Page
Fifty-Seven
Page
Fifty-Seven
The Ever-Optimists weigh in:
 For
Sale: One Ferry, Slightly UsedEvan Dawson (Rochester, NY) 01/11/06 -- With the first big decision of his political career behind him, Rochester Mayor Bob Duffy has a new focus selling the fast ferry. The immediate challenge for the Duffy administration will be to find someone who will pay a fair price for the fast ferry. Duffy said, "Our goal is to get as much money as we can to pay down the debt." The city bought the boat 11 months ago for $32 million. Hornblower Marine Services helped run the fast ferry when it launched in 2004. John Waggoner, CEO of the company, said they have been following the situation closely and believe that the Duffy administration will be able to recover a lot of the cost. Waggoner said, "It's a very good piece of hardware…I don't think anybody's going to buy it for $32 million…but I do believe it would be very marketable in the $25-30 million range--absolutely." (Let's bookmark this for future reference.) According to Hornblower, the US military has purchased three fast ferries to transport troops. Waggoner said there's also a market in the Mediterranean for the vessel where ferries are common and in demand. The Turkish government expressed interest in buying the fast ferry a year ago and could become a bidder. The island nation of Trinidad and Tobago has been looking for a similar vessel as well. |
I said it before: Sayin' it 'n payin' it are two different things. The WHAM13 News crew is still at it. All things bright and beautiful. Gag me.
|
A
Tale Of Two Cities And A Contract Jane Flasch (Rochester, NY) 1/11/06 Now that Rochester's new mayor has decided to get the city out of the ferry business, new details about a contract between Rochester and Toronto have been made public producing questions about how forthcoming city officials were. The Ferry Corporation, which ran the
operation for the city of Rochester, agreed to lease the terminal in
Toronto for $250,000 a year for 14 years. Rochester city attorney Thomas Richards said, "Toronto did not dream up this idea, we dreamed up this idea. They didn't say, ‘Go get a ferry.’ We said, ‘We've got a ferry here,’ and their response was, ‘You can have it, but you have to pay for it.'" (And pay they did.) A big issue now is if and when the details were made public. On Wednesday, former City Attorney Linda
Kingsley said, "Any suggestion this was secretly done is nonsense. I was
there when the mayor [Johnson] talked publicly about the cost." He said he was brokering an agreement to
pay $225,000 a year. That's less than what former owner Cats paid. Johnson
did not mention passenger surcharges. However, if the ferry board shuts down
without an agreement, the Port Authority could file a lien against the
ship, holding up the city's ability to auction it off, and that could cost
taxpayers. (Oh please. We're not
all idiots, Jane. We KNOW it's going to cost taxpayers dearly.) Richards said, "The city itself gets into a situation where it gets itself into backing up all these obligations that the ferry company has entered into and no one else is taking any risk on a project that has a lot of risk." Consultant Bob Barbato says risk is a regular part of doing business. "I think he just got himself into this situation where the farther along he went on this path, the more expensive it got for Rochester. But once you were invested, it's hard to say 'no,'" he said. He calls the Johnson administration's decisions "flawed," but not deceptive. "When a strong leader has that kind of commitment and passion… its very hard for others to disagree or provide the objective critical analysis that is required," Barbato said. Barbato has analyzed both of the city's business plans for the ferry and some of the contracts that have been made public. He says taking risks is common in business, but the standards for acceptable risk taking changes when the money being spent belongs to someone else. In this case it was the taxpayers. Johnson did not return calls about this story. |
"Consultant Bob Barbato says risk is a regular part of doing business.... He says taking risks is common in business, but the standards for acceptable risk taking changes when the money being spent belongs to someone else. In this case it was the taxpayers."
Damn straight, Bobby. When 'risk' is based on blind ignorance, it's no longer 'risk'. It's stupidity. Thinking there would be sufficient demand from the Canadian side wasn't just taking a 'risk'; it was a naive and unsubstantiated assumption based on the premise the Rochester area held enough attraction to woo visitors from Canada. It didn't and it doesn't. That's not taking a 'risk'. That's an unrealistic self-assessment which screams "Uneducated guess" more than it does "business risk".
|
|
|
|
Photo courtesy of Status Imaging |
Toronto Mayor, David Miller, called Tuesday's decision “a regrettable development.” The Toronto Port Authority released a statement saying they were “Disappointed by the decision of Mayor Duffy. It is regrettable that the ferry was cancelled before it could achieve commercial success." The Rochester Ferry Company had a contract with The Toronto Port Authority agreeing to pay them $250,000 a year for 14 years. In addition, the city was paying the port authority $1 per person and $3 for every car that arrived in Toronto via the ferry.
