Page Thirty-Three
Page Thirty-Three
06 NOVEMBER 2005
Somebody hold me back ....
|
|||
Toronto Star Editorial Slams Ferry
by Liz Medhin photo by Bryan Beard Published Nov 05, 2005 Supporters of Rochester's Fast Ferry are fired up. They are on the defensive again after an unflattering editorial in a Toronto newspaper. The editorial criticized Mayor Bill Johnson's request for financial help from Canada and predicts that the ferry will fail. “I think that as people get used to the idea it'll only pick up," Don Locke of Milton. He and his wife came in on the ferry Saturday. After taking the ferry twice from Toronto to Rochester, Locke said he had to bring his wife along. "Oh, it was very relaxing,” Patricia Locke said. “Sit there, watch a movie, then we had lunch. Then we watched the shoreline when we came in." The two say they don't agree with the Toronto Star's editorial. It said Rochester Mayor Bill Johnson's request for Canadian tourism dollars should be "politely denied." It goes on to say "Johnson should look elsewhere. Canadians are under no obligation to bail out this sinking ferry service, especially since its odds of survival are slim, no matter what we do." Mayor Johnson says he couldn’t disagree more. “The money that we are talking about is money that is set aside to promote tourism in Canada,” Johnson explained. “That editorial is a little short sighted, but I think that once we are able to meet with the appropriate people, they are going to understand exactly what we are talking about.” The Lockes agree. Even though the ferry's first six months this year lost five times more than the expected $700,000, the say it's too soon to judge and that more promotion could help. They hope more take the short trip across the lake, before a rebound is dead in the water. "While Rochester is a beautiful place, Toronto has got a lot to offer as well,” Locke continued. “I think, having a ferry only benefits Toronto. I don't see why they wouldn't consider it." |
My goodness; SOOO many points to consider here. One at a time:
First, the title 'Toronto Star Editorial Slams Ferry' is rather inflammatory, highly reactionary and downright sensationalist at best. The editorial ultimately said two things:
1. The ferry operation's future is not the responsibility of Canadian interests and as such, there should be no money given/donated/set aside to help the ferry operation from Canadian sources.
2. The ferry's prospects of remaining an active viable business are in serious doubt given the present deficit and lack of passenger revenue.
The first is an opinion; the second, a fact. Neither of these two points would suggest the Star's editorial is 'slamming' the ferry except in the minds of reporters who wish to provoke indignation among their readers and viewers.
"Oh, it was very relaxing,” Patricia Locke said. “Sit there, watch a movie, then we had lunch. Then we watched the shoreline when we came in."
If the boat ride is more important than the destination, why should Toronto or Canada invest millions of dollars into the project? Throughout the history of this project, Rochesterians have focused primarily on the boat ride... and not the actual destination, as evidenced by the emphasis on on-board amenities such as movies, shops, meals and VLT's. To Torontonians and Canadians, that says people are more interested in the boat and not in Toronto or Canada.
“The money that we are talking about is money that is set aside to promote tourism in Canada,” Johnson explained.
Let's not be either coy, misleading or presumptuous here. It's neither Toronto nor Canada who stand to lose the most from the ferry going under. It's Rochester. The Greater Toronto area has -- and will continue to have -- a thriving tourist base and tourist industry either with or without the presence of a fast ferry to/from Rochester. Any attempt to suggest some sort of enormous financial impact to the Toronto tourist economy is due to the fast ferry is highly presumptuous at best and completely ludicrous at worst. Day-trippers leave relatively little money other than a few meals, admissions and some on-shore transportation costs. They are not likely to go home saddled with numerous expensive purchases tucked under their arms.
Overnighters add lodging costs which can be considerable, but given the demand for hotel rooms in downtown Toronto from other non-ferry tourists and business travelers, it's unlikely the vacancy rates will soar as a result of the ferry ceasing operations.
It is both deceptive and transparent to claim Canada should help promote the ferry in order to boost its tourist revenue when it's clearly obvious that Rochester would stand to gain the most from its doing so. Canada has no obligation to pay for Rochester's tourism industry anymore than the U.S. has an obligation to pay for Toronto's tourism industry. It was -- and still is -- an American initiative with a flawed business plan and the consequences of such will and should be suffered by American interests.
"Even though the ferry's first six months this year lost five times more than the expected $700,000, the say it's too soon to judge and that more promotion could help."
By anybody's standards, when a business is losing five times more than expected, it is never too early to consider ending the loss... especially when the same business failed previously in the same amount of time for the same reason. Grasping at highly speculative straws is not only risky, but blatantly ignores the fundamental issues which explain why the business is failing.
“I think, having a ferry only benefits Toronto. I don't see why they wouldn't consider it."
Considering it's the city of Rochester which has publicly mused about approaching Toronto and/or Canada for money, the so-called 'benefits' are dubious. Toronto built a CDN$10 million highly specialized facility for the sole purpose of the Rochester ferry which caused internal conflict and added cost to the city and Port Authority and has few benefits to the city if left vacant. Allocating yet more money to a project which has a history of failure -- coupled with all signs of failing again -- is not only a poor business decision, it's downright absurd. It may make sound business sense to Rochester, but to Toronto and Canada, it's a risk they're foolish to undertake... especially given the marginal return on investment.
The Toronto Star editorial was polite and straightforward. Far more disparaging comments regarding the ferry operation have been made by Rochester City Council members, as well as members of the Rochester community itself. Anybody who regularly reads newspaper editorials must admit that as far as editorials go, this one was pretty tame. Simply because it didn't deliver the message the Rochester ferry supporters wanted to hear, in no way constitutes 'slamming the ferry'.
The editorial could have written "Toronto to Rochester: 'Ferry Idiotic'" or "Lousy Ideas Yield Lousy Results". It didn't. It simply stated that Canadian interests are not best served by pouring good money into a business with a shaky past, present and future. That, to me, is sound advice which makes a lot of sense whether Rochesterians want to hear it or not.
Removing the kid gloves for a moment, this whole ferry episode is a classic example where Americans simply assume -- and expect -- Canadians to follow their every whim and wish no matter whether it helps or harms Canadian interests. What's good for the States is not necessarily good for Canada, yet that doesn't stop the assumption that Canadians should fall in line with every snap of the American fingers. When Canadians balk and refuse to go along with the U.S. demand, the response is immediate indignation and resentment as evidenced by the above RNews article.
Frankly, Toronto did Rochester an enormous favour by agreeing to not only open its port to the ferry, but by building a special facility to accommodate it. Toronto could have (some say, should have) politely listened to the CATS proposal and declined. Had it done that, one can only wonder how much money could have been saved on both sides of the border once the ferry service shuts down for good. Had the ferry existed in concept only, there would be no need to be looking for money, borrowing money or losing money in the first place.
But Toronto didn't. It was no less guilty of buying into the hype and sales pitch of CATS and the city of Rochester than was the Rochester community and state of New York.
The difference, of course, is that Toronto and Canada see the error of their ways and want to put an end to it. Rochester and the U.S. side of the lake are still not willing to admit their mistakes.
That seems to be a trend in the States.
|
|||
Star Article Blasts Fast Ferry
by R News Staff Published Nov 05, 2005 The fast ferry is once again the target of criticism in a Toronto newspaper. This time it's an editorial in the Toronto Star that has some upset. Mayor Johnson recently called for Canadians to chip in tourism dollars to help the project. The editorial in Friday's Star says Mayor Johnson's request should be politely denied. It goes on to say, "Johnson should look elsewhere. Canadians are no under obligation to bail out this sinking ferry service, especially since its odds of survival are slim, no matter what we do." We asked ferry board member Gladys Santiago to respond. She said, "You really don't want to know how I'd respond to it. But I'll tell you that we know that we're going to be successful. They don't know what they're talking about, to be truthful with you. We're very optimistic that the ferry will make it on the other side. Yes, it's had its problems, but we have an excellent management team up front with it." Last week the ferry board showed the operation lost more than $4-million in its first two months of service. |
"(Ferry Board member Gladys Santiago) said, ".... But I'll tell you that we know that we're going to be successful. "
Last week the ferry board showed the operation lost more than $4-million in its first two months of service.
Uh, OK Gladys... whatever you say. Would you care to explain how losing more than $4 million in the first TWO months of service IN ANY WAY points to a 'successful' business?
Promises, promises. Yet to date, the results are not there. Not for CATS and now, not for the city of Rochester. In the private sector, with that sort of history, the applicant would be quickly shoved into a high credit risk rating. But in city government, past and present losses somehow point to future 'success'.
"Star Article Blasts Fast Ferry"
Once again, sensational headlines are used to stir up the masses into righteous indignation. It's an editorial -- an opinion -- not an 'article' and it didn't 'blast' anything. It pointed out misgivings about putting Canadian taxpayer money into a project which has all the readily apparent signs of going bankrupt.
Exactly what U.S. editorials should be doing for U.S. taxpayer dollars.
"She said, "You really don't want to know how I'd respond to it."
Well Gladys, as a Canadian I have to say few of us actually care HOW -- or even IF -- you respond to it. You're entitled to your opinion just as much as we are.
"Yes, it's had its problems, but we have an excellent management team up front with it."
Oh, Brav-O Gladys. How corporately convincing of you. Are you still 'brainstorming' ideas or have you relied on your 'leadership team' to make all the 'strategic logistical decisions'?? Silly pretentious twit. Go play your little organizational mind games with someone who cares.
That wouldn't be anyone on the Canadian side of the border.
From the 'We Control The Future' Files:
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
There's a good amount of "wait and see" from the candidates. It's impossible to tell where the boat is headed from here.
Actually, it's not all THAT impossible to tell where the boat is headed. With absolutely no money having been made to date and with never enough passengers to support the expenses, I'd say it sure looks like the boat is headed for financial disaster.
The ferry service hasn't worked, isn't working and has no hope of EVER working due to the insufficient demand in the amount needed to break even. End of story.
If the ferry board and the U.S. side of the equation want to toss in VLT's, craps tables and a steady source of cash to keep the thing going, that's fine. Ostensibly in that scenario, the ship could make round trips completely empty but that would be extremely ill-advised.
The problem is: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If the prospective customers frankly don't give a damn about using the ship -- which has been the case -- the thing is going to be nothing but a massive money pit until its shut down.
The Rochester side is focusing on why people SHOULD take the ferry instead of why they're NOT. Extolling the virtues of an 'exciting alternative to driving' and on-board gambling does nothing to explain W H Y people AREN'T taking the ferry. To this and many other Canadians, the answer is very simple:
Who the hell wants to go to Rochester?
I don't care if that ruffles the feathers of the locals or not. As I've said many times previously, that's not a value judgement -- that's simply the truth of the matter. It may not be a nice sentiment, it might be viewed as an insult and it may even be due to mistaken perceptions. Whatever. That's just the way it is and the lack of passenger revenue -- AKA Canadian passengers -- speaks volumes. Take it or leave it as you may.
That's just the way it is.
KNOWING that, does it make sense to keep flogging a dead horse? That all depends if you WANT to believe it or not; if you DON'T, then by all means keep stuffing cash into the project and stop trying to figure out why the thing isn't making any money.
If you DO believe the lack of passengers is sending the message there isn't sufficient demand for the service, then it would be criminal to keep propping it up.
Based on all the evidence to date, what do YOU believe?
Fan mail's in....
|
 |
November 5, 2005
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Give credit where credit's due. And so I have. Let's not be so shallow, though, and read between the lines. Superficiality is the ferry supporters' game, not mine.
