TRONto
Active Member
Does Kasper's existence make this whole topic (as far as Ontario is concerned) a non-issue? Anyone used there service who can speak to it? If they are profitable it seems that the minibus model works.
|
|
|
Intercity Bus Services
- Thread starter Jonny5
- Start date
Does Kasper's existence make this whole topic (as far as Ontario is concerned) a non-issue? Anyone used there service who can speak to it? If they are profitable it seems that the minibus model works.
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ @lenaitch I think it may be best to leave "Equalization Payments" out of the discussion, if for no other reason than that they are highly misunderstood and misleading for most persons. I just Googled to post a clarified description. I know there are some online, but my first Google showed nothing but reactionary articles.
So let's use another measure of the argument you raise (and wisely so, this is a conversation we have to have before we cripple ourselves running to catch a bus before it's cancelled).
We can approach the argument by comparison to *roads* themselves. If we need roads for our economy to function, it does not follow that we need cars. It does follow that we need to transport goods in and out of farms and factories. And people.
Buses served us very well in generations past. Then came the car for everyone and everybody...almost. But now the cost of doing that is becoming apparent. We just can't afford to build roads at the rate we have, nor can Nature pay the bill.
The swing back away from owning a car has already started, and surprisingly from the iMemyself generation! Why? Major reason isn't altruism, it's *cost*.
The largest "war against cars" is in the pocket, not the fist. So there's a very favourable argument to be made that retaining bus service in rural areas and between cities worked for previous generations well when car ownership costs dictated taking the bus. Why can't it now? The answer lies not in recreating yesterday's model, but in *adapting* it. The economics of 'riding the bus' (and 'subsidies' aren't necessarily what the term implies) outweigh that of maintaining a car, in the big picture as well as small.
The trick is in the delivery, and other than heavily travelled bus routes (which one has to question if there isn't a rail alternative?) the answer, as practised in a number of nations with high standards of living, is the *minibus*.
And I'm going to have to quote a well-researched article to continue on this:
There's quite a number of similar articles, pro and con online. Ontario had best start discussing this before we all are left at the bus stop waiting...
So let's use another measure of the argument you raise (and wisely so, this is a conversation we have to have before we cripple ourselves running to catch a bus before it's cancelled).
We can approach the argument by comparison to *roads* themselves. If we need roads for our economy to function, it does not follow that we need cars. It does follow that we need to transport goods in and out of farms and factories. And people.
Buses served us very well in generations past. Then came the car for everyone and everybody...almost. But now the cost of doing that is becoming apparent. We just can't afford to build roads at the rate we have, nor can Nature pay the bill.
The swing back away from owning a car has already started, and surprisingly from the iMemyself generation! Why? Major reason isn't altruism, it's *cost*.
The largest "war against cars" is in the pocket, not the fist. So there's a very favourable argument to be made that retaining bus service in rural areas and between cities worked for previous generations well when car ownership costs dictated taking the bus. Why can't it now? The answer lies not in recreating yesterday's model, but in *adapting* it. The economics of 'riding the bus' (and 'subsidies' aren't necessarily what the term implies) outweigh that of maintaining a car, in the big picture as well as small.
The trick is in the delivery, and other than heavily travelled bus routes (which one has to question if there isn't a rail alternative?) the answer, as practised in a number of nations with high standards of living, is the *minibus*.
And I'm going to have to quote a well-researched article to continue on this:
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/dont-believe-the-microtransit-hype/545033/
There's quite a number of similar articles, pro and con online. Ontario had best start discussing this before we all are left at the bus stop waiting...
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The Kasper experience indicates where the baseline is with no subsidy. The intercity routes range from 3x/week to 2x/day, and tickets are somewhat pricy but still arguably affordable given the gigantic distances.
Moving up from that baseline, increasing the subsidies* will progressively increase the amount of service and reduce the ticket price.
*First you reduce taxes. Then if you have no tax and still to support service even more, then you start actually providing direct subsidies.
TRONto
Active Member
I didn't mean this to be an us versus them thing. I am a very strong supporter of the rights of all Canadians to live wherever they want. Most people don't want to live in the city and people should live wherever works for them. There should be settlements all over the province, but what does that mean as far number and size? I don't know. Any isolated communities will be expensive to service so what is the right answer? Living in rural areas means worse health care outcomes due to lack of access to health care. Is that ok? Do we leave it at that's a personal decision and we make the appropriate care available at the larger rural communities? Residents of these communities are educationally and economically disadvantaged due to lack of access. The province and the country are worse off because of that. Rural areas are losing their population to urban centres due to lack of opportunity. Is it right to embrace the change or try to mitigate it? I've asked the smaller question regarding transit but it's part of the bigger question is the right decision here. Personally, I think the rural communities themselves need to come up with the appropriate answers as they live it, they know the problems the best and they are the best ones to come up with answers. They can come up with appropriate solutions and request appropriate assistance from the province if needed. Regarding Northern Transit it looks like Kasper is doing the job without subsidies. It is likely a business started by a resident of Northern Ontario. The communities can come up with answers.
