News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 258     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 330     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 516     1 

Intercity Bus Services

Bureaucromancer said:
It just struck me that aside from the TTC having specific legislation I'm unaware of the actual legal status of most urban transit operators... Without additional changes does eliminating the HTB open the door to operators competing with municipal services?
Click to expand...

Section 69 of the Municipal Act, which is essentially that same as a similar section in the City of Toronto Act.

By-laws​
(2) A municipality that has the authority to establish, operate and maintain a type of passenger transportation system may,​
​
(a) by by-law provide that no person except the municipality shall establish, operate and maintain all or any part of a passenger transportation system of that type within all of the municipality or that area of the municipality designated in the by-law; and​
​
(b) despite section 106 and any by-law under clause (a), enter into an agreement granting a person the exclusive or non-exclusive right to establish, operate or maintain all or any part of a passenger transportation system of that type within all of the municipality or that area of the municipality designated in the agreement under such conditions as the municipality provides, including a condition that the municipality pay any deficit incurred by the person in establishing, operating or maintaining the system. 2001, c. 25, s. 69 (2).​
​
I didn't research but I would imagine there is similar enabling legislation related to Go/Metrolinx giving them exclusive operating authority.
 
lenaitch said:
I'm not sure how de-regulation (or non-regulation) is going to make things much better other than saving some bureaucratic dollars. If a route is not profitable, it will fail unless a determination of 'public good' is made and it is supported by public funds. This is already done with passenger rail, commuting networks, etc., but without some kind of regulatory framework, how does the government dole out funds? A route may be viable for one carrier but not sustain more. How and which one does the government support?

The Highway Transportation Board enforces the Public Vehicles Act. One aspect of issuing an operating licence is the posting of public operating timetables. Without some kind of regulation, a passenger sitting at the Tim's at Hwy 10 near Dundalk, waiting for the 10am bus to take them to Pearson or wherever, might be surprised to learn, possibly after the fact, that the run was cancelled because the operator decided at the last minute that there weren't enough passengers to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree w/your POV here; though I might offer a couple of caveats.

It is plausible that deregulation will result in better service/options/pricing on highly popular routes (ie Toronto - Ottawa).

While, overall, I don't think its likely to help the situation of most low-performance routes; there are a couple of ways it might (I'm not suggesting this is likely).

One is that it may provide an opportunity to service a smaller centre as part of serving a larger one.

Where Lindsay to Ottawa might not be viable; Toronto-Lindsay-Ottawa might.

Which might be a way in which some smaller centres; particularly those potentially en route between 2 previously monopolized destinations might see some potential for service.

The other way in which a benefit is plausible is where a smaller service that might be willing and able to connect some smaller communities, but finds itself limited by the lack of feed-in services, might be able to add a feed-in service from the GTA or Ottawa etc. that provides sufficient incremental ridership to support better service.

That is somewhat of a reach on my part; and a bit sunny; but I wouldn't see it as fantasy or gross over-reach.

I don't, however, imagine such a scenario would be common, or serve more than a handful of current/potential destinations.
 
Northern Light said:
I would tend to agree w/your POV here; though I might offer a couple of caveats.

It is plausible that deregulation will result in better service/options/pricing on highly popular routes (ie Toronto - Ottawa).

While, overall, I don't think its likely to help the situation of most low-performance routes; there are a couple of ways it might (I'm not suggesting this is likely).

One is that it may provide an opportunity to service a smaller centre as part of serving a larger one.

Where Lindsay to Ottawa might not be viable; Toronto-Lindsay-Ottawa might.

Which might be a way in which some smaller centres; particularly those potentially en route between 2 previously monopolized destinations might see some potential for service.

The other way in which a benefit is plausible is where a smaller service that might be willing and able to connect some smaller communities, but finds itself limited by the lack of feed-in services, might be able to add a feed-in service from the GTA or Ottawa etc. that provides sufficient incremental ridership to support better service.

That is somewhat of a reach on my part; and a bit sunny; but I wouldn't see it as fantasy or gross over-reach.

I don't, however, imagine such a scenario would be common, or serve more than a handful of current/potential destinations.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. As a post-retirement part-time gig I drove for a shuttle service to Pearson. We 'yarded' with the other companies that serviced different parts of the province. We were an hourly door-to-door service but some of the others, simply by virtue of area covered and travel distance, were 'several times a day-fixed stops'; very much like we are discussing, only to an airport rather than a bus terminal. So it can potentially work on lower volume routes. The advantage is smaller, low volume carriers can get away with smaller (and, for the operator - cheaper) vehicles.

