|
Post by Scott on Mar 25, 2008 21:45:42 GMT -8
If you're talking about 300-500 people walking on/off a ferry in Nanaimo every two hours, then you are talking about a major increase in ferry use. And for the exception of the height of summer tourist visits, traffic would be mainly one way as well. You wouldn't usually have 500 coming and 500 going at once.
If you're not planning an increase in traffic by implementing a new ferry service, then I don't think you should bother. The idea is to increase your business, not take business away from a profitable route to make two unprofitable routes. Merely taking away walk-on passengers from Route 2 and putting them on a pax-only ship isn't going to be financially successful.
I'm pretty sure HarbourLynx claimed that most of their business was "new" business, and it didn't take much away from BC Ferries.
I do agree with you (Sastra) though about needing frequent and dependable service. Why are people going to plan their lives around an idea that has failed several times in the past? And like you said, the costs have to be more comparable because most people still walked-on at Horseshoe Bay while HarbourLynx operating out of downtown - mainly because of the price.
As far as bus service to Horseshoe Bay... it will be neccessary regardless of whether the majority of walk-ons switched to a downtown-based pax service. The 250 serves Horseshoe Bay, but also the whole Marine Drive corridor of West Vancouver. Bus service is also needed for the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island passengers as well. The only "savings" in transportation to Horseshoe Bay would be less need for the 257 express bus.
If there was proper planning and traffic control, I think downtown Nanaimo would greatly benefit from increased traffic and probably welcome it. With a few exceptions, I don't think there are a lot of residential areas in the city center to worry about. Right away you can attract visitors to the Port Theater, City Museum, The Bastion, Harbour Promenade, Maffeo-Sutton Park / Newcastle Island, and just a couple blocks to the main bus exchange in town. Just like a skytrain station, I think a terminal with a dependable, frequent ferry service would attract development around it.. both commercial and high-density residential. People would move there and commute to Vancouver if it was dependable.
I just think basing a pax-only service out of Departure Bay is a non-starter. It's a low density residential neighbourhood with limited transit service, little commercial development, and no real "attractions" within most people's walking distance.
|
|
|
Post by Sastra on Mar 26, 2008 21:38:42 GMT -8
The only passenger-only fast ferry service that will work between Nanaimo and Vancouver is a Departure Bay - Waterfront Station service. And, I'll go a step further. The only Victoria / Vancouver passenger-only service that will work is a Swartz Bay to Waterfront Station. (2.5 hours to Victoria Harbour vs. 1.5 hrs to Swartz Bay).
The bottom line is...nobody can compete with BC Ferries. The provincial government needs to promote this passenger-only service and even subsidize it to encourage people to get out of their cars.
Any entrepreneur who starts this type of service is either a terrible business person, (aka - has a misguided passion) or has another motive for doing it.
I was loosely associated with Kvaerner Fjellstrand in the 90's when they decided to get into the ferry service business by aligning with Vancouver's Harbour Ferries and starting the Royal Sealink Express / Nanaimo Express. This was a shipbuilding and marketing outfit - they had never been in service operations before, and never were again.
Their business plan's exit strategy was to get the ships operating, and get enough interest from the provincial government to sell the entire operation - or at least the ships - to BC Ferries. They knew from day one the import duty would kill them, but they hoped BC Ferries would be able to have the duty waived if the provincial government bought in.
There were other strategic reasons for KvFj. They wanted a place to put the new models of Flying Cats on display for marketing purposes. The 3 new models had just been released and there were many potential buyers in Asia. In the early 90's, marketing in Vancouver was as good as marketing in Asia - and they were successful. Flying Cats still ply the waters between Macau and Hong Kong. KvFj was also able to convince Clipper Navigation to stick with the Flying Cat model for their new ship.
Many may also recall that Bill Clinton and his entourage used the Orca Spirit for a harbour cruise when he was here for the Vancouver Summit in April 1993. What was plastered all over the sides of the ship? Not, British Columbia, not Vancouver...it was "Kvaerner Fjellstrand" that was advertised all over the world's TV sets.
BC Ferries came and kicked the tires several times, but I think they knew they didn't have much of a chance to get the duty waived (at that time). Now might be a different story with the Conservatives throwing money around for sustainable transportation initiatives.
Couple other points of interest: While Kvaerner purpose-built the MVs Royal Vancouver and Royal Victoria for this market, the Orca Spirit was originally destined for a St. Catherines - Toronto route (with a different name of course). Those entrepreneurs realized they could not fit the import duty cost into their financial plan (especially with a summer-only market) and backed out of the purchase before the ship was completed in 1992.
And, Royal Sealink Express had a fourth Flying Cat bound for BC at one point - to be named the "Orca Song". It was to be used as a swing ship from Wft. Station and Gibsons / Nanaimo. There was a rumour that they wanted to use the Langdale terminal but were told the BCFMWU insisted on operating the ships. But, I think it was just becoming clear that BC Ferries would not bite.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,170
|
Post by Neil on Mar 26, 2008 22:14:46 GMT -8
Look at any successful passenger only ferry operation, and it operates between two points that are destinations in themselves, or which are served by established mass transit systems. Swartz Bay most certainly does not qualify on either point. No matter what vessels you're suggesting, downtown to downtown is pretty much an essential place to start.
