D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Aug 1, 2008 7:00:47 GMT -8
I don't debate that there is a point about people on Salt Spring starting to hurt because of the high ferry fares. Basically the main "cause" of the current situation is fuel prices. If Salt Spring and other Islanders see tourist dollars dry up, what about all the other "tourist" businesses? While not in BC how about the owners of the Nova Scotia campground that said their business was down 60%. I would imagine the same thing would be true for some BC campgrounds as people leave their RV's in the driveway instead of driving them. How about a gas subsidy for them so they can lower their rates and get the RV's back. How about a gas subsidy for Air Canada and West Jet to keep people flying? How about a subsidy for fishermen for marine fuel? Truckers? To be fair either the government of BC and/or Canadian government has to slash taxes and provide subsidies across the board or pick "favourites" to help. No doubt a reasonable person may determine that there could be "special" cases that must be helped. Do the Islands qualify for that? There is obviously strong feelings around that. A big part of our problem is that Detroit and other car makers and many industries for that matter have been used to low North American fuel prices while Europe has already adjusted to those long ago. Now we are in a crisis of catch-up. LOL...how about a subsidy for Las Vegas seeing as their gambling and hotel revenues are down since people are living the "staycation" to its max this year?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 1, 2008 10:23:04 GMT -8
I don't debate that there is a point about people on Salt Spring starting to hurt because of the high ferry fares. Basically the main "cause" of the current situation is fuel prices. If Salt Spring and other Islanders see tourist dollars dry up, what about all the other "tourist" businesses? While not in BC how about the owners of the Nova Scotia campground that said their business was down 60%. I would imagine the same thing would be true for some BC campgrounds as people leave their RV's in the driveway instead of driving them. How about a gas subsidy for them so they can lower their rates and get the RV's back. How about a gas subsidy for Air Canada and West Jet to keep people flying? How about a subsidy for fishermen for marine fuel? Truckers? To be fair either the government of BC and/or Canadian government has to slash taxes and provide subsidies across the board or pick "favourites" to help. No doubt a reasonable person may determine that there could be "special" cases that must be helped. Do the Islands qualify for that? There is obviously strong feelings around that. A big part of our problem is that Detroit and other car makers and many industries for that matter have been used to low North American fuel prices while Europe has already adjusted to those long ago. Now we are in a crisis of catch-up. The point that you're missing, though, is that islanders are dealing with all the fuel cost increases that everyone else is dealing with, and they're getting slammed with vastly higher ferry fares, further increasing the cost of everything they buy, making it more expensive to get anywhere, and keeping customers and tourists away.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 1, 2008 10:57:51 GMT -8
That applies to Newfoundland residents, anyone who lives in remote communities, and even more so to anyone in the North. We are back to the same argument that the Islanders are a special case. My point is that it isn't just Salt Spring and Ganges etc. Islanders that are impacted by this. What about Hartley Bay? What about those on the Queen Charlottes? Or any of the remote communities on the coast. Why should they get a break on the ferry fares, shouldn't everyone then in those types of communities? What about those who don't have ferry service and get their food flown in or delivered by Coast Guard or someone else? There is not a clear cut line. Islanders have their long list of things they don't want in their communities yet are suffering with the economy. Maybe they need to start some smart compromises to protect their way of life. It begins to feel like the people here who see the sign posted on the edges of their community that these new houses are built on the approach/departure path for the airport. Buy a home there because it may be slightly cheaper. And then organize to complain about Airport noise and want further restrictions imposed. Or the buyers of multimillion dollar condos that line the Toronto waterfront and now want the Toronto City Centre Airport closed despite the fact it has been there for decades. And before anyone leaps to thinking that you have to turn the Islands into a metropolis (or Vegas courtesy of Mr. NJ ) to survive - no reasonable person would think that. Mining towns were one horse shows and many are dead now and have turned into ghost towns or trying to reinvent themselves late in the game. Something has to change and it isn't the preverbial government cash only solution. Maybe a combo of things would work but one area shouldn't be singled out for special treatment, when this is likely a permanent, albeit difficult restructuring of our North American economy.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 1, 2008 13:59:39 GMT -8
That applies to Newfoundland residents, anyone who lives in remote communities, and even more so to anyone in the North. We are back to the same argument that the Islanders are a special case. My point is that it isn't just Salt Spring and Ganges etc. Islanders that are impacted by this. What about Hartley Bay? What about those on the Queen Charlottes? Or any of the remote communities on the coast. Why should they get a break on the ferry fares, shouldn't everyone then in those types of communities? What about those who don't have ferry service and get their food flown in or delivered by Coast Guard or someone else? There is not a clear cut line. Islanders have their long list of things they don't want in their communities yet are suffering with the economy. Maybe they need to start some smart compromises to protect their way of life. It begins to feel like the people here who see the sign posted on the edges of their community that these new houses are built on the approach/departure path for the airport. Buy a home there because it may be slightly cheaper. And then organize to complain about Airport noise and want further restrictions imposed. Or the buyers of multimillion dollar condos that line the Toronto waterfront and now want the Toronto City Centre Airport closed despite the fact it has been there for decades. And before anyone leaps to thinking that you have to turn the Islands into a metropolis (or Vegas courtesy of Mr. NJ ) to survive - no reasonable person would think that. Mining towns were one horse shows and many are dead now and have turned into ghost towns or trying to reinvent themselves late in the game. Something has to change and it isn't the preverbial government cash only solution. Maybe a combo of things would work but one area shouldn't be singled out for special treatment, when this is likely a permanent, albeit difficult restructuring of our North American economy. Well, now that you've mentioned it, people in the Charlottes did get a break- their