Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2008 11:28:23 GMT -8
Stage Two of the report contains a pretty exhaustive examination of the costs of owning and operating a car, from several different sets of calculations. Commercial vehicles are also taken into account. I certainly wouldn't want to get into all of that here, but it doesn't look like many factors have been left out. There is no differentiation between vehicle drivers or passengers, and the calculation there is based on bus and rail transportation, taking into account the different fare structures both employ both long distance and short. I'm not entirely clear on the 'core' figure; it seems, from what I can tell, that it may be different for different routes, and might take into account variations in the infrastructure and operating costs on that route. The report authors are quite clear that a strict RET formula, without a core figure, would not be sustainable. In Stage Three of the report, there is another in depth look at the effects RET would have on different parts of the Scottish ferry system, focussing on traffic patterns, economic activity, and the opportunity for recouping some of the costs of RET from increased ridership. The report makes clear that taking special needs of certain communities into account in fare structure is not within its purview. One possible downside is mentioned; that in bringing less expensive transportation, it also gives islanders more opportunity to go off island and do business in larger centers. The report was extremely thorough in examining the necessary criteria for fares, and the effect of their implementation, but I don't believe I saw a figure that would indicate what the level of subsidy would be, after, say, five years of RET's implementation, as opposed to the existing subsidy. That would have to be considered, but only in context with the benefits RET might bring to users, and to government through improved economic activity. Not to mention some perhaps less measurable aspects, which I realize are very much in the eye of the beholder, on this forum.  |
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Oct 29, 2008 15:58:59 GMT -8
Stage Two of the report contains a pretty exhaustive examination of the costs of owning and operating a car, from several different sets of calculations. Commercial vehicles are also taken into account. I certainly wouldn't want to get into all of that here, but it doesn't look like many factors have been left out. There is no differentiation between vehicle drivers or passengers, and the calculation there is based on bus and rail transportation, taking into account the different fare structures both employ both long distance and short. No, they didn't leave much to the wayside in deriving a cost per mile, including, I think, how much a difference farting into the direction of travel might make on fuel efficiency, or, more importantly, the depreciation of the vehicle! ;D Seriously though, it does make sense to have no differentiation between passenger and driver. Both require the same types of infrastructure, both onshore and on board. The vehicle, on the other hand, needs a different set of considerations in both cases and therefore, a different fare. I'm left to question the calculation of the 'core' rate for the commercial vehicles, though. I understand that commercial vehicles probably need more infrastructure, and have higher cost of ownership per mile, but you are looking at a 33-50% surcharge for the commercial traffic. Maybe that's because they don't buy enough souvenirs on board. I'm not entirely clear on the 'core' figure; it seems, from what I can tell, that it may be different for different routes, and might take into account variations in the infrastructure and operating costs on that route. The report authors are quite clear that a strict RET formula, without a core figure, would not be sustainable. My take on this was the RET system will be set up to be universal, and the system would be balanced by averaging the 'core' costs across the system. The 'core' figure represents the fare portion needed to maintain both the onshore facilities and the ship itself. Think of it like the base rate of a taxi cab; when you get in, the rate ain't zero. The cab has to maintain a minimum fare to pay for its non-billable hours. In Stage Three of the report, there is another in depth look at the effects RET would have on different parts of the Scottish ferry system, focussing on traffic patterns, economic activity, and the opportunity for recouping some of the costs of RET from increased ridership. The report makes clear that taking special needs of certain communities into account in fare structure is not within its purview. I haven't gotten into Phase 3 much further than the executive summary except to skim...what I have skimmed over does lead me back to my observation about wind into the wind  . I would agree, though, with your take that this analysis was done with more consideration towards predicting revenues, i.e. it was an accounting exercise. One possible downside is mentioned; that in bringing less expensive transportation, it also gives islanders more opportunity to go off island and do business in larger centers. The report was extremely thorough in examining the necessary criteria for fares, and the effect of their implementation, but I don't believe I saw a figure that would indicate what the level of subsidy would be, after, say, five years of RET's implementation, as opposed to the existing subsidy. That would have to be considered, but only in context with the benefits RET might bring to users, and to government through improved economic activity. Not to mention some perhaps less measurable aspects, which I realize are very much in the eye of the beholder, on this forum. That's an interesting observation about loss of local trade to larger business centers. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 4, 2009 19:09:24 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Aug 4, 2009 21:35:16 GMT -8
Thanks for posting that, Mr Horn.
Gee, who'd have thought that lower fares might lead to more traffic, a stimulated economy, and probably more jobs and increased revenue for government taxation coffers.
Guess the Scots understand rocket science better than we do. If our ferry CEO's name was McHahn, maybe he wouldn't have stood there at the AGM and told us, with a straight face, that high fares have nothing to do with decreased ridership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 13, 2011 12:15:30 GMT -8
While on the Queen of Chilliwack traveling from Bella Coola to Port Hardy on Monday, I was chatting with a couple from Scotland.
I asked about Cal-Mac's service to the outer islands, and how the Road Equivalent Tariff worked.
They commented that there is a 2-tier fare structure, where locals enjoy the subsidy and tourists pay a much higher fare. (they commented that it's unlike BC, where everyone pays a high fare, haha).
They also noted a funny grandfathered-rule on Cal-Mac where local sheep farmers who are transporting sheep can get a reduced fare. The quota for this is to have 2 sheep to transport.
- So many locals regularly take 2 sheep with them when using the ferry, in order to score the lower fare. In fact, some farmers have reciprocating-arrangements with farmers on other islands to borrow and/or leave 2 sheep, for the lower fare purpose.
ie. I'm going to the mainland, so I'll take 2 of my sheep in my truck. I'm just going shopping, so I'll drop-off the sheep at my friend's house. I'll eventually get them back, likely when I return home or on a later trip.
- "leave a penny, take a penny". "leave a ewe, take a ewe". Local cooperation in action. ;D
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jul 13, 2011 12:52:23 GMT -8
:)if eue ask me we all are geting a good shower from this private ent. model that is BC ferries inc. and eue can bet there will be no monkee at the turnstile! ::)mrdot.
|
|
. I would agree, though, with your take that this analysis was done with more consideration towards predicting revenues, i.e. it was an accounting exercise. 