Duffy says the city will hire a private marine broker to sell the ship as quickly as possible. Potential buyers include the U.S. Military and the Turkish Government. Turkish officials toured the boat last year before and after the auction. Mel Dougin of the Istanbul Counsel said they would be back. "We're going to keep our eyes on the vessel and track its progress. We are still interested in the vessel so if future events change, we could still be interested in acquiring it at a later date,” said Dougin. Bay Ferries, the current operator of "The Cat", is not in the market to buy the ferry. In a statement on Wednesday President Mark McDonald said, “We regret the decision taken by the City of Rochester, but respect that decision." Duffy says the city will repay the $2.5 million it owes Bay Ferries.
The Rochester Ferry Company says it will also offer gift certificate refunds. (Mmmmm. thanks but we'll take the cash. WHATTYA MEAN 'No cash refunds'???) For questions call (585) 428-9311 or toll free 1-866-864-7447. You can also log onto www.catfastferry.com for more information. Gift certificates purchased with cash will be refunded at the Rochester Terminal, Monday-Friday 9a.m.-3p.m. If you have purchased a gift certificate through a 3rd party, (i.e. Wegman's) refunds will be provided through that 3rd party directly. Stay tuned to News 10NBC for more on Mayor Duffy's decision to end ferry service.
Gift certificates? What kind of gift certificates will be offered to the Canadian ticket holders? Two free deluxe potholders at Honest Ed's? A free Nanaimo bar with a double latté purchase at Second Cup? Will the gift certificate equal the price paid for a ticket? Or will they amount to a token gesture aimed at placating Canadian consumers burned yet again by some belly-up ferry business?
|
"I have never been in a casino in my life, and I mean that... said Duffy."
Considering Duffy's only a few months younger than I am... and considering I don't even gamble, I still love the atmosphere of a casino. No kids in the establishment is the main attraction for me but it's hard to imagine a 50-something has never been in a casino. Or would publicly admit it anyway.
I don't know where the image of unchecked dens of sin and debauchery comes into play when casinos are talked about by some people. Yeah, I'm Native and maybe that's got something to do with a nonchalant attitude towards legalized gaming. Of all my vices, fortunately gambling is not one of them... but it sure looks like fun if you've got the money to lose. I rarely win even when the odds are 50/50 so it's best that I watch from the sidelines.
In the ancient days when Las Vegas was the closest place to Rochester for legalized gambling, it's perfectly understandable that an Upstate kid like Duffy would have never set foot inside a casino.
But Jeez Louise, with Turning Stone, Seneca-Niagara and Casino Niagara just down the road it's not like a trip to Sin City is needed to check out what all the fuss is about. Doesn't cost anything to walk around, buxom beauties aren't bumping and grinding the night away and pallid gambling addicts aren't hunched in doorways with tin cups.
Go ahead, Bob. Take a huge risk and dare to see what Sodom and Gomorrah actually looks like. I like Casino Niagara the best but Turning Stone is really nice as well. In any of the casinos within a two hour drive of Rochester, the clientele look exactly the same as can be found at any suburban mall. Minus the kids.
