Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jun 21, 2012 20:23:11 GMT -8
Paul, what is funny is that our ferries are subsidized to a similar amount in terms of total subsidy of BC Ferries as my local paper analyzed. As a percentage of budget, I am not sure. Also, our ferry system does serve a different role. www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jul/24/could-wsf-follow-the-course-that-bc-ferries/ What is interesting is that we have similar farebox recovery ratios as you guys. So for the term heavily subsidized the statistics shown here indicates otherwise. Thanks for posting that article. Interesting read, but I thought it did a disservice to its American readers in not making it clear that there is a consensus in BC that the current operating model for BC Ferries is not working. Even conservative media outlets such as the daily papers in Vancouver and Victoria have criticized the sham privatization. While the BC and Washington ferry systems can certainly learn from each other, I cannot imagine why in gawdsname anyone on your side of the border- most scarily, your governor- might think our 'private' adventure holds any positive examples. While some people up here seem to see WAC Bennett as some sort of visionary, his great epiphany regarding ferries was no more than what Washingtonians had come to realize ten years earlier- that private ferry systems in our part of the world don't work, huge subsidies are required for what is essentially a marine transit system, and that government may as well run them. You have a good system down there. You carry more traffic than ours does, for a considerably smaller subsidy, with cheaper fares, and your execs make a fraction of what BC Ferries' honchos do. Yes, it's expensive to run, and many of your boats will need replacing. That doesn't mean turning to a discredited operating model, with some Americanized version of the ridiculous Coastal Ferry Act. Hopefully your new governor in November won't be attempting to re-invent wheel on the BC model. The article appeared to be using very outdated figures for subsidies; it's been a good number of years since BC Ferries got by with $120 million, and the WSF number seems to be off as well, on the high side.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 24, 2012 7:52:30 GMT -8
I'm not sure wht the appropriate thread for this is but.
Does B.C. Ferries do any fuel hedging? airlines use this tactic and it can be effective way of saving money when fuel costs are escalating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 19:42:37 GMT -8
www.vancouversun.com/news/local/Ferries+ridership+flat+despite+discounting+fares/6862749/story.htmlSo it looks like Coast Savers was a dud. Ridership is down 6.5% from last June. Of course BC Ferries is saying that this proves that lower fares don't increase ridership. I think there are several reasons why ridership is down, like weather etc. ... But I don't think a 4 weekend sale is going to erase the perception that most people have that fares are too high. The decline in ridership doesn't prove anything. I totally agree with you.... BC Ferries seems to be using this as a "tool" to try and prove that ridership is down and fares aren't a factor. Just thought i'd post the following in this thread as it's off-topic of coastsavers. To attack declining ridership, I think BCF should move ahead with sailing cuts on the money-losing minor routes. Denman (for example) doesn't need 17 sailings a day in the off-season. Neil mentioned that 492 of the 730ish MD sailings throughout the system were on routes 21 & 22, but i'd be curious to know how many of those were in the high season... The statistics clearly show that the minor routes aren't even close to being saturated in the off-season. BC Ferries' core mandate on the minor routes is to provide an essential service to Islanders, not a taxi service that carries a few of them across the channel every hour or more. Living on an Island has its benefits, but also its sacrifices and incoveniences, and I don't think we as a whole province should be paying for nearly empty sailings in the off-season on money losing routes.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jun 29, 2012 22:19:38 GMT -8
BC Ferries' core mandate on the minor routes is to provide an essential service to Islanders, not a taxi service that carries a few of them across the channel every hour or more. Living on an Island has its benefits, but also its sacrifices and incoveniences, and I don't think we as a whole province should be paying for nearly empty sailings in the off-season on money losing routes. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone wag their finger at islanders and lecture them about their sense of entitlement, I'd probably have David Hahn's monthly pension cheque. Virtually every single ferry route and every bus route in this province 'loses money'. It's a pointless criticism. Buses and ferries sometimes run way under capacity. It's not the fault of a community if the vessel supplied sometimes exceeds the need, or if a bus is sometimes too big. The needs of the community need to be taken into account, and I can tell you, that's not something that has happened once during the last nine years of spiralling ferry fares. Per mile, the Hornby fares are more than four times the Tsawwassen - Duke Point fares, and almost twice as much when figuring by minute spent on board. Doesn't sound like any special treatment to me. And does your connection to the outside world close at six o'clock six days a week, as on Hornby? Didn't think so. Maybe some cuts can be made to routes in mid day or evening service, but even there contractors, delivery people, and islanders travelling to medical appointments will be impacted, and any cuts will have to be very judicious, and not based on glib pronouncements about sacrifice and necessary inconvenience. We're talking about the essential health of small communities, which I trust matters to people who recognize the role they've always played in the Canadian mosaic.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Jun 30, 2012 14:09:33 GMT -8
