|
Post by Mike C on Apr 17, 2013 12:46:59 GMT -8
Powell River had it's FAC meeting with Rob Clarke, and here's an excerpt from a news story on that, from the Powell River Peak: - I have underlined a section for my emphasis. An open deck ferry for Route 17? That doesn't seem logical to me given the weather conditions possible in that region. Even on Route 9, a closed car deck would be preferred for the Georgia Strait crossing. That is a bad idea. Open deck ferries are the wrong answer for the context of Routes 9 and 17. I continue to think that a closed-deck Olympic Class would be the right choice, with a full cafeteria and adequate seating areas. Island Sky as a replacement for the Burnaby would be a big-time let-down, and I think BCFS would regret it in the long-term. It sounds like they want to use this template for several other vessels as well, so that would likely include the Chilliwack, and maybe even the Mayne Queen...?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 17, 2013 13:26:35 GMT -8
If this is true then...
Seriously BC Ferries?? We should be going towards a vessel that can properly handle Route 17's Rough Weather not Island Sky 2.0!! Not to mention 85-90 Cars sounds a bit too small when you consider this is less capacity than the Queen of Sidney. Simply put, I'll believe this plan when I see it. When I have to ride the Island Sky to Comox in the not too distant future, I'll judge how this decision might pan out.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Apr 17, 2013 18:08:41 GMT -8
I also feel the replacement ships for both the routes must be a closed deck configuration, and the idea of going to three ships is a great idea. Route 9A I think would need to be brought in much sooner then it is run now, and on off season long weekends if the Nanny is to be replaced by a smaller vessel. But what is the cost difference in running three boats over two? What is the extra amount of fuel burnt, extra crewing and maintenance on one half empty ship larger ship compared to two smaller ships. Yes I agree that the idea of having the same class ship that can be made to run through out the system is the best way to go but costs do come in to play at points, and for me at the time when there is only so meany tax dollars going around and a system that is in such disrepair, how do we most wisely spend those dollars?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 17, 2013 19:02:30 GMT -8
If these are indeed BC Ferries' plans, who does not think that it is in our (ferry users) bests interests for a new government to review such? Or should BCFS be permitted to do whatever it thinks is appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 17, 2013 19:18:36 GMT -8
Or should BCFS be permitted to do whatever it thinks is appropriate? In a recent change to the current system, the Ferry Commissioner needs to approve any major capital expenditures.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 17, 2013 19:35:33 GMT -8
Or should BCFS be permitted to do whatever it thinks is appropriate? In a recent change to the current system, the Ferry Commissioner needs to approve any major capital expenditures. So what is the Ferry Commissioner's track record? Has this person (commission) tended to rubber stamp BC Ferries' decisions, or to do a good job of protecting ferry users' interests? Or is there no track record due to a short history?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 17, 2013 19:47:53 GMT -8
In a recent change to the current system, the Ferry Commissioner needs to approve any major capital expenditures. So what is the Ferry Commissioner's track record? Has this person (commission) tended to rubber stamp BC Ferries' decisions, or to do a good job of protecting ferry users' interests? Or is there no track record due to a short history? Only very recently has the Commissioner's mandate included anything to do with the ferry users' or communities best interests. So a very short history. Same with the requirement to approve capital expenditures. Also, the Commissioner position recently turned over; so a new guy. For this situation of a ferry replacement, the requirement for commissioner-approval is a new thing, and that's why I'm interested in it and a bit hopeful about it.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 18, 2013 7:48:44 GMT -8
If these are indeed BC Ferries' plans, who does not think that it is in our (ferry users) bests interests for a new government to review such? Or should BCFS be permitted to do whatever it thinks is appropriate? I'll revisit and say that I wasn't sure if this was meant as a rhetorical question, or if you really wanted an answer. I will try better to discern if a question is backloaded with bias or ideology, and avoid answering those, on the presumtion that they are actually a statement, not a question. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to get up to speed on the legislation and workings of BCFS and the Commssioner, and I don't mind bringing that insight into these types of ferry issue discussions. But that would involve me answering political or ideological questions/statements with an answer done in the context of this specific structure. If it's just ideological slamming of BCFerries, or someone making a point with a "who does not think" type of statement disguised as a question, I'm not really interested in responding. But I'm happy to discuss the issues of new ships and the specifics of the structures and processes that are in place for these types of projects. That is what I'll continue to do in this thread, for this item.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 18, 2013 8:31:30 GMT -8
