|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 10, 2014 8:14:54 GMT -8
Regarding the re-think of Horseshoe Bay and the major routes:
This is an interesting "Supply & Demand" issue.
Demand for customer traffic being routed through Horseshoe Bay appears to be strong and steady, relative to traffic using Route-30. Overall traffic in the system is declining, but for existing traffic there appears to still be a strong preference among many travelers to use Horseshoe Bay routes. However, for traffic destined for Fraser Valley and beyond on Hwy-1, the ease of using the new Hwy-17 access from Tsawwassen may start to impact traffic patterns of traditional HSB users. And for those penny-pinchers, avoiding the Port Mann toll might also be a motivator to choose Tsawwassen over HSB. But that's just speculative forecasting on my part.
Supply, however, is the problem. Horseshoe Bay is a constrained site for available space for all ferry terminal activities. True, it has been operating for 60 years, and at its current busy level for a number of years, but its layout means that it has never been the ideal modern terminal (too narrow and stretched-out). Similar to ship design, land-based engineered structure design (such as the infrastructure of a ferry terminal) is a more complicated thing now for standards/regulations/etc than it was in prior years. And so, similar to ships, like-for-like replacement can't be expected. So the replacement of the upper deck of the HSB compound can't be expected to fit the same footprint as the existing structure. (just my layman speculating on this topic).
So, even though HSB has popularity among some customers, it might not be practically possible for this terminal to remain at its historical level of sailings. My guess is that the result of this process will be a shift in the number of mid-island sailings from "Island-HSB" to "Island-Tsawwassen." Just a shift in the weight between those two mainland terminals.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 10, 2014 10:22:16 GMT -8
OK, I'm about the stir the hornet's nest here, so everyone don your protective wear: What about eliminating Route 2 and beefing up Route 30 as a long-term solution? Before you all start throwing stones at me for the audaciousness of suggesting such a thing, hear me out. With the opening of the SFPR, the connections to Tsawwassen have just gotten better, and it seems like there is room to improve it even further, which would include better public transportation options. Here is what I am thinking, by terminal and route: ROUTE 1: unaffected ROUTE 2: eliminated ROUTE 30: 4 vessel service at peak seasons and holidays with a possibility of 3 vessel service at lower demand times of the year, like in the winter. 4 vessels would give you departures approximately every 75 minutes if spaced equally apart. ROUTE 3: Gets 2 full-time vessels for improved service to The Sunshine Coast ROUTE 8: unaffected TSAWWASSEN: with all of the Nanaimo traffic being routed through this terminal, I'm sure there would have to be some expansion to the facilities and holding areas due to the increased volume of traffic, though I'm not sure how much this man-made island can grow, so that will be a bit of a challenge. On the public transportation side of things, an extension of the Canada Line RRT out to Tsawwassen would be almost a must if all Vancouver Island-bound ferries were to be based out of Tsawwassen. At the very least, run a BRT out to Tsawwassen with frequent connections to the airport and existing Canada Line / Skytrain system. you really want to make it easy for people to get to the airport and into downtown Vancouver without a car. NANAIMO: Close one of the terminals and consolidate operations at the other. I'm not sure which terminal makes sense to close. There are pros and cons for both locations, but one fewer facility should help reduce costs. I kind of think keeping Departure Bay makes more sense in that it is already set up with multiple berths, is close to downtown Nanaimo, has better passenger facilities, and is better served now by public transportation. However, I don't see how it can grow given the constraints of the neighbourhood it is in, and that could be a problem. HORSESHOE BAY: downgrade Horseshoe Bay terminal to service Bowen Island and The Sunshine Coast only. This would aid in expanding service levels on Route 3 without having to grow the existing terminal facilities. OK, here are the pros and cons I can think of such a move. I'm sure there are many more that I haven't thought of, but here goes: PROS:> Increased ferry service between Nanaimo and Tsawwassen, which puts travelers closer to YVR, connections to the east via SFPR, and much closer access to the United States via 99. > If public transportation on the Vancouver side were to step up to the plate, improved bus and/or rail connections from Tsawwassen into Vancouver and YVR would also be a benefit. > Consolidation of terminals in Nanaimo reduces infrastructure and operations costs > Horseshoe Bay Terminal would not need to expand, and could maybe even shrink a little > Route 3 service could expand at Horseshoe Bay > With the consolidation of routes, it is possible that a slightly fewer number of major vessel new-builds would be required. Although, with 4 vessels deployed to Route 30, I'm not sure we would be drastically reducing the number of new vessels needed. CONS:> More difficult to access The North Shore, Sunshine Coast, and Whistler and vice-versa. It would require going through Vancouver, and that could be problematic with the current infrastructure. > It puts a lot of burden on the infrastructure at Tsawwassen, as well as the roads leading to Tsawwassen. The cost of expanding facilities there would be high. > There would be a significant amount of write-off in closing one of the Nanaimo terminals, plus, now what do they do with the land? Sell it? In the long term, I think it's the better way to go, but a lot of money was spent building Duke Point to just see it shut down, if that, indeed, is the terminal that would be closed. I'm sure there are more cons, but this is what I could think of off the top of my head. OK, it's out there. Let the flaming begin!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 10, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -8
OK, I'm about the stir the hornet's nest here, so everyone don your protective wear: What about eliminating Route 2 and beefing up Route 30 as a long-term solution? Before you all start throwing stones at me for the audaciousness of suggesting such a thing, hear me out. With the opening of the SFPR, the connections to Tsawwassen have just gotten better, and it seems like there is room to improve it even further, which would include better public transportation options. Here is what I am thinking, by terminal and route: From a BC Ferries and taxpayers perspective, this would probably make sense in the long run. But a lot of work on infrastructure would need to be done ahead of time to make this workable... and a lot of these things you've already mentioned. Horseshoe Bay is way more accessible from downtown and via transit. It has very frequent bus service, mostly due to the fact that Horseshoe Bay is more than just a ferry terminal. Bus service to Tsawwassen is not nearly as convenient. According to the BC Ferries annual report, Route 2 carries about 1.3 million vehicles per year, while Route 30 takes about 830,000. However when it comes to passengers, the difference is Route 2 (3.3 million) vs Route 30 (1.3 million). There are other factors involved, but I think this shows that Horseshoe Bay is currently way more accessible to walk-on and major changes would have to be made to transit to make Tsawwassen more accessable. Replacing the tunnel is in the planning stages... as it stands, it is inadequate for increased traffic from Vancouver. As others have mentioned... passenger-only service between downtown's may become more attractive. Operating one route to Nanaimo would definitely make scheduling more efficient. Instead of operating at a minimum of 4 ferries in and out of Nanaimo, they could go from 2-6 depending on demand. For example, instead of having 4 empty ferries running at 9:00PM on a November Wednesday evening, they could have 2. Tsawwassen would need to be expanded, and the road leading to it. I'm not sure what limitations there are, but I think it's probably doable. Other than the environmental impact, there's probably not much limit to how large they can build it. - John H
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Oct 10, 2014 12:00:27 GMT -8
OK, I'm about the stir the hornet's nest here, so everyone don your protective wear: What about eliminating Route 2 and beefing up Route 30 as a long-term solution? Before you all start throwing stones at me for the audaciousness of suggesting such a thing, hear me out. With the opening of the SFPR, the connections to Tsawwassen have just gotten better, and it seems like there is room to improve it even further, which would include better public transportation options. Here is what I am thinking, by terminal and route: Another thing that should definitely be taken into consideration would be transit in Nanaimo. The Departure Bay terminal is served by several transit routes that take ferry passengers where they need to go. The Duke Point terminal currently sees no service and is far out from the city, which would mean that a lot of service hours would go to serving ferry passengers (vs fewer service hours to serve both ferry passengers and Nanaimo residents for buses to Departure Bay).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 12:02:46 GMT -8
OK, I'm about the stir the hornet's nest here, so everyone don your protective wear: What about eliminating Route 2 and beefing up Route 30 as a long-term solution? Before you all start throwing stones at me for the audaciousness of suggesting such a thing, hear me out. With the opening of the SFPR, the connections to Tsawwassen have just gotten better, and it seems like there is room to improve it even further, which would include better public transportation options. Here is what I am thinking, by terminal and route: ROUTE 1: unaffected ROUTE 2: eliminated ROUTE 30: 4 vessel service at peak seasons and holidays with a possibility of 3 vessel service at lower demand times of the year, like in the winter. 4 vessels would give you departures approximately every 75 minutes if spaced equally apart. ROUTE 3: Gets 2 full-time vessels for improved service to The Sunshine Coast ROUTE 8: unaffected In the long run (I mean 50 years), Departure Bay should be closed and all traffic routed to Duke Point, as long as it's served by transit. I don't think DKP should close since it's the more isolated (and therefore expandable) terminal. Two boat service on route 3 is not needed. Service has recently been cut... Personally, I feel route 30 could be cut back to possibly one vessel service in the extremely low season (ie tying up the Alberni). Route 2 is alot shorter, so we can't forget the fuel savings there. Redirecting everything to route 30 will simply see a massive increase in fuel costs, and inconvenience for customers coming from the North Shore and all other points North. Again, in the long term, I think DPB should be closed, if additional berths at Duke can be built and transit can go out there. However, I feel HSB should be kept due to convenience of the location.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Oct 12, 2014 22:38:15 GMT -8
TSAWWASSEN: with all of the Nanaimo traffic being routed through this terminal, I'm sure there would have to be some expansion to the facilities and holding areas due to the increased volume of traffic, though I'm not sure how much this man-made island can grow, so that will be a bit of a challenge. On the public transportation side of things, an extension of the Canada Line RRT out to Tsawwassen would be almost a must if all Vancouver Island-bound ferries were to be based out of Tsawwassen. At the very least, run a BRT out to Tsawwassen with frequent connections to the airport and existing Canada Line / Skytrain system. you really want to make it easy for people to get to the airport and into downtown Vancouver without a car. Quick follow-up: Rapid transit to ferry terminals is not a sustainable service, due to the extreme fluctuations in loads at specific times. A rapid transit extension would only produce good ridership at times when ships are arriving and leaving - every 30 min to an hour during the summer, and every 1-2 hours during the off season, whereas rapid transit operates every few minutes. The 620 (existing service to Tsawwassen) will not likely join the frequent transit network anytime soon, unless BC Ferries starts operating ships every 15 minutes (or more frequently). All transit services that connect to ferries are best operated using high-capacity buses that meet ships as they arrive and depart.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 13, 2014 20:59:54 GMT -8
Rapid transit to ferry terminals is not a sustainable service, due to the extreme fluctuations in loads at specific times. A rapid transit extension would only produce good ridership at times when ships are arriving and leaving - every 30 min to an hour during the summer, and every 1-2 hours during the off season, whereas rapid transit operates every few minutes. The 620 (existing service to Tsawwassen) will not likely join the frequent transit network anytime soon, unless BC Ferries starts operating ships every 15 minutes (or more frequently). All transit services that connect to ferries are best operated using high-capacity buses that meet ships as they arrive and depart. That's true Mike. It only makes sense to send buses out to Tsawwassen to meet ferries since there's nothing else out there. Do you know much about all that development going up around Tsawwassen? I'm not sure what kind of numbers we're talking about in terms of residential and commercial development, but I wonder if in 10 years there might be a more "round the clock demand" for transit service to the Tsawwassen area. - John H
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Oct 14, 2014 0:07:21 GMT -8
OK, I'm about the stir the hornet's nest here, so everyone don your protective wear: What about eliminating Route 2 and beefing up Route 30 as a long-term solution? Before you all start throwing stones at me for the audaciousness of suggesting such a thing, hear me out. With the opening of the SFPR, the connections to Tsawwassen have just gotten better, and it seems like there is room to improve it even further, which would include better public transportation options. Here is what I am thinking, by terminal and route: ROUTE 1: unaffected ROUTE 2: eliminated ROUTE 30: 4 vessel service at peak seasons and holidays with a possibility of 3 vessel service at lower demand times of the year, like in the winter. 4 vessels would give you departures approximately every 75 minutes if spaced equally apart. ROUTE 3: Gets 2 full-time vessels for improved service to The Sunshine Coast ROUTE 8: unaffected TSAWWASSEN: with all of the Nanaimo traffic being routed through this terminal, I'm sure there would have to be some expansion to the facilities and holding areas due to the increased volume of traffic, though I'm not sure how much this man-made island can grow, so that will be a bit of a challenge. On the public transportation side of things, an extension of the Canada Line RRT out to Tsawwassen would be almost a must if all Vancouver Island-bound ferries were to be based out of Tsawwassen. At the very least, run a BRT out to Tsawwassen with frequent connections to the airport and existing Canada Line / Skytrain system. you really want to make it easy for people to get to the airport and into downtown Vancouver without a car. NANAIMO: Close one of the terminals and consolidate operations at the other. I'm not sure which terminal makes sense to close. There are pros and cons for both locations, but one fewer facility should help reduce costs. I kind of think keeping Departure Bay makes more sense in that it is already set up with multiple berths, is close to downtown Nanaimo, has better passenger facilities, and is better served now by public transportation. However, I don't see how it can grow given the constraints of the neighbourhood it is in, and that could be a problem. HORSESHOE BAY: downgrade Horseshoe Bay terminal to service Bowen Island and The Sunshine Coast only. This would aid in expanding service levels on Route 3 without having to grow the existing terminal facilities. OK, here are the pros and cons I can think of such a move. I'm sure there are many more that I haven't thought of, but here goes: PROS:> Increased ferry service between Nanaimo and Tsawwassen, which puts travelers closer to YVR, connections to the east via SFPR, and much closer access to the United States via 99. > If public transportation on the Vancouver side were to step up to the plate, improved bus and/or rail connections from Tsawwassen into Vancouver and YVR would also be a benefit. > Consolidation of terminals in Nanaimo reduces infrastructure and operations costs > Horseshoe Bay Terminal would not need to expand, and could maybe even shrink a little > Route 3 service could expand at Horseshoe Bay > With the consolidation of routes, it is possible that a slightly fewer number of major vessel new-builds would be required. Although, with 4 vessels deployed to Route 30, I'm not sure we would be drastically reducing the number of new vessels needed. CONS:> More difficult to access The North Shore, Sunshine Coast, and Whistler and vice-versa. It would require going through Vancouver, and that could be problematic with the current infrastructure. > It puts a lot of burden on the infrastructure at Tsawwassen, as well as the roads leading to Tsawwassen. The cost of expanding facilities there would be high. > There would be a significant amount of write-off in closing one of the Nanaimo terminals, plus, now what do they do with the land? Sell it? In the long term, I think it's the better way to go, but a lot of money was spent building Duke Point to just see it shut down, if that, indeed, is the terminal that would be closed. I'm sure there are more cons, but this is what I could think of off the top of my head. OK, it's out there. Let the flaming begin! What Kahloke has posted I was actually thinking about posting myself give or take a few points. Being busy the last few days and mostly on mobile, I haven't really been able to compose a post about it. Overall we share most of the same thoughts, though I would argue that Route 2 could be kept in some form with a downsized Horseshoe Bay. Cutting Route 2 entirely might prove to be unpopular so my thinking was that Route 30 and Route 2 would switch roles. Route 30 being the Mainline Route for traffic between the Mid-Island, Metro Vancouver and beyond, and Route 2 being more oriented for people going to and from the North Shore, Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island and the Sea-To-Sky region. Route 30 would have 4 vessels at peak times whereas Route 2 would only have one full time with extra sailings scheduled at peak times. Tsawwassen I think could manage berthing four major vessels the way it is set up now, though dock conflicts in Summer with the Route 9 vessels could be a problem, so perhaps a 6th Berth would have to be considered in the future. As for expansion of foot passenger facilities, it looks like they could expand in the space between Berths 3 and 4. As for Nanaimo, I agree that Duke Point is the weaker of the two when considering which terminal to close. So unless they want to pump millions into building new berths and larger foot passenger facilities, Departure Bay wins. The only serious problem with Departure Bay though is the lack of space. I feel they have some room to expand though, perhaps in the future an infill project in the space between the Foot Passenger Ticketing/Nanaimo Quay and the old CPR Terminal's Berth would be the answer. They could relocate the short/long term parking, pick-up/drop-off and foot passenger ticketing to that space and use the old space as extra holding lanes and overflow. Here's how I think vessel assignments might look. (I know some of us are fed up with the whole Armchair Vessel Assignments thing but bear with me for this one.) Route 30Departure Bay: Coastal Inspiration Queen of Cowichan (Peak/Weekends/Holidays/Relief) Tsawwassen: Coastal Renaissance Queen of Oak Bay (Peak/Holidays/Relief) Route 2Horseshoe Bay: Queen of Coquitlam Queen of Alberni (Relief, Possibly Peak Times) Departure Bay: Queen of Cowichan (Peak/Holidays) (Done by dropping one of her Route 30 round-trips) Route 3Queen of Surrey Queen of Alberni (Summer) (Had to put her somewhere... : Off-Season Relief duties would be split between the Coquitlam and Alberni. So there are my thoughts. Whatever they decide to do though it's going to be a large undertaking and require a lot of cash. Not to mention the next round of new major vessels should be occurring sometime in the next 10 years. Perhaps we'll get a better idea of what's to come when service cuts are done to the major routes? Only time will tell and when the big decisions are made, hopefully they make the right call. (Whatever it will be.)
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 14, 2014 7:12:37 GMT -8
I wrote this five days ago and forgot to post it, so apologies for the duplication that appears...
In the Army there is something known as a “throw away Course of Action.” Basically any plan made regarding high level operations will have three options presented to the deciding Commander. It is also generally accepted that two of these plans will be quality, and one will be a throw away that is either so resource intensive it is impracticable, or it demonstrates the effects of failing to act.
Making substantial changes to Horseshoe Bay’s route patterns as has been suggested in brief outlines by BCFS or in some more detail here screams “throw away Course of Action” on numerous fronts.
One – the primary opposition to Horseshoe Bay seems to be a combination of development costs associated with a compressed terminal area and difficulty dealing with the local community. Both of these are quite valid, albeit it seems that Horseshoe Bay in general seems to be getting a bit better at not biting the BCFS hand that feeds them. Development costs are essentially unsolvable, and will be a cost of doing business. So, point against Horseshoe Bay. And I would argue the only point against Horseshoe Bay.
Two – imagine for me you are an employee at any business. You have your busiest location, and you make a lot of money there. And then you suggest seriously limiting access to it, or closing it to any profitable business (the Route 8 caveat). Your boss would think you are insane, and with good reason. If Horseshoe Bay is the busiest terminal then it demonstrates both a demand and need for service. Conceding that BCFS does not care about need in communities, it does care about revenue generation and an ability to make money –the demand. This should be exploited, not supressed, with the BCFS business model. And if we ever get a government that cares about ferry users again, then the need is also established. This is a double prong “Horseshoe Bay makes sense” point.
Three – geography is fun. Having the North Shore, Tri-cities, Vancouver-proper among other areas drive South to Tsawwassen as an alternative is manifestly illogical. There is simply insufficient capacity in Metro Vancouver’s road network to support additional, unnecessary traffic when a viable alternative exists. This is another really unfortunate side-effect of private BCFS; they do not care about the road networks they feed into. They should. The SFPR and other changes would have no impact on these very large population areas and getting to Tsawwassen.
Four – history repeats itself. There has been two serious attempts to change traffic patterns away from Horseshoe Bay, one of which had minimal impact and one of which was a complete failure. First we had the creation of Route 30 to make the South-Island Express to alleviate traffic off 2. This did in general work, and ridership on 2 did decrease. It was not, however, a hugely substantial change in the traffic pattern and the current annual reports demonstrate a continued load factor being much higher in raw value of 2 over 30. Moreover Route 30 has a low enough traffic pattern that they have the big service gap on weekends (no Sat night / Sun morning service) and it has been targeted for other reductions. An aside, poor fleet management also has a Coastal tied up on Route 30 out of essential necessity costing the company ancillary revenue potential other places. Then there was the whole Fast Ferry thing which, in part, was aimed at creating some of the changes that are again being examined. That is a reduction of traffic through Horseshoe Bay and a reroute of commercial and some passenger traffic to Tsawwassen. There was massive public and corporate outcry on this, and in fact BC Ferries was forced to keep a C Class vessel on the route as a permanent solution, not something that had originally been envisioned.
Thinking outside the box and examining changes is a positive, important part of the development of any organization. So I am certainly supportive of BC Ferries fully examining their options and finding opportunities.
If something is going to happen, close Duke Point. Expensive highway infrastructure to maintain, a semi-isolated terminal location, no transit, etc. I appreciate the City of Nanaimo may not love that idea but it is less crazy then choking off Route 2.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 14, 2014 7:42:33 GMT -8
All good points made regarding the future of Horseshoe Bay. I knew I would be stirring things up a bit with my "so-called" proposal. At the very least, it's led to a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 14, 2014 10:31:44 GMT -8
My memory fails me on why Duke Point terminal was created in the first place. Was the intention to move more freight trucks over to the Island or a combination of freight and regular vehicle traffic? All the discussion regarding the future(s) of the various terminals has produced many varied and interesting opinions/discussion which should be the backbone of our forum. As has been alluded to in a previous posting, I should live to see the day that this province elects a government that actually gives a damn about marine transportation on the West coast of B.C., and actually understands that cost cutting is NOT the solution to every conceivable problem endemic to B.C. Ferries. To wit, I pose this question: How many months/years would elapse before passenger and vehicular traffic on ALL routes would show a minimum of 15% increase in volume IF fares were rolled back to at least the 1995 tariff levels?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Oct 14, 2014 14:09:33 GMT -8
Some numbers: TransLink indicates that the current bus that meets the ferry (620) currently produced about 616,000 riders per in 2013 - the 93rd busiest bus route in the system (out of the 206 routes studied). The average load numbers also only indicate strong ridership at very specific times. www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2013%20bspr/2013_bspr_appendix_c_routes_300_799.ashxDo you know much about all that development going up around Tsawwassen? I'm not sure what kind of numbers we're talking about in terms of residential and commercial development, but I wonder if in 10 years there might be a more "round the clock demand" for transit service to the Tsawwassen area. At this point, I haven't been made aware of the specifics of the project, largely because it's a Tsawwassen FN project, and did not involve (much) consultation on part of the Corporation of Delta. However, I have been told that it will be the largest single retail development in British Columbia, and will require extensive resources to construct and service. I also have not been made aware of any plans by the Ministry of Transportation, TransLink, Corp of Delta, BC Ferries, or any other infrastructure provider for the area that would be made to deal with such a development. I suspect some intersection upgrades and road capacity upgrades are in order, as well as some transit service upgrades (extension or diversion of 601/609/620 bus routes?) to service the mall and residential developments. Did some poking around, and there isn't any sign of a transportation plan for the area. The mall will act as a natural anchor point for more frequent transit services, given it's location near the end of the highway, with the occasional bus continuing to Tsawwassen to meet the ferry. Here is a link to the "Master Plan" from the Tsawwassen Shores website. A pretty serious atrocity from a planning perspective (geared towards single-occupancy vehicles), but it will definitely bring some much-needed cash flow to the FN. www.tsawwassenshores.com/masterplan/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 14:49:36 GMT -8
The way I see things right now, is that we'll have more cuts on route 30, with HSB being renovated. A large number of pax take route 2 to go to Nanaimo, and I'm sure BCF is aware of the large revenue-base that route-2 customers fill. The cheapest option would be to rebuild HSB and have additional service cuts on route 30, but it doesn't remedy the "narrow entrance" issue.
For foot passengers, going to Tsawwassen from the North Shore is extremely inconvenient, and takes about an hour and a half by bus. I can see a downtown-to-downtown foot passenger service being successful, but new vessels would need to be built, and new terminals/berths would have to be set up. Personally though, I think this is the most viable option. There's not a day I can remember in the summer time where a vessel has to stop outside of Horseshoe Bay to let another one depart. Eliminating route 2 would also mean improved and more consistent schedules for route 3. Unfortunately, this would lead to the demise of many business in Horseshoe Bay.
Nanaimo residents don't want additional traffic in the Departure Bay neighbourhood, so any increase in ships leaving entering the bay would probably be met with strong opposition. I suspect that the narrow entrance to the bay might also be a problem, as would the increased traffic to an already tight marshalling area.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to reading more reports from BCF. The next few years sound interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 14, 2014 17:04:54 GMT -8
Here is a link to the "Master Plan" from the Tsawwassen Shores website. A pretty serious atrocity from a planning perspective (geared towards single-occupancy vehicles), but it will definitely bring some much-needed cash flow to the FN. www.tsawwassenshores.com/masterplan/That's an ambitious development, and one that is going to dump a lot of cars on Hwy 17. It sure seems like a widening of the highway is in order. An extension of the freeway with interchanges replacing signals at 56th and 52nd Streets would be the best way to go, but I'm guessing that's not likely to happen.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Oct 14, 2014 17:35:31 GMT -8
Here is a link to the "Master Plan" from the Tsawwassen Shores website. A pretty serious atrocity from a planning perspective (geared towards single-occupancy vehicles), but it will definitely bring some much-needed cash flow to the FN. www.tsawwassenshores.com/masterplan/You'd think that Vancouver could actually plan some suburban neighborhood right, but unfortunately that's not much better than what we have down south. It's such a shame that we are planning such auto-centric developments in 2014...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Oct 14, 2014 21:48:50 GMT -8
I wrote this five days ago and forgot to post it, so apologies for the duplication that appears... In the Army there is something known as a “throw away Course of Action.” Basically any plan made regarding high level operations will have three options presented to the deciding Commander. It is also generally accepted that two of these plans will be quality, and one will be a throw away that is either so resource intensive it is impracticable, or it demonstrates the effects of failing to act. Making substantial changes to Horseshoe Bay’s route patterns as has been suggested in brief outlines by BCFS or in some more detail here screams “throw away Course of Action” on numerous fronts. One – the primary opposition to Horseshoe Bay seems to be a combination of development costs associated with a compressed terminal area and difficulty dealing with the local community. Both of these are quite valid, albeit it seems that Horseshoe Bay in general seems to be getting a bit better at not biting the BCFS hand that feeds them. Development costs are essentially unsolvable, and will be a cost of doing business. So, point against Horseshoe Bay. And I would argue the only point against Horseshoe Bay. Two – imagine for me you are an employee at any business. You have your busiest location, and you make a lot of money there. And then you suggest seriously limiting access to it, or closing it to any profitable business (the Route 8 caveat). Your boss would think you are insane, and with good reason. If Horseshoe Bay is the busiest terminal then it demonstrates both a demand and need for service. Conceding that BCFS does not care about need in communities, it does care about revenue generation and an ability to make money –the demand. This should be exploited, not supressed, with the BCFS business model. And if we ever get a government that cares about ferry users again, then the need is also established. This is a double prong “Horseshoe Bay makes sense” point. Three – geography is fun. Having the North Shore, Tri-cities, Vancouver-proper among other areas drive South to Tsawwassen as an alternative is manifestly illogical. There is simply insufficient capacity in Metro Vancouver’s road network to support additional, unnecessary traffic when a viable alternative exists. This is another really unfortunate side-effect of private BCFS; they do not care about the road networks they feed into. They should. The SFPR and other changes would have no impact on these very large population areas and getting to Tsawwassen. Four – history repeats itself. There has been two serious attempts to change traffic patterns away from Horseshoe Bay, one of which had minimal impact and one of which was a complete failure. First we had the creation of Route 30 to make the South-Island Express to alleviate traffic off 2. This did in general work, and ridership on 2 did decrease. It was not, however, a hugely substantial change in the traffic pattern and the current annual reports demonstrate a continued load factor being much higher in raw value of 2 over 30. Moreover Route 30 has a low enough traffic pattern that they have the big service gap on weekends (no Sat night / Sun morning service) and it has been targeted for other reductions. An aside, poor fleet management also has a Coastal tied up on Route 30 out of essential necessity costing the company ancillary revenue potential other places. Then there was the whole Fast Ferry thing which, in part, was aimed at creating some of the changes that are again being examined. That is a reduction of traffic through Horseshoe Bay and a reroute of commercial and some passenger traffic to Tsawwassen. There was massive public and corporate outcry on this, and in fact BC Ferries was forced to keep a C Class vessel on the route as a permanent solution, not something that had originally been envisioned. Thinking outside the box and examining changes is a positive, important part of the development of any organization. So I am certainly supportive of BC Ferries fully examining their options and finding opportunities. If something is going to happen, close Duke Point. Expensive highway infrastructure to maintain, a semi-isolated terminal location, no transit, etc. I appreciate the City of Nanaimo may not love that idea but it is less crazy then choking off Route 2. I have to very much disagree with the gist of Dane's comments, for a variety of reasons.
Horseshoe Bay is going to need an extremely expensive seismic upgrade, if it is to continue in it's present capacity long term, let alone if it is to become the only greater Vancouver link to central and Northern Vancouver Island. It is also limited by the two service choke points, at First and Second Narrows... quite as bad as the Tsawwassen access situation.
There is also next to no capacity at Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay for drop trailer storage, an aspect of business that BC Ferries has invested heavily in, and is hoping for further growth. Departure Bay is in a residential neighborhood, and the notion of virtually all the commercial and private traffic bound for Nanaimo and north filtering along Brechin Road and along the waterfront for the foreseeable future seems to me to be absolutely untenable.
Add to this the reality that Vancouver and the North Shore are rapidly becoming places where 'industry' consists of pulling tall lattes and grooming apartment friendly poodles, with all the real work that involves icky stuff like loading trucks that might be bound for Vancouver Island gravitating to locations south of the Fraser, or at least, to suburban spots where a ferry departure from Tsawwassen makes more sense than Horseshoe Bay. The bulk of the population increase is southeast, as well.
Transit concerns are not particularly important. We seem to get new bus routes all the time, and if ferry patterns were re-aligned, bus routes would emerge to justify them. Bus riders don't seem to need to support their preferred modes of transport the same way ferry riders do, to get support subsidies.
Some might make the argument that Departure Bay handled route 30 traffic for a time, after the rough landing at Duke. That was temporary. The opportunities for proper capacity management and expansion are at Duke Point and Tsawwassen, not further north. The highway to Duke Point is not particularly difficult to maintain, despite Dane's contention- it's an excellent road, and not old, and it serves more than just the ferry terminal. Both routes need to be retained, but I suspect that if the bottom line thinkers, as in Liberals and ferry management, have to choose, it will be the newer route, and not necessarily for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 15, 2014 10:54:32 GMT -8
The way I see things right now, is that we'll have more cuts on route 30, with HSB being renovated. A large number of pax take route 2 to go to Nanaimo, and I'm sure BCF is aware of the large revenue-base that route-2 customers fill. The cheapest option would be to rebuild HSB and have additional service cuts on route 30, but it doesn't remedy the "narrow entrance" issue. For foot passengers, going to Tsawwassen from the North Shore is extremely inconvenient, and takes about an hour and a half by bus. I can see a downtown-to-downtown foot passenger service being successful, but new vessels would need to be built, and new terminals/berths would have to be set up. Personally though, I think this is the most viable option. There's not a day I can remember in the summer time where a vessel has to stop outside of Horseshoe Bay to let another one depart. Eliminating route 2 would also mean improved and more consistent schedules for route 3. Unfortunately, this would lead to the demise of many business in Horseshoe Bay. Nanaimo residents don't want additional traffic in the Departure Bay neighbourhood, so any increase in ships leaving entering the bay would probably be met with strong opposition. I suspect that the narrow entrance to the bay might also be a problem, as would the increased traffic to an already tight marshalling area. Anyways, I'm looking forward to reading more reports from BCF. The next few years sound interesting. The passenger only ferries plan for the Nanaimo - downtown Vancouver route that should be up and running in the Spring of 2015 will be interesting to follow. As we know from at least two previously failed attempts at running this kind of service, this new group might just have a chance of being successful if they manage their operation properly and keep the fares at an attractive price point. As BC Ferries will no doubt continue to shoot themselves in the foot with higher fares down the road, the emergence of yet another passenger only option should offer some much needed competition.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 15, 2014 12:54:20 GMT -8
I wrote this five days ago and forgot to post it, so apologies for the duplication that appears... In the Army there is something known as a “throw away Course of Action.” Basically any plan made regarding high level operations will have three options presented to the deciding Commander. It is also generally accepted that two of these plans will be quality, and one will be a throw away that is either so resource intensive it is impracticable, or it demonstrates the effects of failing to act. Making substantial changes to Horseshoe Bay’s route patterns as has been suggested in brief outlines by BCFS or in some more detail here screams “throw away Course of Action” on numerous fronts. One – the primary opposition to Horseshoe Bay seems to be a combination of development costs associated with a compressed terminal area and difficulty dealing with the local community. Both of these are quite valid, albeit it seems that Horseshoe Bay in general seems to be getting a bit better at not biting the BCFS hand that feeds them. Development costs are essentially unsolvable, and will be a cost of doing business. So, point against Horseshoe Bay. And I would argue the only point against Horseshoe Bay. Two – imagine for me you are an employee at any business. You have your busiest location, and you make a lot of money there. And then you suggest seriously limiting access to it, or closing it to any profitable business (the Route 8 caveat). Your boss would think you are insane, and with good reason. If Horseshoe Bay is the busiest terminal then it demonstrates both a demand and need for service. Conceding that BCFS does not care about need in communities, it does care about revenue generation and an ability to make money –the demand. This should be exploited, not supressed, with the BCFS business model. And if we ever get a government that cares about ferry users again, then the need is also established. This is a double prong “Horseshoe Bay makes sense” point. Three – geography is fun. Having the North Shore, Tri-cities, Vancouver-proper among other areas drive South to Tsawwassen as an alternative is manifestly illogical. There is simply insufficient capacity in Metro Vancouver’s road network to support additional, unnecessary traffic when a viable alternative exists. This is another really unfortunate side-effect of private BCFS; they do not care about the road networks they feed into. They should. The SFPR and other changes would have no impact on these very large population areas and getting to Tsawwassen. Four – history repeats itself. There has been two serious attempts to change traffic patterns away from Horseshoe Bay, one of which had minimal impact and one of which was a complete failure. First we had the creation of Route 30 to make the South-Island Express to alleviate traffic off 2. This did in general work, and ridership on 2 did decrease. It was not, however, a hugely substantial change in the traffic pattern and the current annual reports demonstrate a continued load factor being much higher in raw value of 2 over 30. Moreover Route 30 has a low enough traffic pattern that they have the big service gap on weekends (no Sat night / Sun morning service) and it has been targeted for other reductions. An aside, poor fleet management also has a Coastal tied up on Route 30 out of essential necessity costing the company ancillary revenue potential other places. Then there was the whole Fast Ferry thing which, in part, was aimed at creating some of the changes that are again being examined. That is a reduction of traffic through Horseshoe Bay and a reroute of commercial and some passenger traffic to Tsawwassen. There was massive public and corporate outcry on this, and in fact BC Ferries was forced to keep a C Class vessel on the route as a permanent solution, not something that had originally been envisioned. Thinking outside the box and examining changes is a positive, important part of the development of any organization. So I am certainly supportive of BC Ferries fully examining their options and finding opportunities. If something is going to happen, close Duke Point. Expensive highway infrastructure to maintain, a semi-isolated terminal location, no transit, etc. I appreciate the City of Nanaimo may not love that idea but it is less crazy then choking off Route 2. I have to very much disagree with the gist of Dane's comments, for a variety of reasons.
