Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 24, 2008 12:01:06 GMT -8
As much as I'd like to see a drop in passenger fares in comparison to car fares, making it free would be an invitation for dirty, scraggly, smelly, creepy bums to crawl onboard, and relentlessly harass all the other passengers for change, and other abusers of the system. The moderators of this forum discussed the exact same issue, re membership to this ferry discussion forum. In the end, we decided that free & open membership here was better, even if we had to put-up with the occasional harassing or annoying poster. Thank you, Mr Horn. I pledge to bathe and shave regularly, refrain from crawling, and not ask you for money... unless of course I drink my welfare cheque away. I wouldn't want to be like any of those unpleasant people our resident sociologist has encountered on his research field trips in the Gulf Islands.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 24, 2008 12:17:52 GMT -8
The moderators of this forum discussed the exact same issue, re membership to this ferry discussion forum. In the end, we decided that free & open membership here was better, even if we had to put-up with the occasional harassing or annoying poster. Thank you, Mr Horn. I pledge to bathe and shave regularly, refrain from crawling, and not ask you for money... unless of course I drink my welfare cheque away. I wouldn't want to be like any of those unpleasant people our resident sociologist has encountered on his research field trips in the Gulf Islands. So much for the "gated community" aspect of the islands if you removed the fares. Yeah, I know I'm beginning to sound NIMBYish here myself, but I'm more of the belief that you should pay something to get something, such as a nice long boat ride.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 28, 2008 10:43:23 GMT -8
The moderators of this forum discussed the exact same issue, re membership to this ferry discussion forum. In the end, we decided that free & open membership here was better, even if we had to put-up with the occasional harassing or annoying poster. Thank you, Mr Horn. I pledge to bathe and shave regularly, refrain from crawling, and not ask you for money... unless of course I drink my welfare cheque away. I wouldn't want to be like any of those unpleasant people our resident sociologist has encountered on his research field trips in the Gulf Islands. I'm glad for that...I had heard from the community watch that they were going to raise your gate fees if you didn't make that promise...and there was something about the fact they found you sleeping in the flower gardens...however, I think what concerned them the most was the team of sociology students with clipboards following you around documenting your every move...the expense of replacing the grass in the backyard was getting prohibitive! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jun 6, 2008 8:53:45 GMT -8
Brace yourselves for yet another fuel surcharge increase as the costs of diesel continue to rise unabated.
Just for those of you that don't buy on-road diesel, yes, it used to be cheaper than gasoline. However, changes to emissions standards have increased the amount of refining that is needed to produce diesel (main new cost is the additives to put back in the GOOD things that are taken out when emission reducing refining takes them out as a byproduct).
At the current price of about $1.40 per litre of gasoline, diesel is at $1.58 per litre -- these are regular pump prices exclusive of any discount.
Once the new BC Carbon Tax kicks in, this disparity will become worse, as diesel is surcharged at a higher rate than regular gas, EVEN THOUGH in modern properly tuned engines, diesel burns about 20-40% CLEANER than gasoline!!!
I'll get back to you when your 4L of milk is $8.99 and candy bars are $2.25 all due to increased transportation costs!
