|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 17, 2010 8:09:53 GMT -8
I'm expecting that BCFS will soon be releasing a detailed report on their submission to the BC Ferry Commissioner for Performance term #3. - for those who might be unfamiliar with this, this is a very important item which will set-out BC Ferries plans for the 4 years beginning April 2012, and their hoped-for response from the Provincial Government. - it includes the long term capital asset plan. In other words, ship replacement plans. -------------------- For reference for those interested, here is the PDF for the BCF Term#2 submission to the Ferry Commissioner. From Sept 2006. www.bcferrycommission.com/BCFS_Submission_to_BCF_Commisioner_on_PT2_Price_Cap_Final_copy.pdfOnce a similar document is available for Term #3, presumably soon, since this is now 4 years after the last item, I'll be posting links and highlights here in this thread. - There should be lots of new information and items to discuss, arising from this upcoming Term#3 submission.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 24, 2010 8:11:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2010 11:14:28 GMT -8
We've got some Term-3 items to discuss. The BC Ferry Commission page on this is here, for the 10/25/2010 "what's new": www.bcferrycommission.com/what_s_new.html--------------- (from the efficiencies document)3.0 EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES IN PERFORMANCE TERM THREE -------------- 3.2 Defining Efficiency -------------- 3.3 The Challenge -------------- 3.4 Efficiency Opportunities within Status Quo Service Levels (I've just posted highlights that were interesting to me) -------------- ....see next post for the contentious items.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 29, 2010 11:58:12 GMT -8
I am going to wait for comment until Fluge's post is up. However, the most interesting point to me at this point is the retirement of the Mill Bay in 2012. First concrete plan to do that I have seen so far.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2010 12:09:25 GMT -8
more from the efficiencies document: www.bcferrycommission.com/2010_10_13_PT3_Efficiency_Plan.pdf3.5 Efficiency Opportunities Requiring Service Level Changes by Government(keep this in context, this is BC Ferries considering things that would improve efficiency, but that are subject to a Public Policy change by the Province. This is their public brainstorming) - I've only quoted the items or parts of items that were of interest to me. ------------- 3.5.2 Alternatives for Route 40 – Discovery Coast ------------- 3.5.4 Extension of Northern Service to Tsawwassen ------------- ------------- 3.5.6 Elimination or Restructuring of Route 9 - Tsawwassen to Southern Gulf Islands (SGI) ------------- 3.5.7 Inclusion of Route 3 in the Major Route Group ------------- 3.5.8 Off-peak Saturday Service for Route 30 – Duke Point to Tsawwassen ------------- 3.5.9 Alternatives to the Charter Agreement for the Nicola ------------- -------------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2010 12:22:48 GMT -8
I am going to wait for comment until Fluge's post is up. However, the most interesting point to me at this point is the retirement of the Mill Bay in 2012. First concrete plan to do that I have seen so far. ...there's an item in the efficiencies report about the Mill Bay route, not just the ship. ----------- ps: I've reviewed & excerpted the efficiencies report now, but not yet the main report.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2010 13:01:37 GMT -8
Here is the document with the answers to all of your speculative rumour-inspired and what-if? questions: www.bcferrycommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/price-cap/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdfIf you plan to ask lots of ferry route / ship / service questions, then you should probably read this document first. - Luke will be hosting a group study-session in November for this. ;D ------------------ Some direction for those who are intimidated by an 181 page PDF: - here's the quick guide to the juicy stuff. I've used page #'s that appear on the actual printed document as seen on the bottom right-corner of each page. Page 19 - current fares for all routes & traffic Pages 36-39 - methodology of allocation of expenses to routes. Pages 54-58 - capital projects between now and end of term-2 (3/31/2012) - ie. Chilliwack upgrade is here... Pages 60-61 - capital plan for term-3. Included is the vessel replacement chart.Pages 83-91: info on # of round trips required and done, for each route. for the past few years and current & next year. Pages 101-133: financial statements for each route.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 29, 2010 17:33:47 GMT -8
I am going to wait for comment until Fluge's post is up. However, the most interesting point to me at this point is the retirement of the Mill Bay in 2012. First concrete plan to do that I have seen so far. ...there's an item in the efficiencies report about the Mill Bay route, not just the ship. ----------- ps: I've reviewed & excerpted the efficiencies report now, but not yet the main report. Interesting that the replacement of the Mill Bay is predicated on adding the Cable Ferry to Denman, so that would allow the extra ferry to be moved south. Under the Cable Ferry section it says discussions with the Province are ongoing. So if the Cable Ferry idea dies, another plan would need to be put into place.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 29, 2010 18:22:18 GMT -8