fares weren't raised this time around. The analogy with Newfoundland doesn't work, unless they've had their ferry fares doubled in the last few years due largely to a political decision. The north, as well, probably hasn't had transportation costs (aside from gas) double recently, and while it is admittedly very expensive to live up there, the government doesn't nail people for huge fees to provide infrastructure, since its seen as good policy for Canada to not force everyone to live within urban centres, or within fifty miles of the border. And there is a northern expenses deduction at tax time, which rural southerners and islanders certainly don't get. Its also beside the point to drag out references to buyers of million dollar condos. As I pointed out in a previous post, the average income on Hornby, at least, is well below the BC average. The people who are being impacted, some to the point of having to leave, are not the rich, and it is really unfair for people to continue to paint islanders, in general, as some sort of pampered patricians with their well manicured hands out, looking for a free ride. As a member of the Hornby Island Co-op, I see their annual balance sheet; I'm well aware how little a shift it would take to make the business non-viable, and most of the enterprises on the islands are similar, surviving on the two months in summer when tourist revenue helps them through the rest of the year. Skyrocketing fares are endangering all of these fragile economies. It does no good to lecture people on the need for them to adjust to global realities, when, for the most part, these communities are already very resourceful and volunteer oriented. No one's looking for free ferry service, although that is offered to many in BC's interior. No one's even looking for dirt cheap ferry service, at least not realistic island residents, part time residents, and visitors. But when you refer to 'special treatment' for islanders, you're dead on, though not for the reasons you think. As of August 1st, the non-concession return fare for a family like ours with a vehicle to Hornby Island will be around $103, or approximately $25.75 a mile. Find me a similar length of highway anywhere in North America that costs that much to travel. You're right. That's 'special treatment' indeed.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Aug 9, 2008 17:53:48 GMT -8
Unles things have changed a lot in the last few year they have no plan. When we asked for their 10 year plan they did not have one. We asked for their 5 year plan, they did not have one. we asked for any plan, they had none. They had a large planning department with several managers, assistant managers, offices, secretaries etc. The only thing they did not have was a plan. The smaller routes generally have been chosen as whipping boys for the company in their attempt to semi justify fare increases. They are trying to distract the public by villifying the small routes and hoping there is no political clout on those routes. Generally speaking the small routes are quite economical and many make a profit. The ships are smaller, older and paid for. They did not cost that much to begin with. When the CFA declaired each route must be independant with no cross subsidizing this left the expensive main routes with their newer and costly ships with a problem. BCFS has solved this by declairing that the routes are "bundled" similar to cable tv. Thus the main route can draw on the smaller routes to help pay for its costs while blaming the costs on the smaller routes. They have worsened the situation by hiding the enormous management costs in with the operational costs and charging them to the routes. The Vesuvius/Crofton route makes a profit, untill huge management costs are assessed against it. The Fulford/SWB route looses about 1/4 to 1/3 of its profit to the SWB/TSA route by the through fares, basically subsidizing route 1. What they do not want the public to know is the ammount of subsidy given to rapid transit and bus service on the lower mainland. Those subsidies are far higher over all and per passenger than anything the ferries has ever recieved. The only "special" treatment is to the people on the lower mainland who recieve these huge subsidies and free bridges etc which the islanders do not get.
|
|
|
Post by Billable Hours on Aug 10, 2008 22:35:56 GMT -8
Unles things have changed a lot in the last few year they have no plan. When we asked for their 10 year plan they did not have one. We asked for their 5 year plan, they did not have one. we asked for any plan, they had none. They had a large planning department with several managers, assistant managers, offices, secretaries etc. The only thing they did not have was a plan. The smaller routes generally have been chosen as whipping boys for the company in their attempt to semi justify fare increases. They are trying to distract the public by villifying the small routes and hoping there is no political clout on those routes. Generally speaking the small routes are quite economical and many make a profit. The ships are smaller, older and paid for. They did not cost that much to begin with. When the CFA declaired each route must be independant with no cross subsidizing this left the expensive main routes with their newer and costly ships with a problem. BCFS has solved this by declairing that the routes are "bundled" similar to cable tv. Thus the main route can draw on the smaller routes to help pay for its costs while blaming the costs on the smaller routes. They have worsened the situation by hiding the enormous management costs in with the operational costs and charging them to the routes. The Vesuvius/Crofton route makes a profit, untill huge management costs are assessed against it. The Fulford/SWB route looses about 1/4 to 1/3 of its profit to the SWB/TSA route by the through fares, basically subsidizing route 1. What they do not want the public to know is the ammount of subsidy given to rapid transit and bus service on the lower mainland. Those subsidies are far higher over all and per passenger than anything the ferries has ever recieved. The only "special" treatment is to the people on the lower mainland who recieve these huge subsidies and free bridges etc which the islanders do not get. kerryssi when I read the financial statements of BCF I cannot see anything that supports most of your comments. In fact the smaller routes are the big drain and the larger routes are closer to break even, nothing makes a profit. And any accountant knows that overhead is part of the picture, not just direct operations, so management is a valid expense. You seem to be saying BCF and the independent auditors of BCF and the Provincial Auditor are all not seeing the accounting errors you are seeing. Are you a professional Accountant? In addition the public does know the Translink subsidy it is about 2/3 operating costs. No deep secret there, just use google to find that out. You make a lot of claims etc. Do you have proof? From what I can see there is nothing to back up your claims, rather the public info disputes your claims. Where is your info from?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Aug 10, 2008 22:42:24 GMT -8
Billable, where is your proof of 2/3rd operating cost subsidies? If google is your resource, any high school teacher would tell you that is not a source.
