|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 22, 2012 23:17:05 GMT -8
But most people don't want higher taxes... and our current government takes pride in the fact that we have some of the lowest taxes in North America. This is the problem, as I see it, in a nut shell. Back in 2001 the new 'liberal' government brought in a rather large cut in personal income tax for the tax payers of BC. Most people at that time would say, yeh! I win, more money in my pocket, less tax to pay. Few bothered to think about the hole in government revenue, or the cuts that had be made to avoid running a deficit. They also brought in significant corporate tax decreases. Then two years later they created the quasi-privatized 'self financing' BC Ferry Services and all was well... or so they hoped. They were given an annual operating subsidy with no provision for inflation increases. Furthermore, other than the initial FSG boats, there seems to have been little thought about the cost of replacing the multitude of vessels big and small that were built in the WAC Bennett era, some 50 year ago and needed replacement. The only way for BCFS to increase their revenue was though unsustainable fare increases. As fares went up, patronage declined. Revenue was stagnant, while costs, including debt servicing, continued to rise. In short, they had created a ticking time bomb. The only solution that I can see is for the province to increase the level of subsidy. If that means raising tax levels (to support the coastal marine highway, and a multitude of other issues) closer to where they were back in 2001, then so be it. This government created the mess, and from my perspective they are the ones who should be fixing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2012 14:03:44 GMT -8
The only solution that I can see is for the province to increase the level of subsidy. If that means raising tax levels (to support the coastal marine highway, and a multitude of other issues) closer to where they were back in 2001, then so be it. This government created the mess, and from my perspective they are the ones who should be fixing it. You are right on. I totally agree, gov't shoud clean up a mess (that is only getting bigger, despite what Mr. Hahn has said) that they tried to get rid of. And BC Ferries should commit to building vessels here in BC, even if it costs a little more than building at FSG, the jobs created, IMO, would definitly make up for it. Harper certainly didn't encourage shipbuilding in BC with the $119 million duty remission.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Feb 23, 2012 14:35:47 GMT -8
Frankly the BC public would rather watch the province's infrastructure and median standard of living decline to third world conditions than pay one more cent in taxes to cover the costs of infrastructure.
The notion that taxation is quite literally the cost of civilization is not something that BC residents understand much less accept.
I don't see any good solution for BC unless the population grows up and realizes that good infrastructure is essential to maintaining living standards and that good infrastructure costs money that must be provided through taxes. Unless that happens, nothing will change for the better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2012 15:18:30 GMT -8
Frankly the BC public would rather watch the province's infrastructure and median standard of living decline to third world conditions than pay one more cent in taxes to cover the costs of infrastructure. The notion that taxation is quite literally the cost of civilization is not something that BC residents understand much less accept. I don't see any good solution for BC unless the population grows up and realizes that good infrastructure is essential to maintaining living standards and that good infrastructure costs money that must be provided through taxes. Unless that happens, nothing will change for the better. The Southern Sunshine Coast FAC is a good example of wanting more for less. From what i've read in the coast reporter, they'd like to see lower fares. An overhead walkway in Langdale to maintain the 5:30 sailing during the summer season, and expanding the terminal itself (as if the terminal size is not already ample : , is also on their wish list. IMO, they need to 'get real'. ----------------------------------------- If I live in Northern BC, why should I pay for infrastructure being built in Metro Vancouver that there is a good chance I will never use? Personally, i'm more for a user pay system for highways, at least to cover a portion of construction costs, such as the new Port Mann Bridge.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 23, 2012 15:29:09 GMT -8
If I live in Northern BC, why should I pay for infrastructure being built in Metro Vancouver that there is a good chance I will never use? The same reason the person in Richmond pays for that new bridge crossing the Skeena river, or the person in White Rock pays for the Kicking Horse Pass corridor on the Trans Canada highway. We have deemed as a society that it is economically beneficial if everybody helps pay for transportation infrastructure, even if an individual won't use it, because they'll benefit indirectly through increased economic trade. This is the issue that I find particularly irksome with the current transportation setup in BC. There is NO common policy. Highways are paid fully by the province... even the Coquihalla doesn't have a toll anymore. Bridges, are sometimes paid for, sometimes user pay or a combination. Transit systems have different funding structures depending on the municipality. Ferries are free if they happen to cross fresh water, but it's user pay (or almost) if they happen to be on salt water. We have all these double standards everywhere in the transportation sector and no method of combining them into one comprehensive policy.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Feb 23, 2012 20:58:28 GMT -8
If I live in Northern BC, why should I pay for infrastructure being built in Metro Vancouver that there is a good chance I will never use? Because, ultimately, urban areas subsidize rural areas and dollar that goes to urban infrastructure that rural residents will never use means more urban economic output and more tax dollars available to pay for infrastructure and services that rural residents do use. Thirty years of propaganda from the intellectually bankrupt "me first" global conservative movement not withstanding, we're all in this together and anything done to increase the standard of living for one part of the province or country eventually benefits all of us.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Feb 23, 2012 22:47:38 GMT -8
If I live in Northern BC, why should I pay for infrastructure being built in Metro Vancouver that there is a good chance I will never use? Because, ultimately, urban areas subsidize rural areas and dollar that goes to urban infrastructure that rural residents will never use means more urban economic output and more tax dollars available to pay for infrastructure and services that rural residents do use. Thirty years of propaganda from the intellectually bankrupt "me first" global conservative movement not withstanding, we're all in this together and anything done to increase the standard of living for one part of the province or country eventually benefits all of us. That kind of mindset also comes from people being encouraged to think of themselves as taxpayers first, and citizens second. Taxpayers are ever vigilant to the possibility that someone somewhere is getting something that they're not entitled to, while those who think of themselves as citizens are hopefully more open to an equitable distribution of economic resources that benefits everyone, including the small communities that are more difficult to service. It's a balance that's a challenge in a huge country like Canada.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 23, 2012 23:01:30 GMT -8
:)using this principal will result in a country disingrating into caos like somolia, which has been governmentless for more than a decade as no central authority exists! or looking at insurance from the standpoint of having never collected, as the big one has never hit as yet! but not vueing it as how fortunate that we haven't had to raid the piggy bank, as yet. :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 24, 2012 0:08:33 GMT -8
:)using this principal will result in a country disingrating into caos like somolia, which has been governmentless for more than a decade as no central authority exists! or looking at insurance from the standpoint of having never collected, as the big one has never hit as yet! but not vueing it as how fortunate that we haven't had to raid the piggy bank, as yet. :)mrdot. Just a random fact, according to the Government of England, a Western tourist hasn't escaped alive from the southern part of Somalia since 2002. They recommend hiring and bringing with you at least 10 armed guards if you're heading that way.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 24, 2012 12:47:27 GMT -8
:)let's be thankful for our central gov't, warts and all! in talking to a close friend working in an overseas misson, we have no clue how fortunate we are in this part of the world! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 5, 2012 21:02:32 GMT -8
Is there a point where Transport Canada should become involved in the discussion of cost saving measures? If ferries are operating at below capacity consistently during a certain time of day or season (I'm sure BC Ferries crews could predict very well what the traffic will be like) could Transport Canada allow for a lower crew count with a lower passenger capacity without compromising on safety? Is there a reason that the Tenaka, for example, needs 6 crew members if there are never more than 50 passengers at one time all winter?
I'm sure the union would hate the idea of cutting crew in slow seasons, and it would be harder to retain employees if they couldn't work full-time... so it might not be very feaseable. But something to think about. Usually we look at the Transport Canada rules and just accept them as neccessary - but perhaps there is some flexibility there to help lower costs during slow periods.
|
|
|
Post by uricanejack on May 10, 2012 15:12:18 GMT -8
Transport Canada is already involved.
The crew size on all the ferries is mandated by Transport Canada and most Ferries are crewed to the minimum requirement on Their Safe Manning Certificate year round. You can see the certificates in a glass case in the main passenger lounge or alleyway behind bridge
Many of the Ferries have multiple Manning Documents or licences on the document which allow for additional crew to added at peak times to increase the ships passenger capacity.
The Minimum Safe Manning Document crew size is for no passengers when the ship is on its way to or from refits changing terminals and is just a minimum compliment of deck and engineering crew. If even 1 passenger is carried there must be at least 1 fully manned life saving or evacuation point and at least 1 fully mannered assembly point.
Each passenger Licence A is the most then decreasing through up to as many B, C, D, with E being for ship moves only. The smaller Minor vessels usually have only 2 passenger licences.
The Crew size on each licence is determined by the minimum no of crew required to operate the life saving equipment and provide passenger control during an evacuation the time allowed to complete an evacuation is 30 minutes.
In recent years the requirements became more stringent requiring higher crewing levels the passenger control being the increase. BC ferries has responded in some cases by replacing older style lifeboat and life raft evacuation systems with shuts and slides. Each increase in passenger capacity requires enough crew to man and operate one complete evacuation station. So on larger vessels may mean an additional crew of 3 or 4 every increase.
All the Minor Vessels and some of the Intermediate Vessels have crew sizes small enough there is no catering department. I think The Mill Bay had only 4 crew 1 Capt 1 Mate 1 Engineer and 1 Deckhand.
