Getting to Pearson

[mpd618]

I suspect that Greyhound has seen the Airporter pull out of offering scheduled service, and so has decided to move in and lay claim to the route in advance of making an application.  At the hearing, the airporter may object that they hold the license, but Greyhound will point out that they're not using it, and Greyhound is already offering a replacement service.

Except the Airporter is still offering scheduled service!

[ijmorlan]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with regulation preventing over-competition on routes.  If too many operators try to run a route, you can end up with the split business meaning that neither is able to operate at a profit.

Well, yes, but ... with the current licensing it seems that the desired level of competition on any given route is a monopoly.

If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.

[jamincan]

I think there is a case to be made that a properly managed regulatory framework can help improve an immature transportation network (intercity buses definitely falling in this category). The problem is that the province hasn't used its regulatory powers to protect service on the more marginal routes, so the regulatory system is effectively just a tool to protect incumbent carriers, which is the worst of both worlds.

[KevinL]

TriTAG has updated their post: "Greyhound has reached out to let us know that they do, through a subsidiary, have a license to operate this service. We will share more information soon."

Sounds like this whole provincial setup is rather byzantine.

[NotStan]

Well, yes, but ... with the current licensing it seems that the desired level of competition on any given route is a monopoly.

If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.

I don't see the need to prevent a new operator from scheduling their departure 30 seconds earlier.  I think that is more of an issue left to the station to settle.  Airlines schedules are essentially regulated by licensing the available slots and not by when a competitive airline's flight is scheduled.  If there is capacity, let the carrier (bus or plane) set their own schedule.   Regulations should relate to safety and consumer benefit and not competitive issues.  Helping carrier A vs carrier B should not be goal of regulation - focus on benefits to consumers.

[KevinL]

A more detailed TriTAG update: http://www.tritag.ca/blog/2017/04/24/upd...t-service/

[ijmorlan]

If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.

I don't see the need to prevent a new operator from scheduling their departure 30 seconds earlier.  I think that is more of an issue left to the station to settle.  Airlines schedules are essentially regulated by licensing the available slots and not by when a competitive airline's flight is scheduled.  If there is capacity, let the carrier (bus or plane) set their own schedule.   Regulations should relate to safety and consumer benefit and not competitive issues.  Helping carrier A vs carrier B should not be goal of regulation - focus on benefits to consumers.

Here’s the problem: new operator departs 30s before existing operator, takes most business. Old operator moves departures 1 minute earlier, takes back business. Repeat. Result: chaos. To be fair, since we’re talking about scheduled intercity service, this might not be as big a problem — if people buy their ticket ahead of time, they won’t even notice schedule games like this. But imagine local cash fare services, like what is now provided by public transit services. Riders will just get on the first bus to arrive.

So in at least some transportation markets, some sort of regulation in the public interest is required. The self-interest of the business owners will not give a good outcome. I’m not sure exactly what sort of regulation is right but the above sort of consideration is the sort of thing that needs to be taken into account.

Interesting point about the station, though. The buses need to pick up somewhere; what is the best way to do that? Auction off departure slots? Lease bays? Something else? I wonder if it could work to do all the regulation at the stations or stops, operating on the idea that a vehicle driving down a road is just traffic and isn’t the legitimate target of licensing by time/route/destination.

[nms]

Greyhound's parent company operates trains in this fashion in Europe, so should be able to adapt...

This whole situation is likely also tied to the overbuilding of railways in the early 20th Century that led to an oversupply and than an almost immediate collapse of most inter-city service by the 1950s.  I would be interested to know how other countries handle intercity bus services.  How do they guarantee a certain level of service? Do they have modern franchises that come up for frequent renewal that offers the opportunity for other private operators to make competing bids?  For instance, does Greyhound's parent company offer inter-city bus service in Europe?

[KevinL]

 For instance, does Greyhound's parent company offer inter-city bus service in Europe?

They do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirstGroup

[Canard]

Amazing that this thread is 5 pages and still so confusing.  This should not be a hard thing! (That is criticism of the infrastructure, not our discussion)

I need to get to Pearson on a Saturday and get home on a Saturday, so GO Train/UP Express is out.  I'm not willing to chance it trying to figure out complicated bus routes and tickets and so on.  The Airways Transit "Airporter" looks good, but it's totally unclear how it works for the return trip:

https://www.airwaystransit.com/airporter.shtml

They only seem to list the Kitchener > Pearson route.  Anyone know how this works?

[Andy]

Airways transit will deliver you to your door on the return run, but it's likely you will be with a couple other passengers, so you have to go on a milk run dropping everyone off.

You check in at their desks, and likely wait ~15 minutes before heading out. Everyone in the van should be going to the same general area (i.e. no southeast kitchenr folk with waterloo people), so it doesn't take too long dropping people off. At least that's been my experience.

Depends how long your travel day is, I prefer a private taxi/car service.

[Canard]

So it's "Airporter" group pick-up service on the way there but door-to-door on the way back? How confusing!

I just found out Greyhound is like $11 and 90 minutes, from Charles St Terminal to Pearson. This seems ideal!

[timc]

I haven't been on a plane in years, but I mostly used Airways Transit before. They had, and according to their web site, they still do have door-to-door pickup service. I think they would usually be waiting for me when I made my return trip as well, so I think you can arrange that ahead of time.

Yes, if you travel by Airways Transit, you will likely need to share the van with others, and you may not be the last picked up/first dropped off.

[jamincan]

When I was travelling more, I alternated between Airways Transit or the Park'n'Fly Valet lot (my preference). I stopped using Airways Transit toward the end, as I found their prices unreasonable and they seemed to be moving to a model where they pick up and drop off at a centralized location (Waterloo Inn at the time). They did seem to offer door-to-door service too, and when I opted for that on my return, I ended up with a private car back home, which was nice.

[KevinL]

 I'm not willing to chance it trying to figure out complicated bus routes and tickets and so on. 

If you're sticking to public transit agencies, all you should need is Google Maps and a well-topped Presto card. You may end up on GO and/or MiWay and/or even other agencies, but the card makes it easy to just tap your way through.