|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 6, 2008 18:54:06 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries has something else in mind for the terminal and not really is in the running to take over the WSF run. Another user would actually help WSF. If the other user is a passenger operation then maybe more amenities could be added. As long as the WSF schedule is protected, it is in their best interest to see the terminal successful and in the best possible shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 12, 2008 8:35:01 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries has something else in mind for the terminal and not really is in the running to take over the WSF run. Another user would actually help WSF. If the other user is a passenger operation then maybe more amenities could be added. As long as the WSF schedule is protected, it is in their best interest to see the terminal successful and in the best possible shape. I agree, I think BC Ferries has another use in mind entirely. You have to figure though with them charging (according to WSF) three times the market rate for use of the dock, they really don't want WSF there. There have been some comments from within WSF management (Mosely has said they're going to have to "take a close look at the Sidney run") and from Paula Hammond (Who told a reporter friend of mine that the Sidney run would be going away) that they're still going to try to cut it. In fact, I would not at all be surprised to see this be the last three year lease WSF gets. Lord knows the numbers are certainly lining up to justify killing it...traffic is way down this summer already and you can bet that isn't going to improve come the fall. If gas does indeed hit over $5.00 a gallon as they are saying is inevitable, the Sidney run, which is, after all, really a tourist run, is going to suffer the most. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 12, 2008 9:22:27 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries has something else in mind for the terminal and not really is in the running to take over the WSF run. Another user would actually help WSF. If the other user is a passenger operation then maybe more amenities could be added. As long as the WSF schedule is protected, it is in their best interest to see the terminal successful and in the best possible shape. Wouldn't a passenger operation be better off using one of the smaller craft docks within the town centre? |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 12, 2008 9:56:44 GMT -8
Lord knows the numbers are certainly lining up to justify killing it...traffic is way down this summer already and you can bet that isn't going to improve come the fall. If gas does indeed hit over $5.00 a gallon as they are saying is inevitable, the Sidney run, which is, after all, really a tourist run, is going to suffer the most. Are both the nonstop run and the island hopping run mostly tourist oriented? I can't imagine WSF, the state and local businesses would find it in their interests to support tourists sailing straight through to VI, without making any stops at any of the Islands. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 12, 2008 10:14:18 GMT -8
Wouldn't a passenger operation be better off using one of the smaller craft docks within the town centre? Yes, I agree. Beacon Wharf is located closer to the town's centre. This is the wharf that the ferry/boat to Sidney Spit Park uses. I've posted a link to a map of the town. The WSF terminal is near the south end of the shoreline, and the Beacon Wharf (at the foot of Beacon Ave, go figure....) looks like it's right downtown. www.vancouverisland.com/Maps/?id=23 |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 12, 2008 11:17:48 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries has something else in mind for the terminal and not really is in the running to take over the WSF run. Another user would actually help WSF. If the other user is a passenger operation then maybe more amenities could be added. As long as the WSF schedule is protected, it is in their best interest to see the terminal successful and in the best possible shape. Wouldn't a passenger operation be better off using one of the smaller craft docks within the town centre? You have to consider though were customs is located for anyone coming from the US. They're already well established at the Sidney dock. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 12, 2008 16:44:40 GMT -8
Wouldn't a passenger operation be better off using one of the smaller craft docks within the town centre? Yes, I agree. Beacon Wharf is located closer to the town's centre. This is the wharf that the ferry/boat to Sidney Spit Park uses. I've posted a link to a map of the town. The WSF terminal is near the south end of the shoreline, and the Beacon Wharf (at the foot of Beacon Ave, go figure....) looks like it's right downtown. www.vancouverisland.com/Maps/?id=23WSF used to dock at Beacon Wharf, back in the 1950s. Go figure, again.  |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 12, 2008 19:41:39 GMT -8
I used the term passenger ferry in the generic sense and not the specific one of being a foot passenger ferry. I should have used a different term. If BC Ferries is moving people and cars through that facility I was thinking they would add more amenities. If they are thinking of a drop trailer or other service they wouldn't add a gift shop or upgraded food services. Sorry for leading everyone down another path. Foot passenger service only from Sidney would only work if there was a very speedy service from downtown to the terminal. It would have to be quicker than going from the Harbour around the tip of the Island. I typed too quickly and never went back and reread.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 13, 2008 0:26:12 GMT -8
If they do kill the Sidney-Anacortes run, and are cutting back on sailing distance, there should be at minimum a Sidney-Roche Harbor ferry to take its place, so that the San Juans and Anacortes aren't completely cut off from VI. Roche Harbor would be about half the distance from Sidney as Friday Harbor. They'd just need to build a dock there.