As far as food in Ontario, I did a quick google search and most of Ontario's agricultural land is within a 2 hours drive of Toronto or Ottawa so food production lands are not within the scope of this discussion. Based at a quick glance at energy generation maps, the energy used in urban area seems to be generated within a 2 hour drive of Toronto or Ottawa so energy discussion is also out of scope. As far as mining is concerned, I'm all for it if a company finds it economical to do so. I am not a fan of corporate welfare in any form including for the high profile cases we have seen in Toronto.
The content of the post missed something big, it's already been established that the tax revenue from Toronto subsidizes the country. Toronto is paying for it's own transit and for government services across the country. It is not 'now' an economical place to live (as far as the government providing services), it's probably been like that for at least 50 years. You can argue otherwise, but the tax revenue incoming and the expenditures outgoing have already been calculated.
rbt
Senior Member
Wageningen University (Netherlands) has over the last 3 decades has designed extremely successful growing programs for very tiny plots of land with minimal resources; to the point where the Netherlands outproduces most other countries despite very little land and very little in the way of subsidies. Our output per acre is about 1/15th of what they get.
In short, using those techniques it may be possible for farmers to live in the GTA and commute 1 hour in any direction and produce more food than the city requires.
We can see a little bit of this in Ontario with the few acres of greenhouses around Bruce Nuclear which provide hot house tomatoes to the north-east during most of the off-season.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps I'm missing the point of the reply. The fact that Ontario's most arable land is within 2 hours (possibly worth arguing, but whether it's 2 or 4 hours is largely moot). In the original post, the argument was to depopulate rural areas and have them move to Toronto. Regardless of the distance, it can't be denied that these areas are, in fact, rural, and if the people leave, so does the food production. Regarding energy, fair point that I overlooked the contribution of the generating plants in the GTA and Niagara (but not Toronto).
Part of the lack of clarity by some may be the definition or perception of 'rural' and 'urban'. To me there is a difference between 'rural' and 'remote' and I have lived in both, as well as Toronto. To others, it seems anything north of Steeles is rural. I haven't researched it but I'm not sure the health outcomes of somebody living in or near Kingston or North Bay would be any worse than Toronto.
Fair point. The limited land of Europe has spawned greater innovation. The hothouse farming base is strong in the Essex county area as well. I'm not exactly sure how well the intensification practices translate to livestock farming while still maintaining a sense of welfare for the animals, but I haven't researched it and I don't know if they have found a way around growing forage, which takes acreage. I fail to see why a farmer would want to live in the GTA and commute to a farm unless they are an employee of a corporate farm. Farming is as much a lifestyle as it is a way of making a living.
The world isn't made up of people who live in a city and those who want to. Discussions such as these inevitably end up in 'us-vs.-them. There was a thread a while back discussing whether someone should leave their home area (i.e. Toronto) for employment. Some felt that it was abhorrent that they should have to leave family, friends, patios and theatre simply to make a living. Similarly, other threads argue for regular train service to Collingwood or Muskoka, seemingly so they can be entertained by the poor mooks who have to live there. It seems that, to some, the value of rural areas is measured only in how they serve urban areas.
Sorry for the rant. It often boils down to one's perception of where live is better lived.
rbt
Senior Member
I don't know either, but the premise I was responding to involved rural Ontario having a very very high cost of living.
I was merely pointing out that produce farming, at very least, is quite compatible with living in dense urban environment (which one assumes is affordable for median incomes in the provided scenario).
steveintoronto
Superstar
Some articles on Kasper and the Bus Boys:
https://www.northernontariobusiness...rtation-launches-inter-community-route-372131
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...t-monopolies-to-bus-companies-that-cut-routes
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/northern-ontario-bus-service-getting-enhanced-780560
TRONto
Active Member
Thanks for the research. Looks like my questions are much behind reality.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I didn't read that in the previous posts but may have missed it. Some costs may be marginally higher, such as electricity and fuel (depending on how far one drives) and, depending on area, property taxes, but the biggy - cost of housing - is much much cheaper, primarily due to lower land costs.
I'm not familiar with The Netherlands study but assume that they are making better use of rural land, not putting greenhouses in downtown Amsterdam. It would be interesting to see if the land costs in a dense urban area such as Toronto would make building a greenhouse complex financially viable. And of course you need a location that isn't shadowed by a sea of highrise buildings.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I think the Kasper model has great potential for connecting rural communities in the northwest and I think using smaller buses on the connecting routes is something ONTC is exploring. For the more connecting and long distance 'line runs', I don't know what amount of luggage capacity Kasper's smaller platforms offer. People traveling longer distances on line runs tend to have more luggage.