Horseshoe Bay is going to need an extremely expensive seismic upgrade, if it is to continue in it's present capacity long term, let alone if it is to become the only greater Vancouver link to central and Northern Vancouver Island. It is also limited by the two service choke points, at First and Second Narrows... quite as bad as the Tsawwassen access situation.
There is also next to no capacity at Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay for drop trailer storage, an aspect of business that BC Ferries has invested heavily in, and is hoping for further growth. Departure Bay is in a residential neighborhood, and the notion of virtually all the commercial and private traffic bound for Nanaimo and north filtering along Brechin Road and along the waterfront for the foreseeable future seems to me to be absolutely untenable.
Add to this the reality that Vancouver and the North Shore are rapidly becoming places where 'industry' consists of pulling tall lattes and grooming apartment friendly poodles, with all the real work that involves icky stuff like loading trucks that might be bound for Vancouver Island gravitating to locations south of the Fraser, or at least, to suburban spots where a ferry departure from Tsawwassen makes more sense than Horseshoe Bay. The bulk of the population increase is southeast, as well.
Transit concerns are not particularly important. We seem to get new bus routes all the time, and if ferry patterns were re-aligned, bus routes would emerge to justify them. Bus riders don't seem to need to support their preferred modes of transport the same way ferry riders do, to get support subsidies.
Some might make the argument that Departure Bay handled route 30 traffic for a time, after the rough landing at Duke. That was temporary. The opportunities for proper capacity management and expansion are at Duke Point and Tsawwassen, not further north. The highway to Duke Point is not particularly difficult to maintain, despite Dane's contention- it's an excellent road, and not old, and it serves more than just the ferry terminal. Both routes need to be retained, but I suspect that if the bottom line thinkers, as in Liberals and ferry management, have to choose, it will be the newer route, and not necessarily for all the wrong reasons.
Many of our learned members have offered up some very good discussion points on the whole topic of routes, terminals etc. Great to see some good thoughts being put forth. All the pros and cons of routes and terminals have merit, however I would suggest that both HSB and Tsawwassen are ill equipped for any kind of expansion. Not only are there 'space issues' at both terminals, there are a multitude of access problems for both terminals as well. Highway and road access to both terminals are victims, to a large degree, of the simple geography of the lower mainland. The downtown core of the city of Vancouver is basically situated on a peninsula with rampant congestion points in all directions. (Put the stopwatch on as one exits the downtown core and makes one's way East along First avenue towards Highway 1) The reverse trip off the 'freeway' into downtown via First Avenue must bring groan from tourists heading for downtown hotels and attractions as well. All traffic exiting the'peninsula of Vancouver', is forced to use bridges that are in no way designed to handle the volume of traffic they are being asked to move. The worst contributor to this mess is of course the Lions Gate Bridge.The viaducts, inner city and outer bridges such as the Oak St., Knight St., Alex Fraser, (to a lesser extent) and the Arthur Lang Bridge which handles YVR and Richmond traffic, all contribute to a less than optimum traffic flow. Where the heck am I going with this whole diatribe? Maybe the 'square peg into a round hole' analogy, loosely applied, is at play here. If we did a fly-over of the three major terminals that service routes south of Nanaimo, one would see that although they are somewhat spread out, they are connected with a reasonable level of highway attributes. ( Although accessing Departure Bay has it's own set of problems), but be that as it may for the moment, traffic heading to any three of those terminals is (relatively) problem free. Traffic heading for mid and more southern destinations on Vancouver Island are forced to navigate a morass tangle of highways, (some newly created such as the South Perimeter Road) which, if at present offers any sort of positive experience will soon have it's own congestion problems with the expansion of Delta Port etc. Traffic heading to HS Bay is another messy tangle of inadequate infrastructure, the problems AT HS Bay notwithstanding. In a perfect world, and I'm still looking, perhaps one very large terminal located between the YVR lands and the Southlands area of Vancouver could offer some degree of respite for traffic trying to navigate through or around the 'peninsula' of Vancouver-proper. Yes a terminal located where I have suggested would present some access problems. That I concede. Access to a new terminal from the south could be workable, using the SPR, a new bridge that will replace the Deas Island Tunnel, an upgrade to the Oak Street and Knight Street bridges and doing some tinkering with the traffic flow across the Arthur Lang bridge as well. Traffic heading into the core of Vancouver's inner city should be city bound traffic and not traffic heading through town for HS Bay. Hundreds of Vancouverites have totally ditched their cars as driving in the city core is a nightmare and not much better coming and going to the outer areas of the city or surrounding suburbs. Access to Tsawwassen is not going to get any better over time given the rapid growth within the City of Surrey, Industrial expansion of the Fraser-Surrey docks, Industrial expansion at Delta Port and the massive development on the First Nations lands near the Tsawwassen terminal. Some forum members are of the opinion that a general tinkering with the Tsawwassen terminal to handle increased traffic to Victoria and North, would be the solution to the various points put forth regarding a downsizing or revamping of HS Bay terminal. I propose a very, very hard look be taken as to the actual costs involved in a Major expansion of the terminal area itself and especially the causeway that connects the terminal to the rest of the world. Simply put: The downtown core of the city of Vancouver cannot, by the very nature of it's geographic/topographic makeup handle transient traffic, period! To the South, the present Tsawwassen terminal is NOT the panacea for expansion and service delivery to Victoria and points north to Nanaimo. Therefore, let's not continue focusing on either Tsawwassen or HS Bay as being viable options for ferry traffic. Funding the acquisition of land, new access routes as well as funding the design and construction of a 'marine superport' north of the YVR boundaries, and adjacent to the Soutlands area of south Vancouver, land that I believe is also owned by the Musqueam First Nations people, would admittedly cost a huge amount of money, let's talk a budget that ends with 'B's. Sell the Tsawwassen terminal to the Delta Port folks, they'd love more dock space. Make the necessary upgrades to HS Bay for continued use for Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast, ensuring the continued survival of the business community in HS Bay and allowing the good residents of the area some respite from the many years of blasting, drilling, construction and general inconveniences they have endured since Black Ball disappeared and BC Ferries sailed into town. Closing Tsawwassen terminal may sound like utterings from the lunatic fringe, however, just consider the huge cheque BC Ferries could wrangle from the folks of Delta Port as well as the money saved from an unnecessary upgrade to the terminal itself. On the Island side of this grand scheme, the terminal at Swartz Bay could be maintained as is, upgraded/refurbished as needed. Duke Point would be expanded to handle all traffic from the Vancouver side. Departure Bay, Like Tsawwassen, could be closed and sold. That land parcel would bring a huge cheque from some residential developer, guaranteed! With the sale of the two terminals, cheques cashed, I submit that we may yet be a tad short of funds required to build our new marine super-port, but I will leave those minor details to financiers at least a couple of pay grades above me. The vision of a marine super-port/terminal with a ready connection to YVR, the cities to the south of the Fraser River and the bike lane infested downtown core of the city of Vancouver, merits learned discussion, perhaps over a cuppa, or something stronger .