It would be less wasteful than running the vessels partially filled between Anacortes and Friday Harbor, and since WSF can't run a 3-hour tourist cruise properly (with fine dining, gift shop and everything), I'd hardly be sad to see it go.
|
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 13, 2008 4:30:49 GMT -8
If they do kill the Sidney-Anacortes run, and are cutting back on sailing distance, there should be at minimum a Sidney-Roche Harbor ferry to take its place, so that the San Juans and Anacortes aren't completely cut off from VI. Roche Harbor would be about half the distance from Sidney as Friday Harbor. They'd just need to build a dock there. If you are talking about a passenger ferry, there are currently two companies each offering once-a-day service from Victoria to Friday Harbor. I believe that there are lodging and activity packages available for the tourists to take advantage of built around these trips, and they can be booked simply for the transportation, too. If you are talking about an auto ferry if WSF pulls out, I think the potential travelers will simply be out of luck. While there are certainly a few people from SJI traveling to Vancouver Island and back, the number is certainly very small. If WSF can't make it doing this, a private operator certainly would not. And (before you say it) if it doesn't work for WSF, there is no reason to believe that it would work for BC Ferries, either. I believe that if there were no WSF auto ferry service, there might be current or new private passenger ferry operators willing to make an additional run or two. But there would be no advantage to a Sidney-SJI only ferry over, say, a WSF Chelan making a loop to Sidney on what would be a Ana-Orcas-FH run. I think we have essentially that now. I don't want to burst your bubble. I'm just curious what real-world scenario you might see that would make this work. It would be less wasteful than running the vessels partially filled between Anacortes and Friday Harbor, and since WSF can't run a 3-hour tourist cruise properly (with fine dining, gift shop and everything), I'd hardly be sad to see it go. I am, deep down, one of those environmentalist freaks. I want to see the whole world work in the most efficient way, to conserve precious and scarce resources. But I am also a believer that Economics will win at the end of the day. So I try to work within the realistic. From the macroeconomic standpoint, a system of auto ferries and passenger ferries, all working together to exactly meet demand, would be a very efficient system. In a Utopian world, where we each only cared for the greater good, we might have such a system. However, in our current system, these ferries are going to be operated by individual companies or government entities. These entities will look at their own microeconomic situation. In other words, they will build a new ferry dock or build a smaller or larger ferry to run on a route only if it makes economic sense for their own company. So, while it might make sense to start a new ferry route to serve a small number of customers, it would be unlikely that anyone could make it work. For example, why doesn't WSF have fine dining on their tourist cruise? Likely because it wouldn't pay for itself -- either in terms of paying for itself or in terms of attracting enough additional riders to gain a benefit. I would like to see some of your ideas actually work. I would be very interested in discussing with you how it could work. Dreaming is nice. Finding something that might actually pencil out as a project someone might actually do is much more interesting to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 13, 2008 6:15:29 GMT -8
If they do kill the Sidney-Anacortes run, and are cutting back on sailing distance, there should be at minimum a Sidney-Roche Harbor ferry to take its place, so that the San Juans and Anacortes aren't completely cut off from VI. Roche Harbor would be about half the distance from Sidney as Friday Harbor. They'd just need to build a dock there. If you are talking about a passenger ferry, there are currently two companies each offering once-a-day service from Victoria to Friday Harbor. I believe that there are lodging and activity packages available for the tourists to take advantage of built around these trips, and they can be booked simply for the transportation, too. If you are talking about an auto ferry if WSF pulls out, I think the potential travelers will simply be out of luck. While there are certainly a few people from SJI traveling to Vancouver Island and back, the number is certainly very small. If WSF can't make it doing this, a private operator certainly would not. And (before you say it) if it doesn't work for WSF, there is no reason to believe that it would work for BC