With regard to WCK and Mr Horn's posts; last time I checked- and it was a while ago- former commissioner Martin Crilly had approved every request put to him by BC Ferries, most regarding fare structure. I would imagine the new commissioner would be aware of that track record.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 18, 2013 9:10:29 GMT -8
If these are indeed BC Ferries' plans, who does not think that it is in our (ferry users) bests interests for a new government to review such? Or should BCFS be permitted to do whatever it thinks is appropriate? I'll revisit and say that I wasn't sure if this was meant as a rhetorical question, or if you really wanted an answer. I will try better to discern if a question is backloaded with bias or ideology, and avoid answering those, on the presumtion that they are actually a statement, not a question. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to get up to speed on the legislation and workings of BCFS and the Commssioner, and I don't mind bringing that insight into these types of ferry issue discussions. But that would involve me answering political or ideological questions/statements with an answer done in the context of this specific structure. If it's just ideological slamming of BCFerries, or someone making a point with a "who does not think" type of statement disguised as a question, I'm not really interested in responding. But I'm happy to discuss the issues of new ships and the specifics of the structures and processes that are in place for these types of projects. That is what I'll continue to do in this thread, for this item. Fluge you have responded twice to my post. This post, however, requires a response of my own. - My question was not intended as rhetorical; it was meant to stimulate discussion and not just from you.
- Was it ideologically driven? No, I don't think so. However, I do not believe that the current model of providing ferry service to coastal BC has served us well. The change to that model in 2003 was ideologically driven. Further, the plan (if that is what it is) to replace the Queen of Burnaby with a ferry having half as much vehicle capacity and open decks is questionable, to say the least. If the ferry commissioner approves such a plan than I think political interference to overrule that decision would be justified. In saying this, am I making an ideological statement? I don't think so.
I will say that I believe our coastal ferries need to be recognized as a part of our highway system. I believe that the current quasi-private model needs to be towed south to Ensenada. Is that an ideological statement?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 18, 2013 9:23:00 GMT -8
Is that an ideological statement? ok, just making sure. thanks for clarifying. So I'll keep on posting in the context of the structure and processes that BCFS & the Commissioner are following. - That should provide opportunity for all sorts of discussion on that and related issues.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 18, 2013 17:32:58 GMT -8
If you look at who the Ferry Commissioner and Deputy Ferry Commissioner are, you'll find they don't really have a background in maritime matters at all. So would they challenge BC Ferries over whether a smaller open-deck ferry is an appropriate replacement for the QUEEN OF BURNABY and QUEEN OF NANAIMO? I doubt it.
I think they'd be interested in the new-builds, how much they'd cost, how they'd be paid for, whether they could maintain the essential levels of service, but I kind of doubt they'd have much input into what their specifications would be - I'm sure they'd listen to the "expertise" of BC Ferries management regarding vessel design.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Apr 18, 2013 21:24:30 GMT -8
This new proposal of an Island Sky-type vessel is just as flawed as the cable-ferry proposal. Not only in size (85-90 cars? seriously?) but it's open-decked. They better not go forward with this.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 19, 2013 6:49:45 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2013 7:10:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Apr 19, 2013 9:50:08 GMT -8
On that website posted by SC Commuter was an email address where they wanted people's input with this design, and it would then be sent to the Ferry Commissioner. I sent an email to them, and this is what I said:
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Apr 19, 2013 13:32:00 GMT -8
