|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2012 11:18:57 GMT -8
Just setting up a new thread for the eventual news and discussion for when the Ferry Commissioner releases his findings on the Coastal Ferry Act Review.
I expect it on January 24 2012.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 3, 2012 11:38:43 GMT -8
:)in the year of Titanic centennial, the coastal ferry act should go the same place as the said vessel! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 23, 2012 19:02:56 GMT -8
Tomorrow has the possibility of being one of the most important days in BCFerries history. - Or at least in setting-off an important sequence of decisions and events.
Back in May 2011, the Government's Minister of Transportation (Blair Lekstrom) interrupted the Performance-Term #3 process to request that the Ferry Commissioner do a review of the Coastal Ferry Act.
New Minister (working for a new Premier), asking a new Ferry Commissioner to do something that hadn't been done before.
Tomorrow, the Commissioner's report to the Minister will be released. - then it will be up to the Minister to decide what to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 9:33:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 9:46:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 10:09:56 GMT -8
Some more detail highlights from the 104 page report, found here: www.bcferrycommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/12-01-24-BCFC-CFA-Regulatory-Review-FINAL.pdf---------------- Section 1.7 - Principles on Recommendations to Improve the Current Regulatory Model: - one section at a time. Underlines are my editorial emphasis. ----------------- Items #7 & #8 mean that the Commissioner is more involved in the decisions for vessel replacements. The balance of what is needed vs. what can be afforded. Item #11 means that the 2012-2016 fares would only increase by inflation. Item #14 likely means that a Regional District (say Mt. Waddington Regional District in the Port McNeill area) could decide to pay funding to BCFerries for the purpose of lowering the ferry fares for the Alert Bay / Sointula route. The Regional District would likely get that money from property taxes paid by all the residents of the area. - a way to create Government subsidy on a regional/local level, instead on on a Province-wide level.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 10:22:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 10:43:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 12:32:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 13:11:15 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jan 24, 2012 17:20:13 GMT -8
Thank you, Mr Horn, for taking the time to summarize that report. I also went through the report itself, though not every line as yet.
I'll bet one thing jumped out at Christy Clark, as a sort of temporary lifesaver:
"The Province should work collaboratively with BC Ferries to develop a long term vision of coastal ferry services in BC. A draft discussion paper should go out for public consultation. The resulting vision should be formally adopted by the Province and provide the basis for the long-term capital plan of the ferry operator. Ideally the vision would be in place before major capital decisions are made regarding PT4."
In other words, study and consult it to death at least until after the next election, when most likely Adrian Dix will have to deal with it.
I also have a problem with the nature of the report itself; the ferry commissioner reporting on the role of the ferry commission, and the future of BC Ferries. This should have been a royal commission (if we still have such things) presided over by a completely independent body. But that's not what happened so we deal with what we have.
It seems to me to be a fairly clear repudiation of a number of the principles that the Liberals installed in the overall ferry setup in 2003. Fares should rise no faster than the CPI, and should not necessarily reflect the cost of the individual service. Cross-subsidization should be allowed. Community needs should at least equal business model needs. Subsidies should be increased as needed. Ferry advisory committees should have more of a role. And perhaps, most importantly; the necessity for the ferry system to be appraised in conjunction with the needs and the economy of local communities and the province as a whole, rather than looked at as some autonomous, completely separately functioning business entity.
I liked the inclusion of a comparison with other ferry companies, and with utilities that function as monopolies in the U.K. The report makes clear that- as many people already knew- British Columbian ferry users are paying a far higher percentage of operating costs than ferry riders in other jurisdictions, even as close as Washington. Depending on your point of view, that speaks either of the efficiency of BC Ferries, or of the possibility that ferry users and ferry dependent communities here are being price gouged. I'd lean heavily toward the latter.
I liked the recommendation for variable pricing at different times, and for an increased emphasis on reservations, with perhaps the higher fares being shifted toward 'standby' passengers, as is the norm in the airline industry. There may also be room for service cutbacks in off peak periods, although some communities may disagree. Hornby Island apparently got through the recent two week shutdown relatively unscathed; perhaps many islands could do without service for one mid-day period per week, or for an evening or two.
I don't understand the suggestion of local communities subsidizing rates where higher fares are seen to be hurting business or the tax base. Did the commissioner really think that the Sunshine Coast Regional District has a few million discretionary dollars to hand over to BC Ferries to chop a couple of dollars off a vehicle fare?
Lots more in the report to digest. Maybe now that Christy's back from doing her Rudy Giuliani routine up in Burns Lake, she'll be making some family friendly noise about taming big, bad, BC Ferries. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 24, 2012 18:06:14 GMT -8
A quote from a Times Colonist article: Another key recommendation is for B.C. Ferries to overhaul its reservation system. Macattee suggested ferry riders be encouraged to reserve a spot on sailings for free, and get charged extra if they just show up without notice, to give the ferry company more stability on loading its vessels.
“We believe the reservation tool is a very important feature,” he said.
Read more: www.timescolonist.com/business/Ferry+fares+inflation+commissioner+recommends/6044510/story.html#ixzz1kQmfm000
This is only one of many recommendations, but this is an interesting way of dealing with reservations that I'd never thought about before. It would help BC Ferries forecast traffic better, but would it bring in more money if non-reserves had to pay more? I suppose if all regular sailings filled up and you still wanted to get to the Island, you would go, pay more, and maybe get on an extra sailing or hope someone with reservations never showed up. Another problem with free reservations is that people might make reservations, just in case they need them, and then not show up. But I'm sure BC Ferries would be happy to put a charge on unclaimed reservations... so it probably wouldn't be a hard problem to solve. Another question would be, what percentage of a ferry would they put up for reservations? Would it be 100% like the airlines? Or could they make it 60% reservations and 40% non-reservations? I would think that would make people upset if they couldn't get reservations and the ferry was half empty but they still had to pay more to get on.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 24, 2012 18:42:49 GMT -8
This is only one of many recommendations, but this is an interesting way of dealing with reservations that I'd never thought about before. It would help BC Ferries forecast traffic better, but would it bring in more money if non-reserves had to pay more? I suppose if all regular sailings filled up and you still wanted to get to the Island, you would go, pay more, and maybe get on an extra sailing or hope someone with reservations never showed up. Another problem with free reservations is that people might make reservations, just in case they need them, and then not show up. But I'm sure BC Ferries would be happy to put a charge on unclaimed reservations... so it probably wouldn't be a hard problem to solve. Another question would be, what percentage of a ferry would they put up for reservations? Would it be 100% like the airlines? Or could they make it 60% reservations and 40% non-reservations? I would think that would make people upset if they couldn't get reservations and the ferry was half empty but they still had to pay more to get on. This is something I've talked to people about before, and had fairly positive response. My scenario: 100% reservations, with the full vehicle fare paid up front. If you cancel with a decent enough lead time, say 12 hours, it's fully refunded. If you cancel last minute, you're dinged a cancellation fee of something like $15. If you don't show, you forfeit the whole deposit. Standby is still allowed, and not necessarily even for a higher price. If the reservations are free, people will not hesitate to make one if they know when they want to travel, and BCF will be able to organize ship usage much better. Also, terminals won't have to be expanded, because if the ships are 100% reserved there will be no reason for anybody to be waiting longer than a sailing. My $0.02, slightly less with exchange.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Jan 24, 2012 20:03:47 GMT -8
Moving to 100% reservation across the entire system would be very unpopular in communities served by minor, short, routes. Requiring people to reserve at least an hour in advance before taking the 10 minute sail from Denman to VI wouldn't go down very well.
Mostly-reserved sailings could work on routes that are long enough or infrequent enough that hardly anyone travels spontaneously, but there must be some means to deal with unplanned trips by people who have personal emergencies or are out of communication.
Full reservations wouldn't remove the need for holding pens at the terminals. There has to be somewhere to store cars and passengers when sailings are suspended due to winter weather or accidents.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 24, 2012 20:18:04 GMT -8
More from the report, which I found interesting.
Section 9.1 - price cap affordability:
That would be very nice...
-----------------
9.2 Fleet Renewal and the Long-TermCapital Plan
--------------------------
-----------------
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 24, 2012 20:41:13 GMT -8
Took a chance to read the report today. Very interesting read.
I think what stood out for me the most, and I believe to be a valid point, is the lack of clear direction from the Government on what they want BC Ferries to actually be. Current legislation and structuring of the organization does not allow it to achieve beneficial means for the user groups in many cases, as the report notes, but it is difficult to do business differently with the current guiding principles.
Study or not there needs to be clarification by the Government on where they see the direction of the ferry system.
In many ways this report opens up more questions than anything, but this is not a bad thing and discussions like this must be had.
BCFS's response has been surprisingly positive as well, in my opinion. I am wondering if they're under marching orders, though. Clark doesn't need another political hot potato to deal with. While it seems that this got a decent amount of media attention it isn't commanding headlines.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 24, 2012 23:27:45 GMT -8
Thanks for picking out the highlights Flugel Horn. Here's one you missed From BCFerrys on Twitter: We're following recommendations from the commission and immediately canceling our pumpkin tart.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 25, 2012 7:13:21 GMT -8
Thanks for picking out the highlights Flugel Horn. Here's one you missed From BCFerrys on Twitter: We're following recommendations from the commission and immediately canceling our pumpkin tart. haha, that's funny. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 26, 2012 22:46:46 GMT -8
I'm presuming (and hoping) that the Minister will implement changes to the Act, based on some specifics of the Commissioner's review, either in full or at least steps in that direction. - I doubt that all items would be implemented 100%, but there will likely be some implemented nearly as recommended, and some partially implemented, and some ignored.
But considering that it was the Minister who asked for the review, and that the review required legislative change to the Act in order to do the review, you'd think that the Minister will take the recommendations to heart and apply some of them. - and not just ignore it.
The report got to the heart of the basic guiding principles of the Act, and recommended a pervasive change to the philosophy behind the structure, so hopefully there will be meaningful change to the Act.