|
|||
Toronto Responds to Ferry Decision
by Seth Voorhees / M. Cort Photo by R News Staff Published Jan 11, 2006 Rochester's abrupt decision to get out of the ferry business came as a shock to the head of the Toronto Port Authority. It was the Port Authority that built the terminal for the ferry at the Port of Toronto. The city of Rochester actually leased space in the terminal, and cost was one of the reasons that Rochester Mayor, Bob Duffy decided to pull the plug. "I'm disappointed… and surprised” said Lisa Raitt, Toronto Port Authority President and CEO. She learned the news on Tuesday afternoon in a phone call from the Rochester City Attorney. "We were really getting ready for the new season. This is a bit of a whiplash for me to start thinking about the fact that the service isn't coming." (Oh, c'mon Lisa. As if this were some earth-shattering development. Anybody could see for themselves the numbers weren't there.) Raitt says the Port Authority was lining up marketing for the ferry's 2006 season. Authorities spent $12 million on the ferry terminal at the port for which the city of Rochester leased space. The contract calls for a fifteen year deal for $250,000 a year, plus $1 per head for each person who passed through the terminal. Raitt claims that momentum was building in Toronto for the ferry. (Right. Promises, promises.) “You can't get away from the fact that there's a terminal in Rochester and there's a terminal in Toronto and oodles of experience on both sides of dealing with a good, strong ferry trade,” she said. “Don't forget, in those two seasons, shortened that they were, $250,000 (Sub-conscious typo?) passengers went between our two cities and 38,000 thousand vehicles. That’s success… and that's what we should be remembering." (If that's 'success', then why is the city of Rochester in the red for the ferry business?) "I don't think people knew well enough, but they knew it existed,” said Toronto mayor David Miller. “People talked about it.” (And evidently decided Rochester wasn't worth the price of passage.) Miller says the ferry could have been marketed better on the Canadian side. The City of Toronto itself never made a financial investment in the ferry project. (Who's the smarter one NOW?) With the demise of the operation, Miller says he sees where Mayor Duffy was coming from. “I understand the mayor's decision. It's certainly his decision and he's entitled to make it. From Toronto's perspective, it is unfortunate. The ferry service was starting to grow, and we know it was struggling economically, but we saw that link as an important one,” said Miller. The lease has fourteen years at $250 thousand dollars a year, for a total of 3.5 million dollars. This would be owed to the Toronto Port Authority by the city of Rochester. Raitt says she expects to speak shortly with officials from Rochester to try and work out a payment on money owed. Raitt says she thought the service would have been a success and if the Toronto Port Authority didn't think that way, they never would have invested in the terminal. |
"Raitt says she thought the service would have been a success and if the Toronto Port Authority didn't think that way, they never would have invested in the terminal."
Why not? At the very least, Toronto stood to collect a quarter of a million dollars a year on a ten million dollar terminal. Even if the ferry stood still. Not a bad move.
And if 'purrrfect' marketing was supposed to pass for promotion, it's hard to see where additional publicity would have done any good anyway.
Speaking of Louise:
|
|||
Slaughter Responds to Ferry Fate
by Kate Welshofer / M. Cort Published Jan 11, 2006 Congresswoman Louise Slaughter was instrumental in securing federal funds for the ferry project. Rochester received between $25 million and $30 million in federal aid. Slaughter said she is disappointed but not surprised by the city's decision to step away from the ferry business. Slaughter believes that mismanagement is what ultimately sunk the project. “I will tell you I was blindsided, absolutely stunned that the city gave exclusive rights to that terminal -- a dollar for forty years. Now you contrast that [agreement] with a contract to Toronto to give them over $250,000 a year to use their [terminal] and you can see that was not really a brilliant act." (How refreshing; a politician who lays it on the line.) Slaughter said she will support Mayor Duffy and she is most concerned for the business owners in the Charlotte area. She would like to make sure a plan is in place to help the area thrive. Slaughter said she would not support putting further federal dollars into the port. (Shades of Alaska's 'bridge to nowhere' come to mind, Ms. Slaughter? I'd back away quickly as well... before the Rochester debacle stains the reputation in Congress.) |
Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter does a decent job for her constituency even when going to bat for a boneheaded idea doesn't make the best of sense.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not always right, but when a parade of pompous twits waddles around talking down to us Great Unwashed, it's just too good of an opportunity to let pass without freeform bashing. It's not often that a chance to hurl critical spitballs at those on a pedestals comes by.
Gotta make your own fun around here.
Bless you Toronto. Finally, feedback from the folks would would make or break the entire ferry service to Rochester.... very much after the fact of course, but extremely valuable if Rochester area residents care enough to read and consider.
|
"What has been repeatedly stated is that there was a lack of ridership from Toronto to Rochester, but no one has looked at WHY."
Hmmm. Someone has... not that the ones needing to ask the question were paying attention.
Since that's the most pertinent issue, one might hope it would deserve the most careful consideration but again, the masters of assumption merely accepted Torontonians would eagerly book a reservation or two to Rochester. Rattling off community hot spots and activities, local ferry supporters cavalierly assumed these perks would more than offset any downsides to the community and area.... some of which were pointed out by the above posters.
