Getting to Pearson

[panamaniac]

If the article is accurate, I'm surprised Airways Transit has not made a complaint.

[tomh009]

Just like rail safety, while it may seem fine to take photos from a railway, it is against the explicit letter of the law.

So which legislation is it breaking?

[Canard]

I am so confused. Why can a bus not go to the airport?

[ijmorlan]

I am so confused.  Why can a bus not go to the airport?

A bus can’t go anywhere without a license, and the process for getting a license is involved. It’s not like getting a driving license, where you just have to follow a simple process and as long as you follow the process you are entitled to the license. In particular, you have to show that there is a need for the service, and convince a board of this, with the existing operators on the proposed route allowed to try to show the opposite.

To be clear, I think there is a difference between scheduled service which is what we are talking about, and charter services. On the other hand, I have a vague recollection of the University of Waterloo Federation of Students having trouble with Greyhound or somebody complaining about their chartered bus services between campus and places like Ottawa. Of course those services effectively operate like scheduled services.

This is very different from most businesses. For example, to open a restaurant, I would have to follow a bunch of zoning and health regulations, and get various licenses, but if I follow the rules I’m pretty much entitled to the licenses and to operate the restaurant. I don’t have to convince some “restaurant stability board” that there is a need for mexican-mongolian fusion or whatever I want to serve.

To be fair, transportation does require some regulation. In particular, there are fundamental issues around practices such as jitneying and various games that competitors can play with schedules. I’m not sure exactly what the right regulation is, but I’m quite certain that requiring would-be competitors to prove a “need” for their service is inappropriate, just as it would be in the restaurant or wrapping paper businesses.

[KevinL]

I am so confused.  Why can a bus not go to the airport?

As the TriTAG piece says, different operators are given exclusive access to different routes. Only Greyhound can run from Kitchener to downtown Toronto, only Coach Canada from Cambridge to Hamilton. The Kitchener to Pearson route appears to fall under this heading (as Airways Transit would seem to have exclusivity), and at any rate the agreement for Greyhound forbids them operating to Pearson in any event. Why Greyhound thinks they can now do it, and why we haven't heard AT cry foul, remains unanswered.

[plam]

Well, here's another twist.

IS GREYHOUND PULLING AN UBER?

Greyhound recently launched scheduled service between Waterloo Region and the Toronto Pearson airport, to much fanfare. To many, this is an obvious and useful connection. It is also, as best as I can tell, illegal under Ontario’s Public Vehicles Act.

From TriTAG.

(edit: there are clauses that prohibit from Kitchener to Pearson, as well as Waterloo to Pearson, but they're different clauses.)

[Canard]

I appreciate the explanations, but... why? Why is this regulated?

Why can't I just start a company tomorrow called "Mallard Bussways" and have an hourly route to and from Perason?

I guess what I'm getting at is what harm is this doing to anyone that there should be a law expressly prohibiting it? Who is being harmed, and how?

[KevinL]

The original intent of the law was that operators would get exclusive access to certain routes (which were profitable) on the promise they would run other routes (not as profitable), and the two aspects would balance out. Over time, though, operators have found excuses to gradually drop the unprofitable routes anyway and the province has allowed it, so the whole idea of the law is getting murky, that's true.

Nonetheless, *it is the law*, and until the province reworks it or replaces it, what Greyhound is doing here is not in line with that and could well be subject to action by the province or their competitors.

[MacBerry]

I am so confused.  Why can a bus not go to the airport?

A bus can’t go anywhere without a license, and the process for getting a license is involved. It’s not like getting a driving license, where you just have to follow a simple process and as long as you follow the process you are entitled to the license. In particular, you have to show that there is a need for the service, and convince a board of this, with the existing operators on the proposed route allowed to try to show the opposite.

To be clear, I think there is a difference between scheduled service which is what we are talking about, and charter services. On the other hand, I have a vague recollection of the University of Waterloo Federation of Students having trouble with Greyhound or somebody complaining about their chartered bus services between campus and places like Ottawa. Of course those services effectively operate like scheduled services.

This is very different from most businesses. For example, to open a restaurant, I would have to follow a bunch of zoning and health regulations, and get various licenses, but if I follow the rules I’m pretty much entitled to the licenses and to operate the restaurant. I don’t have to convince some “restaurant stability board” that there is a need for mexican-mongolian fusion or whatever I want to serve.

To be fair, transportation does require some regulation. In particular, there are fundamental issues around practices such as jitneying and various games that competitors can play with schedules. I’m not sure exactly what the right regulation is, but I’m quite certain that requiring would-be competitors to prove a “need” for their service is inappropriate, just as it would be in the restaurant or wrapping paper businesses.

Greyhound is a licenced inter-provincial carrier and regulated by Transport Canada. Once carriers start crossing provincial boundaries there are federal Tariff regulations that come into effect. Totally different rules and yes they run scheduled services which are dealt with by Ottawa and they would need to get Transport Canada approval. The "Tariff" for inter-provincial carriers is quite involved and lengthy but would allow them to run a service described here, connecting with federally regulated air transportation operations.

[ijmorlan]

I appreciate the explanations, but... why?  Why is this regulated?

Why can't I just start a company tomorrow called "Mallard Bussways" and have an hourly route to and from Perason?

I guess what I'm getting at is what harm is this doing to anyone that there should be a law expressly prohibiting it?  Who is being harmed, and how?

Incumbent operators.

Next, let’s talk about agricultural supply management, taxi cab license quotas, the strategic maple syrup reserve, and zoning bylaws which specifically mention “picture framing” businesses as distinct from many other category of storefront businesses. Not to mention the insanity of selling electricity below cost, then running ad campaigns to convince people to use less power.

The fundamental problem, in my view, is that too many people see a problem and assume that it must be solved by government. My preference would be for government to provide a relatively small number of services to the benefit of the public that, if provided by private operators, would tend to be run more to the benefit of the operators. In addition, there should be regulation to ensure fair markets (not necessarily free markets in every case).

Unfortunately, I don’t trust the conservative end of the political spectrum, which tends to be the one to promote deregulation. I expect them to remove the regulations that promote public safety, and leave in place the many regulations that are simply pointless or just protect existing businesses from competition.

[tomh009]

The original intent of the law was that operators would get exclusive access to certain routes (which were profitable) on the promise they would run other routes (not as profitable), and the two aspects would balance out. Over time, though, operators have found excuses to gradually drop the unprofitable routes anyway and the province has allowed it, so the whole idea of the law is getting murky, that's true.

This is crazy level of regulation in today's world.

If there are some unprofitable rural routes that need to be maintained, provide a subsidy for those routes and let other routes be competed on freely.

[KevinL]

The original intent of the law was that operators would get exclusive access to certain routes (which were profitable) on the promise they would run other routes (not as profitable), and the two aspects would balance out. Over time, though, operators have found excuses to gradually drop the unprofitable routes anyway and the province has allowed it, so the whole idea of the law is getting murky, that's true.

This is crazy level of regulation in today's world.

If there are some unprofitable rural routes that need to be maintained, provide a subsidy for those routes and let other routes be competed on freely.

"Today's world" is right. This is a very old law that just never got updated (yet).

[Markster]

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.

The real problem I see here is that the regulations as currently designed are all about rent seeking. It seems that once you own a route, you own it, forever. There is no mechanism for a bad player to have their license revoked for a route, so long as defend it, and (I assume) occasionally run a bus.

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.

[KevinL]

The real problem I see here is that the regulations as currently designed are all about rent seeking. It seems that once you own a route, you own it, forever. There is no mechanism for a bad player to have their license revoked for a route, so long as defend it, and (I assume) occasionally run a bus.  

Perhaps a system where routes are only provided on a contract basis, and if an operator's service is not satisfactory at the end of the term they are not offered renewal. This might push operators like Greyhound to offer a ticketing system that's actually modern, provide schedules usable by mapping apps, etc.

Greyhound's parent company operates trains in this fashion in Europe, so should be able to adapt...

[tomh009]

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.