A few details about the new design. The plan is to be 3 ferries replacing the 2 retiring ones. The direct replacements for the nanny and Burnaby will be 145 car ferries. They will be double ended with some sort of now doors or half height visors. The third ferry will be a 125 car supplemental ship runnin out of tsawwassen for approximately 4-6 months a year ( much longer than the current Bowen queen ) and becoming a relief vessel the other months a year.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 19, 2013 14:58:13 GMT -8
Compdude: nice email, you're definitely getting the point across here. Just a quick note: the Nanaimo is in fact a rudder and prop vessel and has had no trouble accesing Loyng Harbor. I know how the Nanaimo gets in LH but for coming out, does she completely turn aroun in the harbor? Either the Oly would turn around when she arrives and departs, or is used as a single ender and doesn't have to turn around when both arriving and departing or BCFs rebuilds the terminal with the berth pointing southeast instead of northeast.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 19, 2013 15:13:31 GMT -8
I know how the Nanaimo gets in LH but for coming out, does she completely turn aroun in the harbor? Yes, Queen of Nanaimo turns around right after pulling out of the berth, so it is possible, and it should be easier with a smaller vessel such as what BCFS is proposing. Either the Oly would turn around when she arrives and departs, or is used as a single ender and doesn't have to turn around when both arriving and departing or BCFs rebuilds the terminal with the berth pointing southeast instead of northeast. I wouldn't necessarily be so sure BC Ferries will be using the Olympic Class vessels as a design template for their newbuilds. It's a possibility, and a design I think would work well for their needs, but they may have something else in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 19, 2013 16:28:12 GMT -8
Either the Oly would turn around when she arrives and departs, or is used as a single ender and doesn't have to turn around when both arriving and departing or BCFs rebuilds the terminal with the berth pointing southeast instead of northeast. I wouldn't necessarily be so sure BC Ferries will be using the Olympic Class vessels as a design template for their newbuilds. It's a possibility, and a design I think would work well for their needs, but they may have something else in mind. I would love to see BC Ferries version of the Olympic Class. Yeah, I do not see a 85-90 car vessels being that good for both routes. I think both vessels should be around 125-150 car vessel not to need extra sailings each day.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 19, 2013 17:26:23 GMT -8
Either the Oly would turn around when she arrives and departs, or is used as a single ender and doesn't have to turn around when both arriving and departing or BCFs rebuilds the terminal with the berth pointing southeast instead of northeast. I think a positive attribute of the BC Ferries system, is that every single route is built to handle single-ended ferries (some are easier than others, Route 2 can be a fun time with a single-ender). I would imagine that a terminal rebuild would be a mistake, in case a vessel needs to dock stern-in at that terminal. We do operate many of our double-enders as single-enders for the purpose of suiting the route, e.g. the Chilliwack is a single-ender when she is on Route 17, and the Cumberland/Mayne generally operate as single-enders to accommodate for loading procedures at each SGI terminal. I expect what would happen is that the double-ended ferry would reverse out of every terminal on the milk-run, except Long Harbour.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 19, 2013 18:53:07 GMT -8
I expect what would happen is that the double-ended ferry would reverse out of every terminal on the milk-run, except Long Harbour. i.e. No.1 end for Tsawassen and LH, No. 2 end for Galiano, Mayne and Pender?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 19, 2013 18:58:45 GMT -8
I expect what would happen is that the double-ended ferry would reverse out of every terminal on the milk-run, except Long Harbour. i.e. No.1 end for Tsawassen and LH, No. 2 end for Galiano, Mayne and Pender? The vessel is based in Long Harbour, so it would be No. 1 end at Long Harbour, and No. 2 end at Otter Bay, Village Bay, Sturdies Bay, and Tsawwassen.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 19, 2013 20:17:43 GMT -8
i.e. No.1 end for Tsawassen and LH, No. 2 end for Galiano, Mayne and Pender? The vessel is based in Long Harbour, so it would be No. 1 end at Long Harbour, and No. 2 end at Otter Bay, Village Bay, Sturdies Bay, and Tsawwassen. That looks like a LOT of spinning!
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 19, 2013 20:29:59 GMT -8
i.e. No.1 end for Tsawassen and LH, No. 2 end for Galiano, Mayne and Pender? The vessel is based in Long Harbour, so it would be No. 1 end at Long Harbour, and No. 2 end at Otter Bay, Village Bay, Sturdies Bay, and Tsawwassen. No. 1 end at Long Harbour, Village Bay, Tsawwassen, and No. 2 end at Otter Bay, Sturdies Bay. Direct trips from Long Harbour to Twassawwen or Twassawwen to Long Harbour, the No 2. End is Twassawwen, and the No. 1 end is Long Harbour.
|
|