How is BCFS accounted for? I have seen zero accountability and the claims that are made seem to be the only truth due to kerryssi was a BCFS employee. An employee perspective is a primary resource as an interview in a ways. Sometimes, stuff that goes on behind the scenes is not going to be exposed in the public eye in fear of scrutiny. Therefore, I want to see what auditing reports you have found and show me what proof there is that operating funds are not going to management?
|
|
|
Post by Billable Hours on Aug 10, 2008 22:46:21 GMT -8
That applies to Newfoundland residents, anyone who lives in remote communities, and even more so to anyone in the North. We are back to the same argument that the Islanders are a special case. My point is that it isn't just Salt Spring and Ganges etc. Islanders that are impacted by this. What about Hartley Bay? What about those on the Queen Charlottes? Or any of the remote communities on the coast. Why should they get a break on the ferry fares, shouldn't everyone then in those types of communities? What about those who don't have ferry service and get their food flown in or delivered by Coast Guard or someone else? There is not a clear cut line. Islanders have their long list of things they don't want in their communities yet are suffering with the economy. Maybe they need to start some smart compromises to protect their way of life. It begins to feel like the people here who see the sign posted on the edges of their community that these new houses are built on the approach/departure path for the airport. Buy a home there because it may be slightly cheaper. And then organize to complain about Airport noise and want further restrictions imposed. Or the buyers of multimillion dollar condos that line the Toronto waterfront and now want the Toronto City Centre Airport closed despite the fact it has been there for decades. And before anyone leaps to thinking that you have to turn the Islands into a metropolis (or Vegas courtesy of Mr. NJ ) to survive - no reasonable person would think that. Mining towns were one horse shows and many are dead now and have turned into ghost towns or trying to reinvent themselves late in the game. Something has to change and it isn't the preverbial government cash only solution. Maybe a combo of things would work but one area shouldn't be singled out for special treatment, when this is likely a permanent, albeit difficult restructuring of our North American economy. Well, now that you've mentioned it, people in the Charlottes did get a break- their fares weren't raised this time around. The analogy with Newfoundland doesn't work, unless they've had their ferry fares doubled in the last few years due largely to a political decision. The north, as well, probably hasn't had transportation costs (aside from gas) double recently, and while it is admittedly very expensive to live up there, the government doesn't nail people for huge fees to provide infrastructure, since its seen as good policy for Canada to not force everyone to live within urban centres, or within fifty miles of the border. And there is a northern expenses deduction at tax time, which rural southerners and islanders certainly don't get. Its also beside the point to drag out references to buyers of million dollar condos. As I pointed out in a previous post, the average income on Hornby, at least, is well below the BC average. The people who are being impacted, some to the point of having to leave, are not the rich, and it is really unfair for people to continue to paint islanders, in general, as some sort of pampered patricians with their well manicured hands out, looking for a free ride. As a member of the Hornby Island Co-op, I see their annual balance sheet; I'm well aware how little a shift it would take to make the business non-viable, and most of the enterprises on the islands are similar, surviving on the two months in summer when tourist revenue helps them through the rest of the year. Skyrocketing fares are endangering all of these fragile economies. It does no good to lecture people on the need for them to adjust to global realities, when, for the most part, these communities are already very resourceful and volunteer oriented. No one's looking for free ferry service, although that is offered to many in BC's interior. No one's even looking for dirt cheap ferry service, at least not realistic island residents, part time residents, and visitors. But when you refer to 'special treatment' for islanders, you're dead on, though not for the reasons you think. As of August 1st, the non-concession return fare for a family like ours with a vehicle to Hornby Island will be around $103, or approximately $25.75 a mile. Find me a similar length of highway anywhere in North America that costs that much to travel. You're right. That's 'special treatment' indeed. Sorry Neil I agree with Northern Explorer. Why should islanders or Sunshine Coast people get a special deal re ferry fares when everyone else is also suffering from the high global cost of oil. More to the point. Gas has gone up 50% in the last 12 months alone, so the poor sod in Langley has seen his commute to work in Vancouver and transportation cost go up 50%. I don't hear Langley calling for a fuel subsidy from anyone. Because they know it is not realistic. Another example, I am going to Fiji this Christmas, $2600 per seat, I went last Christmas, $1800 per seat. That increase is all fuel. Again BCF has not increased fares to the same %. So what makes people who use BC Ferries so special that they need a deal no one else in the world gets?