"Rochester is a very interesting, clean city and has lots of great shopping and restaurants."
That's it? Out of the entire letter, fifteen words sum up the Rochester experience? There was more written about the on-board ferry diversions than the destination city; not too difficult to see which was the more noteworthy part of the trip.
Right off the bat, any Rochester area resident knows Jo-Ann is NOT talking about downtown Rochester's scintillating retail experience. The Monroe and Park Avenue areas are fairly interesting for casual browsing, but I'm not sure if that's quite the 'great shopping' a suburbanite from Oshawa would have in mind. Jo-Ann makes no mention of how she and her mother and sisters ventured around exploring the 'interesting city' or where they stayed or what they saw. Rental car? Bus? Taxi?
Walking? For four woman in a strange city? Doesn't seem likely or prudent.
I could be wrong here, but I sense the 'great shopping' took place outside the city. That leaves the suburban mall experience... which is no more different or exciting than Pickering Town Centre or the Scarborough Town Centre. Sear's is Sear's no matter whether it's in suburban Greece or suburban Scarborough and Subway's are pretty much the same all over as well.
So are The Gap, Abercombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret, WalMart, Pier 1 Imports, Old Navy, Arby's, Footlocker, BestBuy, Lenscrafters, The Bombay Company, The Body Shop and Hallmark. Levi jeans and Tommy Hilfiger are the same no matter whether they're bought at The Bay or Kaufmann's. By the time the exchange and transportation costs are considered, it's far cheaper to buy the Nikes at the Scarborough Town Centre than it is Marketplace Mall. Not to mention faster and with far less hassle.
Shopping advantage for Canadians? None.
Whatever. Glad Jo-Ann and her family had a lovely time. I quite certain she's already booked her next ferry cruise as she was so enthused about the ride and visiting here that she'll be back next month to do the Christmas shopping routine here, right? I mean, hopping on board the ferry once a year isn't going to save the service from extinction, now is it?
Regarding the California couple who flew in and out of Pearson. It's unclear what compelled them to drive over from Niagara Falls, but I suspect catching a ferry ride was the prime motivator and I suppose even two one-way tickets from Rochester to Toronto are better than nothing. Still, it's hard to imagine this couple wanting to visit Rochester if the ferry wasn't available, so once again, the boat ride was the main attraction. People are interested in the boat, not the community and if Sodus Point were the southern terminus, people would drive to Sodus Point for the experience.
Visiting Rochester is not the motivator anymore than visiting Toronto is a motivator. People simply want to take a boat ride on the lake and that alone is neither attractive or profitable enough to sustain the ferry business.
 |
As undoubtedly the average Rochester reader is aware, the MS Chi-Cheemaun crosses from Tobermory on the Bruce Peninsula to South Baymouth on Manitoulin Island... a distance of about 28 miles across the Georgian Bay on Lake Huron. Leaving from Barrie, to get to Little Current on the North Shore by driving and taking the ferry is 170 miles; 240 miles by road driving north of the Georgian Bay.
Advance reservations are required and in the summer, it's not uncommon to find the ship is booked solid for weeks at a time. It's so popular, cars wait in lines for hours at a time to wait for the ferry to arrive... and I DO mean lines and I DO mean hours with three to four hour wait times not uncommon.
Considering the cost and waiting, it's just as fast to drive all the way to Little Current and far cheaper assuming Barrie is the point of departure just for comparison's sake. Plus the scenery is staggering and despite the snickering comments, Sudbury is a neat place. The Big Nickel mining tour is well worth it.
|
|
So why bother? Well, for the experience of sailing over the bounding Maine, of course. Big ships have always held an attraction and the chance to hop on one in the Great Lakes is a pretty neat thing to do.