Ferries, either. I believe that if there were no WSF auto ferry service, there might be current or new private passenger ferry operators willing to make an additional run or two. But there would be no advantage to a Sidney-SJI only ferry over, say, a WSF Chelan making a loop to Sidney on what would be a Ana-Orcas-FH run. I think we have essentially that now. I don't want to burst your bubble. I'm just curious what real-world scenario you might see that would make this work. Actually, I meant car ferry. With a shortened route, I figure a VI-SJ connection would be more economically viable. The expenses would be reduced, and with a reduced sailing distance and time (most likely under an hour), I imagine you can get by using a puny little vessel with minimal features like the Hiyu for the route, without inconveniencing the passengers too much. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 13, 2008 8:38:34 GMT -8
Actually, I meant car ferry. With a shortened route, I figure a VI-SJ connection would be more economically viable. The expenses would be reduced, and with a reduced sailing distance and time (most likely under an hour), I imagine you can get by using a puny little vessel with minimal features like the Hiyu for the route, without inconveniencing the passengers too much. You would still have to staff and maintain a SOLAS vessel, which cuts right into "economically viable." Not to mention the expense of getting the crew to the boat (very few of the crews actually live in Friday Harbor) and then you'd still have to haul the passengers/cars to Friday Harbor (as most of the travelers on the Sidney run come from Anacortes anyway.) And thanks, but no thanks...I've been in Haro Strait with ten foot seas on the Chelan and I shudder to think what that would be like on a vessel the size of the Hiyu.  |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 13, 2008 10:51:23 GMT -8
You would still have to staff and maintain a SOLAS vessel, which cuts right into "economically viable." I'm sure it'll still offer some savings over a bigger boat sailing a longer distance that is also SOLAS compliant. Not to mention the expense of getting the crew to the boat (very few of the crews actually live in Friday Harbor) and then you'd still have to haul the passengers/cars to Friday Harbor (as most of the travelers on the Sidney run come from Anacortes anyway.) So most travellers in the area heading towards VI would rather just skip over the San Juans? I suppose it would be good for SJ Island's tourism economy if passengers are made to disembark, and have to eat and shop there when changing boats, instead of spending that money upon arrival in Canada. Losing the VI link altogether, I'm sure, would hurt both the islands and Anacortes more than relaying passengers from one boat to another. And thanks, but no thanks...I've been in Haro Strait with ten foot seas on the Chelan and I shudder to think what that would be like on a vessel the size of the Hiyu. I wonder if the problem has to do with the design of the vessel more than the size of the vessel. The Coho is a smaller vessel than the Chelan with similar power (going by car capacity, according to the data I was able to look up), but can withstand rougher waters, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jul 13, 2008 11:02:25 GMT -8
As much as I have enjoyed riding the ferry to Sidney over the years - it is a beautiful crossing - I would much rather see WSF dump the run and use that 5th boat in the San Juans during the summer months, especially given the current situation as described by Evergreenfleet and others (IE. run losing money, low passenger yields, expenses to maintain SOLAS certification, exorbitant fees BCF is charging to use Sidney dock, etc). If the 5th boat ran domestically between Anacortes and the San Juans, WSF could immediately adopt their long-range plan of dedicating a ferry to Lopez Island, thus splitting the islands up even further, and creating direct service to each of the islands (the exception being Orcas and Shaw - they would still share). I, for one, would love to see that scenario happen sooner, rather than later. If we gave up Sidney, I could see that happening. The Anacortes Terminal would also benefit from doing this. They could rip out the US Customs holding area and turn that into additional parking or more vehicle staging lanes.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 13, 2008 11:55:29 GMT -8