|
|
|
Post by Billable Hours on Aug 10, 2008 22:51:28 GMT -8
Billable, where is your proof of 2/3rd operating cost subsidies? If google is your resource, any high school teacher would tell you that is not a source. How is BCFS accounted for? I have seen zero accountability and the claims that are made seem to be the only truth due to kerryssi was a BCFS employee. An employee perspective is a primary resource as an interview in a ways. Sometimes, stuff that goes on behind the scenes is not going to be exposed in the public eye in fear of scrutiny. Therefore, I want to see what auditing reports you have found and show me what proof there is that operating funds are not going to management? Google will lead you to the Translink website which in turn has their audited financial information, same with BC Ferries. As an EX Employee I would say kerryssi is as reliable a source of information about BCF as an EX wife is about any man. Usually an EX anything has certain bias's not found in independent auditors.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 10, 2008 23:06:31 GMT -8
Sorry Neil I agree with Northern Explorer. Why should islanders or Sunshine Coast people get a special deal re ferry fares when everyone else is also suffering from the high global cost of oil. More to the point. Gas has gone up 50% in the last 12 months alone, so the poor sod in Langley has seen his commute to work in Vancouver and transportation cost go up 50%. I don't hear Langley calling for a fuel subsidy from anyone. Because they know it is not realistic. Another example, I am going to Fiji this Christmas, $2600 per seat, I went last Christmas, $1800 per seat. That increase is all fuel. Again BCF has not increased fares to the same %. So what makes people who use BC Ferries so special that they need a deal no one else in the world gets? I've tried to point out the ways that islanders are paying all the increased fuel costs that everyone else is paying, as well as vastly increased ferry costs, and how it is impacting their communities in ways that places like Langley don't have to deal with. There are only so many ways to make the point, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 11, 2008 7:50:21 GMT -8
I love the term Green Taliban. www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=710672&p=3Gives an insight into one side of what going on hehind the scenes. My point all along has been the "fear of rampant development" is causing a crisis in the communities. The status quo is not working. I have never said that the fare increases are fair. What I have pointed out is that the situation is at an impass and something needs to happen. Limited "Reasonable" and "Rational" development needs to take place (not rampant despite the Islanders only seeming to know that "r" word) to broaden the economic base of the community. Either this starts to happen now or the economy of the Island will be erroded so far that much more aggressive development later will be the only choice left. Do it now smartly so that you can keep some control.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 11, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -8
....If you click this link, be aware that it takes you to "Page 3" of a 3 page article. It took me a few moments to realize this, after cursing the poor writing of the article's author.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 11, 2008 15:00:03 GMT -8
I love the term Green Taliban. Well then, you're certainly reading the right newspaper. The National Post has got all sorts of snide, cutesy put downs for anyone or any group the questions a pro-'development' or pro corporate agenda. Gives an insight into one side of what going on hehind the scenes. One side indeed. Too bad the writer didn't see fit to get the other half of the story from the Islands Trust. For backup, he quotes his colleague Elizabeth Nickson, who is basically Canada's answer to Ann Coulter. There's in depth reporting for you. The Islands Trust was one of the greatest accomplishments of Dave Barrett's government, and has been instrumental in protecting the islands from property owners who often misrepresent their intentions or who care little about the community. I'm not very familiar with the Galiano story in particular. My point all along has been the "fear of rampant development" is causing a crisis in the communities. The status quo is not working. I have never said that the fare increases are fair. What I have pointed out is that the situation is at an impass and something needs to happen. Limited "Reasonable" and "Rational" development needs to take place (not rampant despite the Islanders only seeming to know that "r" word) to broaden the economic base of the community. Either this starts to happen now or the economy of the Island will be erroded so far that much more aggressive development later will be the only choice left. Do it now smartly so that you can keep some control. Which situation is at an impasse, and what needs to happen? What is the status quo, and how is it not working? What is reasonable and rational development? Why would aggressive development ever be the only option? And finally, is it somehow a part of the Canadian mindset that people in big cities feel inclined to lecture and hector people in small communities on how to be more economically 'progressive', when in fact, many of those small communities are actually more self sufficient, and consume and pollute a far less significant portion of our national resources than big city dwellers?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Aug 12, 2008 6:54:47 GMT -8
And finally, is it somehow a part of the Canadian mindset that people in big cities feel inclined to lecture and hector people in small communities on how to be more economically 'progressive', when in fact, many of those small communities are actually more self sufficient, and consume and pollute a far less significant portion of our national resources than big city dwellers? I would agree that the typical person from a small community tends to be a little more prudent in their consumption of certain commodities, and probably more self sufficient given the lack of many of the services "city dwellers" often come to expect. However, I would be hesitant to agree that a small community typically impacts their environment less. Consider the following: many small communities tend to be somewhat remote; people must expend some amount of energy just to get there. Add to the mix the fact that any goods needing transportation also have an associated energy expenditure. And on top of this, my observation has been that people in small communities often have to commute more in their daily travels. It all adds up to a significant consumption of energy. IMO, Islanders often have even more hidden energy requirements for maintaining their lifestyles than most rural communities. All commodities that cannot be provided by the local available natural resources must be shipped in. Consider the fact that several ferries are often needed to maintain this supply route; and while ships are a very efficient mode of transport, these are scheduled sailings that must run full or empty. From personal observation, I do feel many Islanders are very eco-conscious, many having chosen the Islands because of a desire to be more "in touch" with nature. They are trying to make a difference, but like most people, they want at least some of the perks of modern life. And in this, "city folk" have an eco-advantage; higher volume of demand in the city ensures enough volume of commodities to warrant the use of the most energy efficient modes of transportation, and ensures these modes are more fully utilized. So, people may be making efforts to reduce their carbon footprint, but IMO, they have a larger footprint to start with.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 12, 2008 8:14:59 GMT -8