On another note, one wonders that, if it came to multiple carriers large and small, would slots at a larger major bus terminal become like slots at Pearson. Not a direct comparison obviously but they could become a competitive commodity.

A little off-topic but your 'Toronto-Lindsay vs Toronto-Lindsay-Ottawa' comparison is consistent with my view on low volume air routes in the province. Why Jazz et al insist on Direct flights to place such as North Bay, Timmins or Sudbury rather than stops on a single service escapes me.
 
lenaitch said:
On another note, one wonders that, if it came to multiple carriers large and small, would slots at a larger major bus terminal become like slots at Pearson. Not a direct comparison obviously but they could become a competitive commodity.
Click to expand...

The key difference is that it's far easier to create a competing terminal for bus operations than air. If slots at, say, Toronto Coach Terminal, were to become limited, it's not a major obstacle to get permission to drop passengers off in a parking lot a few blocks away from the actual terminal.

As far as whether deregulation will see some magical improvement in low performing routes, of course it wont. I don't even necessarily think regulation as such is a terrible solution. That said, the HTB as it exists has made it essentially impossible for a new operator to enter any market at the same time that the incumbent operators have withdrawn from their less popular services in a way that suggests there is no longer any benefit to, say, prohibiting competition on Toronto - Ottawa and Toronto - Montreal.
 
tmlittle said:
You'd hope we'd do better with it than we've done with a national train system...
Click to expand...
To be fair, a national bus system would have the advantage of using public roads. It wouldn't have to beg private companies for the privilege of paying them for access to private infrastructure. Luckily we haven't privatized the highway system the way we did with our rail network.

ShonTron said:
I've been working on an interactive map showing all current intercity services, as well as rural transit agencies.

With such a patchwork of new services, each operated to serve local needs, rather than as a network, it's hard to keep track. Some services operate on a daily or at least a weekday schedule. Others run infrequently.

ArcGIS Web Application

spmarshall.maps.arcgis.com spmarshall.maps.arcgis.com

Before I publish it, I wanted to see if there's anything I missed, or any feedback I can incorporate. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Great work. This is something that the government really should be doing. Fragmentation between transit agencies just seems to be how we roll in Ontario for some reason.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
The key difference is that it's far easier to create a competing terminal for bus operations than air. If slots at, say, Toronto Coach Terminal, were to become limited, it's not a major obstacle to get permission to drop passengers off in a parking lot a few blocks away from the actual terminal.

As far as whether deregulation will see some magical improvement in low performing routes, of course it wont. I don't even necessarily think regulation as such is a terrible solution. That said, the HTB as it exists has made it essentially impossible for a new operator to enter any market at the same time that the incumbent operators have withdrawn from their less popular services in a way that suggests there is no longer any benefit to, say, prohibiting competition on Toronto - Ottawa and Toronto - Montreal.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was an imperfect comparison, although the 'travel experience marketing' of being dropped off in a parking lot doesn't seem all that attractive (making no comment on Toronto Coach terminal).

Perhaps it isn't the problem of regulation but with the Board itself. There's a difference between imposing reasonable terms and conditions on a carrier (reliable service, public confidence, etc.) vs. creating a system that tries to ensure their profitability. When a carrier withdraws service, they should immediately loose their approval. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that Greyhound retained its operation certificate for routes it abandoned in Ontario. They should lapse upon withdrawal of the service.
 
lenaitch said:
I agree that it was an imperfect comparison, although the 'travel experience marketing' of being dropped off in a parking lot doesn't seem all that attractive (making no comment on Toronto Coach terminal).

Perhaps it isn't the problem of regulation but with the Board itself. There's a difference between imposing reasonable terms and conditions on a carrier (reliable service, public confidence, etc.) vs. creating a system that tries to ensure their profitability. When a carrier withdraws service, they should immediately loose their approval. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that Greyhound retained its operation certificate for routes it abandoned in Ontario. They should lapse upon withdrawal of the service.
Click to expand...

