Application Decision Application: 1210-08 Applicant: Trade Names: Address: Page 1 Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Pacific Coach/YVR Whistler SkyLynx 210 1150 Station Street, Vancouver BC V6A 4C7 Principals: CHEN, Chang V. CHEN, Frank CHOW, Harry SHIKAZE, Dennis YEH, Martin Special Authorization: Summary: The applicant has special authorization to operate passenger directed vehicles. This can be viewed in the PT Board Bulletin of July 9, 2008 at www.ptboard.bc.ca/ptb/bulletins.htm. Amendment of Licence (ICB) (Section 31 of the Passenger Transportation Act) Proposed amendment to terms and condition of inter-city bus route between Vancouver International Airport (YVR) and Whistler. Minimum service frequency for each route point in each direction is four times daily. Publication: The application was published in the PT Board Bulletin on December 24, 2008. Submissions: Insight Adventures Inc. dba Whistler Direct Shuttle (WDS) Board Considerations: Board Decisions: Background: Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation ( GCTC) The Board may approve an application forwarded to it by the Registrar of Passenger Transportation if the Board considers, as set out in section 28(1) of the Passenger Transportation Act, that: (a) there is a public need for the service the applicant proposed to provide under any special authorization. (b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide that service and is capable of providing that service, and (c) the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia. The amendment sought by the applicant is approved as set out in the decision. This is an application from Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. (PCL) to modify its Inter-City Bus route between the terminating points of Vancouver International Airport (YVR) and the Resort Municipality of Whistler. Application 1189-08 The authority to operate this route was originally provided to PCL in a decision on application 1189-08 UPN. The decision accepted PCL s claim that an urgent public
need (UPN) existed for the new route proposed by PCL. The decision was published December 3, 2008, in the Weekly Bulletin. The route requested by PCL in application 1189-08 had previously been operated by Perimeter Transportation Ltd. ( Perimeter ) which, in the Fall of 2008, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy. Through the UPN application process, which does not include publication of application or consideration of submissions, the Board approved the application that enabled PCL to fill a service gap on the YVR Whistler corridor. The Board approval included terms and conditions comparable to those that Perimeter had for its scheduled Whistler Express operation. The service is provided between the Vancouver International Airport (YVR) and Whistler with stopovers at Richmond and Vancouver hotels, plus limited service to Squamish. With respect to the terms and conditions that the Board had approved before receiving this application, there are three differences between the Perimeter licence and the PCL licence. These are: 1. The daily minimum route frequency was 5 trips in each direction, instead of 4 trip in each direction for Perimeter. 2. The PCL terms and conditions require that PCL maintain a contract with YVR in order to operate on this corridor. This requirement was not part of the Perimeter licence. 3. The PCL terms and conditions included a service exception that was not part of the Perimeter licence. The service exception enables PCL to cancel a trip if no reservations or pre-bookings are made by the time an advertised trip is scheduled to begin. Application 1210-08 Claim of Urgent Public Need In December of 2008, PCL submitted application 1210-08 and requested that the Board process it on the basis of Urgent Public Need. The Board, in its decision of December 23, 2008, stated that it was not satisfied that there was an urgent and public need for the service modifications that PCL was requesting. Thus, the application was published and submissions have been received and considered. Application 1210-08 Under its existing licence, PCL is authorized to serve hotels in the Vancouver hotel area and the Richmond hotel area. However, this service is available only as a stop over for people who travel by bus between YVR and Whistler. The applicant wants to be able to pick up passengers who start or end their trip in these hotel areas, whether or not the trip is a stop over between YVR and Whistler. The applicant based this application request on information brought to its attention by travel wholesalers, tour and travel agents that Perimeter picked up and dropped off passengers traveling from route points in the Vancouver and Richmond hotel areas to one of the points where trips could terminate. In a letter dated November 20, 2008, PCL states we have received numerous demands to provide the same service as a replacement to Perimeters. However, as mentioned earlier, the authority approved by the Board for Perimeter is essentially that which PCL now has, i.e. terminating points of Whistler or YVR with stopovers in downtown Vancouver or Richmond. In the Perimeter licence, the Board had not approved passenger originating points in Vancouver or Richmond. As Perimeter is no longer operating, Page 2 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
