Greyhound reduces service on major B.C. routes

[oneh2obabe]

CBC News
Posted: Jan 17, 2013 8:04 AM PT
Last Updated: Jan 17, 2013 1:23 PM PT

The company says it is losing more than $14 million on its passenger service in B.C., citing higher costs for fuel and maintenance, an inflexible provincial regulatory regime and reduced ridership.

Greyhound also says B.C. transit and bus services provided by the Interior and Northern health authorities are competing with it.

"We hope to provide service in the province of B.C. for a long time into the future," said spokesperson Grant Odsen.

"With the losses that we had been sustaining, that would not have been possible."

The company says it needs to save $6.75 million to keep operating.

Greyhound won't abandon any routes except for a seasonal ski route on Vancouver Island, but does plan to cut service on the following 15 routes:
Alberta – Vancouver (Highway 1).
Kelowna – Penticton.
Vancouver – Rock Creek.
Kelowna – Alberta (Highway 3).
Prince George – Vancouver.
Alberta – Dawson Creek (Highway 2).
Dawson Creek – Fort Nelson.
Dawson Creek – Prince George.
Prince George – Ft. St. James.
Prince Rupert – Prince George.
Alberta – Vancouver (Highway 16).
Kelowna – Vancouver.
Vancouver – Mt. Currie.
Victoria – Nanaimo.
Nanaimo – Campbell River.

The reduction in frequency of trips varies by route.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -cuts.html

[twobits]

Surprised they havn't removed seats and converted the rear of the buses to freight transport. Freight displaced passengers as their profit centre years ago. Have seen many passenger empty buses pulling freight trailers recently.
Can't wait for a certain poster to link these route reductions to the lousy pay for drivers thus there is no one left to drive these routes.

[theyeti]

ya lol

[GordonH]

Bumped
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... s-official

Those who depend on this service were BC transit is not running a service, are going to be SOL.

Added: BC transit should offer service between Princeton, Penticton & Osoyoos. Its not going to be a money maker, those who don't drive need something.

[CapitalB]

There absolutely needs to be some sort of transit system between these communities. Ideally a company like greyhound would be able to make that work but since they apparently cant I think the government will eventually need to do something.

[alanjh595]

There absolutely needs to be some sort of transit system between these communities. Ideally a company like greyhound would be able to make that work but since they apparently cant I think the government will eventually need to do something.

Greyhound is a privately owned company. They supply a service for a profit. If the government feels it's in their interests, they will either have to supply that service or pay for it to Greyhound. Leave Greyhound out of the equation.

[gman313]

The NDP won't do crap, their votes are in the lower mainland and they have an excellent transit system

[1life2live]

OK. You guys figure it out. Greyhound is part of First Group out of the UK. First group is the parent company of First Canada or First Transit. It is quite a shell game they play. Greyhound says they are in competition with BC transit. BC Transit awards some of the largest transit contracts in the province to First group. Therefore they are in competition with themselves.
Solution; First Group says greyhound can not compete, puts out a terrible business model to ensure it's failure on certain routes and collapses the service. They then lobby BC Transit to expand their contracts and provide Public Transit in greyhound's place. This model is profitable as they no longer have to supply infrastructure or routing. First group only is left to manage the human resources without the financial risk of actually owning anything. They then take the profits not only out of our communities but out of our province and county back to pay shareholders in Scotland. Sounds like they have BC politics figured.

[Dizzy1]

OK. You guys figure it out. Greyhound is part of First Group out of the UK. First group is the parent company of First Canada or First Transit. It is quite a shell game they play. Greyhound says they are in competition with BC transit. BC Transit awards some of the largest transit contracts in the province to First group. Therefore they are in competition with themselves.
Solution; First Group says greyhound can not compete, puts out a terrible business model to ensure it's failure on certain routes and collapses the service. They then lobby BC Transit to expand their contracts and provide Public Transit in greyhound's place. This model is profitable as they no longer have to supply infrastructure or routing. First group only is left to manage the human resources without the financial risk of actually owning anything. They then take the profits not only out of our communities but out of our province and county back to pay shareholders in Scotland. Sounds like they have BC politics figured.

This post is so factually incorrect, its quite funny to be honest.

- There is nothing wrong with Greyhounds business model. The market has changed. Ridership is down because more people are driving or flying these days. Greyhound has adapted to the changing market and demands.

- Where is First "lobbying" the Government to create a new service?

- First is not in "competition" with BC Transit. First is a contractor. If BC Transit has a contract, First has to bid for it just like any other vendor - sometimes they're successful sometimes they're not.

- First has lost BC Transit contracts - they're not just "given" to them.

- Greyhound is also not in competition with BC Transit either - Greyhound is solely and inter-city busing service where as BC Transit is solely city and regional transit.

- BC Transit started a subsidized service along Highway 16 after Greyhound lost enough money on that - how come First didn't get the contract for that if they're "lobbying" the Government as you claim?

- Greyhound is a business, not a charity foundation. If they are loosing money because the ridership is low - there is not any reason for them to continue the service at a loss. Thats not "greed" - thats business - plain and simple.

- First is a publicly traded company, so yes - their shareholders are who they have to answer to - but here's the thing - some shareholders are in BC as well so you're "Scotland" remark is simply ridiculous.

[Dizzy1]

There absolutely needs to be some sort of transit system between these communities. Ideally a company like greyhound would be able to make that work but since they apparently cant I think the government will eventually need to do something.

I've brought this up before and was chastised for it. But a simple cutaway style bus service between small rural cities on a schedule every few days is the way to go. Of course, it would have to be subsidized - but the busing market has changed and a private company would go bankrupt within a year trying a go at it and the ridership simply isn't there to make a daily schedule.

[CapitalB]

There absolutely needs to be some sort of transit system between these communities. Ideally a company like greyhound would be able to make that work but since they apparently cant I think the government will eventually need to do something.

Greyhound is a privately owned company. They supply a service for a profit. If the government feels it's in their interests, they will either have to supply that service or pay for it to Greyhound. Leave Greyhound out of the equation.

You just said exactly the same thing I did but with different words.

[CapitalB]

I've brought this up before and was chastised for it. But a simple cutaway style bus service between small rural cities on a schedule every few days is the way to go. Of course, it would have to be subsidized - but the busing market has changed and a private company would go bankrupt within a year trying a go at it and the ridership simply isn't there to make a daily schedule.

Yeah they'll need some sort of subsidized routing system. Especially if there are any significant aging populations out there.

[TRIX]

Shedding cost is obviously the intent of Greyhound and we can argue the morality of reduced service but it is not the responsibility of a private corporation to quibble over Morality. They are in it for Profit. It is up to us as users of the system to change it with our vote at the cash register of Greyhound. I think that has been happening for quite a while and rather than recognizing the lack of morality they chose a different model. The reality is that lobbying is going on now to connect the South Okanagan with the central Okanagan with Public Transit. Connecting cities is happening all over the province which is good for the citizens. Coincidentally, the Greyhound parent company is also the contractor in place to possibly benefit from the connections. They are one of the biggest Transit providers in the world and manage the Central and the North Okanagan transit systems already and will likely bid the South also when they get the opportunities. To protect against the Multi National Corporation down loading it's Greyhound costs onto the public there needs to be a regional oversight committee responsible for Dispute resolution, Funding and Service among other things. Some are already calling this entity, the Okanagan Transit Authority, OTA. Many discount this idea as an Okanagan Translink similar to the Coastal Authority. I have heard of many Ideas tailored to the Okanagan connecting all communities large and small, From Kamloops to Osoyoos and all point in between. With a board responsible to those they serve made up of politicians, Business and citizens. The end result would be a transit system not based in profits but in Service, Exactly what Greyhound and it's parent are not providing.

[twobits]

And why don't people just live somewhere that meets their transportation needs instead of living wherever they want and expecting everyone else to pay for it? There is a vast difference between the economics of transportation in and between larger urban centers and the economics of connecting small communities. Dunno. Just seems to be a waste of resources to run a transit system that operates at 5% of capacity when there are so many other priorities for taxpayer subsidy. I would rather see waiting time for surgery reduced before paying for a bus shuttling 5 people to go visit family or shopping 50 to 100 miles away.

[GordonH]

And why don't people just live somewhere that meets their transportation needs instead of living wherever they want and expecting everyone else to pay for it? There is a vast difference between the economics of transportation in and between larger urban centers and the economics of connecting small communities. Dunno. Just seems to be a waste of resources to run a transit system that operates at 5% of capacity when there are so many other priorities for taxpayer subsidy. I would rather see waiting time for surgery reduced before paying for a bus shuttling 5 people to go visit family or shopping 50 to 100 miles away.

Yep, try to sell their home in a small community (move away from friends & personal support). Move to Penticton just find out the best you can do is rent an apartment, and know no body.
Young to middle age this can work, seniors not so much.