FirstGroup weighs sale of US school bus and public transit units (in addition to Greyhound)

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

rickycourtney

Conductor
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,930
Location
Fresno, CA
Financial Times: FirstGroup weighs sale US school bus and public transit units

The bus and train operator will “explore all options” for First Student and First Transit, “including a potential disposal”, the company said in a statement on Monday.

First Student operates over 42,500 buses in the US and Canada and brings some 5m students to school each day, according to FirstGroup’s website. Its First Transit division is one of the biggest private providers of public transit across the two countries, transporting 324m passengers a year.

FirstGroup also put Greyhound up for sale earlier this year, citing competition from low-cost airlines and a drop in demand.

The sale of these groups would be a big change in the bus landscape in the US and Canada.
 
Good luck trying to unload Greyhound Lines...
There is less and less to unload. When the Pioneer was discontinued there were three GL schedule paths a day between Denver and Portland. Now there is one, etc. The award-winning Portland GL station is closed and their remaining service is making the same curbside stop as the newcomer, Flix. In studying their recent reductions I think it is fair to say that they are in the same network condition as rail passenger service was in the late 60's.
 
There is less and less to unload. When the Pioneer was discontinued there were three GL schedule paths a day between Denver and Portland. Now there is one, etc. The award-winning Portland GL station is closed and their remaining service is making the same curbside stop as the newcomer, Flix. In studying their recent reductions I think it is fair to say that they are in the same network condition as rail passenger service was in the late 60's.
Not as good. There is no regulation that requires them to run any service in the US. They can just shut down at will.

And it is entirely unlikely, the government would bail them out, or create a “bustrak” to replace them.
In a few places, local governments have run some sort of accommodation to take elderly from rural locations to “town” for essential medical or shopping visits, but no “national network”...
 
The pattern that is developing in the U.S. and Canada is regional systems, whether government or private. As I've referred to before, this fits with Kneiling's prediction that economies and consequent politics would focus on international airports. And it fits with the Buffalo Commons concept. I'm not endorsing forcing these theories on people; a government that is truly concerned with national unity might resist these trends, but "unlikely" is a likely word. In developing the Colorado network we linked it into the Denver Union Station with good access to Denver International Airport, but have managed to keep the "national" Amtrak element so far.

https://ridebustang.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Union_Station
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attract...ews-Denver_Union_Station-Denver_Colorado.html
 
I think that’s there’s argument to be made that the collapse of Greyhound, the last remaining nationwide bus line, would be as detrimental to many small communities.

A similar argument was made 48 years ago when the passenger railroads were on the verge of collapse.

There’s a lot of little towns in the US where the single daily Amtrak train or single daily Greyhound bus is the only connection to the rest of the nation without having a reliable car.
 
A lot has changed in those years...
Low cost air travel has replaced the bus for most long haul trips. There are few people today who do not drive, or have access to an automobile. And where there is a strong need, regional bus services do exist. And there is still an Amtrak around, and it gets pretty good support...not likely to go away.

Buses will never enjoy that support...
 
A lot has changed in those years...
Low cost air travel has replaced the bus for most long haul trips. There are few people today who do not drive, or have access to an automobile. And where there is a strong need, regional bus services do exist. And there is still an Amtrak around, and it gets pretty good support...not likely to go away.

Buses will never enjoy that support...

Those “few” people who don’t drive still need a way to get to that airport 4 hours away.
 
Those “few” people who don’t drive still need a way to get to that airport 4 hours away.
Not enough of them to warrant a bus.
People can get a ride from friends or relatives, or in some cases take a taxi or ride share...
 
A lot has changed in those years...
Low cost air travel has replaced the bus for most long haul trips. There are few people today who do not drive, or have access to an automobile. And where there is a strong need, regional bus services do exist. And there is still an Amtrak around, and it gets pretty good support...not likely to go away.

Buses will never enjoy that support...
Fair points, but couldn’t the same be said for trains?

Low cost air travel has replaced the train for most long haul trips. There are few people today who do not drive, or have access to an automobile. And where there is a strong need, regional train services do exist.

In fact, that’s pretty much the argument Richard Anderson made to Congress last month.

You could also write a similar argument for small towns with “Essential Air Service” subsidies.

So when is it proper for the government to step in to maintain a minimal level of scheduled transportation services to these communities that otherwise would not be profitable?
 
I think we are pretty much at that very point today...things are more or less in balance, regardless how partisans one way or the other would like it to be...
 
I think we are pretty much at that very point today...things are more or less in balance, regardless how partisans one way or the other would like it to be...
Tell that to people to who can't drive and can't get a ride to an airport 4 hours away or afford a a taxi ride for that distance.

Also, private automobiles and air travel are about the least environmentally sustainable modes of travel one could devise. As a matter of policy, we should be doing everything we can to discourage people from traveling by those means.

Furthermore, alternative transportation modes ensures reliability through redundancy. I'll bet people were sure happy after 9/11 that they could still get places by bus and train even after all the planes were grounded for several days.

We spend lots of tax money subsidizing roads and the air travel system, so what's the problem with subsidizing some alternative modes of travel? People, actually do use them, and there's an important social benefit.
 
There are very few people that can’t get a ride somewhere, from family or friends, if they can’t drive themself. While it might be nice to have some accommodation for them....at what cost?
Just what numbers would it take to make this viable and sustainable?

Clearly the demand is not strong enough to sustain losing routes without subsidy.
Another failure of deregulation...

During the regulated era, major carrier’s were protected from cut-throat competition on lucrative routes, but were required to “cross-subsidize” money losing branch lines where there was a necessity to provide local services.
And they could pay a decent wage to their drivers and terminal employees as well.

Nowadays, new entrants only want to cherrypick the choicest routes to operate.
 
There are very few people that can’t get a ride somewhere, from family or friends, if they can’t drive themself. While it might be nice to have some accommodation for them....at what cost?
Just what numbers would it take to make this viable and sustainable?

Clearly the demand is not strong enough to sustain losing routes without subsidy.
Another failure of deregulation...

During the regulated era, major carrier’s were protected from cut-throat competition on lucrative routes, but were required to “cross-subsidize” money losing branch lines where there was a necessity to provide local services.
And they could pay a decent wage to their drivers and terminal employees as well.

Nowadays, new entrants only want to cherrypick the choicest routes to operate.
"There are very few people that can’t get a ride somewhere, " And you know this for a fact?
 
"...another failure of deregulation..." Actually, the decline of regular route intercity bus service was underway by the time we cautiously identified it in the 1975 Oregon Intercity Bus Study. Several things happened that undercut the traditional cross-subsidization of small-town people by big-city people before low-cost air service was a factor. People who asked me why I supported motor carrier deregulation got to hear an explanation of why regulation for other than safety and normal business behavior was crumbling.
 
No one can say for sure, but based on what I have observed, just about everyone can get a ride from a neighbor or friend, or family member if necessary, unless they are some hermit, but in that case, they probably have no reason to travel anyway.

Sure, you can find some exceptions, if you look hard enough, but not enough to make a subsidized run cost effective, as compared to other essential social services that would yield a better cost benefit return.
 
"...another failure of deregulation..." Actually, the decline of regular route intercity bus service was underway by the time we cautiously identified it in the 1975 Oregon Intercity Bus Study. Several things happened that undercut the traditional cross-subsidization of small-town people by big-city people before low-cost air service was a factor. People who asked me why I supported motor carrier deregulation got to hear an explanation of why regulation for other than safety and normal business behavior was crumbling.
One of those things was small town people
were driving themselves, and were not riding the cross-subsidized routes...
 
I think that’s there’s argument to be made that the collapse of Greyhound, the last remaining nationwide bus line, would be as detrimental to many small communities.

It will be. Here are the political issues:
(1) Very few people genuinely like bus travel. So it has a weak political constituency.
(2) The "red" states simply will not vote to have state-subsidized bus service (never seen it happen). Because some people genuinely prefer trains, they will sometimes support state subsidized train service. But usually they just subsidize roads.
(3) The "blue" states will provide state-subsidized bus service, for the benefit of those who can't afford cars, but would mostly prefer to subsidize trains. Subsidized bus service will stop at the border of the first red state. California and Colorado are clear examples; there are some less clear examples of state funded intercity service oin the East Coast.
(4) Red states are not turning blue fast enough to outrun the collapse of Greyhound.

Greyhound's biggest service cutback was in the Canadian Prairies and Maritimes; those routes are gone and never coming back.

It does accelerate the decline of the rural towns which lose service. When they keep voting for politicians who fund roads and do not fund buses or trains, well, I am pretty comfortable watching them decline by their own hand.

When they are voting to fund service, then I say, give them service.
 
I just looked up the 2019 Greyhound map -- they finally published one, after not publishing a map for years.

https://www.greyhound.com/-/media/greyhound/images/discover/2019-greyhound-network-map.pdf

Not much service. Green is codesharing partners, who are used to bulk out the map and make it look less pathetic. (Jefferson Lines is covering the Dakotas, and to their credit, they are apparently providing good service.) Greyhound Canada has been reduced to an Ontario company with a branch to Montreal.

An extraordinary number of the Greyhound routes are simply *paralleling* Amtrak, which is not good for either organization; if there were any sort of government bailout, those routes ought to be the first to be axed in favor of trains. Several of the others are routes which have tracks and ought to have passenger trains (such as El Paso - Odessa/Midland - Abilene - Fort Worth, or Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati -- or Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit where the state government actually wants to resume train service). Quite a lot more are actually paralleling other codesharing bus companies' routes, which again just drives both companies out of business.

A little research shows me that when Greyhound Canada scrapped almost all route, the province of British Columbia, stepped in and hired a company (Pacific Western) to run "BC Bus North" service. Alberta ended up subsidizing a small amount of disconnected bus service as well. Saskatchewan did nothing, Manitoba did nothing, and Ontario ignored Western Ontario. The bus routes don't form a network any more.

Maritime Bus has a more-or-less viable network in Maritime Canada, but it stops at St. Stephen, NB and Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec, not really making it to the national bus or train networks of the US or Canada. Disconnected.
 
One of those things was small town people
were driving themselves, and were not riding the cross-subsidized routes...
True, but there are some other things going on. Volunteer hours are being eaten up by driving people who don't have family or friends to impose on. And, there is a lot of deadheading and wasted time for family and friends. (That is why we have native American tribes stepping up to run intercity service -- it's a more efficient way of fulfilling the communal responsibility that they feel.) It all feeds into the stress on small-town and rural America.
 
I just looked up the 2019 Greyhound map -- they finally published one, after not publishing a map for years.

https://www.greyhound.com/-/media/greyhound/images/discover/2019-greyhound-network-map.pdf

Not much service. Green is codesharing partners, who are used to bulk out the map and make it look less pathetic. (Jefferson Lines is covering the Dakotas, and to their credit, they are apparently providing good service.) Greyhound Canada has been reduced to an Ontario company with a branch to Montreal.

An extraordinary number of the Greyhound routes are simply *paralleling* Amtrak, which is not good for either organization; if there were any sort of government bailout, those routes ought to be the first to be axed in favor of trains. Several of the others are routes which have tracks and ought to have passenger trains (such as El Paso - Odessa/Midland - Abilene - Fort Worth, or Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati -- or Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit where the state government actually wants to resume train service). Quite a lot more are actually paralleling other codesharing bus companies' routes, which again just drives both companies out of business.

A little research shows me that when Greyhound Canada scrapped almost all route, the province of British Columbia, stepped in and hired a company (Pacific Western) to run "BC Bus North" service. Alberta ended up subsidizing a small amount of disconnected bus service as well. Saskatchewan did nothing, Manitoba did nothing, and Ontario ignored Western Ontario. The bus routes don't form a network any more.

Maritime Bus has a more-or-less viable network in Maritime Canada, but it stops at St. Stephen, NB and Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec, not really making it to the national bus or train networks of the US or Canada. Disconnected.

Alberta fell into it without a plan, initially on a route by route basis. The irony in Saskatchewan's case is that the CCF-NDP (social democrats) set up provincially-owned Saskatchewan Transportation Company in 1946 as a near monopoly, to the outrage of Greyhound Lines of Canada. Political changes led to the current laissez faire solution in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Transportation_Company

Jefferson Lines goes all the way west to Spokane. I have used their well-run service between Missoula and Billings. At the time Amtrak started up, GL had three daily schedules between Chicago and Seattle, competing against two daily NP trains. Two connecting buses in Spokane went to Portland, a third went to San Francisco via US97 with a connection at Biggs Junction for Portland. Only one JL schedule path follows the former NP line SPK - MSP. A second SPK - MSP path diverges at Billings and runs via Sioux Falls.

The phenomenon of route "parallelism" is something that I've been looking at since that 1975 bus study. There is something about a train that is magic, i.e., it draws competition. And conversely, when train service is withdrawn (which I've witnessed over and over), there is one generation of bus riders left and then the parallel bus service is withdrawn or restructured. Exceptions apply where populations have grown immensely and/or there is a large number of undocumented non-drivers. The Canadian Greyhound implosion fits that theory when one considers that western VIA Rail service is only a token.

As Oregon and Washington have proved, the way to get good bus service is to put on a train.
 
It will be. Here are the political issues:
(1) Very few people genuinely like bus travel. So it has a weak political constituency.
(2) The "red" states simply will not vote to have state-subsidized bus service (never seen it happen). Because some people genuinely prefer trains, they will sometimes support state subsidized train service. But usually they just subsidize roads.
(3) The "blue" states will provide state-subsidized bus service, for the benefit of those who can't afford cars, but would mostly prefer to subsidize trains. Subsidized bus service will stop at the border of the first red state. California and Colorado are clear examples; there are some less clear examples of state funded intercity service in the East Coast.
(4) Red states are not turning blue fast enough to outrun the collapse of Greyhound.

Greyhound's biggest service cutback was in the Canadian Prairies and Maritimes; those routes are gone and never coming back.

It does accelerate the decline of the rural towns which lose service. When they keep voting for politicians who fund roads and do not fund buses or trains, well, I am pretty comfortable watching them decline by their own hand.

When they are voting to fund service, then I say, give them service.

Colorado has a route that crosses the border into a red state -- GL table 364 runs DEN-SLC via US40 with CDOT sponsorship and FTA 5311f funds. It is run jointly with Utah. When GL withdrew from OMA-DEN the initial replacement service was run with CDOT sponsorship and Nebraska's Department of Roads did nothing. Bit by bit, the bus service gained riders and the direct subsidy was dropped. Colorado also jointly sponsored a 5311f service with KDOT between Wichita and Pueblo. It was withdrawn due to low ridership. In Colorado it was replaced with a Lamar - La Junta - Pueblo - Colorado Springs run on the classic "into town in the AM and return home in the PM" schedule, almost connecting with Trains 3 and 4.

A lot of this has to do with how much flexibility a state has legally and whether their civil servants have the brains to figure out solutions that meet local needs and legal/fiscal requirements.
 
And that is the problem...just like rail travel, not every state is interested in providing subsidized transportation services. So while states like New Jersey are almost completely covered by both rail and bus services, other states have practically nothing. So there goes the chance of having a national 'network' , at least as far as buses go...
 
I think you guys are forgetting at least two other potential factors:

1. The rise of superbargain companies like Megabus siphoning off their profitable routes (at least that's my suspicion).

2. Cars becoming cheaper and more reliable (there have been numerous articles about this, primarily used cars, though they aren't cheap, they last longer) over time, also siphoning off riders who either couldn't afford a car in the past or had a car that they could drive over a distance.

Also, low gas prices, comparatively, means it is fairly cheap to drive as well. I'm wondering if the privatization of much of the drivers ed system will also increase non-drivers in the long term.
 
I think you guys are forgetting at least two other potential factors:

1. The rise of superbargain companies like Megabus siphoning off their profitable routes (at least that's my suspicion).

2. Cars becoming cheaper and more reliable (there have been numerous articles about this, primarily used cars, though they aren't cheap, they last longer) over time, also siphoning off riders who either couldn't afford a car in the past or had a car that they could drive over a distance.

Also, low gas prices, comparatively, means it is fairly cheap to drive as well. I'm wondering if the privatization of much of the drivers ed system will also increase non-drivers in the long term.
Good points, but:

1) Megabus, etc. are still bus companies, which means that bus service is still preserved. Tough luck for Greyhound, though, and, of course, if Greyhound was cross subsidizing complete national route coverage with their profitable routes, then getting hit by Megabus throws a wrench in that practice. I believe that Bolt Bus, one of the budget lines, is a Greyhound subsidiary.

2) I'm not sure that cars are becoming cheaper, and the price of used cars is ridiculous. In fact, combined with the fact that income for the masses isn't keeping pace with the cost of living and job security is a thing of the past, I don't know how the masses can even afford to buy a beater used car anymore. Yeah, people are keeping cars longer, but that trend has been around for 20+ years now.

I think the only way people are still buying cars is that the loan terms have been stretched out -- 60 month (5 year) auto loans are common now, and I've even seen advertisements for 72 month loans. At some point, it's going to be like a mortgage, the interest paid will be more than the price of the car. But it's a hell of thing for a proletarian worker-grunt to have to commit to in today's gig economy. Can we say "debt peonage," everybody?

3) In real dollar terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation) the price of gas is about the same as it was in 1973, before the oil shocks. Of course, that makes it relatively cheap to drive, but it's always been that way, especially if your party consists of more than one person.

4) I'm not sure whether the privatization of the driver's ed system will result in a significant chunk of the population being unable to drive, but there is a social trend of large numbers of the younger generations who live in urban areas deciding that they don't want or need to be able to drive. This has concerned the auto industry greatly, as this also means that there may be less demand for the purchase of cars.

I've been to conferences where people in the various parts of the transportation industry are talking about selling "mobility as a service" rather than a product like a car. Of course, good bus and train service should be a part of that, but, naturally, the industry would rather design and sell self-driving pod vehicles, hyperloops, and other cool advanced technology rather then boring old stuff like buses and rail vehicles.
 
Back
Top