...there's an item in the efficiencies report about the Mill Bay route, not just the ship. ----------- ps: I've reviewed & excerpted the efficiencies report now, but not yet the main report. Interesting that the replacement of the Mill Bay is predicated on adding the Cable Ferry to Denman, so that would allow the extra ferry to be moved south. Under the Cable Ferry section it says discussions with the Province are ongoing. So if the Cable Ferry idea dies, another plan would need to be put into place. The chart I saw made it seem like the Mill Bay would be replaced by the Klitsa (in 2012), and the replacement of the Tenaka was predicated on the Cable Ferry to Denman... with the Quinitsa replacing the Tachek and Kahloke and the Tachek replacing the Tenaka. Too bad, most of us like the Tenaka, but her lack of overheight space is no doubt the reason she is the first to go.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -8
At first glance, this looks to me to be the most contentious document BC Ferries has released since their transformation into a pseudo-private company. There are elements which show their exclusive focus on the bottom line, to the detriment of the communities that depend on their service.
It almost makes me wonder if this is partly a 'devil's advocate' type exercise, to shock the province into upping funding, although David Hahn has in the past maintained that that is not his goal.
A couple of examples from the service plan:
Another suggestion to move Gabriola service to Duke Point, which has no transit service and would be extremely inconvenient for commuters and residents in general. The plan mentions the polling which showed Gabriola residents strongly opposed: why bring it up again, when it makes absolutely no sense to anyone except BC Ferries?
More threats of significant fare increases to 'minor' routes, which serve islands that have already been hit with damaging increases numerous times since 2003. Also, threats of service cutbacks.
A radical revision of southern Gulf Islands service, with the possible loss of a Tsawwassen-Salt Spring connection.
The suggestion, which seems downright bizarre, of a bridge connecting Mayne and Saturna, eliminating BC Ferries' need to service Saturna. Actually, this would require two bridges, and is obviously not something that BC Ferries would undertake to pay for. It would be outrageously expensive, especially when you consider that it would serve a year round population of 400. Who on earth dreamed this one up, and to what purpose? Again, was the idea perhaps just to shock the province into considering upping their support for existing services?
There's a tremendous amount to look at in this overview to potential service and operation over the next few years. Some scary stuff, if the province refuses to revisit its financial commitments to coastal communities.
ps to John, re his post, above: I doubt overheight space is the Tenaka's biggest problem. The impending retirement seems to confirm what I was told recently, that despite her recent extensive and expensive repairs, the vessel simply is not in any condition to be in service much longer.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 29, 2010 21:24:34 GMT -8
What does this imply? :
I thought that the Province had a hands-off policy towards BC Ferries but this seems to imply that the government is making decisions that directly affect BC Ferries operations and planning.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2010 22:27:12 GMT -8
I thought that the Province had a hands-off policy towards BC Ferries but this seems to imply that the government is making decisions that directly affect BC Ferries operations and planning. I think that this is because the Provincial Treasury Board approves the service-fee amounts, and the decision to replace or extend a vessel would impact operating costs.......which would impact the amount of Provincial service-fee required. There's also the history of how the Provincial Treasury Board approved the purchase or the NorEx ferry (done on 3/22/2006, remember that day?) - I'm not sure why the Province had to approve that transaction.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 31, 2010 7:24:02 GMT -8
I'm confused at what appears to be contradictory timing re the Mill Bay retirement date. The efficiencies report item # 3.5.1 says that MV Mill Bay is retired in Spring 2011. That same paragraph goes on to explain the capital improvements needed for the Klitsa and the 2 berths to make the change in ships on Route #12. However, in the 2010-2012 capital work plan, none of this is mentioned: - see pages #54-58 on this here report: www.bcferrycommission.com/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdfIf the point of section #3.5.1 in the efficiencies report is to eliminate Route #12 so that the costs of converting the Klitsa and the 2 berths can be avoided, then really it's too late for that. Because Spring-2011 is just months away and BCFS is still under Performance Term-2 until the end of March 2012. Also, the chart on page #61 of this report shows that the vessel Mill Bay is to be replaced in "Calendar 2012". www.bcferrycommission.com/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdfok, so that would mean approx 18 months from now.... So the documentation is contradictory.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Nov 1, 2010 3:33:11 GMT -8
I see also that this document backs up some information my dad passed on regarding the retirement of the NIP and the Burnaby in the next few years. Just to add fuel to the rumour fire started in the "Dream Routes" thread, the going/growing belief is that once the two existing vessels are retired, homeport for the replacement vessels will become Westview and Little River, and the existing routes will be transformed into a triangle route similar to the one experimented with all those years ago.
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Nov 1, 2010 9:19:50 GMT -8
so that suggests this is them making the desired CASE to shut it down - NOT confirmation of what IS happening. I have no clue where this 18 months has come from... The Mill Bay will be retired in Spring 2011. It will be replaced by the Klitsa. I posted that 18-month timeline earlier in this thread. See my new post #12 on the "Term 3 thread", for the contradictory dates regarding the Mill Bay retirement. ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bcferriesnews&thread=7649&page=1....it all depends on which section of the Efficiencies-report that you read. If you read them both, then you'll expect 2 different retirement dates. ;D So Spring 2012 would be approx 18 months from now.....if that is to be believed. I'm confused at what appears to be contradictory timing re the Mill Bay retirement date. The efficiencies report item # 3.5.1 says that MV Mill Bay is retired in Spring 2011. That same paragraph goes on to explain the capital improvements needed for the Klitsa and the 2 berths to make the change in ships on Route #12. However, in the 2010-2012 capital work plan, none of this is mentioned: - see pages #54-58 on this here report: www.bcferrycommission.com/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdfIf the point of section #3.5.1 in the efficiencies report is to eliminate Route #12 so that the costs of converting the Klitsa and the 2 berths can be avoided, then really it's too late for that. Because Spring-2011 is just months away and BCFS is still under Performance Term-2 until the end of March 2012. Also, the chart on page #61 of this report shows that the vessel Mill Bay is to be replaced in "Calendar 2012". www.bcferrycommission.com/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdfok, so that would mean approx 18 months from now.... So the documentation is contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2010 10:08:02 GMT -8
so that suggests this is them making the desired CASE to shut it down - NOT confirmation of what IS happening. Based on what I know (which is based on what I read on Friday in these reports) there are 2 issues: 1) The vessel MV Mill Bay will be retired soon. - whether it is Spring 2011 or Spring 2012 is debatable, given the contradictory evidence that I found. - Scott was pretty clear that it was 2011, so maybe he's heard something else from another source. 2) BC Ferries is making a case to kill the route, in order to save the cost of vessel & berth conversion, and to then expect that the Province will keep the same subsidy, and then BC Ferries can use that to help fund the other minor routes.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Nov 1, 2010 11:08:21 GMT -8
Scott was pretty clear that it was 2011, so maybe he's heard something else from another source. I have been told that crews from Route 12 are already being trained on the Klitsa while she is replacing the Kuper. This leads me to believe that the retirement of the Mill Bay will sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by uricanejack on Nov 2, 2010 10:25:02 GMT -8
Hi
traveled on the Mill Bay for the first time a few days ago. probably the last time.
check the SIC 16 usualy posted in the ally way behind the wheel house or in the main passenger lounge on the minnor vessels.
The SIC 16 runs out in June. cant remember the exact date.
most of the other retirments happen just before the SIC 16 expires.
to keep it going invloves anither inspection and more monney.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 2, 2010 19:46:12 GMT -8
Route 12 closure discussions is a proud part of BC Ferries past. I am glad we have the opportunity to see it come up again. Seriously though if the previous post by uricanejack and Scott are any indication it would seem probable, but not guaranteed that the service would have to continue for some time. The process to cancel a ferry route is fairly involved, and in the communities directly or closely involved potentially politically dangerous. Not that the Liberals have a lot to lose right now, nonetheless it is a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 2, 2010 20:59:14 GMT -8
Wait, Dane: Why should BCF be proud of wanting to shut down route 12?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 2, 2010 21:12:09 GMT -8
Wait, Dane: Why should BCF be proud of wanting to shut down route 12? The answer can be found in the 1st word of Dane's 3rd sentence. ;D
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 3, 2010 6:54:46 GMT -8
Wait, Dane: Why should BCF be proud of wanting to shut down route 12? The answer can be found in the 1st word of Dane's 3rd sentence. ;D No... I think it is a much more personal motive. They just want to take away my name sake.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 3, 2010 10:09:55 GMT -8
...The option of restructuring Route 9 service would include changing the service delivery model for SGI services and continuing to provide connectivity and timely passage through a “transit style” terminus to terminus operation. The model would home port two intermediate sized vessels running parallel - but opposite - routing between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. Sailing from Swartz Bay, it would take Vancouver Island traffic outbound and pick up SGI traffic heading to the Mainland enroute to the port of Tsawwassen. The same sailing service would be done from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay, with the vessels then reversing the routing providing the same service and home porting at the end of the operating shift. Salt Spring Island traffic bound for the Mainland would be routed from Fulford Harbour through Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen. Additional weekly sailings required to provide access to Swartz Bay/Victoria would be met by a reconfigured Route 5A service model that would include stops at Fulford Harbour to alleviate congestion and take traffic to Swartz Bay or traffic to the Mainland. Saturna Island could be served by either a bridge to Mayne Island or the reconfigured Route 5A model. This model would eliminate transfers, berth conflicts and resulting services degradation to all routes whenever one route/ship is under performing. This service model would replace the major vessel replacement capital expenditure with an intermediate vessel replacement capital expenditure. It would increase the terminal development requirements at Fulford Harbour, but would afford the closure of Long Harbour terminal. These costs would need to be developed if this service model is to be further considered by the Province. Read more: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bcferriesnews&action=display&thread=7649#ixzz14F9DQBUV Just wanted to highlight this for a minute. This means they want to shut down Long Harbour Terminal. A huge mistake in my mind, putting at least a few dozen people out of work. (Catering attendants, Terminal Attendants especially) Fulford is congested enough a lot of the time. The terminal holding compound itself only has capacity for maybe half a load of vehicles on the Skeena, and obviously the rest lineup down the road. This would especially be a nightmare on the Summer long weekends, where a sailing wait is common. There isn't any sort of good flexable expansion opportunities, other than building more lanes out into the harbour itself. However, the Skeena does have potential to bump its service up from 8 round trips a day, to 10 trips a day. This is because she is run slow on the route, and there is considerable layover times at Swartz Bay. Market day Saturdays she is run full out for 5 round trips for the morning shift, instead of the usual 4 round trips. Usually by the afternoon, she is about half an hour late, but the afternoon schedule at least allows for the time to be quickly made up by the second trip to Swartz Bay of the afternoon shift. In the summer time, BC Ferries adds a few extra direct Salt Spring to Tsawwassen sailings. There have been times where I've seen at least 3/4 loads for those types of trips either coming from Long Harbour or even to Long Harbour from Tsawwassen. Salt Spring has 11,000 people living there year round, and that number triples for the summer months. Long Harbour is a vital link to the Island, that would create complete public outrage if it was ever shut down. ....Yes, I realize there's the Vesuvius-Crofton Route to use as well. There are chronic overloads on that route as well in the summer time as it stands right now. Especially on market day Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Nov 3, 2010 15:16:22 GMT -8
Ok, Besides us knowing. Do the people of Brentwood and Mill Bay communities know about this plan of retirement of Mill Bay and terminals. If BC Ferries is keeping it a secret I will be very mad and I think the people of both community will be mad too.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 3, 2010 15:24:56 GMT -8
Wait, Dane: Why should BCF be proud of wanting to shut down route 12? The answer can be found in the 1st word of Dane's 3rd sentence. ;D "Seriously" doesn't say very much, to me at least.
|
|