Foot Passengers Subsidize Motorhomes on Ferries

[sgrant]

Travel by means of walking or cycling takes extremely little energy compared to driving a car, let alone a motorhome.

How does this relate to the ferries? Well, displacing enough water to move a human, or a human plus a bicycle over water, is directly proportional to their mass. And that dictates how large a ship you need, which determines what it costs to build and operate that ship.

Let's consider a typical car/van/suv, and a 30' motorhome:

person....................................160lb
person plus bicycle.................190lb
person plus car.....................4160lb
person plus 30' motorhome..12,160lb.

As a percentage of the WEIGHT of the motorhome plus person:

person..................................1.3%
person plus bicycle................1.5%
person plus car....................34%
person plus motorhome......100%

So it takes 77 times as much "ship tonnage" or energy to shove the weight of a person over water, or 67 times as much to shove a cyclist, or 3 times as much to shove a motorist over the water -- as a person with a motorhome. I would imagine if you did this by deckspace and height requirements, the result would be similar.

Do the fares reflect these proportions? For the most popular route, Tsawassen/Swatz Bay, here's the fares:

person..................................$11.35
person plus bicycle...............$13.85
person plus car.....................$49.35
person plus 30' motorhome..$105.95

As a percentage of the FARES of the motorhome plus person:

person.................................11%
person plus bicycle..............13%
person plus car....................47%
person plus motorhome.....100%

We can see that the fare for car/van/suv drivers is somewhat proportional to what the motorhome driver pays, relative to the amount of ship and fuel needed to transport them.

But the figures for the foot passenger and cyclist are wildly out of line. The cyclists and pedestrians are paying over 8 TIMES as much per unit of vessel and fuel required as the motorhome driver, and about 7 TIMES as much as a car/van/suv driver. I'm willing to bet similar inequities apply to bus passengers or commercial trucks.

This means that in an age when it's only sensible to encourage people to reduce their impact on the planet, BC Ferries punishes the most efficient travellers by making them heavily subsidize the most consumptive travellers. If that weren't enough, cyclists' vehicles are piled in corners like junk. The word "insane" does not seem too strong to describe this situation.

Whatever thinking created this oddball situation, sensible government/BC Ferries policy to combat greenhouse gas emissions and encourage efficient travel would suggest the subsidies be not just erased, but reversed.

[Neil]

You've brought up an interesting concept in ferry economics. I've probably never thought much about the question of numbers/mass of passengers/vehicles relative to fuel/displacement of vessel required, and who causes more of a burden. To complete your point, you need to suggest some fare structure based on the criteria you've advanced.

Were we to do that, we would probably see a huge inflation of the vehicle and driver fares, especially for the large vehicles, and/or a huge reduction in the foot or bus passenger and cyclist fares. Neither would really be acceptable, from either a consumer, or a revenue point of view.

I simply cannot practically get my family to our place on Hornby Island, and get around once we're there, without a vehicle. The vast majority of people taking their cars on the ferry also have very good reasons for doing so. You're absolutely right- we need to 'encourage people to reduce their impact on the planet', but the experiment in social engineering that such a restructuring of transportation priorities would entail is probably outside of the mandate of a company like BC Ferries. The family from Oregon in their Winny can't really be asked to go to bat for the cyclist from Ganges. We need their business, and as for me, there's no buses on Hornby, nor is there ever likely to be.

Maybe a certain degree of the inequity you've described could be addressed in a fare re-think; but does anybody trust that it wouldn't just end up as a badly disguised increase? It's an interesting point, nonetheless. Food for thought, and a different way of looking at things.

[sgrant]

I'm glad someone thinks it's an interesting point.

If the inequities were just cancelled out, I think that the main effect would be lowered fares for foot passengers and cyclists. Whatever reduction in fares there would be for a person, would have to be added to the cost of transporting vehicles. But by far the majority of people riding the ferries are in motor vehicles. So most of the effect would cancel out for them.

There would be a huge reduction in the fares for foot passengers and cyclists. But since they are relatively few in number compared to the fees collected for motor vehilces, the difference should not be huge.

Despite how awkward this might be, it seems even more unacceptable for foot passengers to be subsidizing motorists.

To help get out of our mess, it might be a good idea to actually shift subsidies in favour of customers such as foot passengers and cyclists. Of course, this would add more to the small additional "burden" for the motorists. If this were effective, the (fair) shift in fare burden would increasingly affect motorists.

Part of the reason so many people can afford to have places on the Gulf Islands, and get into the habit of visiting those places, is artificial subsidies such as the ferry system. Part of what's made your property on Hornby worth what it is, is subsidies by both non-motorized ferry passengers, and subsidies of the Gulf Island ferries in general. Though it might hurt you to be deprived of some of that favourable treatment, you'll have to pardon me if I don't feel sympathetic. I don't mean to be a smarty about this; that's just the way it is.

but the experiment in social engineering that such a restructuring of transportation priorities would entail is probably outside of the mandate of a company like BC Ferries. The family from Oregon in their Winny can't really be asked to go to bat for the cyclist from Ganges.

I suspect BC Ferries can charge anyone whatever they want, within public/political tolerance.

But you can see that having less consumptive travellers subsidize the more consumptive (by 800%!) could at least as easily be seen as an experiment in social engineering. Perhaps just a mistake. One that has promoted excessive motor vehicle use. And one that is going to harm us, our kids, and the planet. Big time. This is not the only place in our society where these strange inequities exist.

Why it makes sense to you for the cyclists to subsidize the motorhome people, but not the other way around, is simply beyond me. I guess it requires a paradigm shift, and I had that shift over 30 years ago.

And why do you need RV business on Hornby? I visit Hornby regularly without taking an RV. I spend money when I'm there. People seem to manage on Lasqueti with no car ferry at all. And maybe if there were enough people on Hornby without cars, there would be a transit system. Or people could get about in electric golf-cart things, like they do on some islands. We really can't afford to be stuck in this "private car at all costs" thing.

[Neil]

sgrant said:

,Part of the reason so many people can afford to have places on the Gulf Islands, and get into the habit of visiting those places, is artificial subsidies such as the ferry system. Part of what's made your property on Hornby worth what it is, is subsidies by both non-motorized ferry passengers, and subsidies of the Gulf Island ferries in general. Though it might hurt you to be deprived of some of that favourable treatment, you'll have to pardon me if I don't feel sympathetic. I don't mean to be a smarty about this; that's just the way it is.
Why it makes sense to you for the cyclists to subsidize the motorhome people, but not the other way around, is simply beyond me. I guess it requires a paradigm shift, and I had that shift over 30 years ago.
People seem to manage on Lasqueti with no car ferry at all. And maybe if there were enough people on Hornby without cars, there would be a transit system. Or people could get about in electric golf-cart things, like they do on some islands.

Whew. Your attitude toward people who live and work in places where ferries are required is really kind of startling.

The people handling and signing the petition on ferry rates outside the Co-op on Hornby this summer weren't RV owners or wealthy summer visitors, for the most part. They were working people, retired people, artists who depend on visitors- in general people who have been affected by the steep increases in fares the islands have dealt with in recent years. People who depend on a vehicle for commuting, business, whatever... or people who depend on the business that visitors to the island bring.
Higher ferry fares are already hurting many island businesses and craft people and families. Further significant vehicle fare hikes would deal a body blow to the fragile economies of many of the islands. Perhaps this would be acceptable to you in light of your strongly stated beliefs, but to many people who make the islands their home, the reality would be far less pleasant.

I think you need to accept that not every one who fails to share your views is some sort of flat earther in denial about environmental concerns, or some automobile junkie in need of a 'paradigm shift'.

[Kam]

I agree with your theory in principal, but I think we need to try to consider everything in the picture.

The human factor in the equation requires a lot of additional equipment and resources than just space on the car deck. We must consider things like all the life saving equipment, heating & AC, seating, fresh water, sewage, food, basically everything that is required to make a ship a passenger ferry, not just a barge.

I think when one begins to calculate all those space and energy consumers in we may see a bit more of a balance.

K.

[sgrant]

hornbyguy said:

Whew. Your attitude toward people who live and work in places where ferries are required is really kind of startling.

The people handling and signing the petition on ferry rates outside the Co-op on Hornby this summer weren't RV owners or wealthy summer visitors, for the most part. They were working people, retired people, artists who depend on visitors- in general people who have been affected by the steep increases in fares the islands have dealt with in recent years. People who depend on a vehicle for commuting, business, whatever... or people who depend on the business that visitors to the island bring.
Higher ferry fares are already hurting many island businesses and craft people and families. Further significant vehicle fare hikes would deal a body blow to the fragile economies of many of the islands. Perhaps this would be acceptable to you in light of your strongly stated beliefs, but to many people who make the islands their home, the reality would be far less pleasant.

I think you need to accept that not every one who fails to share your views is some sort of flat earther in denial about environmental concerns, or some automobile junkie in need of a 'paradigm shift'.

Ok, fine. First of all, this is an example of how discussions get derailed. Subsidies of Gulf Island ferry users is a completely differnet subject from subsidies between foot passengers and motorists.

You feel that residents and businesspeople living on islands served by BC Ferries need and deserve to be subsidized by those who don't.

Why stop there? Should ferry service be free for those people, so they don't suffer financial "hardship"? Please tell me what level of subsidy you think would be appropriate.

Regardless of how you answer, I'd say I can't think of any compelling reason why any subsidy is appropriate. So the fares should mirror the cost to provide those services.

Yes, this would make life on the Gulf Islands unaffordable for a very small percentage of those already there or planning to move there. That's ok with me. Those few people can afford to live there now only because of a totally artificial subsidy. Better than self-propelled ferry customers subsidizing people who probably on average have higher net worths AND higher environmental footprints.

You raise the spectre of any change in ferry fees dealing a catastrophic blow to island economies. This is just fear-mongering. Just as those island economies have grown without any dramatic spurts, dialing up the ferry fares has not, and will not, result in any such sudden downturn. Indeed, hasn't the value of your property increased despite rising fares? But maybe others and other economies are hurting because they are stuck with these subsidies. The lineups at your coop and the pizza place might not be as bad, but the businesses will survive.

To touch base with the original point, any circumstance where pedestrians and cyclists are subsidizing motorists, by a whopping 800%, is ridiculous and unacceptable. Regardless of external considerations. In the context of global climate change, if we can't change such an outrageous inequity, then I fear we're in for a very bad time indeed. And the Gulf Islands will not be a safe refuge.

And in fact, since I imagine Gulf Island routes have a higher proportion of foot passengers than motorists, comapred to the other routes, my proposal would be a net savings to Gulf Island residents. Especially those of limited means you cited. So your fears are completely unfounded, if not counterproductive.

[sgrant]

kam said:

I agree with your theory in principal, but I think we need to try to consider everything in the picture.

The human factor in the equation requires a lot of additional equipment and resources than just space on the car deck. We must consider things like all the life saving equipment, heating & AC, seating, fresh water, sewage, food, basically everything that is required to make a ship a passenger ferry, not just a barge.

I think when one begins to calculate all those space and energy consumers in we may see a bit more of a balance.

K.

Good point, and I did consider that aspect of the issue. There is, however, a decisive response.

Presumably every motor vehicle comes with an operator. These drivers require the exact same set of support services and functions as foot passenger. Most passenger vehicles have other occupants who require the same set of services and functions. It could be argued that foot passengers and cyclists take less time and fewer staff to load and unload than the same number of people in vehicles.

In fact, the fares would have to be adjusted for both foot passengers/cyclists, and for passengers of motor vehicles. Otherwise there'd be an epidemic of motor vehicle passengers going aboard as foot passengers, which would make no sense. Maybe some of the difference could be made up by charging drivers more, but since every vehicle requires a driver, whether the driver or the vehicle pays any increase is a bit of a moot point.

A foot passenger just doesn't require deck plates a thick as needed for a loaded semi, and you still need to push many times as much water out of the way for that semi and those deck plates, as for that pedestrian. The boat and fuel you need to do that, are by far the primary expenses.

Yes, the presence of motor vehicles probably means more upper deck space for features such as bookstores, but most services such as seating areas and duplicated food services could be scaled down with no effect. Presumably a ferry carrying the same number of passengers but fewer vehicles, would just have more space used for people rather than vehicles.

Whatever the "bottom line" here, we're talking about an 800% discrepancy in the cost/fare ratio, not, say, 10%. There simply are not enough of these small hidden costs to make a significant dent, if any, in that inequity.

I'm sure there could be more, but the only hidden benefit I could think of is that larger ships, as needed to carry 100 motorhomes compared to carrying 100 foot passengers, can operate in worse weather.

