(Discussion paper — November 2017)
As the writer of the following narrative, I feel compelled to explain that I am neither a supporter, nor am I against the vehicle ferry coming to Cowes.
What I am against are the processes of which are employed to garner support (or perceived support) for a project such as the car ferry, as well as the inaccuracy and misleading data used to present a picture of strong viability of such a service.
On previous pages of this article we reviewed the calculations within the ‘Discussion Paper’ and highlighted the significant number of errors and misleading figures.
As we suggested, because of this we feel that the ‘Discussion Paper’ be retracted and re-developed before any ‘Draft Business Case’ document is released.
If the ‘Discussion Paper’ is the precursor and the foundation paper to the ‘Business Case’ document, then the ‘Business Case’ document will be flawed and as such cannot be relied on.
If the ‘Discussion Paper’ is NOT the precursor and the foundation paper to the ‘Business case’ document, then the ‘Discussion Paper’ is irrelevant, a waste of time and ratepayer and tax payer’s money.
Putting that all aside we take this opportunity to review some of the facts and figures used to support the vehicle ferry viability.
We are using facts and figures that have been already released to the public and comparing those to verifiable and common data to reach a comparison that the reader can develop their own conclusions.
Unfortunately, to those that have already publically declared their support based on the ‘Discussion Paper’ and previous studies, these people may need to rethink their support based on what they now know.
Below are ‘tables’ based on the current data we have gleaned from the recent ‘Discussion Paper’ and applied some common and verifiable data to come up with some comparisons.
The inputs we used are as follows:
- Fuel cost at $1.30 per litre
- Fuel consumption of 9–10 litres per 100 kilometres (mid-size SUV)
- Distance and time by car taken from Google Maps
- Sailing times based on 15 minutes to board, 30 minutes sailing time and 15 to disembark totalling 60 minute trip
- Car fees at $60 one way (from Discussion Paper). We have not focused on trips from Melbourne to Cowes by ferry. We assume that those using the ferry are already in the Mornington Peninsula.
| From | To | By | Distance | Time | Cost |
| Mornington | Cowes | Car | 110 km | 1.5 hr | $30 (fuel) |
| Mornington | Stony Point | Car | 30 km | 30 min | $10 (fuel) |
| Stony Point | Cowes | Ferry | – | 1 hr | $60 (fees) |
Based on the above table, the journey taken by car and the journey by car/ferry are comparable.
The real difference is the cost being $30 in fuel by car and $70 dollars by car + ferry ($10 fuel cost to drive from Morning to Stony point + $60 ferry cost). On a round trip the cost being $60 in fuel by car and $140 dollars by car/ferry.
It may be argued that on some days the traffic coming on to the bridge to Phillip Island can be up to an extra 1 hour (one way). A person would then need to determine whether it is worth the extra $40 dollars to save 1 hour, or $80 return.
Another example, this time the traveller is coming off the ferry at Sorrento.
| From | To | By | Distance | Time | Cost |
| Sorrento | Cowes | Car | 145 km | 2 hr | $40 (fuel) |
| Sorrento | Stony Point | Car | 50 km | 1 hr | $15 (fuel) |
| Stony Point | Cowes | Ferry | – | 1 hr | $60 (fees) |
Based on the above table, the trip by car and the trip by car and ferry are comparable in time taken.
The real difference is the cost being $40 in fuel by car and $75 dollars by car/ferry one way. On a round trip the cost being $80 in fuel by car and $150 dollars by car and ferry.
The benefit in time saving using the ferry is arguable. The question that needs to be considered is this…would a traveller be willing to spend between a 40% to 50% premium to make the trip on a car ferry?
This is a serious question that needs to be put forth.
We mentioned traffic delays coming to Phillip Island on the bridge in busy periods. What has not been mentioned as yet, are the possible delays or cancellations of the ferry service due to bad weather, or mechanical issues.
You need to remember that the proposed vessel is a far smaller one than the Sorrento to Queenscliff vessel, so the Cowes to Stony Point ferry will therefore be far more affected by adverse weather and water conditions, especially traversing the unpredictable Westernport waters.
The other factor is that there is only one vessel proposed, unlike the Sorrento to Queenscliff system where they utilise two vessels. This means if the Cowes to Stony Point ferry experiences mechanical issues, the service stops.
We want to introduce a business concept called the ‘reasonability testing’.
We start with an interesting example.
It has been mentioned in some publications and there is even a petition going about that another real benefit for the ferry is accessing emergency services. It is not clear why we would need to have a ferry to access emergency services.
If it was to evacuate persons off the Island, one small ferry as proposed would not have much effect on evacuations. Using the details of the vessel size outlined in the ‘Discussion Paper’, you could only evacuate 300 people and 36 vehicles every two hours.
There is a petition out currently suggesting that the Island could experience an event (apparently a foreign power invasion) that could require 80 to 100,000 people to be quickly evacuated.
Using basic mathematical calculations, it would take the car ferry (based on 80,000) 266 sailings with 300 passengers (based on the proposed vessel) and at 2 hours (1 hour to deliver and 1 hour to get back) it would take 22 days at 24 hours a day.
‘Sensationism’ is a powerful method of getting the uninitiated and uninformed population to side with a ‘questionable’ movement.
We need to ensure that the residents of Phillip Island are not categorised as those in an uninitiated and uninformed demographic.
However, using the ‘reasonability testing’ concept, you immediately realise that using the proposed ferry as an evacuation option is not reasonable.