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone wag their finger at islanders and lecture them about their sense of entitlement, I'd probably have David Hahn's monthly pension cheque. Virtually every single ferry route and every bus route in this province 'loses money'. It's a pointless criticism. Buses and ferries sometimes run way under capacity. It's not the fault of a community if the vessel supplied sometimes exceeds the need, or if a bus is sometimes too big. The needs of the community need to be taken into account, and I can tell you, that's not something that has happened once during the last nine years of spiralling ferry fares. Per mile, the Hornby fares are more than four times the Tsawwassen - Duke Point fares, and almost twice as much when figuring by minute spent on board. Doesn't sound like any special treatment to me. And does your connection to the outside world close at six o'clock six days a week, as on Hornby? Didn't think so. Maybe some cuts can be made to routes in mid day or evening service, but even there contractors, delivery people, and islanders travelling to medical appointments will be impacted, and any cuts will have to be very judicious, and not based on glib pronouncements about sacrifice and necessary inconvenience. We're talking about the essential health of small communities, which I trust matters to people who recognize the role they've always played in the Canadian mosaic. Partially agree, but the criterion of the Hornby Island fares being four times that of Tsawasssen is a bit much there Neil. You're comparing vis a vis, when there is a huge difference. One of course is traffic volume, the other is length of the sail. Also that route and Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay are money makers, so with those two plus the Mid Island generate revenue which essentially subsidizes the smaller routes to an extent. The fares and length of the sail of Tsawwassen and Hornby are not 100% comparable. There are many factors in how fares are set, the length of the sail is one, but it's not the 100% determinate. Public transit buses rarely make money (the heavily used routes in the Vancouver Metro area do, and yes there have been a few routes that have been cancelled because of very low ridership. The criterion is the service area. SOme area such as east and South Surrey are very poor in public transit service. There's no public transit bus service to complement Skytrain as yet. Disagree on "every bus route in this province loses money". If that were the case, Greyhound and Pacificoach plus other common carriers for buses wouldn't exist. If the Island bus from Vancouver to Victoria lost money, it simply wouldn't exist. Living on an island like Hornby and Saturna brings a person to accept the remoteness of the area. Many live there because just of that, and accept the fact that there's no hourly taxi service to The Island or Mainland. It's a matter of choice. People have made adjustments to ferries in the past and they will have to at some time in the future. Living in a place called Hornby Island is not the same as living in a condo on Hornby Street. A cottage or home on Quadra Island isn't the same as a house on Quadra in Vancouver. Those making deliveries recognise that, and for example Island Farms does know when the ferries are sailing and make the nesseary logistical steps in order to have their trucks meet the Quadra Island ferry. Same as the other carriers that make frequent deliveries to the Islands. The same can be said for the many carriers that make runs to and from Vancouver Island. It's not rocket science for transportation to make adjustments in routing to accomodate new revised schedules, but it's more complicated than writing missives to an online forum. I've actually done that myself, timing the departure of our completed software products (and the selection of the appropiate carrier - in this instance it was Loomis as couriers did not exist at that time at the extent they do today) to when they should be at BC Systems Corporation as requested by the person I worked with at BC Systems. The problem is that some figure there's a sense of entitlement to a ferry being a taxi service. Also don't forget other than the Mid Island, the mainland ferries do not sail after 9 PM. So technically The Island is cut off from the Mainland until 6.30 AM the next day (other than the early morning sail to from Tsawwassen to/from Duke Point). There has to be some give and take, there's only so much money available, and even the new anticipated government is not going to have much success in maintaining a 100% socialised ferry system as some would want. I like the explanations you have posted. The Quadra comparisons can also have Quadra Street in Victoria. Some bus routes in Victoria also make money and other routes have been canceled. Getting technical here but don't forget, the mid island route's first and last sailings only sail six days a week outside of the summer schedule. From May to October, the last sailing on the other mainland crossings vary from 2130h to 2305h.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 30, 2012 15:40:27 GMT -8
Ferries are different from both public transit, and even more so from private bus lines in that they are NOT extensions of the highway system. That's a huge difference in services.