As to my personal stake in this, I used to use the ferries exclusively with a bicycle. For many years now, my most common mode has been with a car (10-20 ferry rides per year), one round trip per year with a bicycle, and one round trip per year wheeling a canoe aboard. I never use the ferries as a bus or foot passenger. So on balance, this change would cost me.

Thanks for considering the matter and offering the comment. I would like to see this subject thoroughly probed and critiqued before I decide if it's worth taking beyond this forum. The point I rasied seems both obvious and unrecognized. No one wants to end up looking like an idiot, so I want to ensure I'm not missing something fundamental.

[Low Light Mike]

Mr. Grant, I presume that the issue of ferry-subsidies and fare-inequities is your key issue of interest re ferries?

Assuming this is so, I bow out of the discussion as I don't share your passion for this issue, and so I don't have the time or motivation to come up with something partly intelligent to respond to your posts with. I don't anticipate an easy discussion, and so I fold.

I do ask this of you: If you don't mind, can you please share the reasons of why you feel so strongly about this fare/subsidy issue?
- Is it your position as a general taxpayer?
- Are you based in the BC Interior, far away from the ferry routes?
- Are you a citizen-watchdog?
- Do you love debating these type of issues?

Just curious.

[Low Light Mike]

To break my rule of what I've just said, I will offer this contribution to the discussion:

- What is Mr. Grant's utoptian solution? A Passenger-only ferry, or a passenger-focused ferry, with a bit of room for some vehicles? I get the impression that you are wanting ferries to focus more on passenger traffic than on vehicle traffic.

Now, consider that most of our fleet is designed with vehicle traffic in mind, and so I don't think that your premise of weight-determines-price is valid. Our fleet was designed to carry a set # of vehicles, plus passengers. So I think that the ratio of space available is ok.

However, you're talking about fares, not space-available. So I offer this comment: Does it really matter?? Foot passenger fares are relatively cheap, in the context of international travel. So is it a worthwhile crusade to attempt to change the foot-passenger fare structure? I think that it's not a significant issue to debate, based on my own premise that foot passenger fares aren't excessively high right now.

I don't think that the premise of weight-determines-fares is valid, given that the space-ratios are fixed. It's not like the ferries should be encouraging less vehicles per sailing and more passengers, because they have car-deck space to fill.

To take your premise to it's ultimate conclusion, maybe the situation should be that each individual sailing should have a set cost-per-sailing attached to it (I'm speaking of the BCFS's own cost to operate that sailing, and to factor in capital & debt-servicing costs). Then you count the passengers & vehicles in the loading compound, and you then allocate the cost of the sailing to those who are actually taking that sailing. If you base it on the weight-factor, you'll soon see all the rigs disappearing from the ferries, and taking Seaspan instead. What if you're left with mostly foot-passengers: should they bear the main portion of the sailing cost then?

The result seems to be a penalty to heavier traffic, again seemingly consistent with a pro-foot-passenger agenda.

You have got me thinking about how the current fare structure is determined: I suspect it's a result of apportioning target tariff revenue per sailing between classes of traffic (over-length, cars, and footies), up to certain limits of what they think "the market will bear".

I don't think there's a "fair" method of apportioning fares between traffic-classes that most people would agree on.

My above stuff is likely full of holes, but I'm trying to brain-storm, as you've encouraged us to do on this point. Don't mistake my humility for weakness, I'm just open to ideas, and I don't have the answer to this issue.

[sgrant]

Welcome to the discussion you're leaving! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

More good questions, all of which are beside the point, but I don't mind answering:

1. No. The change I suggested would be revenue-neutral.
2. No. I live in Vancouver, and I stated how often I use the ferries.
3. No, except in the sense that we all should be thinking about how it may be time to identify and leave behind some unfair and environmentally irresponsible practices.
4. No, I have much more pleasant things to do, but since I thought this up, I feel a responsibility to follow up on it, for the common good.

I'd ask you a couple of questions, but I see you've left already. If you think of a compelling point, for or against my proposal, I'd be happy to consider it. I can't promise not to refute it if it doesn't make sense, though. If my ideas can be tested, so can others'.

[Low Light Mike]

I was editing my latest comment, when you wrote your latest....so we were like people in separate elevators who missed each other !


A fair (fare) comment on welcoming me back to what I said I was leaving......I do have an unlimited # of inconsistencies alloted to me.