TRONto
Active Member
There is a little bit of talking past each other as we aren't aligned in this discussion. I'm referencing the areas that Greyhound is no longer serving (that it appears Kasper is ) in this discussion. This being applied against the Golden Horseshoe and Ottawa region. In saying Toronto, I mean the Golden Horseshoe region (its in my first post ). People live in Barrie, Niagara London, Kitchener, and Kingston and work in Toronto. These cities are all part of the Toronto economy.
I feel by presenting a question with two sides, my question was turned into a judgement call. My questions are not a judgement call on better, Each to their own and the government should not force a single thing on where people choose to live. Instead, what is the best way for the province to proceed for the prosperity of the province. Is it appropriate to subsidize a train to the North at a supposed $400 a rider? Maybe it is. Is it good for the province if high school students are in transit for 4 hours a day? Maybe that's fine too. I think these questions need to be asked so the residents get an outcome that works for them. Thereis probably a better way, it needs to be discussed.
Regarding Northern Ontario health outcomes, I made the reference because I'm exposed to health care providers who have worked in northern/remote areas. See the official quote below :
In Ontario’s two northern Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) regions:
- People have shorter expected lifespans than the average in Ontario
- People are far more likely to die prematurely (before age 75) from suicide, heart disease or other causes
- People are much less likely to report being able to see a primary care provider, such as a family doctor or nurse practitioner when they’re sick
steveintoronto
Superstar
I don't want to take this string off-topic too far, it's an excellent discussion, but be aware that the Eglinton Flats were as fertile as Holland Marsh. I can't find a reference to link at this time, but it was mostly Dutch and Chinese truck farmers working the land there. I remember being fascinated looking down on it from Lambton Avenue walking to school (as was the norm in those days) at Roselands Public School as a recent immigrant myself.
To compare farming to the Dutch one has to compare to Holland Marsh, not regular alluvial soil or moraine.
From my experience using AboutTown's van from Guelph to Hamilton (vice versa most of the time) there was room in the back of the van for luggage and my and partner's bikes went in no trouble either in the back door accessible space. You could get four road bikes in there, no problem, and not have to pop-off wheels to do it.
The real drawback is the lack of a toilet, a la GO bus, but something Greyhound provide. For males, having to urinate, asking the driver to pull over wouldn't be a problem on long distance trips. For women and for men's heavier calls, a rest stop would be necessary. But to put that in perspective, that's no different than driving.
A key reference we're seeing in all that's posted so far is the use of "mini-buses". I have to return to wondering whether that's key in more populated regions too.
Just as the TTC runs WheelTrans, could GO run TransitVan? Hang on...didn't they used to do that in York Region a few decades back? What was it called? Google shows nothing, I don't have the right tag.
For Kasper Minibus:
Luggage size – bus
Bus – 1 bag under 40lbs and one carry on under 20lbs
** Additional pieces will be treated as freight and will be subject to freight rates.
https://gokasper.com/baggage/
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Fair enough. That's one of the inherent problems with a text conversation. Perhaps I made an unfair leap from the regions impacted by the bus cancellations into rural areas more proximate to Toronto.
When considering the data from the those two LHIN regions (assuming northwest and northeast), one has to remember that they include remote fly-in FNTs that have their own unique health care and social issues.
Good point about the washrooms (although many would argue on-board bus washrooms are their own form of hell). I doubt a commercial carrier would entertain 'pulling over to the side' for nature calls as part of their SOP. There liability and operational issue along with negative public perception. At the very least, I doubt it would appear as a service feature on the website!
My point regarding luggage was only raised based on photos of some of their fleet and a few years driving a commercial 10-passenger van. I don't do the level of research that some do on this site.
steveintoronto
Superstar
^Some excellent posts in terms of quality of discussion. @Northern Light might have some valuable input here too.
But I've been on GO buses where they have stopped at gas stations/donut shops for a passenger to use the rest room. It may be an awkward issue, as on the routes in Northern Ontario rest room stops are few and far between. Off the top of my head, without thinking this through in detail, could towing a 'relief trailer' be the answer? (Needless to say, the vehicle would have to come to a stop).
Same trailer could also have more space for luggage and/or cargo, as 'bus express' used to do. This would allow a bit more seating in the van.
This is a relevant point, it came up on the Peterborough to Oshawa run a few days back with an intoxicated woman complaining 'how badly she had to to' for a good hour.
But I've been on GO buses where they have stopped at gas stations/donut shops for a passenger to use the rest room. It may be an awkward issue, as on the routes in Northern Ontario rest room stops are few and far between. Off the top of my head, without thinking this through in detail, could towing a 'relief trailer' be the answer? (Needless to say, the vehicle would have to come to a stop).
Same trailer could also have more space for luggage and/or cargo, as 'bus express' used to do. This would allow a bit more seating in the van.
Last edited: