|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 12, 2014 15:38:53 GMT -8
Later this autumn, opening submissions will happen for upcoming "Performance Term #4." This is the 4th 4-year term in the contract between the Province of BC and BC Ferries Services Inc. So here is the thread for the various submissions, ideas, plans, and the eventual decisions on service levels for that term. As you may recall, this same process for Performance Term #3 (April 2012 - March 2016) was derailed by the Province, and the result was the lengthy study and government intervention process which gave us the service cuts. See this thread: HERE==================== As for upcoming Term #4, here's an a Coast Reporter news article to start us off:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 9:05:02 GMT -8
...and it begins The BC Ferry Commissioner website now shows the PT4 (performance term #4) submission reports that BCFerries prepared. This gets the ball rolling on price-caps (ie. fares) and possible service changes fro the April 2016 to March 2020 period. This is really important stuff. There are 3 documents that BC Ferries submitted to the Ferry Commissioner on September 30, 2014. Preamble: The 3 items are: 1) the main document HERE 100 pages main Submission document 2) The efficiencies brainstorm. (remember that this is likely a worst-case brainstorm where BCFerries is required to consider ALL possibilities for decreasing costs, no matter the impact on other things) HERE: 28 pages - strategies for enhanced efficiencies in PT43) The capital plan document - we have a separate thread for that one (started a few days ago) ------------------ So this thread is for the PT4 submission and that efficiencies brainstorm document.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 9:16:31 GMT -8
Excerpts from the 100-page main document:
Introduction items on pages 12-13:
ok, so this points me to the 28-page document, which I will get to, after I finish reviewing the main 100-page document.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 9:28:45 GMT -8
More thoughts on the large 100-page document:
Pages 45-46 and pages 54-56 have a good overview of BCFerries methodology of allocating revenues and expenses to specific routes.
-------------------
Appendix B (starting page 71 to page 99) is the route-by-route financial information. Some of us love this level of detail. If you are that person, fill your boots...
------
and that's it for the large report. Next, I'll review the smaller 28-page efficiencies brainstorm report.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 9:44:30 GMT -8
Excerpts from the 28-page document: HERE again========== The introductory paragraphs: and
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 9:59:22 GMT -8
OK, so what are these four opportunities for efficiencies (2 of which would require changes to the Act) ?
from Page-8
=================
#1) LNG: pages 9-12 This has already been discussed on this forum, in other threads. Pages 9-12 are a good summary of timing and reasonings.
------------
2)Technology (ie. getting a point-of-sale system that will allow for dynamic pricing etc, and that will help to match customer traffic demand to available sailings, thereby improving utilization - my own comment) - pages 13-15
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 10:04:01 GMT -8
OK, now for the BIG items:
(keep in mind that this is just BCFerries' proposal for finding more efficiencies) =============
Major Routes Strategy: - pages 16-21
- the above quoted tables are on page 18 of the document.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 10:17:58 GMT -8
Item #3 continued - Major routes strategy:
- starting page 20: ------------------
OK, so that's a lot to consider.
As stated in this quote, BCF will do an extensive analysis and then present (dictate?) the findings to the public.
Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 10:22:36 GMT -8
And now for BIG item #4 - Southern Gulf Islands Strategy:
- this starts on page 22 of the report -------------------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 3, 2014 17:26:05 GMT -8
Regarding item #3: --------------
I think that BC Ferries is wise to see the upcoming expenditures for vessel replacement and the upcoming requirement to do something at Horseshoe Bay terminal as an opportunity to re-think its major routes delivery.
Before anyone spends lots of money replacing and upgrading things, it's smart to first re-evaluate if the current set-up is what you want/need to continue with. And when you're buying items that need to last at least 40 years, you'd better be sure of their long term requirements and expected uses.
50 years (roughly, from start of route 2 & 3, until now) is a long time for maintaining the current route 2&3 setup, and it isn't surprising that traffic patterns and optimal terminal locations & routes would change in those 50 years.
The introduction of a reasonably smooth-to-drive access road to Tsawwassen (South Fraser Perimeter Road) makes Tsawwassen a more versatile arrival/departure point for mid-island travellers.