|
|
|
Post by Fenklebaum on Jun 6, 2008 11:32:47 GMT -8
Ah yes, the Milton Friedman view of socio-economics, where everything has a price, and nothing has a value. The question then becomes, value to whom? Should the rest of the province subsidize the luxury of some remote islanders to "get away from it all"? Should the rest of the province subsidize the luxury of a mass transit system for a few dazzling urbanites trying to "get away from the hum-drum backwater lifestyle"? Or public schools for "those parents who don't care enough to invest in their children's futures"? And we really should question our environmental conservation programs - why should we be trying to save whole species who clearly can't adapt to a changing environment? Some of those 'remote islanders' try to 'get away from it all' by going to the city, or going to the interior. Y'know, because they were *born there*, and the island has been their home from the beginning. Fenk, dazzling urbanite
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Jun 6, 2008 11:52:56 GMT -8
Some of these islanders are there for their careers. These are our teachers, nurses, doctors, police, ambulance, grocery store managers, bank employees. Some of these people have taken positions in the Gulf Islands to try to advance their careers. In the case of the RCMP, quite often this is a first posting for some of the younger members who don't necassarily have the funds to purchase a house or to make commutes on and off the islands.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 6, 2008 16:55:25 GMT -8
The question then becomes, value to whom? Should the rest of the province subsidize the luxury of some remote islanders to "get away from it all"? Should the rest of the province subsidize the luxury of a mass transit system for a few dazzling urbanites trying to "get away from the hum-drum backwater lifestyle"? Does the entire province subsidize mass transit per capita for every urbanite as much as they do for the ferries for every islander? I thought the local tax base in those urban regions in addition to the fares covered them. Besides, packing and pooling together in tight urban concentrations reduces per capita fuel and overall resource use, and is therefore more environmentally sound than sprawling out to every island and remote wilderness. And we really should question our environmental conservation programs - why should we be trying to save whole species who clearly can't adapt to a changing environment? Because it is the humans that are f'king it up and destroying the planet both for every other species and themselves. Some of those 'remote islanders' try to 'get away from it all' by going to the city, or going to the interior. Y'know, because they were *born there*, and the island has been their home from the beginning. If it means so much to them, they should pay to sustain their traditions themselves, or move on to living and working somewhere doing something that is more productive and relevant to a modern economy. Many here have argued that urban living isn't for everyone when I argued that urbanization and densification is the most environmentally sound arrangement making most efficient use of resources. Using public money to further prop up and support their more environmentally sacrificial lifestyles and traditions is where we need to draw the line, especially at a time when everybody is urged to "Go Green". As a compromise, I've even suggested substituting foot ferries for car ferries wherever possible, to reduce expenses and fuel usage.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 6, 2008 17:00:45 GMT -8
Some of these islanders are there for their careers. These are our teachers, nurses, doctors, police, ambulance, grocery store managers, bank employees. Some of these people have taken positions in the Gulf Islands to try to advance their careers. In the case of the RCMP, quite often this is a first posting for some of the younger members who don't necassarily have the funds to purchase a house or to make commutes on and off the islands. People who are needed there because of the presence of the local population. Living expenses should be lower than in the city, provided they don't have to jump on and off the island too much, right? If not, they should be paid some kind of living expense supplement or increased wages to compensate, hopefully extracted out of the local tax base.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Jun 6, 2008 17:13:59 GMT -8
Some of these islanders are there for their careers. These are our teachers, nurses, doctors, police, ambulance, grocery store managers, bank employees. Some of these people have taken positions in the Gulf Islands to try to advance their careers. In the case of the RCMP, quite often this is a first posting for some of the younger members who don't necassarily have the funds to purchase a house or to make commutes on and off the islands. People who are needed there because of the presence of the local population. Living expenses should be lower than in the city, provided they don't have to jump on and off the island too much, right? If not, they should be paid some kind of living expense supplement or increased wages to compensate, hopefully extracted out of the local tax base. Living expense are not cheaper because of the cost to get produce, groceries and such on to the islands. Because of the prestige for some people of living on the Gulf Islands, this is forcing the price of property up, this also forces the property taxes up. My family has property on the water on Saltspring Island, we are not rich, this property has been in the family sionce the early 1900's. We are now dealing with property taxes that would blow your mind ifI told you exactly how much it costs. Saltspring just got a pool, has no ice rink, has a minimal bus service.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 6, 2008 17:19:16 GMT -8
Mr. Billy Nutterbug, you're missing our on Fenk's satirical wit.
