|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 6, 2014 12:48:12 GMT -8
Wednesday's "about face" by Minister Stone brings up 2 issues for me. Ok, maybe 3 or more.
1) The issue of the major routes itself. ie. That there is some ministerial assurance that the route won't end. However, if you know how to read minister-speak, this route is still wide-open to sailing reductions.
2) The Minister's comments on Wednesday were a huge breach of protocol, concerning the legal setup of BC Ferries as a quasi-independent company, with a regulator that stands between the Minister and BCFS. A huge override done by Minister Stone, disrespecting the structure and process that the earlier Liberal Govt worked on creating. (again, regardless of how you feel about the issue that Stone spoke out about, this is a huge breach of protocol by him). - If I am Mike Corrigan or the BCFS Board, or the BC Ferry Commissioner, how do I feel about the Minister interfering?
3) Of course, there is the interesting situation how the Minister changed his mind after less than a day, because of just 2 MLA's comments. Contrast this to the waves of feedback last year, re service cuts, from local governments, other MLAs, and Ferry Advisory Committees and even from Chambers of Commerce. - In this context, Minister Stone's quick about-face is a huge slap-in-the-face to any of the groups/people who had previously protested ferry issues.
But for me, Item #2 is the big issue. I'm able to keep the ferry-service issues separate from my reaction to his protocol-breach. And that protocol breach has really got my attention now. I will be following this issue closely, looking for evidence of its fallout.
...as for the service-cut & route-adjustment issues, I've been talking about these for over a month now.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 6, 2014 17:47:31 GMT -8
That info is all well & fine Mr. Horn, but how might that lead to savings? I am thinking that it would lead to additional expenses... Any idea where BCFS gets this notion? I stayed up past my bedtime to hunt down that reference (it took a while). So I didn't have time for doing any critical-analysis. I was just trying to be helpful, because I vaguely remembered seeing that item somewhere, and I was glad to find it. There've been so many reports and documents in the past 6 months related to BCF. As to the question of how this might lead to savings, I've got some ideas, but no time for rapid-fire debate on it today. So I did some thinking last night & today about how they might save money with live-aboard crews. So far I have thought of one possibility, and it involves the Comox - Powell River route. This ferry is based on the Island side and crewed mostly with people who live in Courtenay-Comox area. We have discussed this before, but I believe it is generally accepted that this ferry is really Powell River's, and that it would make better sense to have it based & crewed from that city. Further, the first morning trip from Comox and the last evening trip back to Comox are lightly used. So, what if the last evening sailing from Comox was scheduled for about 8:30 PM and that rather then returning mostly empty the vessel & crew would remain over night in Powell River? It would return the next morning leaving Powell River at say 7:00 AM with that same crew who brought it over the night before? Once back in Comox there would be a crew change and this fresh 'day crew' would make 2 round trips between say 10 AM & 6 PM. I think such a scenario could work on this route, but what about other routes in the SGI's?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 7, 2014 8:49:31 GMT -8
.... 2) The Minister's comments on Wednesday were a huge breach of protocol, concerning the legal setup of BC Ferries as a quasi-independent company, with a regulator that stands between the Minister and BCFS. A huge override done by Minister Stone, disrespecting the structure and process that the earlier Liberal Govt worked on creating. (again, regardless of how you feel about the issue that Stone spoke out about, this is a huge breach of protocol by him). - If I am Mike Corrigan or the BCFS Board, or the BC Ferry Commissioner, how do I feel about the Minister interfering? But for me, Item #2 is the big issue. I'm able to keep the ferry-service issues separate from my reaction to his protocol-breach. And that protocol breach has really got my attention now. I will be following this issue closely, looking for evidence of its fallout. Mr. Horn, Mike Corrigan has now responded...