And a congested and outdated (need of seismic upgrade) Horseshoe Bay terminal doesn't seem so attractive as a continuing major terminal for mid-island traffic.
And if the need to make this decision forces BC Ferries and the BC Government to consider passenger-only ferries (the subsidized kind), then that's a great win for those who see the merit in public transit.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 3, 2014 19:40:50 GMT -8
Regarding Mr Horn's thoughts, above...
In 1950, when ferries between Vancouver and Victoria actually went from downtown to downtown, the notion of driving south on a highway through Richmond and then through a tunnel followed by another stretch of highway to a boondock south Delta terminal probably would have seemed bizarre, but once the new 'service model' came into existence in 1960, the CPR service was almost instantly obsolete.
Yes, we need to consider changes to the marine connections we've come to know, as transportation patterns change and new opportunities arise. I'm very suspicious, and sometimes resentful, of cutbacks and new notions of service delivery... but it's not always as bad as the Nimpkish serving the central coast. A slightly open mind has to be kept.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 8, 2014 15:22:42 GMT -8
I was eagerly waiting for this report to be released, for a few months now. Once it finally was released, I read it and did a flurry of posts, all within a couple of hours of the report being released. That urgency was a reflection of me thinking that the report would be some type of big news with possible big impacts to the ferry system, and my obsessive nature. So it was a big deal to me, and I think the 2 significant items that will result in further studies (Horseshoe Bay & Major Routes, and Southern Gulf Islands Strategy) will eventually be somewhat-big topics for this forum. But obviously not yet... When those future studies are released, you'll find my eager analysis here. I'm keener on the HSB/Major-routes issue than I am on the SGI issue.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 8, 2014 15:41:06 GMT -8
I was eagerly waiting for this report to be released, for a few months now. Once it finally was released, I read it and did a flurry of posts, all within a couple of hours of the report being released. That urgency was a reflection of me thinking that the report would be some type of big news with possible big impacts to the ferry system, and my obsessive nature. So it was a big deal to me, and I think the 2 significant items that will result in further studies (Horseshoe Bay & Major Routes, and Southern Gulf Islands Strategy) will eventually be somewhat-big topics for this forum. But obviously not yet... When those future studies are released, you'll find my eager analysis here. I'm keener on the HSB/Major-routes issue than I am on the SGI issue. I think this is a reflection of the evolution of this community. Unfortunately it seems to have become more of a poster board for fancy pictures than a place for valid discussion. I personally find I don't post nearly as much as I used to, mostly because it seems I am the only one who cares about certain subjects and there is no ongoing discussion once I make a post. I am looking forward to seeing what the evolution of HSB is, as well as the SGI routes. I'm the opposite of Mr. Horn above, in that I'm more interested in SGI than HSB, but that's just because it's closer to home and potentially affects my life more. I'm not opposed to dropping service levels on route 2 in favour of beefing up service on 30, but it will have to be done after extensive analysis of traffic patterns and with REAL community consultation. I'm skeptical on whether this will actually happen, given the Province's attitude toward coastal transportation.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 8, 2014 15:48:01 GMT -8
Nick:
Do you have any thoughts on what the "Short Link between Saturna Island and Mayne Island" might mean?
I was thinking a new short-route from somewhere on the east-side of Mayne Island to Lyall Harbour. But what would this accomplish?
Presumably it means that a route-5 ship doesn't have to sail up Navy Channel on its way between Mayne/Pender and Swartz. But would it really be worth any savings to create a new terminal on Mayne's east-side, just to do a few round-trips per day? - ...unless they meant "Fixed Link" - and that's a whole different thing.
