3 ms·

So is population dropping? Or just ridership? Or did Greyhound suddenly have higher costs? None of that is answered in the article, unless I missed it. <specul

by nn3 8y ago

So is population dropping? Or just ridership? Or did Greyhound suddenly have higher costs? None of that is answered in the article, unless I missed it. <speculation:> I assume operating such a bus line is not all that expensive, and costs shouldn't have been rising because fuel is still cheap. So ridership must have been dropping. So apparently they didn't need it all that much, otherwise enough people would have continued riding so that it would have stayed profitable. That's the morale I guess: if you value something use it more often.

jessewmc 8y ago
You missed it, all answered in the article
wcarss 8y ago
Thanks for not understanding the problem and making a trite snipe at the rural people of Canada. People who live in these places do absolutely use these buses, and some people do need them, but (while I'm not sure about service cost) the prices go up regularly, many buses are packed, slow, and chronically late, and the population is in fact falling dramatically in rural Canada as the elderly move to care homes in the cities where their children already live -- it's not necessarily about choice, but about demographic and geographic change over decades. If there is a moral here it is not "use it or lose it". Perhaps instead it is merely that we won't be able to rely on even the services we feel are essential, as the world changes around us over time.
- nn3 8y ago
  If they are packed how can they be losing money? Perhaps I'm wrong but its clear you are not right either.
  - WaylonKenning 8y ago
    One packed bus does not make a service, if it's unreliable. And over those distances, they may not be profitable at the ticket prices they charge. And they may not be commercially viable if the ticket has to recoup all the costs + profit. That's why, sometimes governments operate services, even at a loss, as a benefit, to their citizens.

by nn3 8y ago

jessewmc 8y ago

You missed it, all answered in the article

wcarss 8y ago

Thanks for not understanding the problem and making a trite snipe at the rural people of Canada. People who live in these places do absolutely use these buses, and some people do need them, but (while I'm not sure about service cost) the prices go up regularly, many buses are packed, slow, and chronically late, and the population is in fact falling dramatically in rural Canada as the elderly move to care homes in the cities where their children already live -- it's not necessarily about choice, but about demographic and geographic change over decades. If there is a moral here it is not "use it or lose it". Perhaps instead it is merely that we won't be able to rely on even the services we feel are essential, as the world changes around us over time.

nn3 8y ago
If they are packed how can they be losing money? Perhaps I'm wrong but its clear you are not right either.
- WaylonKenning 8y ago
  One packed bus does not make a service, if it's unreliable. And over those distances, they may not be profitable at the ticket prices they charge. And they may not be commercially viable if the ticket has to recoup all the costs + profit. That's why, sometimes governments operate services, even at a loss, as a benefit, to their citizens.