I think this whole argument is moot. People travelling with their cars are going to take the ferry. People who want to get there fast are going to fly. We've had a number of pax only failures, with all sorts of excuses, and there doesn't seem to be any line up of credible entrepreneurs preparing to launch new services.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 27, 2008 4:43:28 GMT -8
If you have ever been to NYC the water taxis and foot passenger ferries drop off people on a very steady basis at their terminals in various locations. I would be surprized if they don't greatly exceed the volume being talked about here. People at the dock near the World Financial Centre (across from WTC) all walk from there. There is no traffic except for the odd person who hops a cab. Some people walk to the subway under the WTC site and go elsewhere in Manhattan. Remember these ferries also evacuated a lot of people on 9/11. I would say you are right, the Staten Island ferry regularly exceeds this amount of people by double or more, especially during peak tourist seasons, and this happens every half hour (look at my signature, there's probably 200 people on the outside decks alone!). Right now, there is a significant amount of construction going on in both terminals, and on the Staten Island side, which is more like Nanaimo, it can get quite hectic. There is limited parking on this side, and most people have to arrive by drop off, taxi, bus, or LRT. On the NYC side, there is no parking, and your options are walking, cab, bus, subway, or pick up...the last being very limited due to the construction.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 27, 2008 8:38:57 GMT -8
I also was thinking of the foot passenger ferries from Hoboken and other points in New Jersey. They are closer to the size of the Sealink ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Sastra on Mar 27, 2008 14:09:41 GMT -8
Look at any successful passenger only ferry operation, and it operates between two points that are destinations in themselves, or which are served by established mass transit systems. Swartz Bay most certainly does not qualify on either point. No matter what vessels you're suggesting, downtown to downtown is pretty much an essential place to start. I think this whole argument is moot. People travelling with their cars are going to take the ferry. People who want to get there fast are going to fly. We've had a number of pax only failures, with all sorts of excuses, and there doesn't seem to be any line up of credible entrepreneurs preparing to launch new services. You can't look at "any other successful passenger only ferry operation" and just say it would apply here. We have a public, subsidized ferry system that operates on the same routes that make sense for a pax-only. The downtown to downtown argument is futile. A fast ferry connecting to a proper bus/ coach system on the Island side is still the fastest option. Faster than a downtown to downtown and faster than the existing ferry. There are not a whole lot of NEW users to be found - thus the failure of all of these previous services.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 29, 2008 23:40:15 GMT -8
Very interesting discussion...Welcome aboard Sastra. Some good points, but let me give you some food for thought.
1) What's wrong with downtown to downtown? If a former counsellors vision for property adjacent to the CP Rail property, that would give you the Greyhound bus terminal, the RDN Transit, a foot ferry, and perhaps even rail terminating right across the street from Port Place Mall, the conference centre, the proposed cruise ship terminal. What could be better?
2) You don't want to be in the BCFS terminal. Period. The private ferry operator must have their own facility and better yet access to their own parking lot. You absolutely need add ons to your service. What about a pub/restaurant adjacent to your terminal? Have you ever been to the Flying Beaver Bar and Grill? The other reason you don't want to be in the Departure Bay terminal is because of BCFS's expectation on return on investment. They require a minimum of 15% ROI. Why would an operator take all the risk and guarantee their landlord 15% when they might be working of 4-5%?
3) The BCFMWU is another challenge. Any operator coming in would have to either come with their own union or work with a modern, non confrontational relationship with their employees.
4) 300-500 pax per on/off loading??? Wow, are you ever optimistic! There's lots of times the Coq/Cow don't have that now! You must think smaller. Right now, about 5.5 million/year travel to and from Nanaimo via BCFS. Not unlike the rest of the lower south coast, particularly Vancouver, about 15% of those pax will walk on. That's 825,000. If a two boat passenger ferry needs 400,000 a year to break even, that means you better know how to grow the market and quick too!
5) You need to grow the market. You can do that by stimulating the market. One way - price. What would it look like if a ferry operator could get together with Translink and offer a transferrable ticket, so someone could get from Nanaimo to Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows all on a single ticket? How about $19.95? What would that do to stimulate the market?
6) You are right about not being able to compete with BCFS. Big challenge. Last reporting year over 375,000 pax were directed to their operation by the Seniors Travel plan. This is where the govt picks up the tab for seniors travel monday to thursday. If Harbourlynx could have gained access to that program that would have been a big boost to their ridership!
