Intercity Bus Services

[lenaitch]

As mentioned by crs1026, the Owen Sound Transportation Company is a 'crown corporation' that operates the Tobermory-Manitoulin, Pelee Island and Moose Factory ferries (until recently operated by ONTC). The Glenora and Wolfe Island ferries are operated by the MTO and are considered part of the provincial highway system so are free. Other Kingston area ferries I believe are operated by local municipalities.

There is also a small cable ferry on a secondary highway north of Cochrane that is operated under contract to the MTO

 

[nfitz]

Actually, the Tobermory ferry was owned by ONTC from 1974 to 2002.... see here.

Ah - and I've not been to Tobermory or Manitoulin since the 1990s! Thanks, nice to know that image stuck in my head of the logo on a ferry is real!

 

[TRONto]

Taxes and subsidies are not distinct concepts. They are different directions on the same spectrum. In other words "lowering taxes" and "increasing subsidies" are effectively the same thing, merely with different administration methods.

Depending on your perspective, the absence of tax can itself be a subsidy, given that the government may be providing a service without recouping a cost for it.

It wouldn't make sense for the government to give money to a bus company, and then take it back through tax on bus tickets. Rather, before giving money to the bus company, the government should first stop taking money from it. That way the pretty much 100% of the lost revenue from taxes actually goes to the bus company. With a formal 'subsidy', some of that money would be lost in overhead and administration for the subsidy itself, which reduces the benefit-per-taxpayer-dollar.

This is the same reason we don't have any tax on milk at the grocery store. It wouldn't make sense to give money to farmers, but then take it back by jacking up the price of their products.

Small bus companies like Kasper or Hammond are an admirable asset in our rural communities, but they struggle to provide affordable service. Dropping the 13% tax will allow bus companies to survive on less-travelled routes just like an administration-based 'subsidy' would. If pre-tax ticket prices remain unchanged, tickets actually become much cheaper to riders, which will increase ridership, allowing routes to survive which previously wouldn't have had enough passengers. Alternatively, if ticket prices are increased to partially eat up the savings, the break-even point on a given bus trip will occur at a smaller number of passengers, also allowing the company to survive on routes which previously wouldn't have been viable.

I'm trying to make up my mind on the issue of subsidies for intercity transit like this.

On one side, there is the issue of it being the lifeline for many due to lack of transportation options.

On the other side, the there is an argument against subsidizing the decision to live in uneconomical places. There is a moral hazard. Based on tax revenue we know that Toronto subsidizes the rest of the province and country. A few blocks in downtown Toronto generates 7% of the Canada's GDP and transit in Toronto is about the ability for the city to function and generate wealth and tax revenue for the whole country.
If rural communities moved into the urban areas (Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa) the country benefits via increased wealth generation /productivity and reduced government expenditures. It's a free country so I would never force a move out of rural communities, just a thought experiment.

What is your opinion?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm trying to make up my mind on the issue of subsidies for intercity transit like this.

On one side, there is the issue of it being the lifeline for many due to lack of transportation options.

On the other side, the there is an argument against subsidizing the decision to live in uneconomical places. There is a moral hazard. Based on tax revenue we know that Toronto subsidizes the rest of the province and country. A few blocks in downtown Toronto generates 7% of the Canada's GDP and transit in Toronto is about the ability for the city to function and generate wealth and tax revenue for the whole country.
If rural communities moved into the urban areas (Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa) the country benefits via increased wealth generation /productivity and reduced government expenditures. It's a free country so I would never force a move out of rural communities, just a thought experiment.

What is your opinion?

The amount of subsidies required for bus services is going to be minuscule in the grand scheme of things - certainly pales in comparison to social/health services delivered to said locales.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

The amount of subsidies required for bus services is going to be minuscule in the grand scheme of things - certainly pales in comparison to social/health services delivered to said locales.

AoD

Or the cost of roads!
@reaperexpress wrote:

This is the same reason we don't have any tax on milk at the grocery store. It wouldn't make sense to give money to farmers, but then take it back by jacking up the price of their products.

It all depends on quantity. Anything less than a litre is taxed. But that's actually a useful factor to consider too. Indirectly, GO Transit do this with their 'non-linear fare per distance' computations.

Addendum: Just plotting a cycling escape out of town now by GO, but it's one of those days where I just can't find my way around their incredibly convoluted and serious escapee unfriendly website.

Trying to find maps and schedules is like finding Waldo. Someone should inform them that not everyone thinks in terms of text to explain geometry and geography.

Give me a freakin' map, and a full schedule. I know they're on the site, but have to figure it out again every time I visit it.

And post intersecting route schedules at hubs. What a concept....it allows passengers to make choices when the original plan complicates. I must admit, it is a bit rich for the iMemyself generation. Might confound them...

Type "map" into their site search, now "system map"....thank God for Google.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Or the cost of roads!

Though certain routes might have such low ridership, you *might* be better off with subsidizing the rider directly instead of establishing a formal bus route.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Though certain routes might have such low ridership, you *might* be better off with subsidizing the rider directly instead of establishing a formal bus route.

AoD

It's an excellent point that can be viewed in a number of ways, not least supporting efficient delivery if market forces (within reason) are allowed to manifest. The Uber issue still percolates, and last check in the biz news, usage is actually down world-wide. Could be an aberration or competitors are picking even lower hanging fruit.

I'd like to suggest van-buses, as has been mentioned in a number of news-stories on the subject, but in the case of the infamous Guelph to Hamilton run, AboutTown's attempt was a disaster. Oddly GO drivers on the 29, 30 and 25 routes all bring up doing the connection (even from Aberfoyle if not UofG) to Aldershot at least, as even with waiting for connections, which has to be done anyway at Square One (or Erin Mills), it would be an hour or more in time saved.

Which then begs another question....and there are factors surrounding this, not just unions: If some GO routes could never fill a full bus, or even half fill it, is the strength it adds to the *system* (in terms of connectivity) worth the loss to run it? And further to that, is it worth it for Metrolinx to run van-buses, subsidized, either private operator or GO, to make these essential links for the benefit of the overall system? I'd say yes, with caveats.

Does it then follow that Metrolinx, in an expanded corporate role, expand such van-bus services more widely through the Province? It must be considered...

 

[TRONto]

It's an excellent point that can be viewed in a number of ways, not least supporting efficient delivery if market forces (within reason) are allowed to manifest. The Uber issue still percolates, and last check in the biz news, usage is actually down world-wide. Could be an aberration or competitors are picking even lower hanging fruit.

I'd like to suggest van-buses, as has been mentioned in a number of news-stories on the subject, but in the case of the infamous Guelph to Hamilton run, AboutTown's attempt was a disaster. Oddly GO drivers on the 29, 30 and 25 routes all bring up doing the connection (even from Aberfoyle if not UofG) to Aldershot at least, as even with waiting for connections, which has to be done anyway at Square One (or Erin Mills), it would be an hour or more in time saved.

Which then begs another question....and there are factors surrounding this, not just unions: If some GO routes could never fill a full bus, or even half fill it, is the strength it adds to the *system* (in terms of connectivity) worth the loss to run it? And further to that, is it worth it for Metrolinx to run van-buses, subsidized, either private operator or GO, to make these essential links for the benefit of the overall system? I'd say yes, with caveats.

Does it then follow that Metrolinx, in an expanded corporate role, expand such van-bus services more widely through the Province? It must be considered...

I think the Uber/Lyft van bus is likely the best option. Stouville had huge savings incorporating Uber into the transit system and I would imagine there would be a better customer experience.

 

[TRONto]

The amount of subsidies required for bus services is going to be minuscule in the grand scheme of things - certainly pales in comparison to social/health services delivered to said locales.

AoD

You are right and all these services need to be provided in a better way to these communities. I'm not sure if bus service is the right model for transit though

 

[ShonTron]

I think the Uber/Lyft van bus is likely the best option. Stouville had huge savings incorporating Uber into the transit system and I would imagine there would be a better customer experience.

Stouville? You mean Stouffville? Stouffville is served by YRT.

The only town that used Uber is Innisfil, and that only sort-of-works because the town never had a transit system before, it's mostly rural with a very high car ownership rate, with a few scattered semi-urban areas, with only one real trip generator - a nearby GO station. It's really just a subsidized trans-cab service (which isn't unusual in exurban and outlying areas - Hamilton has it), but only with Uber, not a local cab company, providing that service.

I don't know if an Uber-based service would be viable for longer-distance travel. And I don't think that every community can be serviced. But there are probably about 20-25 viable bus routes that - with subsidy - could operate on a daily schedule (or better) and connect every town with at least 10,000 persons in Ontario, and many more with a population of at least 5,000. Heck, Saskatchewan operated a bus system with daily service to every town of any significance until the right-wing government there decided to junk it.

 

[TRONto]

Stouville? You mean Stouffville? Stouffville is served by YRT.

The only town that used Uber is Innisfil, and that only sort-of-works works because the town never had a transit system before, it's mostly rural with a very high car ownership rate, with a few scattered semi-urban areas, with only one real trip generator - a nearby GO station. It's really just a subsidized trans-cab service (which isn't unusual in exurban and outlying areas - Hamilton has it), but only with Uber, not a local cab company, providing that service.

I don't if an Uber-based service would be viable for longer-distance travel. And I don't think that every community can be serviced. But there are probably about 20-25 viable bus routes that - with subsidy - could operate on a daily schedule (or better) and connect every town with at least 10,000 persons in Ontario, and many more with a population of at least 5,000. Heck, Saskatchewan operated a bus system with daily service to every town of any significance until the right-wing government there decided to junk it.

Ooops, you got the area right. Some sort of van service on an scheduled Uber pool model + subsidy sounds like the right way to go. Maybe it would connect to a the existing Northland/GO services in Ontario.

As far as viable bus routes, it depends on your definition of viable. Any subsidy over $50 per ride is not viable. I would argue over $25 per ride is not viable either. A direct subsidy would be better. The uber pool model would be a better investment to pilot for the province.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As far as viable bus routes, it depends on your definition of viable. Any subsidy over $50 per ride is not viable. I would argue over $25 per ride is not viable either. A direct subsidy would be better. The uber pool model would be a better investment to pilot for the province.

Even if it is viable, it doesn't mean desirable from a user perspective given it is a scheduled service - if the same amount of support buys you service on demand/customized route with set times in another mode, by all means go for that instead.

AoD

 

[rbt]

Based on tax revenue we know that Toronto subsidizes the rest of the province and country. A few blocks in downtown Toronto generates 7% of the Canada's GDP and transit in Toronto is about the ability for the city to function and generate wealth and tax revenue for the whole country.

Gotta be careful with that. Those blocks file 7% of the GDP; but it's not necessarily generated there.

That said, there are definitely fiscal advantages at the government level to urban environments.

 

[reaperexpress]

Ooops, you got the area right. Some sort of van service on an scheduled Uber pool model + subsidy sounds like the right way to go. Maybe it would connect to a the existing Northland/GO services in Ontario.

As far as viable bus routes, it depends on your definition of viable. Any subsidy over $50 per ride is not viable. I would argue over $25 per ride is not viable either. A direct subsidy would be better. The uber pool model would be a better investment to pilot for the province.

The existence of Kasper MiniBus disproves the notion that rural bus routes are economically unviable. In the last few years, Kasper has grown to be a major player in traditional fixed-route intercity bus service in Northern Ontario, without any government subsidy. They've added a bunch of routes over the past couple years and even expanded into Manitoba. They are also planning to take over the Ontario route that Greyhound is planning to abandon.

https://gokasper.com/bus/scheduled-bus-routes/

That's how well they're doing without any subsidy. Knocking 13% off the ticket price will only make the tickets more affordable and routes more profitable, allowing them to increase service while still being viable. The government's loss of the 13% tax on a $50 Kasper ticket represents $6.50 of lost revenue (i.e. passive subsidy) - an amount which can easily be justified given the social, economic and environmental benefits of scheduled bus service.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm trying to make up my mind on the issue of subsidies for intercity transit like this.

On one side, there is the issue of it being the lifeline for many due to lack of transportation options.

On the other side, the there is an argument against subsidizing the decision to live in uneconomical places. There is a moral hazard. Based on tax revenue we know that Toronto subsidizes the rest of the province and country. A few blocks in downtown Toronto generates 7% of the Canada's GDP and transit in Toronto is about the ability for the city to function and generate wealth and tax revenue for the whole country.
If rural communities moved into the urban areas (Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa) the country benefits via increased wealth generation /productivity and reduced government expenditures. It's a free country so I would never force a move out of rural communities, just a thought experiment.

What is your opinion?

In this thought experiment, if it became absolutely uneconomical to live in a non-urban area, where would the urban area's food come from? Where would the urban area's energy and other processed natural resources (or unprocessed for processing in said urban area) come from? In terms of a national economy, is it an acceptable to say 'someplace else', meaning that Canada consists of a scattering of urban areas with nothing in between.

It seems eternally curious that the issue of subsidies seems to focus more on their 'efficiency' than their mere existence. If enough money was left in the pockets of Toronto/GTA and their residents', would it be reasonable to expect that the billions in transit and other funding flowing from other levels of government would no longer be required? I would think that would require the local imposition of income and consumption taxes.

I also noted the use of the term "uneconomical places" to refer to other parts of Ontario (i.e. everywhere but Toronto/GTA). Does this imply that Toronto/GTA is now an economical place to live? Many may argue.

I get the point and this is simply, as stated, a thought experiment. No doubt that in terms of passengers per dollar or whatever metric is appropriate, greater density will obviously afford greater 'efficiency' of dollars spent. On the other hand, it is a large and diverse nation and, as Red Green used to say, "we're all in this together"

It is curious to me that economic distribution spoken in terms of 'equalization payments' is generally seen as a positive thing but when thought of in terms of 'subsidies' it becomes freighted with baggage. Perhaps the difference is the former is based on a formula (admittedly unexplainable and unfathomable to most) and not dependent on specific projects or goals while the latter is more political/patronage/election-winnable based.