The Spirits in the a summer long weekend may have up to 50.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 30, 2012 21:39:13 GMT -8
It's not appropriate to carry on this discussion in the Alaska thread, so let's try it here. This move by AMHS simply means that people have to plan ahead and make a reservation. I don't think that is too much to ask. The same applies in Ocean Falls and other places along BC's coast. Cutting expenses just a little bit in this manner is not unreasonable. Widening this out, it could possibly work on some other routes, such as Denman and Hornby, Quadra, Thetis, etc. to enact a "on demand" service for additional sailings. The basis would be traffic volumes during the day since the morning and evening sailings tend to have higher traffic volumes. So if there isn't a demand to meet a 40% of capacity load on a particular sailing, then the ferry holds and waits for the next hourly or 90 minute scheduled sail, unless there is an emergency need to sail. It may prove to remove the "empty boat" or the 10% of capacity sailings which lose alot of money. Worth exploring. With all due respect, I don't think your comments show a lot of insight into the routes you mention. As I pointed out in a previous post, over half the extra sailings in the system take place on the Denman and Hornby routes alone. Quadra has a very high traffic capacity figure. It makes no sense to hold your threshhold at 40%, as some sailings might be 60% full one way, and only 20% the other. There are NO empty sailings, at least not in both directions, and even a cursory look at the yearly traffic patterns for the islands you mention reveal only a few evening and off season mid day round trips that could be dropped without affecting island economies.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 31, 2012 7:23:00 GMT -8
There needs to be a balance between serving the population and the number of sailings that are provided within a reasonable means. In regards to Denman and Hornby which has a combined population of 2090 but has a combined total of 34 sailings per day. Keep in mind that ferry size matters. A smaller ship will require more trips to serve the population. - and that's what you're seeing this Spring at Hornby with the smaller MV Tenaka. And if you tried putting the Tenaka on the Texada Island route, you'd find an interesting change to the utilzation statistics for that Texada route. So population (plus tourism) is one factor, but vessel size is another important piece of the puzzle.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 31, 2012 20:25:20 GMT -8
So we have this puzzle. Fictional scenario: You're Manager of Fleet Operations. (Congratulations) the Board of Directors of BC Ferries has been asked by Minister Responsible for BC Ferries (Minister Gary Coons) to reduce service costs by eliminating some non-essential sailings on Gulf Island routes without comprising minimum service levels as dictated by the Ferry Commissioner. The reduction of costs is required to meet financial activity in such that new ferry construction can begin (the financial costs associated with current service levels are eliminated and the savings turned to partially fund the commencement of new ferry construction. The Government is prepared to start construction, but BC Ferries has been told to reduce current service levels as it can to assist with the NewBuild programme). Premier Dix and Deputy Premier Mike Farnsworth has met with BC Ferries and said that the govenrment cannot fund 100% of the new ferries with current service levels as the money isn't there. The next meeting of the Ferry Commission is two months from now, in August 2014. You have tables of service levels, vessel traffic counts, population figures (2009 census), You close the door, walk back settle into your chair, look at the large feet route map, and stare out the window a few seconds towards Esquimalt, see the blue crane at Esquimalt Dry dock (even the peak of a BC Ferry funnel) and turn to examine the materials on the desk. You have a decision to make and have only a few weeks to complete it as your report has to go to the Board and you have a meeting with the President who will be discussing the first parts of your plan. What would you do now? First of all, BC Ferries cannot be allowed to determine service levels. A new government has to examine the needs of island communities- something that hasn't been done in the entire tenure of the current ferry governance construct- and reconcile this with the funds available. Simple mathematic exercises such as in your previous post regarding population and number of sailings counts for very little, especially when you are so inaccurate (Hornby has twelve sailings a day, not seventeen), and you don't take into account the differing nature of the island economies, their commuting habits, and their differing seasonal fluctuations. This isn't a matter of bloodless accounting. A new government also needs to be guided by principles such as this statement from the Scottish government regarding their 'road equivalent tariff' program: The remote islands of Scotland suffer the inherent disadvantage of distance from mainland markets, public services and social and cultural facilities, making them amongst the most peripheral communities in Europe. The Scottish Government recognised concern within these fragile communities that they might be further disadvantaged by the expense of ferry travel and the impact this has on islanders’ lives, the local economies and the wider national economy.Those are words you've certainly never heard from the likes of Campbell, Bond, or Falcon. I've suggested in a previous post cuts that might help balance things without hurting island economies too much, but any cuts would have to be very judicious, and not based on someone making glib conclusions from a cursory comparison of island populations and service levels.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 31, 2012 22:38:57 GMT -8
Firstly, I'll meet ya half way. It's 15 sailings each Friday with 12 on remaining days. One has to consider too that "island economies" are somewhat restricted compared to economies on Vancouver Island as developing economic means is restricted by what is allowed by The Islands Trust. You'll never see large economic activities on any of the Gulf Islands compared to regional developing economies on Vancouver Island, and I say rightly so. The Islands should not end up as bedroom communities for Victoria, Nanaimo etc. So hence the nessesity for The Islands Trust to keep dedvelopment projects in check. For some reason, I'm always dissatisfied when I see a post from you that I can't argue with. Guess I might as well go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Aug 20, 2012 18:11:32 GMT -8
But there is a demand and use for the early and late sailings on Route-30. - the truck deck is usually full on the 5:15am sailings. - while the 22:45 sailings are not usually full (or not even half full), they do have a market, especially for islanders attending evening events in Greater Vancouver. It looks like the 515h sailing on Saturdays is not as full as BCF would like. Effective Saturday, October 13, 2012 the first sailing on route 30 will be at 745h on Saturdays and continue until the Easter weekend in late March. This change in schedule means that the 1745h on Saturdays will also be cut.