Tobermory, as the SCUBA set knows, is the home of the Fathom Five National Marine Park where ship wrecks o'plenty and super clear visibility await the novice as well as not-so-novice divers. I dove several of the easier wrecks there and it's a real a memorable experience.. although the wimpy nellies who demand Caribbean warm waters will be quickly flashed to reality. Wet suits required year-round. Don't worry about those hideously ugly sea monsters called sturgeon; even though they could swamp a canoe, they're pretty laid back and generally ignore whatever's around them. A decent size walleye would be an hors d'oeuvre to them.
Tobermory
is definitely off the beaten path and is one of the most charming small
communities as can be found anywhere in southern Canada... sort of a Cabot Cove
of Murder, She Wrote fame. "Yo-ho, Me Maties." That sort of
place.
At 120 miles long, Manitoulin Island is a place with such a Native spiritual presence, one can almost feel the ancestors anywhere you travel and the Anishinawbe (Ojibway) community of Wikwemikong only reinforces the feeling. A very mystical and powerful place, to be sure. The northern ferry port of South Baymouth is, well, pretty much a car loading dock with a few places that serve up the addictive perch dinners to the tourists -- who are thankfully spread far and wide in the summer. Manitoulin Island is a spiritual sanctuary.
See, people generally pack Tobermory in the summer for one of two reasons; to take the Chi-Cheemaun or to dive like bandits. The ferry passengers sort of grin at all the divers and the divers sort of grin at all the ferry passengers and everybody is in a great mood. After the summer season ends, the cottagers, tourists and divers all split and Tobermory reverts to a very quiet little place... year-round residents with fat bank accounts from working their butts off all summer. Try to get a motel room in the summer without a reservation.
OK, so why the vicarious travelogue? You asked that at JUST the right time.
Tobermory IS the destination as there's few other reasons to be driving to the end of a 65-mile long peninsula with scant little other than campgrounds and stunning natural beauty - reason enough, of course, but not exactly on the way to the mall or theme park. Watch cars head north on Hwy. 6, and there's a good chance they're going to take the Chi-Cheemaun or spend the weekend diving and drinking brown pops. Watch the cash flow up Hwy. 6.
Rochester, on the other hand, isn't exactly a tourist hot spot... no, no... it's true. A bit bland and colourless, Rochester loves to think of itself as offering a myriad of attractions for the visitor but by and large, it's a pretty generic and conventional Upstate New York place. That's not all bad as it's a haven for the suburban mall enthusiast and it has some decent art galleries selling local talent. But what city the size of Rochester doesn't have the same thing?
The Toronto to Rochester ferry route offers a neat way to cross the lake, but as with the Chi-Cheemaun, people are more interested in the boat ride than the actual destination. You go where you have to go in order to board the boat and it's the boat ride which is the Main Attraction... not the destination.
Oshawa resident Jo-Ann Thow emphasized the boat ride in her letter and ".. oh, yeah.. Rochester is kind of nice.... and the view of the Toronto skyline from the lake is spectacular and we should really get Tourism Ontario to plug the attraction". I sense if the ferry route took her to Oswego, her reaction would have been the same... not that there's one damn thing wrong with Oswego.
As a boat ride, the Rochester ferry is great. As some sort of sustainable business, the Rochester ferry stinks. And all along, the ferry supporters have been pushing the boat ride AS a sustainable business venture when clearly, from the lack of passenger numbers, it is NOT.
So then. What's it gonna be? Is a cool boat ride which requires barges of cash infusions OK with the Rochester community? If it is, then have at it.
But if it's supposed to be a cool boat ride AS a sustainable business, that's just not going to happen.
Either way, that's a question which needs to be answered PDQ once and for all... as the money to keep the thing going is about to run out.
Unless, of course...
It already has.
![[News]](titler_News.gif){kind=small}
![[Toronto Star Editorial Slams Ferry]](FerryLatest11_5_5.jpg)
![[Star Article Blasts Fast Ferry]](FerryRiders8_14_5.jpg)