The bridge for example is capable of using three lanes outbound. So to evacuate the island of 80,000 people, the bridge option is viable. Combine that with the current passenger ferry service, the tour boats and various other vessels that could be recruited would be a far better evacuation scenario than relying on the Cowes to Stony Point vessel (one vessel).
Of course it could be argued that a foreign power could bomb the bridge out. That is a scenario is that hard to debate, especially on its likelihood of happening.
Let’s look at another example:
On page 20 of the ‘Discussion Paper’ it suggested that based on some ‘existing proportions of resident travel on the Sorrento to Queenscliff Ferry’, that an estimated 34,000 per year Phillip Island and/or Mornington Peninsula residents would use the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry for getting to work or getting to school, university, training centre or simply to go shopping.
The question that needs to be asked is how those Sorrento to Queenscliff Ferry statistics can be ‘verified’?
Are those relating to resident travel on the Sorrento to Queenscliff Ferry based on a survey and if so who had performed the survey, when was it done and why was it done?
If the Sorrento to Queenscliff Ferry statistics were used to calculate the estimated 34,000 Phillip Island and/or Mornington Peninsula residents using the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry cannot be verified, then the figures presented in Table 3.3 on page 20 of the ‘Discussion Paper’ essentially unreliable and can be strongly argued as misleading.
However for argument’s sake, let’s assume that those figures presented in Table 3.3 on page 20 of the ‘Discussion Paper’ are verifiable, then one needs to look at the reasonability of the proposed benefit of the ferry for Phillip Island and/or Mornington Peninsula residents to get to work, go shopping or to school.
Using the earlier comparisons using only a car, or car/ferry, we need to assess the ‘reasonableness’ for example of Phillip Island and/or Mornington Peninsula residents going to work. We would suggest that not many people living in Mornington Peninsula work on Phillip Island and if there were some, it would not equate to a significant portion of the 34,000 that are estimated as doing so.
It is hard to even suggest that it is reasonable to think that a significant portion of the quoted 34,000 using the ferry service for personal use would be those going shopping.
If a survey was to be undertaken on the number of Phillip Island and/or Mornington Peninsula students that would use the vehicle ferry to get the school, very few would be taking a car on the ferry based on the cost incurred. So if that were the case, then the current passenger ferry would be more than adequate.
So summing up, the figures in Table 3.3 on page 20 of the ‘Discussion Paper’ (assuming they can be verified) cannot pass a basic ‘reasonability test’.
A significant number of proponents for the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry are local Phillip Island businessmen and women.
The main reason that they strongly support the proposed car ferry service is they are of the strong belief that the new ferry service will increase their business income and many may arguably believe that it could save their business.
Phillip Island businesses survive from peak season to peak season and in the slow periods need to rely on the local support and the significantly lower level of tourists.
There is a reason why Phillip Island businesses experience a slow period, as do all other tourist destinations with our type of weather conditions.
The weather on Phillip Island in the winter periods keeps visitors away (except the constant daily convoy of coaches going to the Penguin Parade).
A vehicle ferry service from Stony Point is not going to change people’s mind to come to Phillip Island in the cold, blowy and wet weather conditions, assuming the ferry was operating in those weather conditions.
However, during good weather weekends, school holidays, long weekends Phillip Island starts to thrive, with or without a vehicle ferry.
So the concept of attracting more visitors during the slower periods does not really pass the ‘reasonability test’.
One point that should be made…
Those establishing a business on Phillip Island were likely to not have initially set up their businesses on the basis that their business would need the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service in order to survive.
Next, there are estimates in the ‘Discussion Paper’ that an additional $18 to $19 million dollars would be injected into the Phillip Island economy in the first year of operation of a new Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service. (page 24 ‘Discussion Paper)
These estimates were sourced from MCa analysis, November 2017, who is actually Michael Connell of TRC Tourism and a subcontractor to EarthCheck.
The first point that needs to be made is that there have been an unsettling number of inaccuracies, calculation errors and seemingly misleading data presented in the ‘Discussion Paper’ by Michael Connell of TRC Tourism or MCa.
So immediately the additional $18 to $19 million dollars that is estimated to be injected into the Phillip Island economy in the first year of operation of a new Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service is highly questionable and possibly misleading.
Next we need understand where all these new visitors using the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service are proposed to be coming from.
Documents such as Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035, the various Phillip Island Destination publications, press releases and presentations all are suggesting it is the international visitor.
Generally, everyone is not only suggesting but basing a significant emphasis on the international visitor.
In particular Kim Storey has virtually based all the support on behalf of Phillip Island Destination for the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service on the international visitor.
Kim Storey has made numerous presentations, written countless articles to local newspapers and met with State Government Ministers. Always the main theme of Kim Storey’s support for the vehicle ferry has been to increase the numbers of international visitors to Phillip Island as a result of them using the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service.
There is one very major problem with those assumptions.
For an international visitor to use the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry service they need a vehicle. This means as an international visitor (or an interstate visitor flying in) would need to rent a vehicle.
Car rental companies do not allow their cars on any ferries and this includes the Sorrento to Queenscliff Ferry.
Car rental companies use insurance underwriters and their ‘actuaries’ have deemed ferry trips an unacceptable risk, so will not provide cover to any vehicle going on a car ferry.
This creates a significant hole in the Cowes to Stony Point Vehicle Ferry user estimates and if known, was not factored into or openly declared as a risk issue to user numbers.
It also suggests one of two things. Those soliciting support by using estimated numbers that include largely users with rented cars did not do sufficient research and factor that issue in.
Or, they have known and simply ignored the issue and continued to solicit support by using estimated numbers that largely include users with rented cars, which would be misleading.