Moving to Toronto as a westerner we had the same biases as many, and only moved here with a guarantee of a three year window that if so desired we could move back. I think it is obvious that we didn't. I am quite prepared to accept the nonstop teasing of my many relatives from the BC boonies as I tease back. 7 adults (not counting spouces, children and one deceased cousin) who all have grown up and still live in that triangle of the Georgia Strait to Victoria to Nanaimo. However, beyond the teasing I don't accept the prejudice based upon where someone lives. If what some are saying about the Ferry fares ruining the economy of a region so quickly, and that economy is already fragile, it would be a reasonable conclusion that everything isn't hunky dory there and that the status quo can't be acceptable. However, Islanders want no change (except lower fares) and want to be left alone. My point is that may not be reasonable or smart. Unless of course things aren't as bad as they seem and it is just hot air. Fragile economy + no change in the economic base on the islands = a big problem brewing. In a generation, when "only the rich" (not my words) can afford to travel to the Islands and the economy is ruined there what is going to happen? Some government is going to step in and remove barriers and large scale development will happen. That will be "rampant or agressive development." My point is if the Islands were smart they would be taking steps now to shore up the local economies, allow some development on a reasonable basis. I won't start on the short lived Barrett government, but a group that has veto powers that operates in such a manner should be entirely democratic, all directly elected, and held to the standards for economic development as any regional government would be. Dictatorial doesn't wash with me. Imagine if the "Trust" could be swayed by a government or concerted campaign to go in the opposite direction and become less protectionist and overly development orientated. That veto could be very damaging. Use "reasonable development" to generate levies that would fund the protection of large tracts of the Islands, the community and a reasonable way of life. If the answer is always no to everything and only yes tosubsidize us by lowering costs such as ferry fares then don't expect us "Big City" types who don't mind our own business to be sympathetic. As a kid I summered on Long Beach before it was a park. The original Wickanninish Inn, some cottages and campgrounds (a lot of hippies ) and small Uclulet and Tofino -- the area wasn't totally desolate but certainly quiet. The unpaved, harrowing and dangerous road kept it that way. As much as I would love to go back to that time, it is neither practical or possible. The park has kept that stretch protected - albeit now with a much higher visitor count. The Tofino end and to an extent Uclulet is much different now. Some development has offset the decline in the fishery, provided new jobs although many seasonal and has however generated a lot of new problems. Water shortages, housing shortages, a swing economy (that is slowly improving with 4 season resorts bringing more people in during the slow seasons), and so on. There is a happy medium that is necessary. Some compromise is necessary but then when in life isn't it. For the record, I have said some sort of residents card or discount could be considered for those who need it (not want it), you could even fund that through some development levies . And I have never said that fares might not be too high.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 12, 2008 23:20:22 GMT -8
I would agree that the typical person from a small community tends to be a little more prudent in their consumption of certain commodities, and probably more self sufficient given the lack of many of the services "city dwellers" often come to expect. However, I would be hesitant to agree that a small community typically impacts their environment less. Consider the following: many small communities tend to be somewhat remote; people must expend some amount of energy just to get there. Add to the mix the fact that any goods needing transportation also have an associated energy expenditure. And on top of this, my observation has been that people in small communities often have to commute more in their daily travels. It all adds up to a significant consumption of energy. IMO, Islanders often have even more hidden energy requirements for maintaining their lifestyles than most rural communities. All commodities that cannot be provided by the local available natural resources must be shipped in. Consider the fact that several ferries are often needed to maintain this supply route; and while ships are a very efficient mode of transport, these are scheduled sailings that must run full or empty. I'll speak of the island I'm most familiar with. Few people commute into town on a daily basis. They're daily fuel usage is low owing to the concentration of shopping or social destinations in a small area. When they do go into town, they tend to get a lot done owing to the money required just to get there. Freight often comes by truck which makes several deliveries in one go. Their water usage is vastly lower than city people because it is a scarce resource; no one wastes it on lawns. There is no sewage system, and there is more experimentation with self contained waste processing than in the city. The recycling centre is a community meeting place, an efficient exchange point for unneeded goods, and garbage volume is probably considerably less than in larger communities. Most infrastructure on the island is fairly simple, such as the rudimentary road network. There is also the aspect that some community ventures have a high volunteer component, including construction, whereas in the city they would be entirely taxpayer funded. I simply don't see where the 'hidden costs' come in. ...However, Islanders want no change (except lower fares) and want to be left alone. My point is that may not be reasonable or smart. Unless of course things aren't as bad as they seem and it is just hot air. Fragile economy + no change in the economic base on the islands = a big problem brewing. In a generation, when "only the rich" (not my words) can afford to travel to the Islands and the economy is ruined there what is going to happen? Some government is going to step in and remove barriers and large scale development will happen. That will be "rampant or agressive development." My point is if the Islands were smart they would be taking steps now to shore up the local economies, allow some development on a reasonable basis. The 'straw man' in your argument is the notion that islanders are against any sort of functioning economy, or that they oppose all growth. It simply is not true. Yes, there are the luddite/hippy types who want to haul up the drawbridge, and I have to admit, when I go to Tribune Bay in the morning and see the smoldering logs and broken glass in the sand, or the vandalised pay showers at the ballfield, I tend to sympathize. But most people understand that there has to be some sort of viable enterprise to provide people a living, and they are not against exploring options and encouraging visitors, as long as it's within the island's ability to do so without destroying the assets that brought people there in the first place. See this paper for Hornby's vision of the future, including their view of appropriate enterprises: www.hirra.ca/vision2.htmlNow, I'm not going to try to tell you that the paper is a practical blueprint for business development, but it does indicate a willingness to look at options for the economy, in contradiction of your assertion. I won't start on the short lived Barrett government, but a group that has veto powers that operates in such a manner should be entirely democratic, all directly elected, and held to the standards for economic development as any regional government would be. Dictatorial doesn't wash with me. Imagine if the "Trust" could be swayed by a government or concerted campaign to go in the opposite direction and become less protectionist and overly development orientated. That veto could be very damaging. I'm not sure what you're refering to as 'dictatorial'. The Islands Trust representatives are elected, two from each island, for three year terms. It might be said that we're getting away from the thread topic of fare increases, and I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone. Still, BC Ferries, and their business practises, including fare structure, are inextricably linked to the health of the islands they serve, so perhaps our looking at the economy of those islands is not so out of line.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Aug 13, 2008 5:05:57 GMT -8