Greyhound used to operate “franchise runs” - a bus once or twice a week on routes like Highway 3 between Niagara and London via Simcoe, Tillsonburg, and St. Thomas - to hold on to the route (and presumably keep away competitors). Coach Canada did the same on the Guelph-Hamilton route it acquired from CCL before withdrawing completely.

Supposedly, someone is hanging on to the Guelph-Hamilton franchise despite there being no operator. Coach Canada (Megabus) also just suspended its Kitchener-Hamilton run. I also understand that there’s no useful Belleville-Trenton route (despite there being useful connections from Belleville to other surrounding towns) because that’s a franchised route.

Maybe this will make it easier for local services like GO and Quinte Access to finally operate these short distance routes. Or maybe it will just be the Wild West across the entire province.
 
The most optimistic scenario I can see for axing the franchise system is the provincial government creating a provincial regional bus network, because it is something rural areas can support, and it's hard for Liberals and the NDP to bash. It'd align with the Connecting the Southwest plan they announced in January, and could be labeled as part of a Made in Ontario Climate Plan.
 
ShonTron said:
Greyhound used to operate “franchise runs” - a bus once or twice a week on routes like Highway 3 between Niagara and London via Simcoe, Tillsonburg, and St. Thomas - to hold on to the route (and presumably keep away competitors). Coach Canada did the same on the Guelph-Hamilton route it acquired from CCL before withdrawing completely.

Supposedly, someone is hanging on to the Guelph-Hamilton franchise despite there being no operator. Coach Canada (Megabus) also just suspended its Kitchener-Hamilton run. I also understand that there’s no useful Belleville-Trenton route (despite there being useful connections from Belleville to other surrounding towns) because that’s a franchised route.

Maybe this will make it easier for local services like GO and Quinte Access to finally operate these short distance routes. Or maybe it will just be the Wild West across the entire province.
Click to expand...

Coach Canada currently only has one bus in each direction servicing STC. It's only a 10minute detour so I don't understand why they don't just service STC. As for Belleville, VIA does a good job, but the train is more direct and doesn't service those small towns like the bus does. The Belleville Greyhound stop is at the gas station by the 401 which has no transit access.

Frankly what's the point of having a bus stop that can only get there by taxi or car? It doesn't make any sense.

If VIA had more funding they could run more trains to Port Hope, Trenton, Cobourg, Napanee instead of running express. At the same time GO transit could service local trains and have VIA run express services. There are smaller towns like Brighton that don't have a station, which would benefit from train service.

There was a plan to make Kingston a regional hub and I'm sure there is lots of travel from Belleville to Kingston and people live in Gananoque and work in Kingston.

Commuter service between those cities would make it easier to travel.

It could start with Bus service by GO transit along Highway 2 from Oshawa all the way to Brockville. That would allow all of these communities to be linked.
 
Bordercollie said:
Coach Canada currently only has one bus in each direction servicing STC. It's only a 10minute detour so I don't understand why they don't just service STC. As for Belleville, VIA does a good job, but the train is more direct and doesn't service those small towns like the bus does. The Belleville Greyhound stop is at the gas station by the 401 which has no transit access.

Frankly what's the point of having a bus stop that can only get there by taxi or car? It doesn't make any sense.

If VIA had more funding they could run more trains to Port Hope, Trenton, Cobourg, Napanee instead of running express. At the same time GO transit could service local trains and have VIA run express services. There are smaller towns like Brighton that don't have a station, which would benefit from train service.

There was a plan to make Kingston a regional hub and I'm sure there is lots of travel from Belleville to Kingston and people live in Gananoque and work in Kingston.

Commuter service between those cities would make it easier to travel.

It could start with Bus service by GO transit along Highway 2 from Oshawa all the way to Brockville. That would allow all of these communities to be linked.
Click to expand...
If VIA HFR goes through, there should be plenty of local service to those Port Hope, Trenton, Cobourg, Napanee
 
Interlining and working with ONTC would probably be better for them in the long run rather than trying to compete. Which is why regulation is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Bordercollie said:
Interlining and working with ONTC would probably be better for them in the long run rather than trying to compete. Which is why regulation is a good thing.
Click to expand...

In principal yes, but it's not as if the HTB has been in any way open to innovative arrangements, or this government interested in good regulatory solutions. For the moment it seems reasonable for ONTC to continue focusing on local traffic while Rider aims at a national network. Take a look at the far western bits of ONTC's network and tell me it's in any way intended for through traffic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top