Fenk, your satire is brilliant. You should post the same comments in the "mirror-thread" to this on the Skyscrapers.com forum... I'm sure that Nutterbug / Ruddernut can give you the link.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 6, 2008 17:32:52 GMT -8
Mr. Billy Nutterbug, you're missing our on Fenk's satirical wit. Fenk, your satire is brilliant. You should post the same comments in the "mirror-thread" to this on the Skyscrapers.com forum... I'm sure that Nutterbug / Ruddernut can give you the link.... ;D Ah, another double agent here, eh? Who do we know you as on that other forum?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 6, 2008 20:52:53 GMT -8
Mr. Billy Nutterbug, you're missing our on Fenk's satirical wit. Fenk, your satire is brilliant. You should post the same comments in the "mirror-thread" to this on the Skyscrapers.com forum... I'm sure that Nutterbug / Ruddernut can give you the link.... ;D Ah, another double agent here, eh? Who do we know you as on that other forum? I don't particpate on that other forum, but I'm aware of it. I just find it interesting that you post much of the same topic-stuff on both. That's all.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 6, 2008 22:32:59 GMT -8
Many here have argued that urban living isn't for everyone when I argued that urbanization and densification is the most environmentally sound arrangement making most efficient use of resources. This only works if urban living is itself affordable, and many would argue that the price of living in Vancouver is even more out of reach of ordinary wage earners than living on the Gulf Islands. It's difficult to practice such sustainable urban living when you're priced out of it by the shiny new condos going up along southeast false creek... a development project that is supposed to be showcasing affordable community housing. Sometimes I wonder where that many people, with that much money actually come from that they can have so dramatically shifted the pricing scale of the housing market in such a top heavy direction.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 6, 2008 22:40:32 GMT -8
Ah, another double agent here, eh? Who do we know you as on that other forum? I don't particpate on that other forum, but I'm aware of it. I just find it interesting that you post much of the same topic-stuff on both. That's all. Just thought they were matters of interest common to both forums. Doesn't look like they're into maritime transport as much as they are into rail transport though. Anyways, isn't leaking personal registration info such as "Billy" bad administrative etiquette? I don't think I've ever actually revealed my name in conversation here.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Jun 6, 2008 23:03:04 GMT -8
I don't particpate on that other forum, but I'm aware of it. I just find it interesting that you post much of the same topic-stuff on both. That's all. Just thought they were matters of interest common to both forums. Doesn't look like they're into maritime transport as much as they are into rail transport though. Anyways, isn't leaking personal registration info such as "Billy" bad administrative etiquette? I don't think I've ever actually revealed my name in conversation here. Ruddernut, I will back you on that last comment being poor administrative etiquette. The moderators are privy to some personal and private information regarding members of this forum. I am sure that most of us would like to know that it is personal and private. --------------Now back to our regular discussion on here-------------- It has been awhile, last august, since I have had the pleasure of riding BC Ferries. I learned tonight on the NewsHour Final that the fuel surcharge is no longer a seperate item on the reciept. In my opinion this is a good idea. Just hide it as a price increase. BC Ferries are not the only ones doing this. As Hardy can probably agree trucking companies are now including fuel surcharges right in the prices.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 6, 2008 23:29:31 GMT -8
It has been awhile, last august, since I have had the pleasure of riding BC Ferries. I learned tonight on the NewsHour Final that the fuel surcharge is no longer a seperate item on the reciept. In my opinion this is a good idea. Just hide it as a price increase. BC Ferries are not the only ones doing this. As Hardy can probably agree trucking companies are now including fuel surcharges right in the prices. It makes sense. It's not like they can balance their books so perfectly that only the money charged as the "fuel surcharge" goes to pay for fuel and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 7, 2008 6:14:23 GMT -8
Anyways, isn't leaking personal registration info such as "Billy" bad administrative etiquette? I don't think I've ever actually revealed my name in conversation here. It would be bad etiquette if you weren't a troll. But with trolls it's always open season, and anything to annoy a troll is good netiquette. ps: It's good to know that members "Nut" and "Big Pimpin'" are of the same opinion on this matter. Now you just need to find a third person to complete you "Axis of Trolls". And I mean 3rd person, not just adding a username......... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jun 7, 2008 8:59:42 GMT -8