[Low Light Mike]

sgrant said:

. If you think of a compelling point, for or against my proposal, I'd be happy to consider it. I can't promise not to refute it if it doesn't make sense, though. If my ideas can be tested, so can others'.

I think I may have found our point of disagreement.

I believe there some issues are very subjective, and so finding some objective truth is sometimes difficult/impossible, because there are so many different viewpoints of subjectivity involved.

That's a common occurrence with Ferry issues, as well as many left-vs-right issues in politics.

One person's arguement will not make sense to another person, and vice versa. So I usually allow a stalemate of difference-of-opinion on these matters.

So, please point out how you disagree with my ideas/thoughts, and I promise not to be offended, and I will do my best to pause/think/try to understand the other POV. I may not change my own opinion, but I will be better for understanding someone else's.

I really believe there's a difference in some of these issues between "doesn't make sense" and "doesn't make sense to me/you". That's probably one of my fundamental principles of learning & getting along with others.

(all the above being said, I concede that this discussion of mine is now very much off-topic....no offense intended to your original purpose of this thread, Mr. Grant).

[sgrant]

flugelhorn said:

- What is Mr. Grant's utoptian solution? A Passenger-only ferry, or a passenger-focused ferry, with a bit of room for some vehicles? I get the impression that you are wanting ferries to focus more on passenger traffic than on vehicle traffic.

That's not what I said, and you're moving toward being insulting.

Now, consider that most of our fleet is designed with vehicle traffic in mind, and so I don't think that your premise of weight-determines-price is valid. Our fleet was designed to carry a set # of vehicles, plus passengers. So I think that the ratio of space available is ok.

Again, I'm not talking about space ratios.

However, you're talking about fares, not space-available.

Yes, but the analysis could also be done on the basis of volume. Volume rather than space, because space could be taken to mean deckspace, while large vehicles also require more height than foot passengers.

So I offer this comment: Does it really matter?? Foot passenger fares are relatively cheap, in the context of international travel. So is it a worthwhile crusade to attempt to change the foot-passenger fare structure? I think that it's not a significant issue to debate, based on my own premise that foot passenger fares aren't excessively high right now.

I'm talking about fares relative to different types of travellers, relative to the cost of providing the service for them. Nothing else. Not cost of international travel, and not whether it's a worthwhile crusade.

I don't think that the premise of weight-determines-fares is valid, given that the space-ratios are fixed. It's not like the ferries should be encouraging less vehicles per sailing and more passengers, because they have car-deck space to fill.

So would you say that we'd be even better off if we charged foot passengers even more so they could further subsidize motorists on ferries beyond the present 800% disparity? I hope you can explain how that works.

To take your premise to it's ultimate conclusion, maybe the situation shoudl be that each individual sailing should have a set cost-per-sailing attached to it (I'm speaking of the BCFS's own cost to operate that sailing, and to factor in capital & debt-servicing costs).

While sitting in enormous lineups to get onto the ferries, I have had ample time to consider whether BCF needs to encourage even more motorists to take the ferries, and how a system of variable fares could be used to spread the load better. I think these would make interesting discussions, but neither is what I'm talking about here.

Then you count the passengers & vehicles in the loading compound, and you then allocate the cost of the sailing to those who are actually taking that sailing. If you base it on the weight-factor, you'll soon see all the rigs disappearing from the ferries, and taking Seaspan instead. What if you're left with mostly foot-passengers: should they bear the main portion of the sailing cost then?

I'm sure you appreciate that while this is a plausibe scenario, it amounts to reductio ad absurdum.

The result seems to be a penalty to heavier traffic, again seemingly consistent with a pro-foot-passenger agenda.

No, I'm just suggesting that heavier traffic pays what it really costs to provide the service for them. If you see that as pro-foot-passenger, I can only respond that it is not, and that the present system amounts to a hostile-foot-passenger system. I don't care if you think present walk-on fares are fair, and I don't care what practices in other jurisdictions are. Both are again, beside the point.

You have got me thinking about how the current fare structure is determined: I suspect it's a result of apportioning target tariff revenue per sailing between classes of traffic (over-length, cars, and footies), up to certain limits of what they think "the market will bear".

I agree with you there, but, like a metronome, I insist that this is still beside the point.

I don't think there's a "fair" method of apportioning fares between traffic-classes that most people would agree on.