Does the Rochester analysis team look at WHY there was a lack of ridership from Toronto? No. It focuses on the ship and ferry service itself in defining what went wrong. Read on to look for hints of examining WHY Toronto took a yawn:
53º | Hi 55º /
Lo 35º | |
|
Ferry board reveals obstacles
(January 12, 2006) — Keeping tabs on the high-speed ferry was difficult even for those charged with its oversight, a ferry board member said Wednesday, describing a never-ending struggle to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving operation. "It was a combination of not having information, not being sure we had accurate information and always getting new information," said Karen Noble Hanson, who served as board secretary. "This was a project in serious trouble, certainly from the beginning." The problem wasn't that people weren't working hard, she said, but that they lacked the expertise and lacked a point person — both of which left the board playing catch-up after hurriedly assembling the needed contracts and structure to resurrect the Rochester-to-Toronto service.
Noble Hanson said many agreements came to
the board only after they were finished or never came at all. "It's really sad, honestly," Noble Hanson said. "I just think for Rochester, it's just one more thing, whether it was the right thing to try or not, that we've now lost. ... These kinds of community risks, really, should only be taken when the public has as much information as possible and agrees this is a risk they want to take." The city backed a $40 million loan, created Rochester Ferry Co., and then bought the ship last February. Bay Ferries was hired to manage the service. But a delayed, midseason startup with minimal marketing hurt ridership. The ferry posted its best ridership month in August, and passenger revenue topped $1 million. The fuel bill topped $1.1 million. The focus now turns to shutting down. The city, meanwhile, must confront the $30 million debt expected to result from the ferry rescue mission. The previous operator also went out of business after one season and in considerable debt.
Foregone conclusion? "Every month it seemed like there was a new contract that was reached before we came onboard," she said. "... It took a long time for us to get a handle on what had been executed, and what the contents of those executed documents were. Part of our difficulty was, honestly, not having a list to know what to ask for. Every time a budget item would come up we'd say, 'Why do we have to pay that?' And then something would emerge verbally or in written form." More often, the information was verbal,
she said. Noble Hanson said she never saw the
14-year pact with the Toronto Port Authority. She said the payment, or the desire to
lower it, was among the items she had previously flagged as a concern. "He shared the information with us, repeated it, I understood it," Santiago said. "When you know something is right to do, that's the way I felt. It was as clear as night and day." Santiago said it's difficult to pinpoint when contracts or information came to the board, however, as "so much information flowed." But clearly, city officials took the lead early on. "I'm really not blaming the city," Noble Hanson said. "I think they were up against it. They had to make decisions about what to do, about default and a boat that was sitting there. They really wanted it to succeed, and they had invested a lot ... they did not have the best qualified people to advise them." Contract not unusual The ferry's previous owner, Canadian American Transportation Systems, paid the same amount, he said, adding that Rochester negotiated better terms in other areas. (The contract amount is still uncertain. Lundy maintains the $250,000 annual payment was in Canadian dollars, while current city officials apparently think the cost is in U.S. dollars. A copy of the contract was not available for review Wednesday.) Lundy said the contract "basically provides rights for the ferry operator to utilize the (terminal) building, the 10-acre site, then puts responsibilities on the Port Authority as landlord to do cleaning, maintenance and other landlord-tenant relationship (services)." He said the additional fees per passenger and vehicles leaving Toronto on the ferry were costs earmarked to pay for harbor maintenance. Some Great Lakes cruise ships now use the port and are assessed a $5-a-person fee, he said. But they do not have any similar contracts as the $250,000 annual pact, he said. "They don't come in anywhere near as
frequently (as the ferry did)," Lundy said. In the final weeks, the focus turned to what a "go-forward program" might look like, the risks, the interest rates, and whether a plan could be structured without penalty if the service ended in another two years. Noble Hanson said she thought "if we could build enough of a business, that the business and boat value would mitigate what the city loss would be." But had Duffy chosen to continue, Noble Hanson said, she would like to think she would have voted against the board borrowing more money to keep going. "I don't think there were enough answers, and couldn't be," she said. "There was no assurance and could not be any assurance it could be profitable." Assemblyman Joseph Errigo, R-Conesus,
Livingston County, agreed. But ultimately, the lasting mark the
ferry leaves on Rochester might not be financial, said Sandy Parker, CEO
of the Rochester Business Alliance.