there is a lack of readily-available information for making a determination as to how, or under what authorizations, Perimeter was providing a pick up and drop off service at these locations. In support of application 1210-08, PCL provided letters from Intrawest Central Reservations, Brewster Vacations, Adventure World, Tourism Whistler, the 2010 Games Operations-Whistler and 4 hotels: the Pan Pacific, the Rosedale on Robson, the Marriott Pinnacle, and the Hyatt Regency. Following publication of application 1210-08, the Board received 1 submission from Insight Adventures Inc. dba Whistler Direct Service (WDS) and a late submission from Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation (GCTC). In its submission dated January 8, 2009, WDS argues that it has operated a daily, scheduled Inter-City Bus Service between the hotel districts of Vancouver and Whistler since November 2006. It submits that this is its only business and that it has developed an active marketing program to encourage hotels in each area to recommend its service and has achieved recognition as a regular, reliable and ontime service. WDS contends that with the completion of the Sea to Sky highway project, an increase in competition with passenger cars will result and the applicant s proposed service would reduce the volume of their business. Finally, it requests that the application be refused in its entirety as there is insufficient additional business over this route for another licensee and that approval would have a negative effect on its business. Submissions were due by January 8, 2009 and a late submission was received by GCTC on January 14, 2009. The panel determined that the GCTC submission contains information relevant to the Board s consideration of the application and would assist its decision-making process. The panel accepted this submission. PCL had an opportunity to respond to it. GCTC points out the differences in wording with respect to the original Perimeter licence, the terms and conditions approved by the Board with its decision on application 1189-08, and what has been applied for with application 1210-08. GCTC argues that a public need does not exist for a fourth open-door ICB operator (in addition to GCTC, WDS and Blue Cactus Productions Ltd.) on the Vancouver Whistler corridor, and that approving such an application to provide open-door service (absent the service limitation to hold a YVR contract and absent the requirement to operate when passengers do not pre-book) would reduce traffic and be unfair to other companies. PCL in a letter dated January 16, 2009 and responding to the submissions of WDS and GCTC makes the following key points as summarized: PCL s proposed service would only cater to the public left unserved when Perimeter ceased its operation on November 21, 2008 and, therefore, there would be no increases in the number of licensees servicing the route. PCL has had significant requests by tour operators and wholesalers to service their FIT ( Fully Independent or Individual Travel i.e. 1 traveler) who choose to stay in the Greater Vancouver area before or after proceeding to other destinations including Whistler as part of their journey. Their targeted passengers demand numerous scheduled departure and arrival times throughout the day which only a full schedule service provider Page 3 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
like PCL can offer with 12 departures each way (24/day) as compared to WDS departures of two (mini-coach) each way (4/day). Therefore, the WDS service is not convenient for PCL s distinctively different target market. GCTC provides a local commuter service with no hotel pick up or drop off services and is not suitable. The proposed PCL service offers greater options for passengers making the seamless transition from car to bus when visiting Whistler, greater convenience with hotel pick ups combined with numerous scheduled departures and arrival options, improved bus transportation awareness resulting in fewer cars and less accidents along the Sea to Sky Corridor, less greenhouse gas emissions and a scheduled bus service providing day trips between downtown Vancouver hotels and Whistler that will be a must during the 2010 Olympics, as there will be insufficient hotel rooms in Whistler. YVR Contract The published application includes a proposal to drop the requirement that makes the operation of PCL s YVR Whistler route contingent on the existence of a service contract with the Vancouver International Airport (YVR) Authority. Although the applicant signed the application that was published (without the contract service limitation), the application materials are ambiguous regarding the applicant s intent with respect to this service contract limitation. The application materials themselves do not include a proposal or justification for deleting the contract service limitation. It is Board policy to tie a particular service to the existence of a contract when the rationale for instituting the service is linked directly to the existence of a contract. Regardless of the applicant s intent respecting the service limitation, the applicant has not supplied a rationale or evidence that would support the elimination of this service limitation. The service limitation respecting the YVR contract remains in place. Reasons: I. Is there a public need for the service that the applicant proposes to provide under special authorization? Applicants wanting to extend existing services to a new area should provide to the Board evidence of unmet need in the area. The applicant is authorized to serve hotels in the Vancouver hotel area and the Richmond hotel area. However, this service is available only as a stop over for people who travel by bus between YVR and Whistler. The applicant wants to be able to pick up passengers who start or end their trip at the hotel, whether or not they travel from YVR to Whistler or vice versa. The applicant contends that, since the closure of Perimeter s Whistler Express operation, they have been asked by a variety of businesses to provide a door to door service that picks up passengers starting or ending their trip at Vancouver or Richmond hotels. The applicant states that Perimeter had been providing this service. The application includes a stated intent to pick up passengers originating from the Richmond and Vancouver hotel areas, as defined in the existing licence. The applicant seeks this added flexibility that does not exist within its existing licence, and it specifies that it would provide this service to 3 Richmond hotels, 13 Page 4 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Vancouver hotels, and possibly to the cruise ships. The application includes letters of support from four prominent hotels in Vancouver. These letters point out that neither GCTC nor Snowbus can fill the service vacuum left by Perimeter. (Snowbus, the tradename for Blue Cactus Productions Ltd, was not a submitter to this application, and does not provide hotel drop off or pick up services.) The letters indicate that GCTC does not provide the door-to-door services in Vancouver or Whistler and customers do not like the inconvenience of its pick up points and scheduling. They also observe that Snowbus markets to a youthful demographic and that their service is only available during the ski season (ie. late Nov to April). They suggest that the Whistler SkyLynx service by PCL provides the alternative to the gap left by Perimeter. PCL is proposing a year round pick up and drop off service that is convenient and reasonably priced. A letter dated December 12, 2008 from the Business Development Manager, Intrawest Central Reservations (ICR), argues the strong importance of both an airport and downtown hotel pick up for their customers who often look to book a one way transfer from downtown Vancouver to Whistler or reverse. A letter dated December 11, 2008 from the Product Manager, Brewster Vacations, highlights the need to encourage one way service from either downtown Vancouver Hotels or YVR to Whistler and/or reverse. They cite a need for a service that can encourage hotel stays in Vancouver as opposed to immediate transfers to Whistler. Both ICR and Brewster note that the transportation alternatives are often expensive, offer inflexible schedules and do not operate year round. Another letter dated December 9, 2008 from the Product Manager, Adventure World, a specialist travel wholesaler in Australia, stresses the need to have an alternate source in the absence of Perimeter of transporting their independent fare clients who travel on an unescorted basis to/from Downtown Vancouver and to/from Whistler. A letter dated February 2, 2009 from the Vice-President, Operations, Tourism Whistler, notes that both winter and summer based activities at Whistler contribute to the success of Vancouver tourism where travelers require frequent door to door service to the resort. Finally a letter dated February 9, 2009 from the Executive Director, 2010 Games Operations Whistler reports that with a combination of mountain roads and weather extremes, a frequent year round service is needed between downtown Vancouver hotels and Whistler. With respect to the previously-noted submission by WDS, the applicant specifically notes that the scheduled bus service of WDS, with 2 departures from Vancouver hotels to Whistler hotels in each direction, will not meet the demand of numerous scheduled departures in a manner that their service of 12 departures in each direction can. The Board, in reviewing the alternate ICB service providers for the Vancouver- Whistler corridor and schedules provided by the applicant finds that inconveniences and restrictions do exist with respect to scheduling, ease or flexibility of pick up and drop off at downtown hotels on a year round basis. The letters of support suggest that no operator is currently filling the service void left by Perimeter. Important and germane to this application is the kind of clientele seeking pick up or drop off hotel service. Competitors to PCL who provide service on Vancouver/Whistler such as GCTC and Snowbus do not provide hotel pick up or drop off service and the latter operates only on a seasonal basis. Page 5 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
WDS operates its service on a limited frequency basis respecting departures and arrivals and claim in their submission to be actively marketing Vancouver and Whistler hotels to use their service. Nothing was included to support this claim or its submission that there is insufficient additional business over this route for another licensee. The Board accords this little weight. The Board notes that this need has come to the applicant s attention, who is attempting to legally and responsibly establish the appropriate authority to fulfill a service need. The applicant has demonstrated need to the satisfaction of the Board for its proposed pick up and drop off service in the Vancouver hotel area. The Board, however, finds there is no support or need for the proposed service to City of Richmond hotels. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate there is a public need for the service. It has not demonstrated this need to the satisfaction of the Board. Not one letter from a City of Richmond hotel accompanied the application, and no other evidence was provided to support that a gap exists in Richmond service. The Board finds that the information submitted does not point to a need on this component of the application and the service proposed. II. Is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide that service and is the applicant capable of providing that service? The Board considers applicant fitness from two perspectives, or in two steps: (a) is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide the proposed service; and (b) is the applicant capable of providing that service? PCL has been in operation over a number of years and has an extensive background in the transportation industry. The services proposed would not impact in any significant fashion their overall operations. The Pro-Forma Income Statements for Years 1 to 5 for the proposed services offer sufficient justification for the application. The Board finds the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide the proposed service and is capable of providing the service. III. Would the application, if granted, promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia? The Board approaches the economic conditions issue from a broad perspective. The economic conditions of the transportation business in British Columbia are considered ahead of the economic and financial interests of an individual applicant or operator. The Board supports healthy competition within passenger transportation markets. As well, the Board discourages destructive forms of competition that could unduly harm existing service providers. Vancouver Hotel Areas The application by PCL is in direct response to the demand conveyed by numerous hotels, tour operators, a tourism organization and the Executive Director, 2010 Games Operations - Whistler. The applicant has demonstrated that current service levels are unsatisfactory as the needs and expectations of the marketplace are not being met by the existing ICB operators. As noted previously, WDS can pick up passengers traveling between the Vancouver hotel area and Whistler hotels; however, an unmet need exists that can be filled with a service that operates more frequently along this corridor. Giving added flexibility to PCL may reduce the potential for WDS to expand its Page 6 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
services; however, the claim by WDS that it plans to expand was made with few details and little substantiation. PCL has demonstrated that it is capable of serving this clientele in the near term. Further, added flexibility for PCL within the Vancouver hotel area would meet an unmet need, and should not impact the current business of WDS. The Vancouver service proposal should not have a significant impact on GCTC or Snowbus that serve other pick up points, different clientele, and in some cases, operate at different times. The YVR-Whistler corridor is a higher-traffic corridor in British Columbia, and it appears that the four existing ICB operators can continue to co-exist and serve their respective clientele, even with giving PCL the ability to provide service to some passengers who start or end their trip in the Vancouver hotel area. Need has not been demonstrated for the Richmond area hotels and this request is not approved. Subject to the service exception matter below, the Board finds that added flexibility for passengers to start or end their trip in Vancouver should have a negligible impact on the other ICB operators. Service Exception The Perimeter licence includes the following service exception: Service Exception The licence holder has the option of not providing a scheduled trip when conditions (i) and (ii) below are met and no passenger has pre-booked or reserved a trip by the time it is scheduled to begin: (i) pre-booking and reservation requirements are identified on all current, published schedules, and (ii) pre-bookings and reservations can made with the licence holder according t (sic) minimum route frequency requirements. This clause gives PCL the option of not operating when there are no bookings prior