Obviously

My above stuff is likely full of holes, but I'm trying to brain-storm, as you've encouraged us to do on this point. Don't mistake my humility for weakness, I'm just open to ideas, and I don't have the answer to this issue.

Good. If it makes things any easier for you why I'm talking about this, is that our society, for what were good reasons, became dependent on burning fuel to get around. It's now becoming clear to almost everyone that we can't continue that strategy without increasingly wrecking the planet. Shaping ferry fees to make the non-motorized subsidize the motorized by such a huge proportion is exactly the sort of thing that must be addressed, now.

Now I've posted something that is also a red herring, and which will allow many to dismiss my concern as enviro-whining.

Here's something you could tackle. There have been many attempts to set up passenger-only ferries between the mainland and the island. If my theories are correct, why have their passenger fares been even more expensive than BCF walk-on fares, and why have they all failed? Could BCF operate a cheap passenger-only service?

[Low Light Mike]

No insults intended, so please don't presume my intention as such. That's a good way of shutting someone down.

I was just thinking out loud; brainstorming as it where, to try to wrap my head around the fare-apportionment concept.

Sorry, if I'm not as articulate or well-thought-out as others, but I do try my best.

Bottom line: I enjoy discussion. A sentence-by-sentence review of my post is a bit more than I'm used to, but hey, that's ok.

ps: I take your reponse to be moving towards being empowering, confirming and uplifting. Thanks for the pump!
---------------------

late comment: This is way too tough a discussion for me to continue in. Too many "I don't care's" and to much pressure to be too defensible. I can't see myself debating up to this standard, as I'm more of a "let me throw this idea into the ring" guy, than a "I've have created a perfectly-defendable arguement" guy.

Sorry, I'm not your guy in this type of discussion. But I did enjoy my try at the game.

[sgrant]

When I say "I don't care", it's just another way of saying that I don't think something is relevant. Same with being defensive. That usually is because someone has thrown out a red herring.

For example, loggers say environmentalists are hypocrits because they too use paper. But that has nothing to do with responsible forest use, and just makes the enviros look "defensive" as they try to deal with the paper accusation. Same as depicting the loggers as barbarians. They then have to defend themselves rather than talk about responsible forest practices. None of this would happen if people could somehow just stick to the subject.

I think this fare equity matter is something people might mull over and comment later, and I hope you do. I thought your points were clearly presented, even if I felt they were diverting etc.

[Neil]

sgrant.

I think you have a profound lack of understanding of the realities facing island communities, and apparently, little empathy.

There probably is little point in refuting your stand, given your dismissive and condescending response to some of the points raised. Your tone seems almost to be one of intellectual bullying at times.

(replaces a post written earlier.)

[sgrant]

hornbyguy,

I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of bullying. Certainly the first time on an Internet discussion.

I believe it is important to stick to the subject. Which both versions of your latest post fail to do. The goal was to explore the subject. If you see my insistence on sticking to the subject as bullying, then I think you're mistaken, and your suggestion may itself be bullying behaviour. If you can't address the subject, then you're free to just observe the discussion rather than divert it to things you feel comfortable talking about. Also you are free to start new topics on those other matters.

Even though Gulf Island ferry fares is a different subject from the one I raised, I'm willing to examine that as long as all involved recognize it's a different subject. I know people who live on, or have second homes on Hornby, Saltspring, and Mayne. So far I have not picked up from them that my attitude toward them is "appallingly uninformed and insensitive" (from your original version). I will see if I can get their views on Gulf Island economies and ferry fares. You could help by suggesting what I should ask them, and by starting a new topic. Does that sound fair to you?

You also mentioned a petition on Hornby Island this summer. Could you tell me what it concerned?

[Neil]

sgrant

You determine the terms of reference. You determine the relevance of our comments. If you feel we're 'off topic', we're directed to 'observe', rather than muddy the waters with unimportant issues. We should go elsewhere to talk about things you feel are not pertinent to the issue you've raised. An objection to condescending language, is, in itself, bullying.

Hmmh. Doesn't sound like the framework for an edifying discussion. With respect, I'll exercise my option to opt out.

[sgrant]

hornbyguy said:

sgrant

You determine the terms of reference. You determine the relevance of our comments. If you feel we're 'off topic', we're directed to 'observe', rather than muddy the waters with unimportant issues. We should go elsewhere to talk about things you feel are not pertinent to the issue you've raised. An objection to condescending language, is, in itself, bullying.