I wonder if the problem has to do with the design of the vessel more than the size of the vessel. The Coho is a smaller vessel than the Chelan with similar power (going by car capacity, according to the data I was able to look up), but can withstand rougher waters, right? You're correct. WSF boats are not designed for extreme conditions. They're designed for tonnage. The Chelan is probably the best ferry for the route of the vessels we've got. Actually, as a whole, the Issaquahs are probably the best foul weather boats in the fleet. The Elwha scares me silly in rough seas, and I actually know of quite a few people that will not work on that boat in the winter months when she's in the islands. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 13, 2008 12:43:14 GMT -8
You're correct. WSF boats are not designed for extreme conditions. They're designed for tonnage. The Chelan is probably the best ferry for the route of the vessels we've got. Actually, as a whole, the Issaquahs are probably the best foul weather boats in the fleet. The Elwha scares me silly in rough seas, and I actually know of quite a few people that will not work on that boat in the winter months when she's in the islands. Yet it somehow meets some heightened standards that are SOLAS requirements? Sounds like a pretty useless designation to me. |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 13, 2008 13:01:23 GMT -8
Yet it somehow meets some heightened standards that are SOLAS requirements? Sounds like a pretty useless designation to me. Technically the Elwha doesn't meet current SOLAS standards (she received a temporary 6 month waiver last year and it was extended right around the time it was set to expire). The problem (which is not related to her not meeting surrent standards) with the Elwha is that she's top heavy. All of the super class vessels were top heavy from day one and in the case of the Elwha the top heavy problem was made worse when the elevator and emergency generator were added in the early 90's. IIRC, they were both placed on the same side of the vessel. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 13, 2008 13:15:28 GMT -8
No, I meant ten cars on the way up, ten on the way back. Weekends sometimes no more than 30 cars in either direction. Before they quit running during the winter, there were cases when there were no cars in either direction for the sailing. Could it be the reason why noone took it during the off season was because since it ran only once a day in each direction, taking it would leave you stranded for the night and unable to get home until next day? I'm sure if it ran at least twice a day (once early in the morning and once late in the evening), more people would take it. Even during the winter months, I'm sure SJ Islanders would like to spend the day in Victoria and unwind rather than remain cooped up on their little island from time to time. If they could not get a second sailing in their budget, they could have scheduled it smarter by having it sail to Sidney in the morning and returning at night. Though I suppose that would leave the boat parked wastefully at Sidney for several hours, when they could put it to better use. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 13, 2008 14:22:40 GMT -8
No, I meant ten cars on the way up, ten on the way back. Weekends sometimes no more than 30 cars in either direction. Before they quit running during the winter, there were cases when there were no cars in either direction for the sailing. Could it be the reason why noone took it during the off season was because since it ran only once a day in each direction, taking it would leave you stranded for the night and unable to get home until next day? I'm sure if it ran at least twice a day (once early in the morning and once late in the evening), more people would take it. Even during the winter months, I'm sure SJ Islanders would like to spend the day in Victoria and unwind rather than remain cooped up on their little island from time to time. If they could not get a second sailing in their budget, they could have scheduled it smarter by having it sail to Sidney in the morning and returning at night. Though I suppose that would leave the boat parked wastefully at Sidney for several hours, when they could put it to better use. Moot point. The terms of the agreement on the lease with B.C. Ferries is that WSF be accommodated to the 2006 sailing schedule. That does not leave any latitude for changing the spring/fall schedules to include additional sailings. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 13, 2008 14:23:47 GMT -8
Yet it somehow meets some heightened standards that are SOLAS requirements? Sounds like a pretty useless designation to me. Technically the Elwha doesn't meet current SOLAS standards (she received a temporary 6 month waiver last year and it was extended right around the time it was set to expire). The problem (which is not related to her not meeting surrent standards) with the Elwha is that she's top heavy. All of the super class vessels were top heavy from day one and in the case of the Elwha the top heavy problem was made worse when the elevator and emergency generator were added in the early 90's. IIRC, they were both placed on the same side of the vessel. And on the texas deck, I might add. ;D (at least in the case of the emergency generator.) |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jul 13, 2008 14:26:14 GMT -8