I'll speak of the island I'm most familiar with. Few people commute into town on a daily basis. They're daily fuel usage is low owing to the concentration of shopping or social destinations in a small area. When they do go into town, they tend to get a lot done owing to the money required just to get there. Freight often comes by truck which makes several deliveries in one go. I would argue that this is actually true for the typical city dweller, too. If you were to comparing to a suburbanite, then I think your observations are valid, but I would totally disagree that an urbanite has a higher carbon footprint for the activities you list above.As I said beforeAnd I think it's great that people are making a serious effort to reduce their impact on the environment. I wish the typical resident where I live now spent a quarter of the thought about the environment most of the people I know in Vancouver do. And now to reiterate my comment from earlierTo which you said I simply don't see where the 'hidden costs' come in. The " hidden costs" I refer too are those environmental costs directly related to the increased transportation requirements. I still think you are underestimating the increased environmental costs associated with the relocation of resources to the Islands. You argued that a typical Hornby resident has a significantly lower environmental impact than the typical city dweller...I tend to disagree...overall Hornby likely has a significantly lower impact, but there is also a significant lack of industrial presence there, too. This is often the "source" of much of increased resource use that I think you are foisting on the typical city dweller. However, this environmental cost needs to be averaged across the population as a whole because most people make use of the products made available by said industrial consumption. As an aside, this way you impose a non-zero baseline environmental impact. To achieve true carbon neutrality, you must also account for this baseline impact when trying to calculate your true carbon budget. Thus, if it were to be implemented properly, the carbon tax must be spread across the entire population, not just those areas that on the surface appear to have significantly high emission rates. As I said before, I applaud any and all efforts made to reduce our species environmental impact. Now if someone could bottle and sell a product like Island Environmental Mojo, the islands' economies wouldn't need to be concerned about anything and I could stop complaining about my neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 27, 2008 17:25:33 GMT -8
Here's another news article re recent fare hikes, and the impact on construction industry: www.journalofcommerce.com:80/article/id30248================= August 27, 2008 Supply Chain Management Vancouver Island construction companies feeling the pinch from rising B.C. Ferries costs RICHARD GILBERT staff writer The construction industry on Vancouver Island is being hit hard by rapid increases in B.C. Ferries fares, while escalating costs are contributing to an increase in the cost of living in small island communities. The construction industry on Vancouver Island depends on the ferry system and trucking companies to provide a steady flow of building materials. “It’s (the fare increases) ridiculous,” said Russ Fanucchi, owner of Namdor Reinforcing Steel. “Along with the surcharge for gasoline, it’s unbelievable.” Namdor ships reinforcing steel and rebar across from the mainland to Vancouver island. “I take a maximum of 65,000 pounds of steel over in a trailer load,” he said. “In the old days (three to four years ago) it would cost $850-900. Today’s bill is $1500, out of which the fuel surcharge is 28 per cent or about $330. On top of this there are other ferry charges, which are probably another $200.” B.C. Ferries announced last month that the company was implementing a surcharge on fares, to help offset the rising cost of fuel. In the last 12 months, several sharp increases in B.C. ferries rates have been absorbed by the island construction industry. A fuel surcharge of 10.3 per cent for major routes connecting Vancouver Island to the Lower Mainland was put into effect by B.C. Ferries on Aug. 1. Minor routes were hit with smaller surcharges. The fare increases have hit some companies hard. “For the company I work for (Acutemp Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Ltd.) the impact of ferry price increase has been quite significant,” said Terry Siklenka, senior technical estimator. “We have noticed an increase in costs because of the size and weight of the material we use. Everything is trucked by ferry.” Siklenka said his company brings in large HVAC units, large bundles of copper tubing and compressors. He receives three shipments a day from Vancouver. The ferry price increases are passed on to Siklenka’s company through the purchase of materials from suppliers. These increases are in turn passed on to the client. “We have seen a steady increase in our material costs and in the cost of doing business,” he said. “With the price of gas, labour and commodities, such as copper, rising it can be hard to pick up the impact of an increase in the cost of shipping. There has been very little reaction to the ferry price increases because it is buried in the overall increase in the cost of living.” The demands of the construction industry make it difficult for contractors on Vancouver Island to find an alternative to the ferry. “We place orders everyday and need equipment delivered right away,” Siklenka said. “So we have to use the ferry and trucking system. In our case it is not viable to use an alternative, such as the barge. The barge service is not frequent enough and we need materials delivered right to the site.” Cost escalation is also having a an impact on small island communities. “Being an island, we are faced with trucking and shipping everything we have,” said Greg Baynton, president of the Vancouver Island Construction Association. “A lot of lumber, windows and drywall go by truck on the ferry to Vancouver Island. This translates into material cost increases and makes it more challenging to attract and retain people.” ========================
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Aug 27, 2008 18:05:26 GMT -8
Sounds like there needs to be more industry on the Island, and less reliance on the mainland for finished products, etc. This might be a catalyst for that. And what's going to happen? Is construction going to stop outright on the Island? Will the Island shut down and everyone leave? No. It's a shifting equilibrium, and the companies that can't survive it will have to die, and those who can will succeed.