That's the reason BC Ferries started as a part of Highways, and because of the growth of the fleet and love affair with corporations later became a quasi-external Crown Corporation.
The government is typically expected to provide some form of transport to most locations. With no bridges ferries are needed unless they plan to subsidize air fare or provide another alternative. BC is a bit of an oddball as some quirks of history determined which islands received service and which did not, but the expectation has been established and will be nearly impossible to remove.
Also, somewhat off topic, but the accounting for a public transit route to be "profitable" is hugely different than BC Ferries because they account for driver and fuel cost. Nothing else. No bus route actually makes money in Metro Van if you take into account associated required I infrastructure and equipment needed.
Greyhound is also hurting, very badly. I don't follow PCL, myself.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jun 30, 2012 15:59:25 GMT -8
Living in a place called Hornby Island is not the same as living in a condo on Hornby Street. Hornby Island is not the same as Hornby Street. Well. Certainly glad we got that cleared up. I'll bring that up next time there's a FAC report at a ratepayers' meeting. I'm sure it will be a revelation to all those fat and sassy 'entitled' islanders. I've pointed out in the past how islanders are well used to the reality that they aren't going to enjoy the same services as city people. The Co-op doesn't get fresh food every day and the bread shelves are sometimes bare. Food prices are higher, as are prices for other services. The hydro outage doesn't get fixed when the ferry isn't running. Utilities people only come over so often, and the ferry doesn't run in the evening. The credit union is open three days a week, and for limited hours. Eating out options are severely limited in the off-season. High school kids leave the house at 7:30 and return at five. Doctors may have limited hours, and involved treatment means a long commute. That's just a sample of what's different. People don't complain about that stuff. It comes with living on an island. They're not dumb enough that they need someone telling them that they're not in the city, and it's misinformed stereotyping to say that people are demanding city services in a rural 'paradise'. But there's a socio-economic reality here that has nothing to do with anyone's supposed sense of entitlement. If you continually raise ferry fares and then cut basic access, you eventually reach a tipping point where island economies fail to thrive. There is anecdotal evidence from many islands to suggest that's already happening, from the fare increases. The legacy of nine years of the Coastal Ferry Act is that islanders have come to expect that their interests will never be taken into account when decisions regarding ferry service are made. That is a result of the Act forbidding any consideration of community concerns to interfere with business-like operations of the ferry operator. That has now supposedly changed, but we have no idea if there is any substance to that change, hence, the apprehension about these proposed cuts. I've not gotten the impression that every island is saying 'no cuts, ever'. Residents have endured ever bigger chunks of their disposable income going to transportation, and businesses and tourist operations have seen drops in patronage as customers choose non-ferry options. Great care has to be taken in reconciling community needs with provincial economic concerns. Partially agree, but the criterion of the Hornby Island fares being four times that of Tsawasssen is a bit much there Neil. You're comparing vis a vis, when there is a huge difference. One of course is traffic volume, the other is length of the sail. Also that route and Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay are money makers, so with those two plus the Mid Island generate revenue which essentially subsidizes the smaller routes to an extent. The fares and length of the sail of Tsawwassen and Hornby are not 100% comparable. There are many factors in how fares are set, the length of the sail is one, but it's not the 100% determinate. My comparison of rates in relation to distance and duration was valid. My point was that islanders- and not just Hornby- are already paying a significant premium on their fares compared to the 'major' routes. I also used the experience card fares; if we were talking about some unsuspecting tourist paying full fares, the comparison would be even more dramatic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 18:48:24 GMT -8
First of all, I never pointed a finger at any Islanders regarding their sense of entitlement. All I was saying, is that BC Ferries should cut some sailings, even if Islanders are against the decision. I realize that public consultation should take place, but BC Ferries can only be flexible to a certain point. I do agree with you on not cutting late night runs. But some midday runs could be cut. Doctors appointments and contractors as an example, can always wake up a little earlier to catch the ferry. I did it all the time on the Sunshine Coast. It's part of living in a ferry dependant community. As for fares being higher per mile, I agree with Neil's point of view. The strategy of rasing fares to pay for increased costs and diminishing ridership has obviously been counter-productive. Maybe some cuts can be made to routes in mid day or evening service, but even there contractors, delivery people, and islanders travelling to medical appointments will be impacted, and any cuts will have to be very judicious, and not based on glib pronouncements about sacrifice and necessary inconvenience. We're talking about the essential health of small communities, which I trust matters to people who recognize the role they've always played in the Canadian mosaic. I agree that the health of the small communities do play a role in the Canadian economy, which mostly comes in the form of tourism. Most people tour in the summer. Which is why I think modest cuts could be made in the off-season. Okay, I've tried to compare as 'apples to apples as possible' here... Galiano Island Population (2011): 1138 No. of sailings on a Monday in the off-season (to Tsaw and Swartz combined): 6 Denman Island Population combined with Hornby (because Hornby depends on the Denman ferry) (2011): 1980 No. of sailings from Buckley Bay on a Monday in the off-season: 17 On paper, it's clear that a midday sailing or two could be cut. Obviously there's more to take into account than that when you cut a sailing, but I would be surprised if a cut sailing or two would deeply affect the Island. BC Ferries could survey Islanders, i.e. "Check the first two sailings you would think would be most appropriate to eliminate". lol
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jun 30, 2012 22:17:16 GMT -8
First of all, I never pointed a finger at any Islanders regarding their sense of entitlement. All I was saying, is that BC Ferries should cut some sailings, even if Islanders are against the decision. I realize that public consultation should take place, but BC Ferries can only be flexible to a certain point. Fair enough. But the decision is too important to be left to BC Ferries. Hopefully, that's one of the changes that comes from a new role for the Coastal Ferry Act, or even better, the killing of the whole apparatus. BC Ferries could survey Islanders, i.e. "Check the first two sailings you would think would be most appropriate to eliminate". lol That's sort of been the tone of most 'consultations' between BC Ferries and the public; "Here's what we're planning, now we'll let you vent for a while". I think most people are probably resigned to some cuts. Whether those cuts save any real money depends on how harsh they are. Paul: I'm not concerned about your friend with recreational property on Quadra, and my status as a part time islander is also irrelevant. I'm talking about residents and island businesses and a community's need for dependable, affordable transportation, and the ability to earn a livelihood. Since you insist on painting islanders as people who 'constantly rely on city level services', it's clear that we can't even agree on who we're talking about, so it's pointless for me to state my position yet again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 12:11:10 GMT -8
Fair enough. But the decision is too important to be left to BC Ferries. Hopefully, that's one of the changes that comes from a new role for the Coastal Ferry Act, or even better, the killing of the whole apparatus. I think most people are probably resigned to some cuts. Whether those cuts save any real money depends on how harsh they are. I think BC Ferries made a mistake in 1985 by absorbing the saltwater fleet. It should be returned to the MOTI. Similar to every highway in the province, the minor route group does not make money. I mentioned that Galiano Isand had only a slightly smaller population than Denman & Hornby combined, yet Denman has more than double the amount of sailings compared to Galiano. Savings can be achieved without having a large impact on the community.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 1, 2012 12:35:17 GMT -8
I mentioned that Galiano Isand had only a slightly smaller population than Denman & Hornby combined, yet Denman has more than double the amount of sailings compared to Galiano. 2 extra factors to keep in mind, when doing these types of apples/oranges comparisons: 1) The capacity of the ship 2) The length of the route. Concerning Denman or Hornby, you have a small approx 25 or 50 car (for Denman) capacity ship. Or course it would need more sailings than an 85-car Queen of Capilano or a 100-car Queen of Nanaimo. Concerning the length of the route and cost savings, what happens when the sailing is only 10 minutes long? Do you take an hour break and send the workers home for the hour, and then call them back again when an hour or 2 has passed? When a worker is hired for a shift, even if it is only 5 or 6 hours long, and the sailing only takes 10 minutes, you'd think that there would be a large number of sailings involved. That's why they can get away with such a small car-capacity ferry. So a short-haul small-ship route such as Hornby or Denman has unique issues when you consider the number of sailings. - would it be more efficient to have the ship sit idle for 2 hours while you pay the workers and keep the engines running.?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jul 1, 2012 14:47:00 GMT -8
I mentioned that Galiano Isand had only a slightly smaller population than Denman & Hornby combined, yet Denman has more than double the amount of sailings compared to Galiano. 2 extra factors to keep in mind, when doing these types of apples/oranges comparisons: 1) The capacity of the ship 2) The length of the route. Concerning Denman or Hornby, you have a small approx 25 or 50 car (for Denman) capacity ship. Or course it would need more sailings than an 85-car Queen of Capilano or a 100-car Queen of Nanaimo. Concerning the length of the route and cost savings, what happens when the sailing is only 10 minutes long? Do you take an hour break and send the workers home for the hour, and then call them back again when an hour or 2 has passed? When a worker is hired for a shift, even if it is only 5 or 6 hours long, and the sailing only takes 10 minutes, you'd think that there would be a large number of sailings involved. That's why they can get away with such a small car-capacity ferry. So a short-haul small-ship route such as Hornby or Denman has unique issues when you consider the number of sailings. - would it be more efficient to have the ship sit idle for 2 hours while you pay the workers and keep the engines running.? Further to that... Galiano's population is not just "slightly smaller" than Denman & Hornby combined. According to the Islands Trust, Galiano's population is (as of 2011) 1138. Denman and Hornby number 1980. Also, the Quinitsa, serving Denman, is vastly cheaper to operate than the Queen of Cumberland. Quinitsa, with a crew of six or so, uses a meagre 67 litres of fuel on a round trip on a route of ten minutes. The ' Cumberland's sister ship, the ' Capilano, guzzles 500 litres on the round trip to Bowen (15-20 minutes), and I believe the ' Cumberland also carries a crew of 10-12.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Jul 1, 2012 16:56:32 GMT -8
Flugel Horn: You make some excellent points, which I believe satisfies this argument perfectly. Most people think that it would be a simple matter to cut a couple sailings, as you could just choose 2 (different times of day), and cut them. But as you've said, this would raise more issues.
Another idea occurred to me - could they cut back a 'chunk' of sailings in the middle of the day, having 2 shortened shifts? This would mean leaving the same frequency of sailings in the morning and late afternoon, but cutting 3 or 4 midday. If health emergency arises, use a watertaxi?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jul 2, 2012 9:05:17 GMT -8
The divide between BC Ferries routes and Department of Highways routes never made any sense. The Highways routes pre-dated BC Ferries and, for whatever reason, they had a much different pricing structure.
