Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Getting to Pearson
#61
(04-22-2017, 11:01 AM)Markster Wrote: I suspect that Greyhound has seen the Airporter pull out of offering scheduled service, and so has decided to move in and lay claim to the route in advance of making an application.  At the hearing, the airporter may object that they hold the license, but Greyhound will point out that they're not using it, and Greyhound is already offering a replacement service.

Except the Airporter is still offering scheduled service!
Reply
#62
(04-22-2017, 01:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(04-22-2017, 11:01 AM)Markster Wrote: I don't see anything inherently wrong with regulation preventing over-competition on routes.  If too many operators try to run a route, you can end up with the split business meaning that neither is able to operate at a profit.

Well, yes, but ... with the current licensing it seems that the desired level of competition on any given route is a monopoly.

If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.
Reply
#63
I think there is a case to be made that a properly managed regulatory framework can help improve an immature transportation network (intercity buses definitely falling in this category). The problem is that the province hasn't used its regulatory powers to protect service on the more marginal routes, so the regulatory system is effectively just a tool to protect incumbent carriers, which is the worst of both worlds.
Reply
#64
TriTAG has updated their post: "Greyhound has reached out to let us know that they do, through a subsidiary, have a license to operate this service. We will share more information soon."

Sounds like this whole provincial setup is rather byzantine.
Reply
#65
(04-22-2017, 02:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(04-22-2017, 01:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Well, yes, but ... with the current licensing it seems that the desired level of competition on any given route is a monopoly.

If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.

I don't see the need to prevent a new operator from scheduling their departure 30 seconds earlier.  I think that is more of an issue left to the station to settle.  Airlines schedules are essentially regulated by licensing the available slots and not by when a competitive airline's flight is scheduled.  If there is capacity, let the carrier (bus or plane) set their own schedule.   Regulations should relate to safety and consumer benefit and not competitive issues.  Helping carrier A vs carrier B should not be goal of regulation - focus on benefits to consumers.
Reply
#66
A more detailed TriTAG update: http://www.tritag.ca/blog/2017/04/24/upd...t-service/
Reply
#67
(7 hours ago)NotStan Wrote:
(04-22-2017, 02:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.

The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.

I don't see the need to prevent a new operator from scheduling their departure 30 seconds earlier.  I think that is more of an issue left to the station to settle.  Airlines schedules are essentially regulated by licensing the available slots and not by when a competitive airline's flight is scheduled.  If there is capacity, let the carrier (bus or plane) set their own schedule.   Regulations should relate to safety and consumer benefit and not competitive issues.  Helping carrier A vs carrier B should not be goal of regulation - focus on benefits to consumers.

Here’s the problem: new operator departs 30s before existing operator, takes most business. Old operator moves departures 1 minute earlier, takes back business. Repeat. Result: chaos. To be fair, since we’re talking about scheduled intercity service, this might not be as big a problem — if people buy their ticket ahead of time, they won’t even notice schedule games like this. But imagine local cash fare services, like what is now provided by public transit services. Riders will just get on the first bus to arrive.

So in at least some transportation markets, some sort of regulation in the public interest is required. The self-interest of the business owners will not give a good outcome. I’m not sure exactly what sort of regulation is right but the above sort of consideration is the sort of thing that needs to be taken into account.

Interesting point about the station, though. The buses need to pick up somewhere; what is the best way to do that? Auction off departure slots? Lease bays? Something else? I wonder if it could work to do all the regulation at the stations or stops, operating on the idea that a vehicle driving down a road is just traffic and isn’t the legitimate target of licensing by time/route/destination.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: belmont, 1 Guest(s)