Jump to content

      












Photo

[Marine] Belleville Terminal and Coho/Clipper services


  • Please log in to reply
379 replies to this topic

#41 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:34 AM

I've said it before, and I've looked at every single Tripadvisor review of the Clipper and Coho. Nobody complains about it.

I agree, I don't need a fancy terminal as it is not where I want to lounge around. Clipper Navigation needs to appreciate the fact that they have a prime location in our beautiful harbour.

#42 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 17,023 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 08:55 AM

I've said it before, and I've looked at every single Tripadvisor review of the Clipper and Coho. Nobody complains about it.


I agree with you VHF. I would use a similar argument with the Victoria airport. We have spent millions upgrading the services in the airport over the past few years but the vast majority of people simply want a means of boarding/departing an aircraft. Neither the airport nor the Clipper terminal are destinations for tourists!

#43 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 10:04 AM

That comparison is a bit flawed though. The airport is a multi use facility and when they get a increase in traffic they get more landing fees and ai fees. The Clipper and Coho don't share their facilities.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#44 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:04 PM

The recent improvements at YYJ have been very rudimentary compared to the extravagant changes at just about every other airport in Canada. It's an airport that processes 1.5 million passengers a year and it finally has the appearance and services of an airport that processes maybe half that many.

#45 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:17 PM

...I don't need a fancy terminal as it is not where I want to lounge around. Clipper Navigation needs to appreciate the fact that they have a prime location in our beautiful harbour.


But, isn't that what they're saying? They're apologizing because the terminal looks like it belongs in an industrial zone in Rock Bay and yet it occupies prime waterfront right in the inner harbour. If the desire is to improve the terminal and "enhance the area" then I don't get why anyone would disagree with their sentiment.

Summary: the reason you don't want to lounge around there right now is because it looks like crap and there isn't anything to see or do. Turn the terminal area into an attractive waterfront with shops and restaurants and comfortable spots to view the harbour and you would want to lounge around there.

#46 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,246 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:35 PM

Summary: the reason you don't want to lounge around there right now is because it looks like crap and there isn't anything to see or do. Turn the terminal area into an attractive waterfront with shops and restaurants and comfortable spots to view the harbour and you would want to lounge around there.


But that's unfeasible. During the winter months the Clipper has one sailing per day with 200 passengers if they're lucky. The Coho's volume isn't much better.

To sustain something meaningful there would require not only the Clipper, Coho and another vessel (like the Star that went belly up or at least cut services between Victoria and Bellingham) but also the entire seaplane operations, and even then the terminal would be lightly used for a good portion of the year and just bleed tax payer money. Victoria International serves 1.5-million passengers per year (4,100 per day) with a captive audience and can only sustain a bare minimum of retail and restaurant services.

Like I said before Clipper's facilities in Seattle are not much better than what they are in Victoria and are completely cut off from public transit and situated in an area that requires a true hustle on foot to access any meaningful amenities. Unless Clipper wishes to make substantial tenant improvements to their space they should accept that what they've got is what taxpayers are willing to provide them. Seriously, what's stopping Clipper from making substantial tenant improvements to the space they lease?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#47 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:25 PM

Unless Clipper wishes to make substantial tenant improvements to their space they should accept that what they've got is what taxpayers are willing to provide them. Seriously, what's stopping Clipper from making substantial tenant improvements to the space they lease?


Nothing. But I guess they are not saying they are not wiling to look at paying more, for more delivered.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#48 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 17,023 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:56 PM

That comparison is a bit flawed though. The airport is a multi use facility and when they get a increase in traffic they get more landing fees and ai fees. The Clipper and Coho don't share their facilities.


My point was that the terminals are purpose driven. People are not going to decide to travel based on whether the terminal is modern looking or not.

#49 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:27 PM

My point was that the terminals are purpose driven. People are not going to decide to travel based on whether the terminal is modern looking or not.


This is true, mostly. A lot of us visit Cuba, Mexico or Dominican Republic, and it's not for the quality of the host airport.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#50 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:47 PM

My personal opinion is that Merideth Tall is being rude by posting that sign. As a private American business woman she is pressuring the Canadian taxpayer to buck up to her demands and make her business more profitable with our money.