Sometimes I wonder where that many people, with that much money actually come from that they can have so dramatically shifted the pricing scale of the housing market in such a top heavy direction. A lot of people that are in those homes that you claim have shifted the housing market are in waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over their heads. Figures quoted by various institutions etc and enforced (albeit loosely) by mortgage lenders indicates that no more than 32-37% of your net monthly pay can be allocated to housing expenses (mortgage, heat, property tax) in order to qualify for a mortgage. How do you get around this? Well, there are a few legal and some illegal options .... a) increase downpayment a1) "covertly" borrow money for your downpayment a2) borrow from your own/spouses RRSP a3) gifts/loans b) co-signors on the mortgage c) increase the length (amortization) of the mortgage d) illicit lending e) group ownership of property As you can see by my list, there are several ways that people who want to own a house can manage to get themselves in over their heads without even trying, simply by not taking the time to look ahead and think of a "worst case scenario". A lot of people that I know are HOUSE POOR. In other words, MORE of their take home (like 50+%) goes to service their home, and they have to cut down on things like food, car etc to be able to keep up with the mortgage. Then you have my example of myself. I purchased my new-built condo in 2003, made a large down payment and have my monthly mortgage payment very manageable. My initial purchase price was $122,200, and I planned to be in my condo for about 8 years before thinking of moving on (after the Olympics in case you are wondering, but that was a co-incidence). My monthly strata fees when I bought were about $120/month, and property taxes worked out to around $320/year for my 735 sq ft 1 bedroom condo. Now, today, my condo is appraised at $181,100, my monthly strata fee is $230/month and my property taxes have risen to $450/year. To give some perspective, my taxes cover recycling as a utility. Water, sewer, NATURAL GAS, garbage are all strata expenses, so that accounts largely for the increase in those fees. While it is nice that my appraised value of the home has gone up $60,000 in 4 years ($15,000/year increase in net worth), my costs have also gone up remarkably, and my market segment has priced me out -- if I were to try to buy something new similar, I would be in the $190-220K range. The other downside is, that while my "paper" net worth may be higher, my wages have not really increased at the same rate, and the percentage of housing budget as compared to my total salary has INCREASED over what it was. I am NOT, however, in over my head, as I planned ahead for some contingencies (albeit not this one, but I did manage to cover my butt). The main thing that I was trying to point out, is that you do not need people pushing the top end of the spectrum actually acquiring property with all their wealth to unbalance a market. There are several ways that you can "push the middle to the top" and skew markets; there are also a large majority of middle-class (and upper-lower class) people that are just house-poor by being in over their heads -- this, more so than anything else, has skewed the market and will potentially have disasterous consequences for these people further down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jun 7, 2008 9:16:57 GMT -8
Just hide it as a price increase. BC Ferries are not the only ones doing this. As Hardy can probably agree trucking companies are now including fuel surcharges right in the prices. Yes and no. There are two sides to it. I will explain it how I do it in my business (and also how several others are doing it too) and why. When you initially set your rate for whatever service, you have to factor your vehicle in at some point. Obviously you vehicle takes fuel to operate. However, even in trucking, you have to be able to break down your rates some how. A good business plan assigns percentages to most things based on known variables. Obviously you are trying to generate as much profit as possible within reason. In my example, you take your fixed costs and work with them. Truck payments (major equipment), maintenance costs (repairs, breakdown, tires, oil etc), vehicle insurance, cargo insurance, equipment renewal (pads, dollies, ropes etc), advertising, office expenses (phone, fax, secretary?). Then you add your variables based on best guesses for how much it takes to complete a job: FUEL, WAGES, WCB (because that is a factor of wages) and claims. You get that number and then you add your percentage profit. Now you finally arrive at your rate that you want to charge. Compare this to the industry standard and see where you are. Then you can either leave this rate alone and go back and try to play with it every time fuel prices skyrocket recalculating your base numbers, or you can work it backwards to get to a price point where you can include some kind of a percentage or