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 16, 2014 6:09:39 GMT -8
Apologies I cannot reply with Neil’s post quoted directly because I am on a computer locked down from the world and e-mailing myself this post!
I will, however, respond to Neil’s comment where in places we have disagreement and in other places I think are actually just saying different things.
1 – appreciating a variety of options exist, I would not advocate Horseshoe Bay becoming the only link to the central / Northern Island. Cancellation of Route 30 would be a poor policy decision in my mind given the changes in traffic pattern that BC Ferries has accomplished over the last two decades.
2 – Seismic upgrades of Horseshoe Bay are to me a red herring for a handful of reasons. The terminal will not close entirely, and will need upgrades. The scope of those upgrades with the traffic on Routes 3 & 8 would still require work on a majority of existing infrastructure be upgraded / replaced. As a result I am hard pressed to believe Route 2 would make a change in cost so fundamental that Highway 1 be separated (understanding the BC Liberals do not think ferries are a part of the Highway system). Perhaps the overhead parking area could be eliminated, and I am sure those are not cheap, but in the grand scheme of provincial expenditures it would be a false savings – but alas that is the story of current BC Ferries.
3 – Route 2’s connection to the Trans-Canada and a couple million residents still seems to be serving the ridership statistics well. I do not disagree on the changing nature of industry, but Vancouver and the North Shore are getting larger in population as the mid-Island also experiences relative growth. Commercial traffic is not the be-all-end-all of the route’s existence.
4 – with the current state of BC Ferries I can appreciate the relevance of drop trailers, and Horseshoe Bay is not perfect (although there is a small slice of unused space near the “top” of the terminal, and Highways owns but doesn’t use a large patch of land about 500 meters from the fair collection point). Closing a terminal and a major route because an ancillary revenue generator is not present would be ridiculous, even in the current climate.
5 – Transit concerns are important, as the savings from moving a route may quickly be eaten up by having transit to nowhere. If Departure Bay disappeared and semi-frequent service was needed to provide for Routes 2 & 30 it would be financially devastating to Nanaimo’s transit system because of route length, no “in-between” traffic, and sporadic frequency with no other real supports for ridership. This is, to a lesser extent, already a challenge for Route 620 which serves Tsawwassen. Buses are not as cheap as one may think to operate, and this would really just move the burden from an established system to another unestablished one. Again I am not really opposed to change, but change needs to be logical.
6 – I did not describe the Highway to Duke Point as “old,” I described it as “expensive to maintain.” Much like bus service if it were to operate to the terminal, a figurative (and exaggerated, obviously) Highway to nowhere is not the most efficient thing in the world. Highways, at the time of Duke Point’s construction, was opposed to the size and scale of the project as traffic did not warrant the size of the road. This was again brought up during the closure terminal from the hard landing. The highway is overbuilt, and as a result, an additional expense.
Overall I really think there is not a huge issue with the status quo. Reducing costs on profitable ventures is like playing with figurative fire. At the time of its building I am not sure Duke Point was the best possible location, but it was essentially the only non-Departure Bay option so it is what it is. Similarly while Departure Bay can handle off-peak and shoulder traffic, the terminal is already a complete gong show during peak traffic periods and an additional weight sailings a day would not help that cause, at all.
As a result I am strongly in favour of the status quo, but I am also so entrenched in my belief that the ferries are apart of the highway system that I cannot, nor will, accept that BCFS as a private entity needs to make solely business case decisions to “optimize” the major routes. If a substantial amount of money was being lost I may be sort of flexible on this point but the costs associated with renovating Horseshoe Bay alone are disproportionality minor to cancelling a major route.
Luckily Route 2 is one of the only that is represented by a Liberal MLA (snicker).
