|
Post by ruddernut on May 18, 2008 0:17:59 GMT -8
As for what John H wrote, I really like Departure Bay as well; it's actually my favourite terminal in the system. And yes, the road connections to Departure Bay aren't that good, but with that terminal smack dab in the middle of a community full of NIMBY's, don't expect the road approaches to improve any time soon. And if route 2 was moved to the Duke Point terminal, keeping truck traffic away from Horseshoe Bay is simple--just prohibit the big rigs from even using route 2. Or Kevin Falcon can continue to be Kevin Falcon and have the balls to stand up to the West Van NIMBY's on this like he did with the Eagleridge Bluffs highway project. Redirect them to take a longer two-hour Route 30 that consumes more fuel, and even give them CoastSaver discounts for it? Something is definitely wrong there.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 18, 2008 0:24:42 GMT -8
Redirect them to take a longer two-hour Route 30 that consumes more fuel, and even give them CoastSaver discounts for it? Something is definitely wrong there. You are missing the point of the "CoastSaver" program diverting traffic to Rte-30 -- the route is underutilized IN MOST CASES and operates at about 60-70% capacity. By offering discounted fares and trying to move traffic TO the route, they are trying to INCREASE efficiency. The ships will burn relatively the same amount of fuel if they are 60% full as if they are 100% full (give or take an amount that will be a small percentage of the overall fuel burn...). Crew are still paid the same wages too, regardless of whether the boat is full or not, and the same goes for terminal crew. Higher pax count also generally means higher sales above the vehicle deck, and that is where a large part of the profit margin is also. Once you have a captive audience for 2 hours they are more than likely bound to buy something (even if it is as petty as a cuppa coffee).
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 18, 2008 16:06:00 GMT -8
ruddernut, why are we brining up something from one year ago? How does Route 30 consume more fuel? Second off, this is not the ultimate decision. Open the mind a little bit and do some analysis. What are the pros and cons and perhaps suggest something that would fix the problem.
Here is also a rule of thumb, not everyone will get what they want.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 18, 2008 16:15:10 GMT -8
ruddernut, why are we brining up something from one year ago? How does Route 30 consume more fuel? It's a longer route that takes 2 hours instead of 1h35. Simple enough?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 18, 2008 16:18:17 GMT -8
How about consider fuel consumption with various loads versus time per route. Fuel consumption changes with the load amount on the vessel since unloaded vessels have less weight to haul meaning less HP is used to go a certain speed. I suggest you compare fuel load to run without cars and with cars and get back to me before considering a time difference is all to fuel consumption.
Just to add some extra information, when Route 2 has a third vessel, it probably is using more fuel than Route 30 since that is consistent most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on May 18, 2008 16:27:29 GMT -8
I think another thing to consider with Route 30 is that there is a huge population south of the Fraser River that might not want to slog through Downtown and across to the North Shore to get to Horseshoe Bay. So therefore, there is less drive time from say Surrey or Delta with less traffic lineups than going to HSB. Less drive time to the ferry terminal means that you are helping to reduce the ecological footprint. Truckers do this too when they come from the USA and need to go up the Island somewhere.
Sound attractive now ruddernut?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 18, 2008 16:29:20 GMT -8
How about consider fuel consumption with various loads versus time per route. Fuel consumption changes with the load amount on the vessel since unloaded vessels have less weight to haul meaning less HP is used to go a certain speed. I suggest you compare fuel load to run without cars and with cars and get back to me before considering a time difference is all to fuel consumption. Just to add some extra information, when Route 2 has a third vessel, it probably is using more fuel than Route 30 since that is consistent most of the time. I suppose they could have done their homework and ran ships whose size and frequency match the demand for any particular route.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 18, 2008 16:34:48 GMT -8
I think another thing to consider with Route 30 is that there is a huge population south of the Fraser River that might not want to slog through Downtown and across to the North Shore to get to Horseshoe Bay. So therefore, there is less drive time from say Surrey or Delta with less traffic lineups than going to HSB. Less drive time to the ferry terminal means that you are helping to reduce the ecological footprint. Truckers do this too when they come from the USA and need to go up the Island somewhere. More energy is required to travel the same mass over water than on land. What's more, you're also carrying the weight of the ship in addition to the weight of the cars being transported and all its people. Plus, the fares should correlate with the distance travelled, right?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 18, 2008 17:07:16 GMT -8
Plus, the fares should correlate with the distance travelled, right? Myth. Considering that to get to to Hornby and back costs as much as taking Tsawwassen to Duke Point. In fact, Neil did a cost comparison of this a little ways back.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 19, 2008 5:20:10 GMT -8
I think another thing to consider with Route 30 is that there is a huge population south of the Fraser River that might not want to slog through Downtown and across to the North Shore to get to Horseshoe Bay. So therefore, there is less drive time from say Surrey or Delta with less traffic lineups than going to HSB. Less drive time to the ferry terminal means that you are helping to reduce the ecological footprint. Truckers do this too when they come from the USA and need to go up the Island somewhere. More energy is required to travel the same mass over water than on land. What's more, you're also carrying the weight of the ship in addition to the weight of the cars being transported and all its people. Plus, the fares should correlate with the distance travelled, right? Arrgghhh...no, no, no, no, no, no, no...we have discussed this before; the most fuel efficient mode of transportation per tonne is by water. See the discussion here, and try to remember what I told you then. To echo PI, do your research! You might find yourself not raising the ire of so many other forum members if you did. Whether we're talking about people who live in proximity of prisons, airports, ferry terminals, industrial areas, or whatever... I don't think it's ever appropriate for authorities to say, "You knew what was here when you moved in, so you have to live with what ever we say you have to live with, and accept whatever expansion is made here." Certainly, people should be aware of what they're moving next to, and complaints by local residents about the necessary operations of public or industrial facilities are sometimes unreasonable. But it's the duty of BC Ferries, YVR, and any other operator to try to work with the community to fit in with as little disruption as possible. That's just the way it has to be if we're going to maintain liveable communities. State planners in the old Soviet Union never had to worry about 'nimbys' or environmentalists getting in the way of their grand designs, but our political dialogue is a bit more complicated, thank goodness. I agree, there has to be a balance between local concerns and the larger community. Departure Bay has been a ferry terminal for over fifty years, but it's also a residential area. Both sides have rights and valid concerns. This, of course, is the reason we have Planning Boards, Zoning Boards, Feasibility Studies, and Public Input Commissions. The system's not perfect, but it usually provides the best compromise. For those who still believe they have not been given an input, we fall back on the lawsuit and court system, though at this point the option of compromise is often lost. And, though it usually doesn't eliminate a grievance that has already come to fruition, as...uurrkk...uurrkk...ruddernut said (sorry, had something caught in my throat ;D)...final accountability lies in the hands of the voting public...lol...though this would lead to a contradiction of comments implied in another thread .
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 9:37:39 GMT -8
More energy is required to travel the same mass over water than on land. What's more, you're also carrying the weight of the ship in addition to the weight of the cars being transported and all its people. Plus, the fares should correlate with the distance travelled, right? Arrgghhh...no, no, no, no, no, no, no...we have discussed this before; the most fuel efficient mode of transportation per tonne is by water. See the discussion here, and try to remember what I told you then. To echo PI, do your research! You might find yourself not raising the ire of so many other forum members if you did. Yes, I remember that discussion, though admittedly, I do still have my doubts about it, since energy is expended with all the water that's pushed aside when a boat pushes through. What's more, you're also moving the weight of the boat itself, which I believe is far more than the weight of all the cars carried aboard combined. If car ferries are such lean, mean, energy efficient machines, why don't they have them sail the old Vancouver-Prince Rupert route again, instead of making them drive all the way up to Port Hardy? Or even Vancouver-Victoria downtown to downtown service (or as bloody close to it as possible, instead of the shortest crossing possible)?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 10:05:46 GMT -8
Plus, the fares should correlate with the distance travelled, right? Myth. Considering that to get to to Hornby and back costs as much as taking Tsawwassen to Duke Point. In fact, Neil did a cost comparison of this a little ways back. Interesting. I suppose there's greater efficiency per person/car transported with larger vessels when they're both packed full, but I wonder if using poorly designed POS's from the 1960's might also have something to do with it. Got a link to the study?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 12:38:09 GMT -8
Instead of placing it at Duke Point, wouldn't it have made more sense to place the terminal at Yellow Point, as plotted on the map along with the Route 30 course here? maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=49.140393,-123.522034&spn=0.450104,0.899506&z=10&msid=104286293891932378665.00044d9b583bd0e7d2ee5 The driving distance to/from Nanaimo would have been a bit longer, but the savings in sailing time and distance would have been enourmous. It would have made it even shorter than Route 2.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 19, 2008 12:53:50 GMT -8
aha, so this brings up the Porlier Pass discussion, re whether or not a BC Ferry can be allowed to transit Porlier Pass.