In 1981, a car and driver return fare to Gabriola, a twenty minute Highways route, cost $2.40. The twenty minute BC Ferries route to Bowen was $7.25 All the Highways routes were much cheaper than BC Ferries.
It was an example of a lack of vision and purpose in our ferry structure which exists to this day.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jul 2, 2012 11:12:31 GMT -8
The Highways routes pre-dated BC Ferries . Not exactly correct. Consider the dates when saltwater ferry service was firstly operated (in terms of entire operations, not the deliverance of subsidies from the Dept. of Highways Budgets for services) by the Department of Highways No such thing as a hair so fine that it can't be split, I suppose. Whether those routes were actually run or just subsidized by the Highways ministry, their fare structures were in place before BC Ferries came into existence, and for the most part, it didn't change from subsidized to complete absorption into Highways. And that was my point- the difference between BC Ferries fare structure, and that of Highways. Schedules for those routes were also printed under Highways mastheads, whether operated by contractors or not. One exception to the pricing difference was the Comox to Powell River ferry, started in 1964 using the Comox Queen, where the fare was the same as BC Ferries 'major' routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 15:34:41 GMT -8
The divide between BC Ferries routes and Department of Highways routes never made any sense. The Highways routes pre-dated BC Ferries and, for whatever reason, they had a much different pricing structure. In 1981, a car and driver return fare to Gabriola, a twenty minute Highways route, cost $2.40. The twenty minute BC Ferries route to Bowen was $7.25 All the Highways routes were much cheaper than BC Ferries. It was an example of a lack of vision and purpose in our ferry structure which exists to this day. Just out of curiosity, what was the government's reason for merging the department of highways saltwater fleet into BC Ferries?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jul 2, 2012 16:00:40 GMT -8
There's differences between the two in terms of operations and budgetary environments. The two are seperate entities in terms of operations. Dept. of Highways crews for example were BCGEU not BCFMWU so a different series of collective agreements. Also consider the terminals were Department of Highways so those would fall under the jursidiction of the old Highways Districts. Even the affable Stu Hodgson would not have been able to go before Bowen Islanders at the time and get them to buy the notion that they were paying three times as much as Gabriolans for an identical service because of different union contracts and different branches of government. When we first started going to Hornby in the early '80s, it seemed bizarre to me that fares were so cheap, compared to Bowen and the Gulf Islands. It made no sense then, but I imagine that the memories of those generous rates may explain why some older islanders in communities formerly served by Highways ferries have such a sharp perception of current rates. In any event, fares are not based on route costs, or if they are, the criteria is applied very unevenly. Texada is a longer route than Bowen, and it recovers a much smaller percentage of its cost through fare revenue, and yet Texadans pay about 25% lower fares than Bowenians. The Coastal Ferry Act and the Coastal Ferry Services contract have done little to rationalize fares system wide, other than to nail users for as much of the route costs as they can possibly bear. Not many people realize that despite all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by BC Ferries honchos, not all of the 'minor' routes lose money for the company. In the last fiscal year, after all federal and provincial subsidies were paid to BC Ferries, Crofton to Saltspring, Saanich Inlet, Gambier-Keats, Comox to Powell River, Powell River to Texada, Buckley Bay to Denman, and Quadra to Cortes made money. The biggest money maker in the group was, in fact, Denman to Hornby, at $1.777 million. Things change drastically from year to year depending on maintenance and improvements, but in terms of BC Ferries keeping its head above water in the current ferry construct, things are not quite as dire as some believe. The situation involves a question of how much we want to soak communuties for their ferry costs, as much as it involves supposed impending financial doom. I know that there is a saying about lies and statistics, and it can be extended to include bookkeeping. Despite a huge operating loss, the second most 'profitable' route for BC Ferries in the entire system- more than route two even- was the Prince Rupert to Skidegate run, because of massive federal and provincial subsidies. This whole current set up seems like a ridiculous shell game at times. sccomuter, to your question: A rare attack of ferry common sense, perhaps?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 16:12:28 GMT -8