Read full article at: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ferries-fare-hikes-may-go-ahead-if-nanaimo-horseshoe-bay-changes-can-t-warns-ceo-1.2826278
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Nov 8, 2014 8:28:37 GMT -8
.... 2) The Minister's comments on Wednesday were a huge breach of protocol, concerning the legal setup of BC Ferries as a quasi-independent company, with a regulator that stands between the Minister and BCFS. A huge override done by Minister Stone, disrespecting the structure and process that the earlier Liberal Govt worked on creating. (again, regardless of how you feel about the issue that Stone spoke out about, this is a huge breach of protocol by him). - If I am Mike Corrigan or the BCFS Board, or the BC Ferry Commissioner, how do I feel about the Minister interfering? But for me, Item #2 is the big issue. I'm able to keep the ferry-service issues separate from my reaction to his protocol-breach. And that protocol breach has really got my attention now. I will be following this issue closely, looking for evidence of its fallout. Mr. Horn, Mike Corrigan has now responded...
Read full article at: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ferries-fare-hikes-may-go-ahead-if-nanaimo-horseshoe-bay-changes-can-t-warns-ceo-1.2826278 Methinks someone had a big black marker pen-stroke put through their name on Mike Corrigan's Christmas Card List. I do hope Mr. Corrigan was wearing protective head gear as the carpet was whipped from under him. Minister Stone's grandiose display of political grandstanding should offer up enough proof that the quasi-crown corporation under which BC Ferries operates is utterly broken and is in need of a very serious makeover. The time has come to put all services where public money is spent, back under the control of provincial government ministries thereby having elected officials be held accountable for their actions. Yes, a major shift in public policy would be in order for the next provincial administration. The shift would include: 1. BC Ferries 2. Translink 3. Treo ( road and bridge toll collectors), 4. Private companies responsible for road and highways maintenance. and although ICBC is a Crown corporation, they could use an overhaul as well. The current staffing levels and salary structures of all of the above named entities have NO direct public accountability! I offer up one particular example where a Translink (Skytrain) police constable's starting salary is much higher than the entry level wage paid to a Vancouver Police Constable. The electorate in B.C. has been subjected to having services reduced or cut by all of the above-named entities, the reason they all trot out is the old mantra of rising costs. No kidding! And just where is the accountability for these rising costs? The general public has become lulled into accepting a 'pay more for less' economic model because we accept the all the standard drivel that the only way to pay for these rising costs is to increase fares, tolls, premiums, etc. The time has come for public push-back, the removal of the 'wool' that's been pulled over our heads as we, the people, (to coin an 'Americanism'), demand a transparent accountability from ELECTED OFFICIALS who should be heading up GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES under which all the above-named service providers operate. The glad tidings in all of this is that there IS money, lots of it, to get service levels, new projects etc. up and running once we take back control of the 'public purse'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 0:02:27 GMT -8
It's disappointing that the Government changed its mind so quickly after announcing the changes proposed by BC Ferries to routes 2/30.
I'm sure these changes would have gone ahead if the media was slowly made aware of said changes. As mentioned in the PT4 submission, the routine of travelling to Nanaimo has been set in stone for the past 60 years - and route 30 has simply been a substitute and relief-provider to route 2. -Todd Stone has to be much more "gradual" when making such announcements.
Had the changes quietly gone ahead, I think the public would have accepted them much easier than with the traditional press conferences and "now you can vent" consultation processes. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to make creative changes to control its costs... Corrigan stated that the major routes represent 80% of BCF's costs. Route 1 sees far more traffic than 2/30, yet routes 2/30 have something like double the sailings route 1 has.
Clearly BC media outlets felt strongly on this issue, with the government backing away just one day after making the big announcement. It's clear in my mind that the changes would have shifted a lot of votes away from the Liberals.