tiered fuel surcharge. Either way you do it, you have to be mindful of what the competitors in the market are doing so that you manage to remain "in business" without pricing yourself out of your market one way or the other. For my example, I found it best to get myself my base rate, and then add a fuel surcharge over and above that based on distance travelled (ie: actual fuel consumed). I have this set at a percentage based on actual fuel cost over a certain baseline number, or in some cases, where my exact distances are known, I can flat rate it (this is also done to win a bid and lock in a price). What I have had to do in my business is increase BOTH my base numbers and also my surcharge -- and here is why. In order to continue to pay my employees a fair salary, I have had to increase their pay as well to sort of give them a fuel surcharge to compensate them for their additional costs - thus, it is an increase in wages, which gets figured into my base amount before a surcharge is added on top of that. (I know not all employers pay their employees more just because it costs the employees more to drive to work, but I am a small company and I take care of my guys as best I can). Some of my other base costs have gone up too, like insurance and WCB. My office overhead is up, due to natural gas costs, and all of my supplies that I need to buy (boxes, pads) have also increased in price due to increased freight charges. Everything goes up ... my prices have to as well to account for that. Sometimes I find that I am now no longer competitive, but at least I am sticking to a sound business plan at this point and I can get away with it because I am still a small enough company. So, is it better to have the fuel surcharge visible or built in? Depends, I do it both ways but leave the largest part "visible" so that it is easily changed to reflect current conditions. Most people now also expect it to be visible, and there is not as much resistance to it, as it has more or less become a fact of life now. FYI: Diesel prices have skyrocketed at a far larger percentage than regular motor fuel. From 1 year ago, I was paying around $0.89/litre for diesel, and with the increases and change to ULSD fuel etc, I am now around $1.56/litre - almost double ... add that to your cost of milk and drink it.
|
|
|
Post by Fenklebaum on Jun 7, 2008 9:19:43 GMT -8
"If would be bad etiquette if you weren't a troll. But with trolls it's always open season, and anything to annoy a troll is good netiquette."
I just fell onto the floor paralytic with laughter. Thank you.
Fenk, bruised
PS: Ruddernut - I will reply later tonight - not giving you the slip here, just wanting to be on time for work. 'Sides, I love laughing at the fact that the Aquabus has raised their fares but we haven't. Hee!
Fenk, topical
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 7, 2008 16:38:52 GMT -8
Anyways, isn't leaking personal registration info such as "Billy" bad administrative etiquette? I don't think I've ever actually revealed my name in conversation here. It would be bad etiquette if you weren't a troll. But with trolls it's always open season, and anything to annoy a troll is good netiquette. Why do you keep getting the impression that I'm a "troll" anyways? I may be cocky and opinionated at times, and it may not always sit too well with the dominant clique here, but I do tend to be serious in my discussions. If you think I'm such a prick, then why don't you just boot me? But betraying a user's confidentiality and trust is on a completely different level from just being an opinionated and mouthy dick.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Jun 7, 2008 16:59:36 GMT -8
ruddernut, you and i have discussed it in our pm's. give some people power and they will abuse it. oh no now they are going to get mad at me again. we can start our own clique.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 7, 2008 17:07:04 GMT -8
ruddernut, you and i have discussed it in our pm's. give some people power and they will abuse it. oh no now they are going to get mad at me again. we can start our own clique. But we don't have mod powers. I was hoping not to drag you out into the line of fire, mind you.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 7, 2008 17:23:44 GMT -8
The reason why we find you to be a troll is because you seem to try and force your beliefs upon us and you get the same people worked up over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 7, 2008 17:38:13 GMT -8
The reason why we find you to be a troll is because you seem to try and force your beliefs upon us and you get the same people worked up over and over again. Uhh...okay. Like I said, I do tend to be opinionated, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a little debate with a little life and emotion to it. It would actually add a little life to an otherwise stagnant board. I would just as much welcome counterarguments with just as much vigour and tenacity, without degenerating into actual personal attacks and dirty tricks. How about a square-off section, where we can debate the issues with less restraint? You know, just for fun (and maybe even some intellectual stimulation).
|
|