BDSHARP@DemocratandChronicle.com |
"But City Councilwoman and ferry board member Gladys Santiago... said the group was well-informed, and that she was aware of the Toronto Port Authority deal while it still was being negotiated."
Arrogance. What makes
Councilwoman Santiago think she and the ferry board are entitled to
knowledge of ferry business dealings while the public -- whose money is being
used -- are not?
![[News]](titler_News.gif){kind=small}
![[Toronto Responds to Ferry Decision]](TorontoSkyline11Feb04.jpg)
![[Slaughter Responds to Ferry Fate]](slaughter_contractors.jpg)
I'm all for alternate forms of transportation and this one seemed like a good idea at least...on paper. We tend to forget about that "big lake" in Toronto and it's potential as a corridor of many things. I for one wished it well as an alternative to the QEW-NYS Thruway, but I'm not the least bit surprised by it's demise either.
Posted by: Jason Paris | January 11, 2006 at 05:42 PM
It's easy to be "successful" in the first few months of a new venture. This thing did not have what it takes for long-run success, after the novelty wore off. There just wasn't enough business. I feel badly for people in Rochester who apparently have paid a significant chunk of money which undoubtedly could have been used for other worthwhile purposes.
Posted by: Walt | January 12, 2006 at 12:20 AM
I'm saddened to see it go, although I felt it was just a matter of time before it did. I rode on it and enjoyed it, as I have several other ferries including the Yarmouth - Bar Harbour Cat. I recommended to our Senior citizens at home to enjoy it and several of them did. The main problems as I see it were :
1. The huge amount of fuel it used, of course :
2 It ran too often during the non-peak days :
3. Rochester does not have the public transit in place to encourage day travellers to come and enjoy what it has to offer and to be honest and frank about it, there is only so much one can do or see in Rochester, entertainment-wise, and one trip there is usually enough to take in the sights and scenes.
Nice try Rochester - you gave it your best shot and I thank you all for the fun experience I think we all had .
Posted by: Don O'Neill | January 12, 2006 at 09:39 AM
It is a shame to see such a wonderful concept founder almost solely on the basis of extremely management decisions on the part of the owners. What has been repeatedly stated is that there was a lack of ridership from Toronto to Rochester, but no one has looked at WHY. All it takes is one to look at the schedule from last year for their answer. First of all, there were 2 northbound trips per day, scheduled conveniently at approximately 9 and 3 if I remember correctly (They have since removed the schedule so I cannot verify the exact times). That makes sense and would definitely been a draw to American customers who wanted to com to Toronto. However, there was only 1 southbound trip scheduled at 11:00 am. This choice to provide a single trip meant that;
a) Anyone coming south from Toronto was forced to spend a night in or around Rochester to catch the ferry the next morning back OR have approximately 1 hour to see everything and then turn around and come back...both a large turn off to ridership.
b) The ferry had to make at least one trip every day going back to Rochester EMPTY. Since another issue that has been raised in the "death" of the ferry has been fuel costs, how did management justify that?
If BOTH Toronto and Rochester really want a ferry service between the two great cities to work, then they should look at the business model that BC Ferries has been built on. Convenient scheduling for travel in BOTH directions allow more riders freedom to choose when they want to go and come back with more frequent trips between ports (Although, this would have to come later as it would require one or more additional ships to achieve), and more importantly, lower prices for consumers which again, attracts more ridership.
A 45 minute trip between the mainland and the island costs a little less than $11 CAD per person and approximately $35 CAD for a vehicle, a total of approximately $57 for a couple and their car. The trip from Toronto to Rochester for the same couple and their car cost in excess of $100 USD. This gave the impression that the management of the ferry wanted this to be a "luxury" service, and not one that all would consider as a choice in their travel plans. Yes, having a theatre and a fine dining restaurant on board were nice, and made the trip more pleasant, but a more basic ship (like the BC Ferries) with lounges, a simpler restaurant, and other, less expensive, entertainment options would have allowed for a drastic reduction of costs by allowing a smaller ship(s) to be used, thereby reducing fuel consumption as well.
I still believe in the idea of a ferry service, and I think that both cities need direct involvement in the operation of the service (not handing it off to another company where the chances of mishandling decisions like those stated above are increased exponentially) and are committed to making it work for citizens on both sides of the border and prosperity to both regions.
Posted by: Richard Graesser | January 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM