL FERRY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/1st_read/gov47-1.htm================== Here are some highlights (remember, this is just 1st reading version) This one gives more power to the Commissioner to tell BCFS how to run their business, but only in extraordinary situations. ------------------------------- For this one, remember that current service levels for most routes are already ABOVE the minimum requirement under the contract, and so service can be reduced and still meet the contract requirement. -------------------------- Commissioner involvement in approving capital expenditures
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 11, 2012 8:19:40 GMT -8
:'(sadley, the history of ferries, as 'blacktop politics' is a continuous saga of our transportation story. I've always wished to divorce myself from this reality, but that is not realistic, and it was very political from the outset, when wac began this BC ferry adventure! as many have said, we could get away with almost reckless spending expansion in those early years, the chickens have come home to roost, and we now have a mess, with this sudo-pvte. experiment, to unravel! ::)mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on May 11, 2012 10:00:07 GMT -8
Cherish the thought of an NDP govermment if you want, but trust me, it is not going to be the delightful bliss that a few think it will. Reality will set in and in some aspects it won't be pretty if the NDP fails to deliver. An Adrian Dix government will not be your father's NDP of the early 1970s nor your older brother's NDP of the 1990s. Dix is quite being cautious and he is smart enough to go through "easy does it". So far. 'Trust me', Paul, nobody here is silly enough to think that any government will bring 'delightful bliss' in any regard. Believe it or not, some of us actually do have at least a portion of your worldliness and insight into things political. Aside from that, I can't really take issue with anything you said, which is either really scary, or perhaps an indication that today's the day I should invest in an expensive lottery ticket.
|
|