Not many people realize that despite all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by BC Ferries honchos, not all of the 'minor' routes lose money for the company. In the last fiscal year, after all federal and provincial subsidies were paid to BC Ferries, Crofton to Saltspring, Saanich Inlet, Gambier-Keats, Comox to Powell River, Powell River to Texada, Buckley Bay to Denman, and Quadra to Cortes made money. The biggest money maker in the group was, in fact, Denman to Hornby, at $1.777 million. Things change drastically from year to year depending on maintenance and improvements, but in terms of BC Ferries keeping its head above water in the current ferry construct, things are not quite as dire as some believe. The situation involves a question of how much we want to soak communuties for their ferry costs, as much as it involves supposed impending financial doom. I know that there is a saying about lies and statistics, and it can be extended to include bookkeeping. Despite a huge operating loss, the second most 'profitable' route for BC Ferries in the entire system- more than route two even- was the Prince Rupert to Skidegate run, because of massive federal and provincial subsidies. I guess it comes down to the interpretation and the context of the expression. Perhaps a better word would be profitable, as the expression "making money" can be interpreted in many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 28, 2012 10:56:42 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Dec 28, 2012 11:58:21 GMT -8
“We have put $80 million into B.C. Ferries [in additional government subsidies], as you know, and that is not a sustainable amount of money from taxpayers across the province. It’s just not. You can’t run a ferry system with that kind of level of subsidy forever.”
Christy's ignorance here is appalling. Apparently she's completely unaware of Alaska, Washington, and various European countries where large subsidies for ferry operations are the norm. Public utilities like schools, roads, and land or marine transit systems cost a lot of money. Period. The best you can do is run things as economically as possible and accept the cost that remains as an essential expenditure in a civilized society.
She also makes it clear that nothing will come of this 'consultation' process before the election. How convenient. The Liberals could have started the process earlier- David Hahn told them there was a problem well back in Gordon Campbell's time- but they chose to leave it until a few months before the election. Now they can pass it all off to the NDP with the excuse that the process hasn't been completed.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 26, 2013 9:36:03 GMT -8
Update from the BCFS 3rd quarter MD&A report (filed on regarding the next round of service cuts mandated by the Province:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 27, 2013 14:26:27 GMT -8
Don't tell anyone about this, but here's a discussion item about some BCF capital expenditure planning issues, that maybe some of us want to quietly discuss here (without ruining our forum's reputation for ignoring such items). - So let's all keep this a secret.... --------------------- BC Ferry Commission released this week his proposed guidelines for when BCF must get commissioner approval of certain capital expenditures. See the release here: www.bcferrycommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/13-03-22-Section-55-Application-Guidelines-FINAL.pdf- this new requirement was part of the Province's recent changes to the Act. There are interesting things in these proposed guidelines, that speak to the various questions that many of us have been asking about BCF's motivation in its various capital purchase decisions (to repair, to refit, to rebuild, to delay newbuild, etc etc). Here are some quotes that interested me: ...and I'd just be quoting all the remaining items, so just give it a read, please. I'll make my own comments, later.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 27, 2013 17:26:30 GMT -8
A few of the approval criteria that caught my eye:
---------------------- Regarding terminal expenditures: I think these are good criteria.
-------------------
Regarding whether the new vessel's costs are excessive: - This is the "Olympic Wrap Wrule"
--------------------
Regarding future needs: - a few issues that we've discussed lots here on our forum (shhhh: let's not ruin our reputation)
----------------------
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 12, 2013 12:55:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jun 23, 2013 22:07:49 GMT -8
|
|