www.bcferries.com/schedules/mainland/tsdp-current.php?scheduleSelect=sch10091204.html
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 20, 2012 18:23:08 GMT -8
Thanks for noticing that and mentioning it. - one of those instances where my leisure trips might get impacted for a few months in the fall.
|
|
|
Post by mygoldenvictaura on Aug 27, 2012 22:17:54 GMT -8
You know What that means don't you? If the first Saturday sailing is at 07:45 It will be the Home-based vessle. Ie Queen of Alberni From Tsawwassen and Coastal Inspiration from Duke Point.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 28, 2012 5:53:00 GMT -8
You know What that means don't you? If the first Saturday sailing is at 07:45 It will be the Home-based vessle. Ie Queen of Alberni From Tsawwassen and Coastal Inspiration from Duke Point. Mr. Mars Bar / Rabinoff is right. Saturday's ships for those 2 round-trips will be backwards compared to their usual placement.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 28, 2012 8:55:30 GMT -8
You know What that means don't you? If the first Saturday sailing is at 07:45 It will be the Home-based vessle. Ie Queen of Alberni From Tsawwassen and Coastal Inspiration from Duke Point. Mr. Mars Bar / Rabinoff is right. Saturday's ships for those 2 round-trips will be backwards compared to their usual placement. According to Global news last night, Duke Point isn't the only route where BCF is reducing service. Route 2, 3, and 1 will also see reduced service during less busy travel times. Route 30 is receiving the most drastic cuts though.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Aug 28, 2012 13:07:55 GMT -8
Mr. Mars Bar / Rabinoff is right. Saturday's ships for those 2 round-trips will be backwards compared to their usual placement. According to Global news last night, Duke Point isn't the only route where BCF is reducing service. Route 2, 3, and 1 will also see reduced service during less busy travel times. Route 30 is receiving the most drastic cuts though. Changes coming into effect: Route 2: the Number 1 from Departure Bay will complete the final round-trip on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Holiday Mondays only. Routes 1, 3: No changes, besides the seasonal standard, as far as I can tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2012 13:23:25 GMT -8
According to Global news last night, Duke Point isn't the only route where BCF is reducing service. Route 2, 3, and 1 will also see reduced service during less busy travel times. Route 30 is receiving the most drastic cuts though. Changes coming into effect: Route 2: the Number 1 from Departure Bay will complete the final round-trip on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Holiday Mondays only. Routes 1, 3: No changes, besides the seasonal standard, as far as I can tell. The reduced schedule on route 2 from Monday to Thursday has been in effect for a few years now. As for route 3, I checked the schedule as well and didn't see anything different from previous years.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Aug 28, 2012 15:12:28 GMT -8
Changes coming into effect: Route 2: the Number 1 from Departure Bay will complete the final round-trip on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Holiday Mondays only. Routes 1, 3: No changes, besides the seasonal standard, as far as I can tell. The reduced schedule on route 2 from Monday to Thursday has been in effect for a few years now. Ah, I thought that only took effect on Saturdays for the past couple off-season schedules - thanks for the correction. So it doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary - yet.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 1, 2012 15:15:16 GMT -8
Mr. Mars Bar / Rabinoff is right. Saturday's ships for those 2 round-trips will be backwards compared to their usual placement. According to Global news last night, Duke Point isn't the only route where BCF is reducing service. Route 2, 3, and 1 will also see reduced service during less busy travel times. Route 30 is receiving the most drastic cuts though. Actually, on routes one and two, the cuts are coming to the very busiest times in the schedule- the even houred sailings that are added on Friday, Sunday, and holiday weekends. This is going to cause significant backlogs at times, and will probably further depress ridership in future.
|
|