Perhaps she would like to buy her own waterfront property and build her own terminal building and keep her hands to herself and out of yours and my pocket.

The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority has big plans in the future for this harbour. Her efforts to work within that plan should start by taking down that sign and picking up the phone.


One of the reasons that the most recent Belleville terminal plan didn't even get considered is that U.S.Homeland Security required extensive security upgrades that made the project financially unfeasible.
Pieta VanDyke

#51 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:01 PM

Refresher; this is an architect's interpretation of the 2007 Panel's recommendation, note the hotel and park:



"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#52 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 17,023 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 06:31 AM

^ Thanls for that.

Wasn't there some controversy at the time as well about two of the panel members being behind the hotel development?

#53 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,309 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 06:47 AM

^There was a lot of controversy over how the panel was stacked, mostly because Ryan Burles from the Coho was not part of it, while every other transportation company was. Talk about the elephant NOT in the room. I suppose having hotel people on the panel was good in order to learn about the viability of it, seeing as hotel revenue was seen as a major part of making it all work. But yeah, overall, it was very self-serving.

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#54 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,246 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:33 AM

^thanks for the refresher. Indeed, the panel was oddly picked and raised a lot of eyebrows.

That project was simply too ambitious. Are we to think that a hotel at this location will make sense while hotels just steps away have found themselves in a new reality of rising costs and competition from vacation rentals and sites like AirBnB?

The Harbour Authority and the City of Victoria should make the cruise ship terminal redevelopment a #1 priority. It's a gateway to our city even for those who travel via Clipper or Coho and it looks like an empty Sam's Club parking lot.

The Clipper and Coho have the power to upgrade their facilities should they choose without dragging in untold millions of dollars of tax payer monies to subsidize a lavish redevelopment of an entire area that coincidentally made the last redevelopment proposal unfeasible due to their home country's security requirements.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#55 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,300 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:37 AM

I think a hotel here with a big brand name could do very well here. I still think that plan had way too much open space. Look at the new conference centre in Vancouver. Tonnes of open space but only the path along the harbour ever gets used. People like to be funneled. Add a second tower to the plan above and a refocusing on the old terminal and perhaps you have a winning proposal (with more revenue).

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#56 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,246 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:30 PM

I have no doubt a beautiful, branded hotel would do well in that location, but it would come at the expense of the Grand Pacific losing views and clientele that are otherwise staying at that hotel because it's more or less "waterfront." And other nearby hotels (of which there are many) would have to contend with yet another competitor.

That entire concept should be built not as a risky venture with tax dollars but as a public-private venture that guarantees the tax payers of this city (and the province via PCC) do not end up carrying the weight while private industry reaps the rewards.

The Clipper's and the Coho's passengers could care less about a flashy terminal. Yes, it could be better, yes it's a bit of an embarrassment, and yes, there could be some amenities, but will those things impact someone's decision to sail out of the Inner Harbour on either of those vessels? Probably not.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#57 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:51 PM

While I do agree that improvements and a clear plan are needed for Belleville Street, the Clipper's terminal infrastructure in Seattle is not much better than their terminal in Victoria, and the Coho's terminal in Port Angeles is not as nice as their terminal in Victoria.

I doubt for citizens of Victoria that there would be much urgency in implementing massive improvements at taxpayer expense for so few travellers.

#58 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,300 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:32 PM

I guess I see a new terminal and improved surroundings as a benefit for the city not the travellers that go through it. This is a key piece of the harbour and one that should allow the citizens to access it in some way. Add in some new retail/conference/hotel space and this could be a harbour destination that would further improve the tourist product of the city for all vistors and citizens. But since we feel that having waterfront parking lots are okay I do not foresee change here anytime soon.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#59 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,246 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

The only vessel that requires a parking lot is the Coho, which is strangely missing from the 2007 concept plan and whose representatives were not included in the 2007 task force. Does this mean the Coho wasn't part of the new concept and would be relegated to using Ogden Point?

The parking situation is unfortunate without a doubt but if you ask me the City's time and money would be far better invested in redeveloping Ship's Point if any major undertaking were to occur on the Inner Harbour.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#60 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:12 PM

^
That would be Ship Point.
Don't be so sure.:cool:

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users