‘Illegal carpooling’ could be opportunity
CBC brings alarming news this week of a “growing problem” on the highways of Central Canada. It is the scourge of “illegal carpooling.”
“Kijiji, Craigslist and other such sites are filled with requests from drivers seeking passengers to share the cost of one-off trips, such as chipping in for gas, a practice that’s completely above board,” the public broadcaster reports. There are also perfectly legal driver-passenger matchmaking services like Amigo Express, based in Montreal, that verify drivers’ licences and enforce some quality control.
“But there are also posts offering multiple trips a day in stateof- the- art vans equipped with the internet and other amenities,” CBC warns, “and that sort of unlicensed carpooling is prohibited in both Ontario and Quebec.”
State- of- the- art vans, you say? ( The article features a photo of a spiffy Mercedes Sprinter.) The internet, and other amenities? Cheaper than the Greyhound or Via? I imagine some readers are struggling to see a problem here beyond the fact that it’s illegal.
To comply with the Ontario Public Vehicles Act, carpooling can’t involve vehicles with more than 10 seats. Beyond that, the differences between illegal and legal carpooling are purely designed to protect larger commercial operations. Drivers must have been planning to make the trip anyway; carrying passengers must be “incidental to the purpose of the … trip.” And they can’t make a profit, only recoup expenses.
Neither, you will notice, has any bearing on passenger safety. Sedan or van, the driver is either competent or he isn’t. Sedan or van, the vehicle is either safe or it’s not.
Amigo Express seems to have a bait- and- switch problem: CBC interviewed a woman who booked a seat in a car from Ottawa to Toronto, then turned up to find one of the aforementioned vans. Presumably they can just cancel the offending account.
When it comes to public policy, though, the only real issue seems to be insurance. When uninsured or improperly insured drivers get into accidents, the cost is borne by the entire population. That’s not fair. But Ontario, Quebec and other jurisdictions dealt recently with precisely this issue. To bring Uber, Lyft and other “ride- sharing” services under the regulatory umbrella, they just needed to make a new class of auto insurance. Particularly since enforcement seems to be non- existent — not to mention impractical and pointless — it seems eminently logical to take the same approach with longer-distance “carpooling.”
The potential benefits go well beyond offering a new, cheaper option on high- volume routes like Ottawa to Toronto. In terms of routes, frequency and affordability, intercity public transportation in this country has been on a downward spiral for decades — to say nothing of service to smaller towns and villages.
The most recent hammer blow was Greyhound’s decision last year to pull out of Western Canada entirely — which is to say everything west of Sudbury, Ont. It produced the usual howls of outrage and many dire warnings of stranded seniors, students and others who don’t drive.
Instead it has turned into something of a good- news story. Government- funded operators in British Columbia and Ontario expanded services to fill some of the gaps. But mostly it has been private local carriers stepping up. Kasper Transportation gets you to Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. Thompson Bus and Mahihkan Bus Lines picked up every route within Manitoba that Greyhound axed last year.
Regina- based Rider Express adopted Greyhound’s Saskatoon-to-edmonton run. It will also get you from Calgary to Kamloops and Vancouver, via Banff and Lake
Louise. A former Greyhound Vancouver- to- Calgary route winding along Highway 3 in southern B.C. is now served ( albeit only once a week) by Mountain Mike’s Bus Service. Mountain Mike’s bus runs on vegetable oil.
These companies aren’t interested in getting you from Toronto to Vancouver, but then very few people wanted to take the bus from Toronto to Vancouver. For short and medium- distance trips, these companies are far more nimble and far more understanding of their markets’ needs, and they operate different sized buses according to demand. If governments feel the need to subsidize service, those companies are far more deserving of taxpayer support.
Mountain Mike’s route is one on which Greyhound enjoyed a thoroughly undeserved monopoly. The idea was supposed to be that its profitable interurban routes would subsidize the money-losing smaller- town runs — but Ontario in particular let it keep the profitable routes even as it slashed the unprofitable ones. (Alberta, on the other hand, has been a bubbling cauldron of intercity bus competition forever. Between Calgary, Edmonton and Fort Mcmurray you have your choice of three carriers, including the premium Red Arrow.)
Greyhound has few fans. What few routes it still maintains to smaller towns and cities, it does so seven times a week at most. Its monopoly on those routes could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen, and evidence from Western Canada suggests there’s every reason to hope service wouldn’t just be replaced, but significantly improved and diversified.
Logically, at least in some communities, what’s now called “illegal carpooling” could be part of the solution. Legalization wouldn’t just ensure some basic safety and insurance standards, but make it far easier to connect drivers and passengers. All governments need to do is let it happen.