But like Neil said, it looks like a status-quo of studies during PT#3 (2012-2016) with real change happening after that. - but at least there might not be huge fare increases for PT#3....
I'll be staying tuned into what the Minister responds with.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 27, 2012 8:15:21 GMT -8
It will be interesting to watch. From a maritime operations position not political. I'm going to be watching both, with interest. The politics stuff is a reality, and it's usually an interesting show for me to watch. But just like different channels on TV, "politics" and "technical application" are like 2 different channels. I might watch both, but will usually focus on one or the other, depending on what intrigues me at the moment. I agree with you on the more interesting stuff being the maritime-operations impact. This will impact what kind of ships replace the 'Burnaby and 'Nanaimo, for instance. I'm interested in that. ---------------- I encounter something a bit similar with the annual Federal Budget speech. There's lots of politics in the speeches and reports on budget-day, but you never know what kind of detail stuff is included and how the tax-system is changed, until months later when it's worked into legislation and policy. - As a public-practice accountant, I'm used to my work-life being impacted by things that are not-trumpeted on budget-day, but that later appear in the implementation details. If a Minister announces something on a high-level "new direction" basis, it's always interesting to later find out exactly how that simple change is turning into a complicated pain-in-the-butt for people who actually have to implement it. An idea is one thing, but how you go about implementing it is another. Paul: What's your source for keeping up with legislative debate? Is Hansard in near real-time, or is there some other online source to stay current on happenings when the House is in-session?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jan 27, 2012 22:59:13 GMT -8
From the report, talking about Scotland's domestic ferry service:
"Pilots of road equivalent tariff schemes have shown that there are wider social and economic impacts from providing additional subsidy to ferry services to remote island communities, however the pilot has demonstrated that a move towards a road equivalent tariff approach is not self-financing and that additional subsidy is required to support the move."
I would like to have seen a more in depth look at the most recent figures on the road equivalent tariff, perhaps showing how the economy of the islands has been impacted by lower fares. In BC, despite substantial anecdotal indications, we've never had proper research done on the effect of ballooning fares on the so-called minor routes.
Also from the same area of the report, this comment on fares:
"Passenger and vehicle fares charged by BC Ferries are compared to a number of other ferry operators in the following chart. The chart compares fares with available discount for a standard vehicle with one passenger, based on short, medium and long routes. The fares are based on posted rates as at November, 2011. The results suggest that tariffs charged by BC Ferries are not excessive. They are neither the highest nor the lowest in any of the categories."
That passage precedes a graph which shows BC Ferries rates, per nautical mile, as being within a range of fares of selected routes from other companies. But there are different ways to compare rates, and when you compare BC Ferries to WSF on similar routes in terms of time, BC Ferries is considerably more expensive in every instance. It's also shown that BC Ferries recovers about 82% of costs at the farebox, compared to 62% for WSF, and less for the other examples they show, down to about 25% for AMHS. Doesn't this indicate that BC Ferries is in fact demanding more from their paying customers than all the other systems, and is therefore the most expensive?
Finally, and I know this isn't news, but just the stating of it still amazes me. From the report:
In 2010 an amendment to the Act (Bill 20) introduced a requirement for the commissioner to “consider the interests of ferry users”.
Mind boggling to think that the government would have ever constructed a ferry service framework that didn't contain that provision.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 5, 2012 17:48:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 9, 2012 13:30:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 9, 2012 13:36:16 GMT -8
Re the Government response on May 9, 2012:
So what does this mean?
- The Ferry Commissioner will be approving major capital expenditures.
- Looks like a think-outside-the-box mandate for ferries. The current system wasn't working, so new ways must be considered and those new ways need to be accepted by the communities. Communities will need to be flexible to allow for better utilization of sailings.
- A higher annual subsidy from the Province.
- Profitable major routes are allowed to subsidize non-profitable minor routes. This should reduce fares on the minor routes.
in Summary, the Minister didn't say "the system just needs more subsidy, so we're giving it more money." The Minister made it clear that service changes are necessary, because of the low utilization of many sailings.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on May 9, 2012 14:12:10 GMT -8
Re the Government response on May 9, 2012: So what does this mean? - The Ferry Commissioner will be approving major capital expenditures. - Looks like a think-outside-the-box mandate for ferries. The current system wasn't working, so new ways must be considered and those new ways need to be accepted by the communities. Communities will need to be flexible to allow for better utilization of sailings. - A higher annual subsidy from the Province. - Profitable major routes are allowed to subsidize non-profitable minor routes. This should reduce fares on the minor routes. in Summary, the Minister didn't say "the system just needs more subsidy, so we're giving it more money." The Minister made it clear that service changes are necessary, because of the low utilization of many sailings. Thanks for posting the news release. The taste I get is that the government has known of the BCFS defficiencies for quite some time, however chose to ignore it until someone said something. I would imagine that would be the only way that they would cave to increase a subsidy. Overall, I do think that it's a step in the right direction, but I guess we'll see how it actually unfolds, and whether or not it will be able to have a serious impact on affordability until BCFS drives this pimped-out used car home.
|
|