I guess we'll just see further service cuts to routes 2/30, and maybe some on route 1. Heck, with such the short service day they have on route 30 on Saturdays, they might as well finish the job and tie the ships up for the whole day.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 12, 2014 6:31:34 GMT -8
It's disappointing that the Government changed its mind so quickly after announcing the changes proposed by BC Ferries to routes 2/30. I'm sure these changes would have gone ahead if the media was slowly made aware of said changes. As mentioned in the PT4 submission, the routine of travelling to Nanaimo has been set in stone for the past 60 years - and route 30 has simply been a substitute and relief-provider to route 2. -Todd Stone has to be much more "gradual" when making such announcements. Had the changes quietly gone ahead, I think the public would have accepted them much easier than with the traditional press conferences and "now you can vent" consultation processes. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to make creative changes to control its costs... Corrigan stated that the major routes represent 80% of BCF's costs. Route 1 sees far more traffic than 2/30, yet routes 2/30 have something like double the sailings route 1 has. Clearly BC media outlets felt strongly on this issue, with the government backing away just one day after making the big announcement. It's clear in my mind that the changes would have shifted a lot of votes away from the Liberals. I guess we'll just see further service cuts to routes 2/30, and maybe some on route 1. Heck, with such the short service day they have on route 30 on Saturdays, they might as well finish the job and tie the ships up for the whole day. Actually, the Government never made a big announcement, nor any other type of announcement. The media storm was caused by a reporter at the Vancouver Sun noticing the report on the Ferry Commissioner website, and reporting on it. - that same report was commented on by me on this forum, over a month ago. That report was prepared by BC Ferries as part of their required process for looking for efficiencies for the upcoming 4-year term. The Government set up that process of 4-year terms, and the Government also set up the process where BCFerries is required to look for financial efficiencies everywhere and anywhere. On the Route-2 issue, BCFerries or Government never got the chance to even start a consultation process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 7:38:28 GMT -8
It's disappointing that the Government changed its mind so quickly after announcing the changes proposed by BC Ferries to routes 2/30. I'm sure these changes would have gone ahead if the media was slowly made aware of said changes. As mentioned in the PT4 submission, the routine of travelling to Nanaimo has been set in stone for the past 60 years - and route 30 has simply been a substitute and relief-provider to route 2. -Todd Stone has to be much more "gradual" when making such announcements. Had the changes quietly gone ahead, I think the public would have accepted them much easier than with the traditional press conferences and "now you can vent" consultation processes. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to make creative changes to control its costs... Corrigan stated that the major routes represent 80% of BCF's costs. Route 1 sees far more traffic than 2/30, yet routes 2/30 have something like double the sailings route 1 has. Clearly BC media outlets felt strongly on this issue, with the government backing away just one day after making the big announcement. It's clear in my mind that the changes would have shifted a lot of votes away from the Liberals. I guess we'll just see further service cuts to routes 2/30, and maybe some on route 1. Heck, with such the short service day they have on route 30 on Saturdays, they might as well finish the job and tie the ships up for the whole day. Actually, the Government never made a big announcement, nor any other type of announcement. The media storm was caused by a reporter at the Vancouver Sun noticing the report on the Ferry Commissioner website, and reporting on it. - that same report was commented on by me on this forum, over a month ago. That report was prepared by BC Ferries as part of their required process for looking for efficiencies for the upcoming 4-year term. The Government set up that process of 4-year terms, and the Government also set up the process where BCFerries is required to look for financial efficiencies everywhere and anywhere. On the Route-2 issue, BCFerries or Government never got the chance to even start a consultation process. Thanks for clarifying, Mike. I forgot about that... It was a bit late haha. Either way, I think it was a missed opportunity. Needless to say, the mainstream media has a lot of control on the public opinion, at least here in BC.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 12, 2014 12:01:02 GMT -8
