>It could make sense for the government to step in here with a publicly owned transit service if there is a real market failure here in that it's not at all profitable to serve the sparsely populated North.
If its unprofitable, maybe its a bad idea to have unused transportation. While a few buses seem like negligible damage to the environment, I imagine this greater plan is to grow these locations that are in unfavorable geographic locations. Isnt this environmentally irresponsible?
The fire department isn't profitable. Still a good idea to have it. Army's not profitable. Sidewalks aren't profitable. Don't get me started on libraries...
What's the point of money if we're only going to use it to make more of it?
robertAngst didn't say "it's unprofitable, therefore we shouldn't run it" but "it's unprofitable, therefore buses are probably running mostly empty, which is environmentally irresponsible".
It's a fair question. If the attendance is truly low, maybe a subsidized taxi service would be a better replacement, for example.
Given the typical vehicle up here in the North, if the bus has even a few people on it probably is an environmental win. Generally if a person is needed up here then a person will go down and get that person and return with them. Cars are less common than trucks and a "small" truck is a 1/4 ton. Additionally, the greyhound is a popular shipping choice for industry because of the time to ship. Most of the packages/mail gets sorted in Vancouver and then returns back up to Prince George. Putting on the Greyhound and it getting to where it needs to go next day was amazing. Shipping times were often better from Alberta and BC with the major players since the package didn't have to double back. Hotshot services are typically field based, but it isn't rare for somebody to hot shot packages between cities since it can take days through other methods now.
It's good for everyone to do their part, but a few buses probably don't make a significant impact compared to their utility, even when lightly loaded.
Remember that something like 80% of global pollution comes from industry. Focusing too hard on individual vehicles is a smokescreen--even if every driver in the world switched to electric cars/trucks/buses tomorrow, it wouldn't make much difference by itself.
Can't the buses be tailored to the expected traffic ?
For instance having it be closer to a taxi service with small vehicles when there's low usage and only run big buses on commuting hours or other high usage time, for instance.
Cost and environment impact are legitimate questions, I think there are decent solutions.
This is exactly what is happening in Saskatchewan at the moment. A few smaller transport companies have started operating routes using passenger vans. They currently serve a good chunk (not nearly as much as STC, but they’re still a new player). Greyhound wasn’t the loss here, STC was as it served many communities that would have been isolated if you cannot drive. I’m proud to see a service like the Rider Express try to fill the gap
The article points out that some people have to live there due to local employment.
Having unsustainably small communities is probably less environmentally friendly than growing them to a size where not all services / materials need to be individually imported.
If its unprofitable, maybe its a bad idea to have unused transportation. While a few buses seem like negligible damage to the environment, I imagine this greater plan is to grow these locations that are in unfavorable geographic locations. Isnt this environmentally irresponsible?