to a scheduled departure. It was previously approved by the Board in application 1189-08. Perimeter did not have a clause like this in its licence, and other ICB operators on this corridor do not have such a clause. The one exception is the seasonal route by Snowbus which serves only three route points: Burnaby, North Vancouver and Whistler. (Snowbus made no submission to any part of the application and there is no inference of negative consequences to that operation.) GCTC and WDS made submissions that raise concerns about the service expansion to a licensee that has operational flexibility that they do not have. The Board agrees that an unfairness exists in this case. The Board is subjecting PCL to the same scheduling discipline as the key competitors on the YVR Whistler corridor. In approving an expansion of service options for the Vancouver hotel area, the Board is establishing terms and conditions that no longer include the service exception. The Board finds the proposed year-round service would have a healthy impact in general and fulfill a need to a greater proportion than that which is currently available for the traveling public. The Board finds that the application, in the manner it is being approved, will promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation industry in British Columbia. Page 7 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Specific Outcomes (Route 3 only): Activation: Special Authorization: Terms & Conditions: Service: Schedule: Abbreviation: Express Authorization: Time Limited Service: Route 2 Approved: Service expansion for the Vancouver hotel area Not Approved: Service expansion for the Richmond hotel area Deletion of the contract service limitation Board-Directed: Deletion of the service exception A Passenger Transportation Licence must be issued by the Registrar of Passenger Transportation under section 29 or renewed under section 34 of the Passenger Transportation Act before the special authorization approved in this decision may be exercised. Inter-City Bus (ICB) Transportation of passengers must be provided to and from each route point on a scheduled basis according to the minimum frequency that is set for the authorized route. The licence holder must publish, in a manner accessible to the general public, a schedule for each route with the time and location of each stop, and must carry in each vehicle a copy of the schedule that the vehicle is following. The following abbreviation is used to describe terms and conditions of this special authorization. alt alternate route point that is not located directly enroute between other route points authorized by the Board; service may be provided to one or more alternate route points at the option and frequency of the licence holder on the condition that all minimum route frequencies approved or set by the Board are maintained. Transportation of standees is authorized only when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The licence holder has current and proper insurance coverage for the transportation of standees, 2. Passengers are not permitted to stand for a period that is longer than 30 minutes or for a distance that exceeds 30 road kilometres, and 3. Freight and passenger baggage is not carried in the passenger compartment when standees are being transported. Service on Route 2 must commence no later than 7 business days following the date of the decision on application 1189-08 and service must not be provided after March 31, 2009. Page 8 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Route Number: 1 of 3 (via Tsawwassen/Swartz Bay ferry) Terminating Point 1: City of Vancouver Terminating Point 2: City of Victoria Authorized Route: Route Points Minimum Frequency City of Vancouver Service connects with each ferry crossing 1 Footnotes: City of Richmond 2 Vancouver International Airport City of Richmond 2 alt 7 stops daily in each direction Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal Service connects with each ferry crossing 1 Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal Service connects with each ferry crossing 1 Town of Sidney 3 alt 3 City of Vancouver Service connects with each ferry crossing 1 1 The requirement that service connects with each ferry crossing refers to each ferry that is operated according to a current, published schedule between the Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay ferry terminals under a Coastal Ferry Services Contract. This minimum route frequency does not extend to ferries added by the ferry operator with less than 72 hours public notice. The terms Coastal Ferry Services Contract and ferry operator are defined in the Coastal Ferries Act. 2 The Vancouver International Airport is excluded from the City of Richmond for the purposes of this special authorization. 