Hmmh. Doesn't sound like the framework for an edifying discussion. With respect, I'll exercise my option to opt out.

You've been keen to hold me to account for what I've said and how I've said it. Unfortunately you refuse to back up what you have to say. I volunteered to follow up on your off-topic concern, and you threw it back in my face. That leaves my only recourse is to expose your double standard for what it is.

[Low Light Mike]

The thought of seeing Hornbyguy "exposed" is not something that I want to dwell on.

[Gunny]

Sgrant,

While I think your reasoning may have been correct in some situations, in this it is highly flawed.

Why?

Because you are treating the ferry as a single market, when really there are two different markets, one on the passenger deck and one on the car deck. More cars do not mean that less passengers can board (except in extremes where weight limits are exceeded, if there are such things), rather it is the passengers in the cars that are a limit.

Ferry Prices should be set so that they are selling an acceptable amount of cars space and an acceptable amount of passenger space. (To get technical space is where the MR from cars = MC of adding more space with price set to demand... the standard monopoly fomula. Passenger space is set the same.)

I'm sure I am missing something, but I will address it when the time comes.

[sgrant]

Gunny said:

Sgrant,

While I think your reasoning may have been correct in some situations, in this it is highly flawed.

Why?

Because you are treating the ferry as a single market, when really there are two different markets, one on the passenger deck and one on the car deck. More cars do not mean that less passengers can board (except in extremes where weight limits are exceeded, if there are such things), rather it is the passengers in the cars that are a limit.

Ferry Prices should be set so that they are selling an acceptable amount of cars space and an acceptable amount of passenger space. (To get technical space is where the MR from cars = MC of adding more space with price set to demand... the standard monopoly fomula. Passenger space is set the same.)

I'm sure I am missing something, but I will address it when the time comes.

My understanding is that when capacities are exceeded, it is because the amount of safety gear such as life preservers and life boats has a limit, rather than an overall weight limit. For instance, on busy summer days I think it's not uncommon for a mass of foot passengers and cyclists to be left behind on the southern Gulf Island routes, while some cars are still allowed to board. Obviously this causes some consternation on the part of those left behind, but the explanation makes sense.

Your position about there being two different markets is certainly something I had not considered. And I'm not confident I've fully absorbed what that means.

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but what you're saying is that the transport of passengers on the ferries, and the transport of vehicles are two different services, each of which is free to set its fares as it sees fit. I wonder if BCF actually breaks it down this way on their books?

Maybe I can help by mentioning some of my initial thinking on this. Consider two ferries, one designed to transport 100 people, and one designed to transport 100 people plus 100 motorhomes. What would be the difference in construction and operating costs, which would translate directly into fares? This sort of simulates the scenario you describe.

My guess is that the vehicle ferry would be vastly more costly to construct and operate. Much more than the differential we see in BCF fares for foot passengers and motor vehicles. Is ferry size driven by economies of scale, or the wish to minimize costs to staff them?

In the case of BCF, the two services are combined, plus the motor vehicles also come with human passengers. So it's not so easy to separate the services and evaluate what's costing what. And that's why I resorted to the idea of vessel tonnage and water displacement.

It could be posed that once you have a ferry with the vehicle carrying capabilities of BCF's, carrying passengers is almost an incidental on top of what you have to provide to carry the vehicles. Indeed, the use of services onboard might mean you're making a "profit" from the people while losing money on the vehicles. Another complication is that most of the humans onboard arrive in motor vehicles.

Then there's bicycles, which are "stored" in heaps in spare space, but require a fare. I suspect if you compared the fares for bicycles relative to their weight, space and handling requirements, their fees would be shown to cost relatively more than what's being charged for motor vehicles.

I understand what you're saying about price vs demand for a service. But in the case of BCF, what we have is almost a pure monopoly. I'd say that over the years, foot and vehicle traffic have both increased despite rising fares. I don't think we know what would happen to demand if the fares for either were radically changed up or down, because it hasn't been tried. If I had to venture an opinion, I'd say the fares also have a strong influence from the political side. And from simple habittradition.

Maybe I can put my concern a different way. Say you have a grocery store downtown where it costs big bucks to provide the parking lot. The cost of that parking is built into the price structure of the groceries. But many shoppers walk or take transit to the store. The result is that those who walk to the store are subsidizing those who drive. In this day and age, if anything, it should be the other way around. You can call them different markets (some are consuming groceries and parking space, while others are only consuming groceries), but I'm not sure it makes sense to call them different markets, because the groceries cost the same for both.

