[ad_1]
SBB wants the legality of the granting of new long-distance traffic permits to be clarified by a court. Regardless of how the court assesses the fact that two lines have been allocated to the BLS: For a fundamental change in the system, preliminary work should be initiated soon.
SBB They performed Monday what they already announced in May: They filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court against the decision of the Federal Office of Transport (OFT) to award two new unsubsidized long distance lines to the BLS. For the first time in almost twenty years, the Confederation wants to allow another company to participate in this cake, which is attractive because it is the only passenger transport area by rail in which yields can be achieved.
Exclusive Law of the Confederation
The SBB does not file public correspondence on what it is challenging. Press releases on the subject, however, it may be concluded that their desire for legal clarification is aimed at the concrete approach of the OFT. The basis of its decision is the Passenger Transportation Act, which grants the Federation the "exclusive right" to "carry passengers on regular and commercial journeys unless this right is restricted by others. international decrees or treaties ".
offers the federal authorities a carte blanche for the allocation of transport orders with all rights and obligations. SBB describes the action of the OFT according to this requirement of arbitrariness. As a result, the Federal Administrative Court will have to clarify this assessment. The Federal Railways interpret the attribution of two lines to the BLS as a "system change", which requires a political decision and full clarifications on its advantages and disadvantages.
The fact is that the OFT has its legal scope in these matters in recent months operated twice – on the one hand in this case, on the other hand with the concession of the first bus lines long distance in Switzerland. But the fact is that the BLS before the turn of the millennium, while the SBB was not a public limited company but a federal administration, had already operated two long distance transport lines, those of the Lötschberg and those of Lötschberg. Interlaken.
The end of this regime sealed a gentleman's agreement between the then leaders of CFF and BLS, Benedikt Weibel and Mathias Tromp. They agreed that SBB should operate express trains on the Lötschberg in the future and the BLS in return all normal gauge lines from S-Basel Bern. The impetus for the discussions on the division of labor between the largest and the second largest Swiss railway was given by the new entrepreneurial and therefore commercial orientation of the two companies
Procedure instead of "act of mercy "
The BLS in long distance traffic were on the one hand a monopolistic behavior of CFF, ranging from their reputation in terms of free Internet access in the trains to their unilateral reductions on the costs associated to the mountain road of Gotthard Erstfeld-Biasca. On the other hand, the entrepreneurial ambitions of the BLS (and initially the SOB, which now plays the role of SBB sub-framework of Gothenburg for a more user-friendly solution with north-facing trains) called for participation in the the only lucrative part of passenger rail transport
. No matter what the judges in St. Gallen are: The course of the concession has clearly shown that the current framework for a fundamental change in the system, from one to two to some extent in the eyes of the operational railways, is inadequate. This is not only because, despite the still cooperative and non-competitive framework, railways and bureaucrats now consider themselves rivals rather than hand-in-hand actors. But also because a serious assignment of transport subnets to another company like the SBB requires a multi-year lead.
If another company is seriously exploiting long-distance rail transport in Switzerland, it needs a conceptual idea The federal government as licensor on how this juxtaposition should be conceived. In addition, instead of the "Gnadenakt" of today, a structured procedure is necessary, which presupposes a decision of political principle
Thus, regardless of the verdict of the coming years, it will be necessary to specify whether the Long-distance rail transport in Switzerland for quality reasons and the cost-effectiveness of the next concession in ten years requires a change of system. The verdict of the court will only provide information if the shooting was right in front of the CFF arc, which the BAV fired with the award of two less financially attractive lines to the BLS
Incidentally: there At twenty years a similar approach, the Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (VBZ) to more cost-effective. He bid on regional bus lines, which were previously operated by these lines, and then added other operators.
Source link