Have you considered this in your Yellow Point proposal? Or just not aware of the issue?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 12:55:40 GMT -8
aha, so this brings up the Porlier Pass discussion, re whether or not a BC Ferry can be allowed to transit Porlier Pass. Have you considered this in your Yellow Point proposal? Or just not aware of the issue? Not aware of it, but it doesn't look any narrower than Active Pass on a map. Don't know about it depth though.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on May 19, 2008 12:59:45 GMT -8
the tide movement in porlier is stronger then in active pass. the queen of sidney did transit porlier back in 1979 when the alberni went up on the rocks in active pass. i heard that the queen of vancouver went through there too after an assitance call when she was on route 30 once
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 13:06:48 GMT -8
the tide movement in porlier is stronger then in active pass. the queen of sidney did transit porlier back in 1979 when the alberni went up on the rocks in active pass. Wouldn't Boundary Pass be a more suitable detour for Route 1 when Active Pass is blocked?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 19, 2008 13:22:44 GMT -8
"serenity and comfort before they finally kick it" Eldercare expressed so succinctly. Better make sure that Stephen Harper doesn't steal your phrase and use it to promote some sort of Canadian Gov't seniors' initiative.....
Next week's topic: "Immigration and cultural assimilation in BC".
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 13:29:25 GMT -8
"serenity and comfort before they finally kick it" Eldercare expressed so succinctly. Better make sure that Stephen Harper doesn't steal your phrase and use it to promote some sort of Canadian Gov't seniors' initiative..... Sorry. A little emotionally charged language expressing rage at their selfishness and hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 19, 2008 14:16:34 GMT -8
We had the discussion re Porlier Pass some time ago. See this thread beginning with reply #18. ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=generaltalk&action=display&thread=2459&page=1Porlier Pass is wider than Active Pass. It also does not have the sharp curves at either end. It is, however, apparently full of rocky projections just below the surface. To make it into a viable ferry route some blasting may be required. In the earlier thread I called this route '30A'. It would have many advantages over the current route including the fact that it is considerably shorter. Ships traveling on it could probably operate on a schedule similar to that of routes 1 or 2.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 14:18:18 GMT -8
We had a situation at Qualicum Beach airport, about 3 kms from where I live. The airport has been there since the 1950's and suddenly residents in the surrounding NEW subdivisions decided to raise a stink about too much aircraft noise flying above thier houses. The airport is literaly across the Railway tracks from them and they figure they have a right to complain about the noice, Mainly Helicopters and Flight school training. The airport is small, only light aircraft and helicopters can land there and on occasion the Buffalo aircraft (Dash 8) Search and Rescue does land. Isn't the average age in Qualicum 90 years old? Apparently, senior citizens are some of the worst of the NIMBY's, and they have all the free time in the world to show up at town hall meetings and raise a stink about the noise and anything else that gets on their nerves. You'd think that having been around for a long time, they'd know a thing or two about what is necessary for society to progress and function. But noooooo, they're far more concerned about their own personal serenity and comfort before they finally kick it than what is best for the greater community at large. Come to think of it, most of these old folks are probably retirees from other places, so they have little attachment to the local community and concern for its economy. I'm sure they'd put up with a little noise if it were their own children or grandchildren working at the airport, railway, or the various shops, restaurants and accomodations that benefit from them, or if they used to work in them themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on May 19, 2008 16:14:12 GMT -8
Another concern would have been the road. The Yellow point road is ways away from the highway and would require millions to upgrade it. Also, there are quite a lot of farms, houses and parks along it and residents probably wouldn't like the added noise, pollution of thousands of cars roaring by.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 16:30:55 GMT -8
Another concern would have been the road. The Yellow ponit road is ways away from the highway and would require millions to upgrade it. Also, there are quite a lot of farms, houses and parks along it and residents probably wouldn't like the added noise, pollution of thousands of cars roaring by. I'm sure they're a very tiny minority compared to the population of the entire Island whose interests it would serve.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on May 19, 2008 17:01:30 GMT -8
Perhaps we should hear from a local's point of view...
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 17:34:24 GMT -8
Perhaps we should hear from a local's point of view... Sure, but you wouldn't have them hold back the progress of the entire Island, would you? The Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) approach will really get you far. Once upon a time, the ferry terminals as they exist today had to be built somewhere, amidst some people's objections.
|
|