If you don't mind, I'd appreciate an elaboration on the idea of the passenger and vehicle "markets" being separate, because that may well be an important consideration.

Can anyone describe how BCF arrived at how it originally set fares? Are current fares just an extension of those old fares, or do they have a formula to set the fares for different users?

[sgrant]

Part of the issue I posed was that the heavier the cargo, the larger and heavier the ferry has to be, and both increase the amount of water that has to be displaced, which increases the fuel burned to do that.

I'm not a marine architect, so I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question.

If you have a ship of a given gross tonnage, it takes a certain amount of fuel to move it through the water at a given speed, all else being equal. If you have two such ships, obviously it will take twice the fuel to do the same thing.

But what if you scale up and reinforce the ship to take twice the load, then move this ship through the water at the same speed? What's the fuel usage now? Would it be twice as much? Would it be less because of "economies of scale"? Would it be more than twice as much because presumably the ship is now wider and has to move the displaced water farther to get it out of the way?

[Scott]

sgrant,

The main flaw in your argument, in my opinion, is that you are only looking at the cost of moving mass through water. This only counts for some of the operations cost of a ferry. I am not sure of the proportion of costs for running a ferry, it is likely different for every ferry and every route.

The major cost for running a ferry is paying wages. A ferry hauling vehicles only (Seaspan for example) would probably have about 10 crew... just a semi-educated guess. Three or four on the bridge, same in the engine room, and maybe 2 deckhands. No matter how big the ferry is, if it was just carrying cars, it wouldn't require any more crew (maybe one or two at the most). However, the Spirit of British Columbia has almost 50 crew members per trip. So you're looking at 40 extra crew members... probably costing an average of $250+ per crew member per shift ($10,000 per shift, $20,000 per day). The only reason those crew members are on that ferry is for passenger safety.

When considering the crew, you don't just look at their gross earnings (before tax, WCB costs, insurance, holiday pay, benefits, pensions, union fees) but you also have to look at the costs of training, the cost of administration, the cost of providing safety equipment).

Someone might have brought this up before, but you also have to consider that when vehicles park on a ferry, they don't spend any more money. When people walk on a major ferry, they are quite likely to spend money. I don't know what the average is, but it would not surprise me if the average ferry passenger spent another 50% of their ticket price on the ferry for food, newspapers, gifts, or in the arcade. According to the 2005-06 report, retail sales contributed roughtly half the revenue that BC Ferries recieved from passenger ticket sales.

In conclusion, I just want to point out that the cost of crewing and administering a passenger ferry is much more than the cost of fuel. From what I can gather, the cost of crew is 4-5 times that of the cost of fuel. According to the 2005-06 report again, fuel only accounted for 74 million dollars (45% higher than 2 years ago) compared to the total operations cost (fuel included) of 291.7 million.

-

You might also want to consider the bigger picture as well, especially when you view BC Ferries not just as a private company, but as a public service. If the fare of a vehicle corresponded to the mass-ratio fare that a passenger paid, it would have a hugely detremental effect on the economy and society:

- Cars - The average "Joe" wouldn't be able to afford to take his car to any of the islands. Sure, if over many years we were forced to live with this, we might be able to have some good transit connections with ferries and get people around that way. But we don't live in Europe. We live in Canada, in a relatively sparsely populated country and province. The islands don't have the population to make widespread public transit anywhere close to cost-effective.

- Motorhomes - Okay, they might bring in a few tourist bucks, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they stopped coming.

- Trucks - Whether you like it or not, trucks move our goods everywhere along the coast. If they had to pay an unsubsidized fare, the cost of living on the Islands would increase dramatically... probably to impossible levels.

I think it's in our best interest if fares remain how they are, whether it seems fair or not. If you are going to charge a car to pay $300 to get to the Island, there will be talk of a bridge before the new fare brochure exits the printing press. And then you'll have an even bigger environmental mess - even more cars and roads and pollution.

[Doug]

What about running water? You need pumps for that, which need power from the engine. You need lighting for the passengers...cars don't need lighting, now do they? What about that air conditioning and heating? Not all the power of the engines is for moving the ship, you know.