It's disappointing that the Government changed its mind so quickly after announcing the changes proposed by BC Ferries to routes 2/30. I'm sure these changes would have gone ahead if the media was slowly made aware of said changes. As mentioned in the PT4 submission, the routine of travelling to Nanaimo has been set in stone for the past 60 years - and route 30 has simply been a substitute and relief-provider to route 2. -Todd Stone has to be much more "gradual" when making such announcements. Had the changes quietly gone ahead, I think the public would have accepted them much easier than with the traditional press conferences and "now you can vent" consultation processes. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to make creative changes to control its costs... Corrigan stated that the major routes represent 80% of BCF's costs. Route 1 sees far more traffic than 2/30, yet routes 2/30 have something like double the sailings route 1 has. Clearly BC media outlets felt strongly on this issue, with the government backing away just one day after making the big announcement. It's clear in my mind that the changes would have shifted a lot of votes away from the Liberals. I guess we'll just see further service cuts to routes 2/30, and maybe some on route 1. Heck, with such the short service day they have on route 30 on Saturdays, they might as well finish the job and tie the ships up for the whole day. Hornby and Denman Islanders felt pretty insulted by BC Ferries holding "now you can vent" meetings on the cable project, after which they went right ahead with what they had always planned on doing. BC Ferries is not just "a company", and it's not perfectly acceptable for them to adopt a course which serves their interest at the expense of coastal communities and economies. At least, it wouldn't be, if we had a government that understood that this is an essential service, and the marine transit link for thousands of people. As well, the media has not been controlling the agenda or setting people's opinions when it comes to ferry matters. Over the last few years, traditional media, even the most conservative ones, have simply been catching up to the reality that the current BC Ferries construct is idiotic, and that the economy of the coast is being adversely affected by Liberal ferry policies. The Vancouver Sun did not come up with this complaint.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 12, 2014 14:36:20 GMT -8
Frankly the informal system of government checks seems to have worked in this case; I said on previous pages that an idea to eliminate route 2 with no substantive replacement would be crazy, and it seems I was far from alone on that opinion. Posts from some here seem to follow the logic that if one route is less busy than another, it is less critical. The load factors on Rte 2 are still well above 50%, and the route makes money. “Paying” for the HSB upgrades would only take a few years (although there’s few other public transport projects that are ever expected to pay for themselves.)
A handful of points I find interesting, many of which have been touched on already:
- “The company” is looking a lot less like a company day-by-day. The “responsible” Minister, who is actually NOT responsible is directing changes without the authority from, or changes too, the Coastal Ferry Act. This is entirely hypothetical because it would not happen – but I think BC Ferries would have a legal leg to stand on in civil court that the government is wrongfully interfering in its business. If the Federal government tried to direct Air Canada in similar ways you can be sure they’d go to court; of course Air Canada doesn’t have the government as the sole shareholder.
- The BC Liberals, as much as I hate them, are pretty good at sniffing out election issues. I said before when BC Ferries raised potential changes to Route 2 they started to mess with one of the only routes deep in Liberal constituencies by both location and riders. It is not surprising to see them back off this for political reasons alone. In the grand scheme changes to Route 2 would not be a huge change to overall costs, as dramatic as $200 million sounds, and additional costs would simply be borne other places, like the more expensive to run route 30, reducing revenues for the company. So the net financial change doesn’t seem worth the political risk.
- Clark’s comments that ferry fares are as high as they can get is probably the second most interesting story of the coastal ferries this year (new ships always win my heart). That’s the most dramatic comment for sure since the creation of BCFS from any senior Minister, let alone the First Minister! Simultaneously BC Ferries has backed off the staunch “fares do not effect ridership,” to a softer, “there may be an impact, but no research exists.” Notwithstanding the fact BCFS’s position is factually incorrect (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ferries-hikes-mean-loss-of-2-3b-says-ubcm-report-1.2762212) it seems the iceberg is slowly being pushed towards a freeze of fares in admission that things have simply gotten out of hand.