3 The alt authorization for the Town of Sidney is for Victoria bound trips only. alt Limited Pick Up & Drop Off: Route Number: 2 of 3 Terminating Point 1: Terminating Point 2: Victoria Bound Trips: From the City of Vancouver through until the Vancouver International Airport, passengers may be picked up only. After departing from the Vancouver International Airport, passengers may be picked up or dropped off. Vancouver Bound Trips: From the City of Victoria through until any point reached before arriving at the Vancouver International Airport, passengers may be picked up or dropped off. From the Vancouver International Airport through until the City of Vancouver, passengers may be dropped off only. Pick up and Drop off in Richmond 2 : Despite the limitations set out above, passengers may be picked up and dropped off in either direction within the City of Richmond 2. City of Nanaimo Vancouver International Airport (YVR) Authorized Route: Route Points Weekly Minimum (each direction) City of Nanaimo 2 Duke Point Ferry Terminal 2 Page 9 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Limited Pick Up & Drop Off: Route Number: Terminating Point 1: Terminating Point 2: Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal 2 City of Richmond 2 Vancouver International Airport (YVR) 2 YVR Bound Trips: From the City of Nanaimo to the Duke Point Ferry Terminal, passengers may only be picked up. From the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal to YVR, passengers may be picked up or dropped off. Nanaimo Bound Trips: From YVR to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, passengers may only be picked up. From the Duke Point Ferry Terminal to Nanaimo, passengers may be picked up or dropped off. Pick Up and Drop Off on the Ferry: Despite the limitations set out above, passengers may be picked up and dropped off during the ferry crossing in either direction between the Duke Point and Tsawwassen ferry terminals. 3 of 3 (YVR to Resort Municipality of Whistler) Vancouver International Airport (YVR) Resort Municipality of Whistler Authorized Route: Route Points Daily Minimum (each direction) Vancouver International Airport 4 City of Richmond Hotel Area* 4 City of Vancouver Hotel Area** 4 District of Squamish 4 Resort Municipality of Whistler 4 Service Limitation: Route Point Boundaries: Limited Pick Up & Drop Off: Service on this route may only be provided if there is a current written contract between Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. and the Vancouver International Airport Authority. * City of Richmond Hotel Area is bounded on the north by the North Arm of the Fraser River, on the south by Granville Avenue, on the East by No. 5 Road, and on the west by Gilbert Road. ** City of Vancouver Hotel Area is bounded on the north by the Burrard Inlet, on the south by Thirteenth Avenue, on the East by Main Street, and on the west by English Bay (for points on the north shore side of False Creek) and Arbutus Street (for points on the south shore side of False Creek). Passenger pick up and drop off is limited to route points on the authorized route. Service may only be provided to passengers who have purchased from Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. or an agent of Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. a one-way or return trip ticket for the following trips: YVR to Whistler or vice versa YVR to Squamish or vice versa Vancouver Hotel Area to or from either YVR or Whistler Route Points Subject to the Stopover Service in the Richmond Hotel Area provision below, passengers may be picked up or dropped off only at scheduled locations situated at or within one of the route Page 10 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
points on the authorized route. Stopover Service in the Richmond Hotel Area Service to points in the City of Richmond Hotel Area may only be provided as a stopover service to passengers on trips starting at YVR and ending in Whistler, or vice versa. Passengers with stopover privileges may be dropped off in the Richmond Hotel Area and later picked up to continue their trip through to their destination (i.e. either YVR or Whistler). Engaged Carrier Authorization: The holder of this licence may operate as an inter-city bus when engaged by another licensed operator in the following limited circumstances: 1. The other licensed operator must have a special authorization to operate an inter-city bus under a licence issued pursuant to the Passenger Transportation Act (British Columbia) or the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (Canada) or be licensed to operate a scheduled bus under a licence issued pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act (British Columbia) or the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (Canada), 2. The holder of this licence must have signed written authorization from the other licensed operator specifying the terms by which the licence holder is engaged including the time period for which the written authorization is valid, 3. The holder of this licence must operate its vehicles in accordance with all the applicable terms and conditions of the other licensed operator s licence, and 4. The holder of this licence must carry in its vehicles a copy of the written authorization referred to in paragraph 2 and a copy of the terms and conditions of the other licensed operator s licence when operating under this engaged carrier authorization. Board Panel Chair: William Bell Determination Date: March 6, 2009 Page 11 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board