The Amalgamated Transit…

The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) is pleased to present comments to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) regarding its discussion paper, Intercity Bus Modernization: Creating Opportunities and Connecting Ontario Communities.

ATU represents workers in 17 cities throughout Ontario. Two of our local divisions in the province, Local 1415 in Toronto (Greyhound Canada) and 1624 in Peterborough (Tai Pan Tours and Trentway Wagar, which is operated by Coach Canada) represent workers in the intercity bus industry. Overview

Two of the three “guiding principles” identified by MTO in the discussion paper – ensuring safety and responding to the needs of communities and the travelling public – are without question worthwhile goals that the province should be pursuing. However, in addressing these issues, especially safety matters, MTO fails to call for some simple measures that would significantly increase the well-being of bus passengers and other highway users.

In addition, the other proposal in the discussion paper – fostering an open, innovative and dynamic market – is incredibly short sighted and will likely diminish rather than improve intercity bus service in the Ontario region.

Unique Mobility Challenges

Approximately 15% of Ontario residents live in rural areas and small towns. Public transportation is increasingly being used in small urban and rural areas to address the unique mobility challenges of the transit-dependent population, which tends to have higher concentrations of older adults and low-income citizens who are less likely to own cars or drive.

Access to jobs, groceries, healthcare, education, and other destinations is just as vital in Ontario’s small towns as in suburban or urban areas. Public transportation to reach healthcare, employment, and other resources serves as a lifeline in these areas for transit-dependent people. Ontario’s rural areas have long distances between destinations, and small-town residents often must travel far to reach specialized services or venues in larger towns and cities.

Only 17% of people living in Canadian rural areas are between the ages of 15 to 29, a proportion that is lower than the national average of 20%. Older Canadians experience more mobility challenges as their ability to drive decreases.

As intercity bus travel has steadily declined, small towns and rural places have become increasingly isolated from larger population centers. In its discussion paper, MTO correctly points out that large areas of Northern and Southwestern Ontario have recently “experienced limited or no bus service at all, leaving them isolated from important resources like hospitals and community services.” This is due to bus companies choosing profit over public service.

Unfortunately, in addressing this critical issue, MTO proposes to essentially deregulate the intercommunity bus industry. This approach was taken by the United States in 1982, and the results have been disastrous. Ontario should not make the same mistakes as America.

Fostering an Open, Innovative and Dynamic Market

More than a decade ago, citing dwindling ridership, Greyhound, the United States’ largest intercity bus provider, cut off service to nearly 300 small and midsize towns in the West and Midwest. The map of Greyhound’s service in the U.S here http://extranet.greyhound.com/Revsup/schedules/sa-50.pdf reveals a huge service donut hole between Minnesota and Montana. Residents of these areas who have no cars have major mobility issues.

Greyhound’s massive reduction of service was made possible by the deregulation of the U.S. intercity bus industry. The intercity bus industry in America was previously strictly regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which became the Surface Transportation Board in 1995. Bus operators were required to petition ICC for operating rights before beginning or terminating service on each interstate route. Regulators precisely defined each bus route, specifying exactly which highways could be used. They also dictated the size of the bus and the places where passengers could be picked up or discharged. Operators also had to get approval for all changes in rates.

Unintended Consequences

In 1982, Congress passed the Bus Regulatory Reform Act, which simplified regulatory standards and expedited procedures. As a result of this legislation, market entry conditions into the industry were eased significantly, and applications for authority to operate have rarely been challenged. Entry was liberalized to the point where any prospective carrier that was “fit, willing, and able” was granted authority. Minimum insurance coverage and knowledge of safety regulations are now basically the only requirements to prove a carrier’s fitness to operate. While the act was certainly successful in stimulating competition, it is doubtful that Congress intended market forces to result in reduced service to many pockets of the country.

Operators are now free to set their own rates, which have allowed customers to lock in jaw-dropping fares between certain cities. If you take your chance on a discount bus operator, there is a good chance that you will be putting your life in the hands of a severely fatigued driver who may not speak English or even understand road signs. You may also be riding in a bus that has been cited for numerous safety violations.

MTO’s proposal to provide “opportunities to enter the market more freely” bares a striking resemblance to the U.S. legislation. Ontario should not – pardon the pun – go down this road. In order to deal with the issue of reduced service to our rural communities, we need more – not less – regulation. The system the U.S. had prior to deregulation – requiring bus operators to petition the government before it made any changes in service – is a good starting point. In addition, placing strict rules on who can enter the intercity bus market is in the best interest of the riding public. MTO should develop and enforce criteria that prospective operators would have to meet in order to be granted authority to operate.

It is time to enact a set of reasonable rules to protect the public from the disastrous consequences of unconstrained competition in the intercity bus industry. MTO should establish standards for prospective entrants into the intercity bus market. These standards should include: • Demonstrating a need for additional service along the route or in the area and/or service type the applicant wishes to offer.

• A minimum of $25 million of insurance coverage for each incident.
• No prior record of regulatory or safety violations.
• An entry-level driver-training program and a program of regular refreshers on regulatory compliance and driving in inclement weather and hazardous conditions.
• Seat belt equipped buses.
• Accessible buses.
• Onboard communications equipped buses.
• Drive Cam or similarly equipped buses.
• Preventive maintenance program.
• Tire maintenance program.
• Network of emergency vendors.
• Collective bargaining agreement with employees or willingness to engage in collective bargaining over terms and conditions of employment with drivers and maintenance workers.
• Ability to ensure vehicle or driver replacement if needed anywhere within area of license to operate.
• Driver fatigue policy (capability of company to replace any driver who self-reports fatigue and a policy of not disciplining any driver who self-reports fatigue).

Safety

U.S. intercity bus deregulation has also resulted in reduced safety. The major issue is driver fatigue. Unfortunately, we have the same problem in Canada. British Columbia's transportation minister said a highway crash that injured dozens of tour bus passengers in August of 2014 was most likely caused by driver error. The bus flipped into a ditch on the Coquihalla Highway south of Merritt, ejecting multiple passengers and leaving all 56 people aboard with varying injuries. According to reports, driver fatigue potentially led to the crash. The previous year, British Columbia suspended operations at the Coquitlam Bus Company involved in a crash that killed nine people and injured 38 others in Oregon. The Ministry of Transportation initiated a safety audit after the crash, finding that the bus company was not meeting its administrative obligations regarding driver hours and pre-trip inspections. The bus smashed through a barrier on Interstate 84 and flipped end-over-end until it landed in a snowy embankment. Canadian regulations stipulate drivers cannot work more than 70 hours each week and must take eight hours off every 24 hours, but reports stated that the driver had been on the road 92 hours over the eight-day trip when he was involved in the crash.

When an intercity bus crashes, especially when no other vehicles are involved in the accident, there is a high likelihood that the driver of that bus fell asleep at the wheel. The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators reports that fatigue is the key factor in over 20% of vehicle collisions, resulting in over 300 deaths and 2,000 serious injuries every year. This makes fatigue the highest measurable cause of collisions, after driving drunk and driving aggressively. Fatigue is a huge issue in the intercity bus industry. Motor coach drivers are forced to work long hours with minimal compensation and very little time between shifts. As a result, a driver’s reaction time is seriously compromised and the opportunity for a fatal collision is increased exponentially. According to the Canadian Safety Council, “Driving while fatigued is comparable to drunk driving; only there is not the same social stigma attached.”

Current Rules: A Ticking Time Bomb

Intercity bus drivers in Canada are forced to work in fatigue-resulting situations on a daily basis. The current legislation allows operators to work a 16-hour day. If you start at eight o’clock in the morning you could finish at midnight and be back in the seat driving that same bus at eight o’clock the next morning with just eight hours of core rest. This cycle can be repeated for as long as 14 days before legislation forces the driver to take a day off.

A Bus is Not a Truck

While bus companies are indeed working within the legislative framework, common sense tells us that exhausted operators do not belong behind the wheel relying on a giant cup of coffee to stay awake so that they can safely transport their passengers.

MTO should coordinate with other provinces and the public transit industry to call on the Federal Ministry of Transportation to legislate safer rules to regulate the hours of service of motor coach drivers. The legislation has to be changed to separate the bus industry and the trucking industry. Currently, intercity buses are lumped in with trucks. The primary difference, of course, is that bus drivers have 56 pumping hearts behind them when they are driving. While truckers can pull off the road and rest when necessary, bus drivers – with schedules to keep – cannot.

The maximum day should be reduced to 14 hours from 16, and the maximum number of hours behind the wheel should be 10 rather than current 13, putting in place a mandated 10 hours core rest period for operators.

ATU SUPPORTS

• Limiting daily motor coach driving time to a 10 hour maximum; and
• Ensuring that no intercity bus driver is on duty for more than 14 hours per day; and • Guaranteeing 10 hours of rest between shifts; and
• Equipping all motor coach vehicles with electronic logging technology; and
• Creating a distinction between motor coach vehicles and trucks.

Expansion of “on-demand” services

MTO calls for opportunities for expansion of the sharing economy to fill service gaps such as the last mile connections to transit systems as well as more on-demand and smaller scale services. Once again, this is a short sighted proposal that will put the lives of passengers in danger. Companies such as Uber and Lyft have a strict policy to avoid all regulations that would enhance safety. ATU calls on MTO to put the brakes on this proposal in the best interest of the riding public.

While it is true that transit systems have begun to partner with so-called transportation network companies (TNCs) in seemingly well-intentioned efforts to address the “first mile, last mile” issue, the arrangements have had unintended consequences. Mandatory vehicle inspections and criminal background checks are not included in the TNCs’ business model. They have actually stated publicly that “drivers don't want to be bothered with going to a government office during regular work hours to obtain a license or permits, or to give fingerprints.”

Uber’s screening process is woefully insufficient by design. As a result, there have been horrific ridesharing incidents all across the country. Uber drivers have recently been accused of kidnapping, drug smuggling, rape, and other crimes. In San Francisco, an Uber driver ran over and killed a young girl. In Michigan, an Uber driver went on a killing spree while on duty.

This is a totally unregulated industry which is operating like it is the Wild West. There is no governing body establishing maintenance standards for vehicles. Rather than relying on Health Canada, would we rely on food manufacturers to police themselves? Should doctors be allowed to see patients without going to medical school as long as they are self-certified?

Why should bus riders be treated any different?

TNCs have simply walked away from cities and states that have had the “nerve” to enact simple ordinances that protect the well-being of the general public. We challenge MTO to do the same. Once we do, Uber will certainly leave town. What does that say about their commitment to public safety?

Moreover, although ride sharing is a relatively new phenomenon, some transit systems which started with the “first mile, last mile” approach have already publicly stated that TNCs are serving to reduce pressures to expand their bus network into more neighborhoods. Is that what we want here in Ontario? The growth of on demand service serves to undermine support for the funding and service improvements public transit unquestionably needs, creating mobility challenges for people who rely on the bus. It’s their only way to get around.

ATU members are transit professionals. We care deeply about the safety and well-being of our passengers, and we strongly urge MTO to rethink this idea. Let’s not put our customers at risk! In summary, MTO’s call to simply require all bus companies to continue to adhere to existing safety rules is insufficient, and some of its ideas are downright dangerous.

Paul Thorp
President
ATU Canada

[Original Comment ID: 194270]