- Studies cost a lot of money. I appreciate BCFS is required by the Coastal Ferries Act to review services, but I am glad the push back was swift enough – after initial 90 day delay – to stop money being burned on what would be a disingenuous, time consuming process that would probably serve no one with the decision being made on Fort Street ultimately. I am not opposed to reviews of service delivery, but they need to have grounded, realistic terms of reference. It did not look like we were headed in that direction.
- Todd Stone is going to get shuffled whenever the next Cabinet change is needed. The only reason I could see him stay is if the government flip flops on recent ferry comments and needs a sacrificial lamb. I would hate to live in Kamloops-South Thompson with him representing me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 16:02:30 GMT -8
Hornby and Denman Islanders felt pretty insulted by BC Ferries holding "now you can vent" meetings on the cable project, after which they went right ahead with what they had always planned on doing. BC Ferries is not just "a company", and it's not perfectly acceptable for them to adopt a course which serves their interest at the expense of coastal communities and economies. At least, it wouldn't be, if we had a government that understood that this is an essential service, and the marine transit link for thousands of people. As well, the media has not been controlling the agenda or setting people's opinions when it comes to ferry matters. Over the last few years, traditional media, even the most conservative ones, have simply been catching up to the reality that the current BC Ferries construct is idiotic, and that the economy of the coast is being adversely affected by Liberal ferry policies. The Vancouver Sun did not come up with this complaint. I'm sorry you felt insulted by the consultation process. Please understand that Hornby and Denman were BY FAR not the only communities to take a hit in the past two years. You may think that your community is the hardest hit. I think Bella Coolan businesses will be hardest hit by the cuts. Lets all work together... ----------- Now cutting to the chase: For the first paragraph Neil, you're splitting hairs. I simply said "company" because YES BC Ferries is an Independent Company, on the leash of the Prov Govt and YES they get government subsidies. If we were in 1995, when it was a Crown Corp, I probably would have also called it a company. But the internet didn't exist, and neither did I. RE adopting a course: Do you not think it's a good idea to think outside the box, instead of further service cuts and fare increases? Someone apparently doesn't like change. You may think the media has not controlled the agenda, I think otherwise. Flugel pointed out that the Sun noticed this one month after PT4 came out. You don't have to be an idiot to know that the media loves drama and the theatrical aspect of news... it's what keeps viewers hooked. It's also a generally accepted fact that the media, IN GENERAL, has a powerful influence on the public. ------------ To conclude, I have had many productive discussions with members much older than me... I love debates. But I don't appreciate when the emotions start to fly. -The first paragraph is quite emotional and off-topic. What does "Hornby and Denman Islanders" reacting to a policy move have to do with PT4? Maybe you could elaborate? I'd love to know, but if there's going to be more "I'm right, you're wrong," then the debate ends here.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 12, 2014 17:00:54 GMT -8
Its clear to me Neil was talking about the consultation process with regard to the introduction of the Denman cable ferry. In no way was he making an argument about his island being more hard hit by 'the cuts' then other ferry dependant communities. It appears to me that you are being just a tad confrontational.
Further, under no circumstance should BCFS, the quasi-private company, decide on its own which ferry routes will live & which will die. That role belongs to the people served by those routes, and their representatives in government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:15:04 GMT -8
Its clear to me Neil was talking about the consultation process with regard to the introduction of the Denman cable ferry. In no way was he making an argument about his island being more hard hit by 'the cuts' then other ferry dependant communities. It appears to me that you are being just a tad confrontational. That's true Jim. I have gotten pretty frustrated with the sarcasm and negativity that is sometimes displayed here, so I guess I'll just have to keep my hat on. Further, under no circumstance should BCFS, the quasi-private company, decide on its own which ferry routes will live & which will die. That role belongs to the people served by those routes, and their representatives in government. Under no circumstances am I suggesting that Central VI should be at the mercy of BCFS. But fares cannot continue to go up and sailings cannot continue to be cut. Something has to be done...
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 12, 2014 18:12:59 GMT -8
I have some vague recollections of 1995; one thing that was totally clear was that I had access to the "World Wide Web" through my Prodigy dial-up connection. I will say, we've come along way from the early Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve based discussion forums.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 15, 2014 23:21:26 GMT -8
Buried in the municipal election results was this, posted on BC Ferries Facebook Page from CEO Mike Corrigan...
This is interesting, especially the reference to WSF. BCFS has really taken a beating these past couple weeks from a public relations standpoint, and I think this is definitely a response to that.
I look forward to seeing the results.
I felt this was an extension of the Performance Review, since it's for April 2016. If I am incorrect on this, please let me know...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2014 23:33:46 GMT -8
I felt this was an extension of the Performance Review, since it's for April 2016. If I am incorrect on this, please let me know... This is very much a standard part of the Performance-Term #4 process, so yes this is the right place. In my opinion, this posting by BC Ferries is a push-back against the Provincial Government saying "hey, we're going to follow the process here, so shut-up Stone." What is the process? - BC Ferries recently submitted their PT4 preliminary reports to the Ferry Commissioner (at end of September) - BC Ferry Commissioner reviews these reports and seeks input on them. - BC Ferry Commissioner rules on the PT4 fares, by September 2015. ...unless the BC Government overrides the process, like they did for PT3.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 18, 2014 7:58:55 GMT -8
I have, in the past, been an advocate for lower-cost, passenger-only supplemental service. I believe that the ferries should not only function as part of the highway network, but also as an integral part of the transit network as well. This has been a fascinating thread for an Alaskan to eavesdrop on, thank you. This comment got me thinking. In Alaska, our ferries are paid for, in part, by Federal highway funds. As such, if they don't carry cars, we don't get operating subsidies for them. When our system looks to future planing, this is one option that is flat-out not available. Are there any sort of similar restrictions for BC Ferries? Does the corporate charter come with a specific mandate to run ships? Could they, for instance, replace a stop with connecting bus service if such were economically practical?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 20, 2014 8:54:46 GMT -8
In light of Minister Stone's flip-flop reactions on November 4 & 5, 2014 regarding BC Ferries efficiencies report content on possible route-2 re-think, here is what Todd Stone's Ministry of Transportation dictated to BC Ferries a year earlier, on November 18, 2013: This is straight from the Ministry's news release, the 9th paragraph HERE
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 20, 2014 11:18:33 GMT -8
[TANGENT] This is straight from the Ministry's news release, the 9th paragraph HERESo I went THERE, and from there to THERE (Province of British Columbia Fickr photo page). Now, I ask everyone to look at that photo of a ferry identified as the Queen of Capilano. Where was this taken? Is this actually the Cappie? Has there been some 'photo-shopping' happening here? Our government wouldn't be 'bending' the truth, would they? [/TANGENT]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 13:44:37 GMT -8
It's the Cumberland on the North end of Active Pass.
You can tell it's the Cumberland as the area beside the flags is not barricaded off like it is on the Capilano.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 21, 2014 18:12:27 GMT -8
Here's how BC Ferries described the rough start to the PT4 process: - this is from their Management's Discussion & Analysis report, for the July-September quarter, released today:
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Nov 22, 2014 7:20:55 GMT -8
If the entire BC Ferries operation wasn't in shallow water to begin with, it appears Commander Stone has managed to run the "MV PT4" hard aground. Initial reports from the site of the grounding describe the situation as extremely perilous and rescue crews are faced with the onerous task of extricating the 'MV PT4" from it's perch between a rock and a hard place. Calls have been made to the Canadian Coast Guard to come to the rescue. At press time, apparently the Coast Guard was having difficulty locating navigation maps for the disaster area titled: 'Between A Rock And A Hard Place'. PS. to the Coast Guard folks, give Commodore Corrigan a shout.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 26, 2014 18:21:26 GMT -8
I'm sure many people here are following this "Dear BC Ferries" ordeal on Facebook. I just surfaced from the comments on their facebook group, and spent way more time than I'm willing to admit in the abyss.
I'm starting to think that groups like that are causing more harm than good for the cause of improving BC Ferries. In amidst the ranting and raving on that site, I found no reference to the fact that BCF is controlled by the province, that the province regulates service levels, and crewing levels are determined by Transport Canada.
The level of ignorance is astounding, as is the seeming lack of effort to do some basic research. One of the evils of social networking: It's become so easy for everyone to have a voice, they don't know how to research or think about what they write before it's posted.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 26, 2014 21:19:50 GMT -8
I'm sure many people here are following this "Dear BC Ferries" ordeal on Facebook. I just surfaced from the comments on their facebook group, and spent way more time than I'm willing to admit in the abyss. I'm starting to think that groups like that are causing more harm than good for the cause of improving BC Ferries. In amidst the ranting and raving on that site, I found no reference to the fact that BCF is controlled by the province, that the province regulates service levels, and crewing levels are determined by Transport Canada. The level of ignorance is astounding, as is the seeming lack of effort to do some basic research. One of the evils of social networking: It's become so easy for everyone to have a voice, they don't know how to research or think about what they write before it's posted. Had a look at the facebook group Nick referred to, and I agree... it's probably best not to spend too much time there. Although, there is a great Raeside cartoon near the beginning.
However... I blame Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark more than social media, for the current, often low IQ level of the conversation around ferries. Since 2003, Liberal policy toward our ferry system has been so horribly misguided and so unresponsive to the needs of the communities it serves- and often, users- that the prevailing public view has become perhaps permanently jaundiced. People have become reflexive in their attitudes; if there's an expensive LNG conversion of a major ferry, it's another sign that there's money for technology but not to keep service levels up and fares down. Gift shops are another extravagance, another sign that the unholy Liberal/BC Ferries mindtrust think they're operating cruise ships and not marine transit vessels. So many commenters don't trouble themselves with the facts, partly because Campbell and Clark have conditioned them to suspect the worst. And I can't entirely blame them.
Then you have the jaw dropping stupidity of Todd Stone defending the Nimpkish service on the central coast, despite what all of the tourist industry and many European travellers have been saying to the contrary. As I said in another thread, there is a rather nasty narrative that has been established around BC Ferries; a justified one, and unfortunately, it doesn't always produce reasoned argument.
This forum, because of the keen interest of its members in the whole spectrum of ferry operations, generally has a more intelligent view. We know what BC Ferries has responsibility for, and what can be placed at the feet of Clark's government, and we know that even if service is cut and fares are too high, it might still be a good idea to spruce up the Spirits and convert them to LNG. The general public, and perhaps many people in ferry dependent communities who've felt the negative effects of ferry policy for more than ten years now, might not be so inclined to make careful distinctions. The Liberals created a poisonous climate where rhetoric and lack of reason are unfortunately a lot more prominent than they should be. BC Ferries is a bedraggled whipping boy, and I'm not sure I see that changing any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 9:56:55 GMT -8
The BC Ferry Commissioner released a BCFS report on the "Fare Flexibility and Digital Experience Initiative" today. This is a large report, and much of this complex topic has a good chance of becoming reality. Because of this anticipated ongoing issue and our discussion of it, I decided that it should have its own thread. HERE---------- I've also moved some of our earlier fare-flexibility comments into that new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 2, 2015 11:08:38 GMT -8
Minister Stone fires his next (last?) shot at BC Ferries: - from a January 2, 2015 Rob Shaw article in Vancouver Sun
An interesting read, especially the bottom half of the article, where Stone takes credit for the idea to LNG-convert the spooks, and where Stone outright says what he would do if only the Province could have more say in BCFS operations. - and of course the reason why the Government doesn't just change the structure: they don't want the BCFS debt on the government's books, because that would hurt the Provinces finances (ie. bond ratings, etc)
|
|