In a perfect Dane-world scenario I would build a central Vancouver / Richmond terminal and connect Gabriola, cancelling Routes 1, 2, and 30 – creating Route 1 Plus. With a buffet despite its forty minute crossing time
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 16, 2014 8:48:10 GMT -8
Apologies I cannot reply with Neil’s post quoted directly because I am on a computer locked down from the world and e-mailing myself this post! I will, however, respond to Neil’s comment where in places we have disagreement and in other places I think are actually just saying different things. 1 – appreciating a variety of options exist, I would not advocate Horseshoe Bay becoming the only link to the central / Northern Island. Cancellation of Route 30 would be a poor policy decision in my mind given the changes in traffic pattern that BC Ferries has accomplished over the last two decades. 2 – Seismic upgrades of Horseshoe Bay are to me a red herring for a handful of reasons. The terminal will not close entirely, and will need upgrades. The scope of those upgrades with the traffic on Routes 3 & 8 would still require work on a majority of existing infrastructure be upgraded / replaced. As a result I am hard pressed to believe Route 2 would make a change in cost so fundamental that Highway 1 be separated (understanding the BC Liberals do not think ferries are a part of the Highway system). Perhaps the overhead parking area could be eliminated, and I am sure those are not cheap, but in the grand scheme of provincial expenditures it would be a false savings – but alas that is the story of current BC Ferries. 3 – Route 2’s connection to the Trans-Canada and a couple million residents still seems to be serving the ridership statistics well. I do not disagree on the changing nature of industry, but Vancouver and the North Shore are getting larger in population as the mid-Island also experiences relative growth. Commercial traffic is not the be-all-end-all of the route’s existence. 4 – with the current state of BC Ferries I can appreciate the relevance of drop trailers, and Horseshoe Bay is not perfect (although there is a small slice of unused space near the “top” of the terminal, and Highways owns but doesn’t use a large patch of land about 500 meters from the fair collection point). Closing a terminal and a major route because an ancillary revenue generator is not present would be ridiculous, even in the current climate. 5 – Transit concerns are important, as the savings from moving a route may quickly be eaten up by having transit to nowhere. If Departure Bay disappeared and semi-frequent service was needed to provide for Routes 2 & 30 it would be financially devastating to Nanaimo’s transit system because of route length, no “in-between” traffic, and sporadic frequency with no other real supports for ridership. This is, to a lesser extent, already a challenge for Route 620 which serves Tsawwassen. Buses are not as cheap as one may think to operate, and this would really just move the burden from an established system to another unestablished one. Again I am not really opposed to change, but change needs to be logical. 6 – I did not describe the Highway to Duke Point as “old,” I described it as “expensive to maintain.” Much like bus service if it were to operate to the terminal, a figurative (and exaggerated, obviously) Highway to nowhere is not the most efficient thing in the world. Highways, at the time of Duke Point’s construction, was opposed to the size and scale of the project as traffic did not warrant the size of the road. This was again brought up during the closure terminal from the hard landing. The highway is overbuilt, and as a result, an additional expense. Overall I really think there is not a huge issue with the status quo. Reducing costs on profitable ventures is like playing with figurative fire. At the time of its building I am not sure Duke Point was the best possible location, but it was essentially the only non-Departure Bay option so it is what it is. Similarly while Departure Bay can handle off-peak and shoulder traffic, the terminal is already a complete gong show during peak traffic periods and an additional weight sailings a day would not help that cause, at all. As a result I am strongly in favour of the status quo, but I am also so entrenched in my belief that the ferries are apart of the highway system that I cannot, nor will, accept that BCFS as a private entity needs to make solely business case decisions to “optimize” the major routes. If a substantial amount of money was being lost I may be sort of flexible on this point but the costs associated with renovating Horseshoe Bay alone are disproportionality minor to cancelling a major route. Luckily Route 2 is one of the only that is represented by a Liberal MLA (snicker). In a perfect Dane-world scenario I would build a central Vancouver / Richmond terminal and connect Gabriola, cancelling Routes 1, 2, and 30 – creating Route 1 Plus. With a buffet despite its forty minute crossing time The last paragraph of Dane's latest posting is a very compelling proposition and recognizes several of the geographic/transit issues I raised in a recent posting. The concept of creating a Route 1 Plus route makes very good sense, but as we have sadly come to realize on this forum, there appears to be a total lack of common sense possessed within the halls of power in Victoria or at BC Ferries HQ. Keep the buffet at all costs!
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Oct 16, 2014 19:12:15 GMT -8
Bc ferries has said it will cost in excess of 200 million to rebuild the transfer decking at horseshoe bay. There is already signs on highway one to divert traffic to tsawwassen Terminal. Berth one in tsa is to be rebuild as a double decked berth and route 2 will be run out of tsawwassen within a few years once both berth 1 and 2 are double decked. Company will do this because it saves them hundred of millions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 16, 2014 20:55:06 GMT -8
Bc ferries has said it will cost in excess of 200 million to rebuild the transfer decking at horseshoe bay. There is already signs on highway one to divert traffic to tsawwassen Terminal. Berth one in tsa is to be rebuild as a double decked berth and route 2 will be run out of tsawwassen within a few years once both berth 1 and 2 are double decked. Company will do this because it saves them hundred of millions of dollars. IMHO this would be a very bad thing to do and hopefully it never comes to pass. If one of the Nanaimo routes was to be discontinued then let it be route 30 (though I am not advocating such). If there must be change then the best change would be to bite the bullet and go for the short route YVR to Gabriola and consolidate both routes 2 & 30 into this new route (possibly route 1 also). As we know there is to be a feasibility study looking at a bridge to replace ferry service to Gabriola. Make it a four-lane bridge & build a main line terminal on Gabriola. I know that a sizable portion of Gabriolans would not want a bridge to their island or a mega terminal & four-lane access highway being built there but sometimes the 'greater good' should prevail. Perhaps the consolation prize for Gabriolans could be free use of the new brige to access their island. If such is an out & out non-starter then we need to bite the bullet & do whatever it takes to keep Horseshoe Bay & route 2 going indefinitely. The cost should be born by BC tax payers, not ferry users. I have always wished to see an honest appraisal of the total cost of operating route 30 in comparison to the other main Georgia Strait crossings. Although the travelling public pays the same fare to use route 30 as for routes 1 & 2, the extra distance travelled, higher sustained vessel speed & 20 hour crewing day must make the route much costlier to operate (on a cost per vehicle/passenger basis). Much of the travelling public (the majority I would bet) that uses route 2 would be badly served if Horseshoe Bay & route 2 were 'canned'. For starters, total travelling time to Nanaimo would dramatically increase (for North Shore residents it is currently 2.5 hours (not including ferry wait times). Via route 30 the total travel time would increase to more like four hours. Motorist would burn far more fuel and frustration would go way up. Islanders wishing to get to Hwy 99 & Squamish, Whistler & beyond would be hugely inconvenienced, as would Sunshine Coasters wishing to get to the Island. Route 2 needs to be kept intact, or replaced with a better alternative, which route 30 isn't, for most travellers currently using route 2.
|
|
|
Post by salmon1956 on Oct 23, 2014 20:03:57 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see how the "private" BCF handles this situation. They have a product (route 2) that is very popular and is one of only two routes making money, $17 million last year. They have another product (route 30) that is loosing lots of money, $22 million last year. Route 30 revenue is 62% of Route 2's revenue but it has 87% of the expenses of route 2. Both have about the same capital costs. Since Route 30 started they have tried to divert traffic, especially commercial traffic from Route 2 to route 30 without much success. If you look at the schedule on their website route 30 is listed as Vancouver-Nanaimo while route 2 is West Vancouver-Nanaimo. The selective use of fare savers on Route 30 has not moved traffic.
For traffic north of the Fraser, going to Nanaimo on Route 30 could add 2-3 hours to the trip. If 10% of the traffic decides to not make the trip, they will loose 13 million in revenue. There may be some operational savings with ending route 2, but probably not much since HSB will still have to service Route 3 and 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 9:31:35 GMT -8
Mr. Salmon 1956, I appreciate you laying out the facts in numbers. Thanks.
I believe that the Alberni could be tied up for certain sailings in the off-season, as I've said before. When you look at traffic fluctuations on route 30, the early morning sailing to the mainland and the last sailing to the Island are extremely popular. And again, this is only a status quo solution, as we all know that BC Ferries has been trying to move traffic away from HSB now.
And I know mud might start flying my way for saying this, but if it were me, I would charge less for route 30 versus route 2. Not just for four weekends in June, but permanently. It would provide an incentive for travellers, at least south of the North Shore, to travel route 30, or attract travellers who otherwise would not go to the Island at all. Yes, I know route 30 costs more per sailing to operate, but the long-term goal is to divert traffic from HSB, without incurring any major capital projects.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Oct 27, 2014 16:41:28 GMT -8
What about instead moving Route 2 to end at Duke Point?
|
|