Pax only service is possible and profitable to a private operator. I know that for a fact. Challenge is, I don't have $20M to get it started.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 1, 2008 11:31:00 GMT -8
I think this whole argument is moot. People travelling with their cars are going to take the ferry. People who want to get there fast are going to fly. We've had a number of pax only failures, with all sorts of excuses, and there doesn't seem to be any line up of credible entrepreneurs preparing to launch new services. Does anyone know if there is any kind of ceiling when it comes to how much capacity float plane operations can offer? If so - I'm thinking particularly of Vancouver and Victoria, though looking down the road for Nanaimo - it seems that the necessity of a downtown terminal isn't as great for a passenger ferry operation, possibly even becoming a catalyst for better public or even private transit service to whatever peripheral terminal. I'm asking based on the major loss of convenience and attraction to going with a traditional airline there is when you factor in the double whammy of the distances between the two downtowns/hubs and two airports that you must travel between. Indeed this would be a moot point if traditional airlines didn't have anywhere near as many inconveniences when comparing short distance commuting options, but the model of traditional airlines and their terminal locations, security, etc., is based on long distance travel and we will likely never again see them dabble in the downtown to downtown market, particularly without the use of floats, anywhere down the line.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Apr 6, 2008 9:30:46 GMT -8
Float plane capacity is based on a myriad of factors, but what appears to be a major factor in Vancouver, Victoria, and Nanaimo harbours is congestion on the waterways. The big three planes appear to be the Beaver (5-6 pax), the single Otter (11), and the twin Otter (18). Naturally, as the business grows you can dispatch larger planes to the route if they are available. Don't forget many of the planes operating today are 40-50 years old and it's unlikely you'll seen any new ones coming out any time soon.
With respect to the downtown terminal for a pax only ferry service, it is far more advantageous to have a downtown terminal, most particularly for the convenience of the passengers. Making connections from downtown Vancouver to points all over the compass are more easily attained. In Nanaimo, congestion in the downtown terminals is the challenge. Parking for example, most days is non-existant adjacent to a terminal. On the Victoria routes, time is the issue. Why would someone pay what a ferry operator needs to get to a downtown terminal when, for roughly double the cost of a pax only ferry, he/she can get to Victoria from downtown Vancouver in a fraction of the time.
Float operators coming to and fro Victoria seem to do reasonably well financially. Congestion appears to be the main issue.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 6, 2008 11:16:55 GMT -8
Someone has actually bought the rights and plans for the Twin Otter and the Beaver from DeHavilland. There is such demand for the Twin Otter around the world it will go back into production. I imagine the Beaver may not be far behind. Kenmore Air in Seattle and a few others have rescued all the derelict Beavers they can find from the jungles and where ever they can find them and rebuild them from the ground up. There is a huge demand in Third World Countries for both planes and no real aircraft to fit the bill. We will see how it goes.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Apr 6, 2008 19:31:57 GMT -8
Viking Air, by the Victoria Airport, is currently manufacturing Beavers. I think they are doing the Twin Otters too, but I know for sure they are making Beavers. They started manufacturing a few years ago. www.vikingair.com/
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 6, 2008 20:18:39 GMT -8
Yeah Nick that is them. What will be interesting is if they begin to add some advancements to the aircraft in the coming years. I love the sound of the old radial engine on the Beaver but the newer turbo versions have great performance.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 9, 2008 2:54:43 GMT -8
Most connoisseures of the bush pilots who so formidably opened up our great country's vast backwater hinterlands and beyond during the early part of the last century can mostly thank the beaver for being able to do so. I, for one among I'd guess and hope very many, was told the story of and pointed out at every chance given the story of the DeHavilland Beaver by my dad. Tell me you all weren't told atleast some semblance of the same, break my spirit
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 9, 2008 21:18:42 GMT -8
The venerable and beautiful aircraft that we know as the Beaver... Tweedsmuir Air Beaver en route from Turner Lake to Nimpo Lake, BC - July 2002It is a very noisy plane, but is otherwise a great way to see the country.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 10, 2008 9:07:14 GMT -8
I love the drone of the old engine. You hear that sound an you know it is either a Beaver or another vintage aircraft. The new turbo versions don't sound as distinctive but the enhanced performance is nice to get out of smaller lakes, or climbing above weather.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 21, 2008 18:51:52 GMT -8
This thread has been taken over by DeHavilland talk, so here's some more:
I flew to/from Vancouver today, from Nanaimo. I flew WestCoastAir (formerly Baxter) and expected to be riding a Beaver.
Instead, I got to ride in a twin-Otter, both ways. It seated 18 pax, and had 2 crew. The company man said that WestCoastAir just got the plane from somewhere in Arizona.
On my trip home today it was windy, and all single-engine float-plane flights were being canceled. But the twin-Otter was still running, and although a bit bumpy was not too bad of a flight.
|
|
rt1commuter
Chief Steward
JP - Overworked grad student
Posts: 167
|
Post by rt1commuter on Jan 1, 2009 16:56:41 GMT -8
Quick note, Viking Air doesn't actually manufacture Beavers. They convert conventional Beaver's to turbos. They DO however manufacture twin otters, with the first one rolling off the line last August (I know, 'cause one of my friends actually designs the thing!). It's pretty exciting to have a new aircraft built, at least partly in BC (the finall assembly plant is in Calgary, not Victoria).
Depending on their success with the TO, they may begin manufacturing Beavers as well; they do own the rights to do so (actually, the own the rights for everything DeHaviland Canada up to the dash-7).
As to harbor to harbor ferries. At the end of the day, the PCL bus costs $45 dollars and takes 3 hours. It's pretty hard to beat that.
|
|