Yet it somehow meets some heightened standards that are SOLAS requirements? Sounds like a pretty useless designation to me. SOLAS really has nothing to do with a vessel's handling abilities. I might add that the Elwha has passed all her stability tests...I just don't like the way she handles in rough weather. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 14, 2008 5:12:37 GMT -8
Yet it somehow meets some heightened standards that are SOLAS requirements? Sounds like a pretty useless designation to me. Technically the Elwha doesn't meet current SOLAS standards (she received a temporary 6 month waiver last year and it was extended right around the time it was set to expire). The problem (which is not related to her not meeting surrent standards) with the Elwha is that she's top heavy. All of the super class vessels were top heavy from day one and in the case of the Elwha the top heavy problem was made worse when the elevator and emergency generator were added in the early 90's. IIRC, they were both placed on the same side of the vessel. By "top heavy", I take it to mean just that--heavy at the top, with a high centre of gravity and a susceptibility to capsize. Sounds like some design engineers need to be fired for not being able to grasp the most basic physical principles. |
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 14, 2008 5:19:37 GMT -8
Moot point. The terms of the agreement on the lease with B.C. Ferries is that WSF be accommodated to the 2006 sailing schedule. That does not leave any latitude for changing the spring/fall schedules to include additional sailings. Did the City of Sidney reserve any power to arbitrate conflicts between BCF and WSF, or did they hand over complete control to BCF over the use of the Sidney terminal? I don't see how they'd find it in their best interests to let BCF blow WSF (its main tenant) away, be it by gouging them for its use or setting tight restrictions on its availability. |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 14, 2008 7:14:58 GMT -8
Since BC Ferries has a customer already they aren't going to jettison them for any reason. The terminal is under-utilized at the moment as it is. They will do what makes economic sense. Personally I think the public and local tourist industry outcry if the WSF International portion of the route were to be cut, would be loud enough that any politician would be looking at the votes they would lose rather than the economics of the situation. However, If any of the discussions about WSF looking to stop the Canada portion of the run are true, then the owners of the Coho are probably sitting waiting wiith baited breath. The Coho has been very well maintained and while a rather elderly sister to the V's may have some years left in her. However if all of a sudden she were to be the only international route from the Island to Washington, that could be extra push needed to purchase a new vessel. Even a second ship could be purchased I suppose.
Frankly, I personally believe that the terminal lease was taken over to prevent WMG from doing that and securing a terminal for a competing Fast Cat service. Particularly if they were able to use one of their existing facilities with better downtown access than driving out to TSW or HSB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jul 14, 2008 8:34:18 GMT -8
Personally I think the public and local tourist industry outcry if the WSF International portion of the route were to be cut, would be loud enough that any politician would be looking at the votes they would lose rather than the economics of the situation. That has certainly been the case in the past, and is likely the only reason the route is still operating today. WSF has been trying to pull out of the run for the past several years, but, as you eluded to, it's been highly politicized. Maybe the current economic downturn and rising fuel costs will be enough of a burden to outweigh the politics of the situation, and finally kill the route. Like I posted earlier, while it is a scenic crossing and a great tourist attraction, it really isn't providing essential service, nor is it generating enough profit to offset the operational costs. Of course, many of the other runs aren't, either, but they are at least providing essential service. It's time to kill the run. It just makes sense. No more customs, no more SOLAS certifications, an extra ferry absorbed back into the domestic fleet (which is badly needed right now), the list of benefits goes on. |
|