I always find it hard to sympathize with these businesses because you know their solution would be to dump all the extra costs onto regular vehicle traffic, and off of their shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 10, 2008 16:57:55 GMT -8
Here's a news story from Bowen Island, re the Ferry-Advisory-Committees and the issue of fare-hikes: www.bclocalnews.com:80/greater_vancouver/bowenislandundercurrent/news/30720524.html========= FACC asks Province to help make ferries affordable for coastal communitiesPublished: October 09, 2008 4:00 PM Updated: October 10, 2008 4:48 PM The Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs (FACC) are recommending that the 2009 provincial budget allocate sufficient ongoing funding to rescue the coastal communities from increasingly unaffordable ferry fares, resulting from the government’s nine-year freeze on the transportation fee at a time when operating costs have soared beyond all expectations. This was the message delivered by Tony Law (on behalf of FACC) to the Select Committee on Finance and Government Services at a public hearing in Courtenay on Oct. 1. The Committee is receiving public input on the 2009 budget. The 12 Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs represent more than two dozen communities dependent upon ferry service, from the Queen Charlottes to the Southern Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast. The FACC presentation states that fares on some coastal routes have increased by as much as 125% since 2003. These increases are far in excess of what is happening with other modes of transportation. Ten fare increases in five years have been followed by steadily declining traffic. This situation is not sustainable. Small businesses operating on small margins are already in trouble. Members of the work force in coastal communities are particularly vulnerable; their incomes are generally well below the provincial mean. Like the inland ferries, which continue to be provided free, coastal ferry service was established as an extension of the highway system. This is how residents continue to see their connection to the rest of the province. The government has significantly increased its contributions to ferry routes serving the north and mid coast communities, recognizing that ferry users cannot absorb significant capital and operating costs through fares. FACC is asking that the Province give the same recognition to the ‘minor’ routes serving south coast communities. The amount the Province contributes to these routes is scheduled to remain virtually unchanged from 2003 to 2012. The submission proposes a cash infusion that will enable a rollback in fares. FACC strongly encourages ferry users to support this submission by providing their own input to the Finance Committee. This can take the form of an MS Word or pdf document attached to an email and sent to FinanceCommittee@leg.bc.ca. Submissions can also be faxed to 250-356-8172. The deadline is Friday, Oct. 24. Full information is available at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. Representatives of FACC will be meeting with Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Kevin Falcon on Oct. 23. In advance of this meeting a discussion paper, Towards a Minor Routes Strategy for BC Ferries, has been prepared and submitted to the Minister. The Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs lead the 12 route-specific committees appointed by BC Ferries. These committees meet formally twice a year with additional meetings as required. BC Ferries senior management have brought together the FAC Chairs on a number of occasions to address system-wide issues. In addition, this group has met several times with the B.C. Ferry Commission. The FAC Chairs also participate as members of the Coastal Community Ferry Advisory Committee, established by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. FACC members individually and collectively liaise between local committees (and the communities they serve), and parties involved in operating, regulating and setting policy for ferry service, which include BC Ferries, the B.C. Ferry Commission and the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The FACC is also a vehicle for communication with the public at large. A number of reports and submissions have been prepared and news releases issued. A website is maintained at www.gabriola.org/facc. ========================
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Oct 10, 2008 18:33:39 GMT -8
I didn't realize that the fares on some of the minor routes had increased 125% since 2003. The Provincial government should look at increasing the subsidy on some of these routes. BCF should also look at removing all the fuel surcharges as the price of oil plummets?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 10, 2008 19:19:07 GMT -8
I didn't realize that the fares on some of the minor routes had increased 125% since 2003. The Provincial government should look at increasing the subsidy on some of these routes. BCF should also look at removing all the fuel surcharges as the price of oil plummets? Gordon: please offer up your opinion on why the Provincial Gov't hasn't increased the subsidy on those routes? Also, re the fuel surcharge: BC Ferries has mentioned in the media last month that the fuel surcharges will be slow to be lowered, because BC Ferries was also slow to raise them, compared with the initial rise in oil prices.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Oct 10, 2008 21:56:08 GMT -8
The fairs to the Southern Gulf Islands are an interesting question because these routes serve 2 different group the tourists (including the summer cabin owners) and of course the full time residents who depend on services from either the mainland or the Island. The percentage of the fair increases since 03 would be far more of issue for the permanent residents than it would be for the part time residents, although no one likes to pay more that they feel is necessary.
Maybe BCF could try some sort of a locals rate for permanent residents of the SGIs
I remember a news piece about BCFs fuel surcharges and the response was something to the affect that they were trying to find a mechanism to allow them to be able to remove them quicker.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 11, 2008 0:52:17 GMT -8
Hmmm, some lively discussion.
Permanent SGI resident status - how would you propose that this is determined/enforced etc? "Mailing address" schemes to receive benefits are quite common - folks have been getting driver's licenses issued at relatives'/friends' addresses for 'ever', and with AirCare being a Metro Vancouver issue, I know of several people that insure their vehicles in OTHER jurisdictions (which IS insurance fraud, btw, and cause for insurance to be voided!) just to avoid AirCare. So how do you establish resident status? There could be a few options, such as a Co-Op type organization or the FACC that would issue, in concert with BCFS, documentary ID that would establish permanent residency. Whatever the option, it would have to be something that would not take forever at the ticket booth to prove. Another option, and this is one that I would favour personally, would be to implement it like COSTCO and have a membership type program -- you want discounted fares as a permanent resident? Then pay an annual/semi-annual membership due to receive your discounted fares.
Next topic - FSC's. BCFS says it was slow to increase their fares in spite of rising fuel costs, and therefore should be slow to lower their fares as well. This just seems like bad management in my book - someone, whoever it was, that was in charge of planning and financial forecasting at BCFS sure missed the boat if they allowed fuel costs to escalate for that long without trying to implement some kind of cost containment/recovery. In retrospect, they did try to go to their suppliers and some fuel marketting "brokers" to try to gain some stability in their pricing - much like what BC Transit does with their fleet of buses. I just find that BCFS explanation, while at least they are giving one, tends to paint them in a bad light for seeming somewhat inept.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2008 12:37:58 GMT -8
Here's some more of the same, re news/blogs that I've found re the effect of ferry-fare increases. Even if it seems like a broken record (or skipping CD), it shows that people are still feeling impact of fares and are articulating these issues so that others can understand this impact. www.straight.com:80/article-165936/gulf-islands-danger-unless-bc-takes-ferries-back================== Gulf Islands in danger unless B.C. takes ferries backBy Robert Bailey To the citizens of B.C.: The recent bonuses paid out to ferry workers were from the last fiscal year, before all the fuel surcharges, fare increases, and service reductions happened. I certainly don't begrudge the rank-and-file workers a paltry holiday bonus. They take a lot of peanuts on behalf of their overlords, and we should never mistake the workers for the policy-makers that are responsible for our current ferry mess. The ferries are a vital part of the highways system. This was the original vision of W.A.C. Bennett when B.C. Ferries was created, and every other ferry in this province except the ones in our tidal waters remains true to this vision. What I want to do is make people mad. Real mad. Our Liberal government sold us out and violated the social contract that has been in place since the inception of B.C. Ferries when they calved it off from the Ministry of Highways and turned it into a for-profit corporation. We have had our birthright stolen from us. It's not going to get better unless we do something about it. Our island communities are being eroded and slowly being turned into ghost towns and bedroom communities for the idle rich. Stripped of the necessary diversity that comes with housing affordability and easy access, local island economies are coming under real pressure to survive, and Bowen Island, where I live, is no exception. The bottom line is this: the economies of all of the Gulf Islands are in serious danger unless the management of B.C. Ferries gets turned into an election issue. B.C. Ferries must be returned to the people of this province by re-integrating it back into the Ministry of Transport. Getting mad at the ferry corporation is a useless waste of energy. This is a political issue, and in my opinion it’s the responsibility of those who live on the islands, and also those mainlanders who use it to access recreation, to make it a central issue in the next provincial election. This is difficult, as I'm sure that more than half the people who live on islands such as Bowen and Gabriola now commute to town fairly regularly, and it would be a real challenge for those people to assist in raising awareness by participating in any systematic protests that would shut ferries down. But that is precisely what we need to do, and it’s in everyone's long-term interest to do so. Sometimes you have to take one for the team. We have been nickeled and dimed to death over the last few years. Perhaps so gradually, that the will to fight back has not surfaced amongst most of us. But we need to fight back. We need to protest. We need to get the protests in the media, in the hopes that those suffering on other islands may follow our example. We need to communicate the message that the ferries are our highways, and do not exist so that CEOs can collect six-figure performance bonuses. If our local tax dollars pay for the snow removal on a Smithers highway, why should they not support the function of B.C. Ferries completely? In light of record surpluses coming from offshore oil and gas revenue, and the multibillion dollar boondoggle that is the 2010 Olympics (which will be over budget and will be costing us for a loooooong time), B.C. Ferries being snatched away from the citizens of this province seems like a near-criminal act. I don't want a luge track. I want my ferries back. So let's not begrudge the B.C. Ferries worker a decent turkey and a bottle of rum at the holidays. Instead, let's write letters to our MLAs. Let's organize some good old-fashioned nonviolent protests at ferry terminals. Let's get the media out here to see how pissed we are. The policies of the B.C. Liberal government are killing our Gulf Islands communities. This morning, a friend likened our situation to that of "boiled frogs". You put a frog in a pot of cold water and gradually increase the temperature, and it won't jump out before the water boils because the change is so gradual. My family is leaving for several months in India at the end of next month, but I hope that some of us frogs get cheesed enough to get hopping mad. I have created a petition on-line, and I urge all of you to sign it and pass it on to everyone in your e-mail list. Robert Bailey has lived on Bowen Island for seven years ========================
|
|