I think this Saturna issue was a grasping-at-straws brainstorm item.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 8, 2014 16:06:00 GMT -8
Nick: Do you have any thoughts on what the "Short Link between Saturna Island and Mayne Island" might mean? I was thinking a new short-route from somewhere on the east-side of Mayne Island to Lyall Harbour. But what would this accomplish? Presumably it means that a route-5 ship doesn't have to sail up Navy Channel on its way between Mayne/Pender and Swartz. But would it really be worth any savings to create a new terminal on Mayne's east-side, just to do a few round-trips per day? - ...unless they meant "Fixed Link" - and that's a whole different thing. I think this Saturna issue was a grasping-at-straws brainstorm item. I was a little puzzled by that as well. I read "short link" as a ferry crossing, but I suppose it could refer to a bridge as well. Seems like an expensive bridge for 300 residents though. BCF does not really have a shortage of small vessels, and this might be their thinking in that they would be able to start the crossing using an existing vessel without a huge capital expenditure aside from the terminal. The savings would be significant in both fuel burned and vessel time, since that trip down Navy channel is fairly long. Whether the savings are enough to justify another ferry remains to be seen. Crewing another ferry would be difficult as well, as I don't think Mayne has the population to support a full crew. After all that, I think you're right in that it's put there for the sake of showing that all options are being considered.
|
|
|
Post by gulfislandkayaker on Oct 8, 2014 18:06:29 GMT -8
As you might guess, my focus will be mostly on SGI related things - been travelling the route for 42 years of my life... the ferries and the islands are in my blood. This is going to be fun to follow on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Oct 8, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -8
I was eagerly waiting for this report to be released, for a few months now. Once it finally was released, I read it and did a flurry of posts, all within a couple of hours of the report being released. That urgency was a reflection of me thinking that the report would be some type of big news with possible big impacts to the ferry system, and my obsessive nature. So it was a big deal to me, and I think the 2 significant items that will result in further studies (Horseshoe Bay & Major Routes, and Southern Gulf Islands Strategy) will eventually be somewhat-big topics for this forum. But obviously not yet... When those future studies are released, you'll find my eager analysis here. I'm keener on the HSB/Major-routes issue than I am on the SGI issue. I read through your analysis and appreciate it. Being busy with school, I basically read your executive summaries but haven't had time to dig deep into the reports. From your summaries, I was left with more questions than answers...
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Oct 8, 2014 19:37:33 GMT -8
Aside from the ridiculous premise of putting a bridge across the Georgia Strait--which is even more ridiculous than building bridges across Puget Sound--there are actually some Gulf Islands with places to build a bridge over some really narrow passages that aren't even a 1/4 mile long. (e.g. Gabriola Island) But I'm not sure there's enough community support to build bridges to replace ferries. People on ferry-dependent islands tend to be pretty resistant to that sort of thing.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,454
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 8, 2014 21:28:01 GMT -8
Nick: Do you have any thoughts on what the "Short Link between Saturna Island and Mayne Island" might mean? I was thinking a new short-route from somewhere on the east-side of Mayne Island to Lyall Harbour. But what would this accomplish? Presumably it means that a route-5 ship doesn't have to sail up Navy Channel on its way between Mayne/Pender and Swartz. But would it really be worth any savings to create a new terminal on Mayne's east-side, just to do a few round-trips per day? - ...unless they meant "Fixed Link" - and that's a whole different thing. I think this Saturna issue was a grasping-at-straws brainstorm item. I am going to jump in here & speculate that they may be looking at another cable ferry; smaller & simpler than the one that will cross to Denman. I was told on the Needles ferry that there has been several delegations of coastal ferry 'officials' up studying their cable operation, of late. Maybe...
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Oct 8, 2014 23:41:46 GMT -8
Nick: Do you have any thoughts on what the "Short Link between Saturna Island and Mayne Island" might mean? I was thinking a new short-route from somewhere on the east-side of Mayne Island to Lyall Harbour. But what would this accomplish? Presumably it means that a route-5 ship doesn't have to sail up Navy Channel on its way between Mayne/Pender and Swartz. But would it really be worth any savings to create a new terminal on Mayne's east-side, just to do a few round-trips per day? - ...unless they meant "Fixed Link" - and that's a whole different thing. I think this Saturna issue was a grasping-at-straws brainstorm item. I was a little puzzled by that as well. I read "short link" as a ferry crossing, but I suppose it could refer to a bridge as well. Seems like an expensive bridge for 300 residents though. BCF does not really have a shortage of small vessels, and this might be their thinking in that they would be able to start the crossing using an existing vessel without a huge capital expenditure aside from the terminal. The savings would be significant in both fuel burned and vessel time, since that trip down Navy channel is fairly long. Whether the savings are enough to justify another ferry remains to be seen. Crewing another ferry would be difficult as well, as I don't think Mayne has the population to support a full crew. After all that, I think you're right in that it's put there for the sake of showing that all options are being considered. Regarding the short link: I interpreted it as a service that would operate exclusively between Village Bay and Lyall Harbour, but upon further thought, it likely refers to a new service using a port on the south end of Mayne. I found it ironic that they were considering the construction of a new terminal on Mayne, while also discussing the consolidation of terminals on Saltspring. Re. Crewing: This might be a case of BCF shuffling crew from Swartz on to Mayne, rather than establishing a whole new crew. I suppose this is a case of putting all options on the table...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 9, 2014 10:00:01 GMT -8
Re Saturna short-link idea: I googled "saturna" & "short link" and I found this interesting 2012 proposal from a Gulf Islands initiative group. I'm not suggesting this is the same idea as BCFerries will consider, but we haven't seen this idea discussed on our forum yet....so here it is. excerpt: Link HERE- the link has some maps/charts and some Kwuna photos
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 11:50:57 GMT -8
Nick: Do you have any thoughts on what the "Short Link between Saturna Island and Mayne Island" might mean? I was thinking a new short-route from somewhere on the east-side of Mayne Island to Lyall Harbour. But what would this accomplish? Presumably it means that a route-5 ship doesn't have to sail up Navy Channel on its way between Mayne/Pender and Swartz. But would it really be worth any savings to create a new terminal on Mayne's east-side, just to do a few round-trips per day? - ...unless they meant "Fixed Link" - and that's a whole different thing. I think this Saturna issue was a grasping-at-straws brainstorm item. I am going to jump in here & speculate that they may be looking at another cable ferry; smaller & simpler than the one that will cross to Denman. I was told on the Needles ferry that there has been several delegations of coastal ferry 'officials' up studying their cable operation, of late. Maybe... Perhaps this in preparation of the Denman Cable Ferry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 15:11:43 GMT -8
As for bridges, what surprises me is the lack of consideration for a bridge between Thetis & Kuper...the distance is so short, and the fuel savings would likely be significant.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,454
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 9, 2014 20:50:33 GMT -8
I am going to jump in here & speculate that they may be looking at another cable ferry; smaller & simpler than the one that will cross to Denman. I was told on the Needles ferry that there has been several delegations of coastal ferry 'officials' up studying their cable operation, of late. Maybe... Perhaps this in preparation of the Denman Cable Ferry? I suspect that all the 'studying' for the Denman conversion was done some time ago. I suspect that BCFS & the Provincial Govt. are looking at other routes where this cable 'good idea' can be shared around. P.S. - It should be noted that in general what we are told by crew members on ferries has proven over the years not to be reliable. - As regards the Mayne - Saturna short link, however, I think that a small (10-20 car?) cable ferry might be the cheapest option over the long term. Looking at the map, it looks feasible, but I have no idea if the depth, currents, etc. would make a cable ferry at that location a non-starter.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 9, 2014 21:10:37 GMT -8
This Mayne to Saturna thing could almost support a thread in itself... if it was anything more than an idle notion. But I suspect it is mentioned in the document Mr Horn quotes simply as some sort of a nod to the notion that BC Ferries is examining every possible way of cheaper service delivery.
Decades ago, the Savoie family ran a ferry between concrete ramps on Denman and Hornby. When the weather was too rough for safe landings, the ferry didn't run. Some sort of study group on the Gulf Islands suggests this model for Saturna. I look at the terminal structures at Gravelly Bay and Shingle Spit, and an argument could be made that things have gotten ridiculously elaborate and expensive to transfer relatively small numbers of people and vehicles. But would BC Ferries ever consider for Saturna- and would they be allowed to consider- a short, simple arrangement such a currently exists at Alliford Bay and Skidegate for the Kwuna?
There is also the matter of property acquisition, road construction, and marine engineering, as well as crewing. Just can't see it. Of course... it's going to take decades to recoup the costs of the Denman cable ferry project from labour and fuel savings, so, who knows, when you're dealing with phoney baloney political economics married to our ferry system.
|
|