Urban Sky
Senior Member
An open access regime would not require government to nationalize the infrastructure (even though it is exactly what was done with roads), even if the "it would be unconstitutional !!1!" assertions are set aside (after all, until 1994 some people were convinced that the cessation of Vancouver Island passenger service was unconstitutional).
It would merely be a change in how a public utility was regulated, obliging railway companies to fairly allocate paths their infrastructure by cooperation with a rail regulatory agency in exchange for access charges, and to separately account their infrastructure expenses from their railway operation expenses so that the charges passed on to open access operators were fair. We have seen Bell and Rogers obliged (yes, with bad grace, footdragging and arguable undermining) to accommodate new entrants into telecoms into their infrastructure. I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament. The question for this thread of course would be to what extent this leaves VIA in a better position compared to their existing agreements with CN and CP - which are not public documents, I believe.
It's not beyond the power of Parliament. Doing so at little to no cost, however, probably is. Our courts aren't in the habit of allowing governments to seize assets at will without substantial justification and substantial compensation. Our government knows this. The freight companies know this. VIA knows this. They've moved on to an idea that they think works. And yet here we are discussing this fantasy every 3 months, even though we all know it's not going to happen.
Given that certain commenters in the VIA Rail thread (myself included) grow increasingly frustrated that the discussions are flooded with arguments which challenge the entire structure which defines this nation's transportation systems, I would like to create a new thread where these big questions can be discussed, while allowing the discussions which remain in the VIA Rail thread to stay within the framework which has emerged from transport policy decisions made since the first settlers established their companies and institutions and which narrow the scope of what measures are considered politically feasible in a way which is unique to this country.Maybe those of you who have a fetish for freight rail nationalization should start another thread, so we can save this thread for actually discussing ideas and topics that involve VIA right now.
In the following, I will try to provide an (explicitly non-exhaustive) list of questions which directly concern transportation policy rather than the respective threads about VIA Rail, GO Transit or Ontario Northland:
- Passenger rail policy
- VIA Rail
- Mandate
- Intercity services
- Should daily-or-better service be expanded beyond this Nation's most populated corridors?
- Should the Corridor operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
- Transcontinental services
- Should new routes be added to its transcontinental network or existing routes expanded to daily service?
- Should the transcontinental operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
- Remote services
- Should new routes be added to its remote network or existing routes expanded to daily service?
- Should the remote operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
- Intercity services
- Legislation
- Should VIA Rail (or parts of it) be privatized or abolished?
- Should there be a VIA Rail Act?
- Should VIA Rail enjoy statutory (and enforceable) rights towards its host railroads?
- Should private operators have the right to operate as "open access" operators in direct competition with VIA Rail?
- Mandate
- Non-VIA intercity rail
- Commuter rail
- Non-VIA tourist rail
- VIA Rail
- Freight rail policy
- Vertical separation
- Should the freight railroads be restructured into rail operating companies (ROCs) and rail infrastructure companies (RICs), which operate independently from each other?
- Nationalization
- Should the networks and/or the operations of freight railroads be nationalized?
- Should stations (or any other passenger facilities) owned by freight railroads be nationalized?
- Regulation
- Should freight railroads be compelled into granting passenger operations operational priority?
- Should freight railroads be compelled into sharing corridors, thus freeing up rail corridors for passenger operations?
- Should freight railroads be compelled into ensuring that all trains fit into all sidings?
- Vertical separation
- Aviation policy
- Taxation
- Should airlines be taxed in a way that internalizes the external costs of flying?
- Regulation
- Should airlines be banned from competing with passenger trains?
- Should airlines be compelled into replacing short-haul flights through code-share agreements with passenger train companies?
- Taxation
- Road policy
- Taxation
- Should driving be taxed in a way that internalizes the external costs of driving?
- Regulation
- Should coach (i.e. intercity bus) companies be banned from competing with passenger trains?
- Legislation
- Should a national coach operator (or regulator) be created to establish a comprehensive national bus network?
- Taxation
Admittedly, above list is rather centered around passenger rail (and especially VIA Rail), but I've deliberately chosen a broad thread title to acknowledge that this is not a second VIA Rail thread and that there is much more overlap of these discussions with similar discussions in non-rail threads than with issues pertinent to the VIA Rail thread (where almost all of the questions I just listed are currently discussed).
Anyways, if you like the idea of this thread, I would like to encourage you to use it and the more distinctively different the discussions here and in the VIA Rail thread become, the more this new thread fulfills its purpose...
Thank you for your interest in this new thread and let the discussion begin!
Last edited: