Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[steveintoronto]

My point exactly. I know what the document says, and I know it was linked on your post. However you chose to only actually quote para 41, giving the perception that the city had been found to be in the wrong when in fact the CTA had ruled that the City had not discontinued the line.

Are you blind?

Just in case you don't know how the forum software works, try clicking on the "click to expand" link. I purposely pasted it in without quoting it in my last post just for the hard of seeing. Edit to Add: And since it seems some *DON'T* access links, as I claimed...
(And I won't quote this in the software brackets as some apparently can't work the controls)

[...]
Issue 2: If the City acquired a railway line for continued operation, has the City discontinued operating the railway line?
[25] Having determined that the City acquired an operating railway line, the Agency must consider whether the City has complied with the discontinuance process requirements set out in Division V of the CTA.

Discontinuance
[26] The Agency is considering this complaint pursuant to Division V of the CTA. The Agency’s jurisdiction pursuant to Division V of the CTA is to determine whether the railway company has:

1. prepared and kept up to date a plan indicating its intentions for each of its railway lines; and,
2. complied with the steps described in Division V prior to discontinuing operations.

[27] Within Division V of the CTA, section 141 sets out the railway company’s requirements to maintain a plan that indicates its intentions for each of its railway lines. Section 142 states that a railway company must comply with the steps described in Division V before discontinuing operating a railway line, and that a railway company cannot take steps to discontinue operating a railway line before it has been indicated in its plan.

[28] Section 143 of the CTA states that the railway company must advertise the availability of the railway line for continued operation and its intention to discontinue operation if the line is not sold, leased or transferred. Section 144 of the CTA sets out that the railway company shall disclose the process it intends to use for receiving and evaluating offers and shall negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, on application by a party, the Agency may determine the net salvage value of the railway line. If it is the opinion that the railway company has removed any of the infrastructure associated with the line to reduce traffic on the line, the Agency may deduct from the net salvage value the amount that the Agency determines is the cost of replacing the removed infrastructure.

[29] Section 144.1 of the CTA sets out that if a railway line is sold, leased or transferred under subsection 143(1) and an agreement is in force between the railway company and a public passenger service provider in respect of the operation of service on the railway line, the rights and obligations under the agreement are transferred. Section 145 of the CTA states that the railway company shall offer to transfer all of its interest in the railway line to the governments and urban transit authorities for no more than the net salvage value.

[30] Section 146 of the CTA states that if a railway company has complied with sections 143 to 145, but an agreement for the sale, lease or transfer of the railway line is not entered into, the railway company may discontinue operating the line on providing notice to the Agency. After providing notice to the Agency, the railway company has no obligations under the CTA in respect of the operation of the railway line.

[31] The Agency finds that the City, since it took ownership of the railway line, has not discontinued operations.

[32] Section 141 of the CTA states that a railway company shall prepare and keep up to date a plan indicating for each of its railway lines whether it intends to continue to operate the line or whether, within the next three years, it intends to take steps to discontinue operating the line. The Agency finds that the railway line must be included in the railway company’s plan as either:

1. a railway line that it intends to continue to operate, or
2. a railway line that it intends to discontinue in the next three years.

[33] The City, being a federally-regulated railway company as set out in its current Certificate of Fitness, is within the jurisdiction of the CTA. The Bridge, being a railway line owned by a federally-regulated railway company, falls under the jurisdiction of the CTA.

[34] The City has not reflected the railway line on its plan. The Agency, pursuant to section 141 of the CTA, therefore finds that the railway line should be included in the City’s plan.

[35] MOOSE claims that because the City did not repair the railway line, it has fallen into a state of disrepair. MOOSE therefore maintains that the railway line has been discontinued without the City having gone through the discontinuance process.

[36] The discontinuance provisions of the CTA require a railway company to express in its plan, for each of its railway lines, whether it intends to either continue or discontinue operations. A railway company may discontinue operations of a railway line but it can only do so by first following the discontinuance process described in sections 141 to 146.5 of the CTA. The railway company cannot initiate steps to discontinue before the company’s intention to discontinue operations has been indicated in its plan for at least 12 months.

[37] If the City intends to discontinue operations, it must comply with the discontinuance process requirements, as set out in subsection 146(1) of the CTA. Until the railway line is discontinued, the City has obligations under the CTA in respect of the operation of the railway line.

[38] Further, if the City indicates on its plan its intention to continue operations of the railway line, the City continues to have obligations under the CTA in respect of the operation of the railway line. Where service is, in fact, provided to a shipper located on a railway line as a result of a business decision or as ordered by the Agency, the railway company may be required to take steps to ensure that the railway line complies with the applicable safety requirements.

[39] However, in the Agency’s opinion, the discontinuance provisions do not provide the Agency with the authority to oversee a railway company’s maintenance and safety practices to ascertain whether, with respect to a specific railway line, a de facto discontinuance has occurred. The Agency has neither the jurisdiction nor the expertise to determine whether a railway line complies with the requirements of the Railway Safety Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.).

[40] MOOSE claims that by representing to convert the railway line to a roadway, the railway line has been discontinued without the City having gone through the discontinuance process. However, what triggers the discontinuance process of the CTA is what is indicated by the railway company in its three-year plan in respect of the railway line. As set out in subsection 141(1) of the CTA, the City shall prepare and keep up to date a plan indicating for each of its railway lines whether it intends to continue to operate the line or whether, within the next three years, it intends to take steps to discontinue operating the line.

CONCLUSION
[41] In light of these findings, the Agency orders the City to comply with section 141 of the CTA within 90 days from the date of this Decision.

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

See that [41] in front of the CONCLUSION paragraph? Why do you think it might be referenced as such? Perhaps so that persons can follow annotated documents?

But alas....

 

[Allandale25]

Are you blind?

Just in case you don't know how the forum software works, try clicking on the "click to expand" link.

Was that snarky tone really necessary? How does that keep the discussion civil? Sometimes people accidentally miss things with no malice.

I did earlier today in the discussion when I got September 2016 and 2017 mixed up for a reference I provided. It happens. Relax.

 

[kEiThZ]

Was that snarky tone really necessary?

It's habitual with him. In nearly a decade, that I've been on this board, he's the only person I've ever blocked. And I have had lots of testy discussions. It's just beyond him to be civil. He can't accept that he might be wrong. And he seems to have delusions of grandeur about his access to information and knowledge. We're all supposed to believe that a retired sound engineer from Guelph has the inside track on billions in government infrastructure spending.

Unfortunately, the mods don't want to actually discipline him. So....

Block him. It's the only way he'll ever learn. You can temporarily view whenever you want to see if he's actually contributed something worthwhile.

 

[steveintoronto]

Was that snarky tone really necessary? How does that keep the discussion civil? Sometimes people accidentally miss things with no malice.

I did earlier today in the discussion when I got September 2016 and 2017 mixed up for a reference I provided. It happens. Relax.

Perhaps you missed this?

My point exactly. I know what the document says, and I know it was linked on your post. However you chose to only actually quote para 41, giving the perception that the city had been found to be in the wrong when in fact the CTA had ruled that the City had not discontinued the line.

When people's mistakes have been pointed out repeatedly, and linked, and quoted, patience has its limits.

Whether you and others 'like' MOOSE' plan or not is your business, but when you chronically make false claims, it becomes the business of keeping the record accurate.

The fact is that The City of Ottawa has been found at fault on the issue of non-compliance a number of times. Oddly some think that changing the channel to blaming MOOSE validates the City's actions. It doesn't, and it looks like they're going to be found non-compliant yet again, and it just might go to court this time, we'll see.

when in fact the CTA had ruled that the City had not discontinued the line.

Is completely germane to the second issue. It's all detailed in the link I've now provided a number of times. It's precisely because that *are* still claiming continued operation that they must comply with the conditions mandated by that decision.

If you and others can't understand the basis of the decision, then that doesn't excuse your accusing others of the failing.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's habitual with him. In nearly a decade on this board, he's the only person I've ever blocked.

Ah yes, the "aeronautical engineer". I've only been on this board for a year and half.

It's to the left of the posting window:
"Mar 14, 2016"

 

[Allandale25]

Whether you and others 'like' MOOSE' plan or not is your business, but when you chronically make false claims, it becomes the business of keeping the record accurate.

If I've ever made a factual mistake I've owned up to it and apologized, as I did today for instance. What false claim have I made that you're specifically referring to?

I'm just calling for more civility and your snarky comment doesn't help. I'll continue to call it out when I see it.

The fact is that The City of Ottawa has been found at fault on the issue of non-compliance a number of times. Oddly some think that changing the channel to blaming MOOSE validates the City's actions. It doesn't, and it looks like they're going to be found non-compliant yet again, and it just might go to court this time, we'll see.

Exactly, we'll see. Some of us here think the City has a good position as illustrated by their June 2017 letter and others think the CTA will rule in favour of Moose. Time will tell.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm just calling for more civility and your snarky comment doesn't help. I'll continue to call it out when I see it.

If I've ever made a factual mistake I've owned up to it and apologized, as I did today for instance.

Well I haven't had an apology from either you or Charles. A reminder: [41] It was clearly referenced.

 

[Allandale25]

Well I haven't had an apology from either you or Charles. A reminder: [41] It was clearly referenced.

I need to apologize for what? I'm not clear.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ah yes, the "aeronautical engineer". I've only been on this board for a year and half.

It's to the left of the posting window:
"Mar 14, 2016"

It's a wonder you qualified for your profession. It's a good thing "sound engineer" is not a profession with licensing standards. I'd question any wiring done by someone who can't read a basic sentence and infer facts. I was clearly referencing my time on the board. But I am guessing you didn't look to the left of my posting window.

 

[kEiThZ]

Exactly, we'll see. Some of us here think the City has a good position as illustrated by their June 2017 letter and others think the CTA will rule in favour of Moose. Time will tell.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. My money is on the city. For the simple fact that precedent set by reading in Moose's favour would have such adverse effects all over the country. Here's the thing, if the CTA buys Moose's argument, there will be chaos across the country as community groups use that legislation to start attacking transit proposals everywhere.

Also, ordering compliance can mean many different things. Most notably important is the timeframe in which the CTA might order compliance. If the CTA gives the City several years to figure it all out, Moose will have won a rather pyrrhic victory.

I am going to laugh if the City just goes ahead with the discontinuance process just to avoid legal costs and back and forth with Moose. They can sever the line and leave it there till such a time as they have a deal with Gatineau.

 

[Charles]

Nor do I see the requirement to apologize. I stand by my comment that by choosing to make the editorial comment that you did, you changed people's perception, specifically my perception. The article stood factually by itself and didn't require the editorial addition.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

[41] In light of these findings, the Agency orders the City to comply with section 141 of the CTA within 90 days from the date of this Decision. https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

... and then the City failed to comply with that order within the 90 days. See paragraphs 2 and following in...
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...2012_Prince_of_Wales_Bridge_25oct2012dPDF.pdf

Then they compounded the problem again and again in diverse ways, so that finally they received the "show cause" order from the enforcement section of the regulator.

I'd like to ask @Allandale25, @Charles, @kEiThZ and @steveintoronto to set aside their irritation with some discussion comment style and tone.

And I would like to ask if @Charles, @Allandale25 or @kEiThZ might offer their ideas about why they think the Agency and the City are on conflicting paths about Decision-210-R-2012, and also why Rail Safety Directorate of Transport Canada and the City are on conflicting paths about safety on the PoWB. (Related to this matter generally, I'll pick up a comment from @kEiThZ separately.)

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

 

[steveintoronto]

They can sever the line and leave it there till such a time as they have a deal with Gatineau.

You might think so, the Law clearly states otherwise.

you changed people's perception, specifically my perception.

If quoting decisions is editorializing, then encyclopedias are purely opinions. But I digress.

Btw there Keithz. That block broken?

 

[steveintoronto]

Then they compounded the problem again and again in diverse ways, so that finally they received the "show cause" order from the enforcement section of the regulator.

This is an interesting point, as I was Googling on what enforcement power CTA has. They have some, but it is limited....at least with parties that are not subject to their direct jurisdiction. The Agency clearly makes a point that OC Transpo *is* under their operating and regulatory jurisdiction, so it might increase their ability to affect compliance. I see only fines within the Agency's competence. I believe the various Acts prescribe the court to which remediative action must be taken. How the 'game' has gone on for this long is a curious point. CTA's site is rife with rulings on really mundane day-to-day issues of buses such as announced stops or not....

The sooner this has a day in court, perhaps the better. And the sooner that Transport Canada (Transport Ministry?) gets involved in prosecuting a case...then perhaps the 'regulated' will become more compliant. Since the CTA's website is "moving" right now, it's not easy to find the legal course of events to allow that.

Edit to Add:

[...] The court ruled Thursday that it would look at an earlier Federal Court of Appeal ruling involving Gabor Lukacs and a complaint he had originally filed to the Canadian Transportation Agency in 2014.
[...]
In its earlier decision, the federal appeal court unanimously agreed that the fact that someone may not be directly affected by a practice should not prevent them from filing a complaint.

“There is no sound reason to limit standing . . . to those with a direct, personal interest in the matter.”

While the decision addressed a particular case, Lukacs said it could open the door to more people being able to file complaints with the agency — a quasi-judicial tribunal mandated to provide consumer protection for air passengers and ensure accessible transportation. [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...r-airlines-treatment-of-obese-passengers.html

Background to the above:

[...]
The appeal court ordered the Canadian Transportation Agency to take another look at a passenger rights advocate’s complaint over Delta Air Lines’ policy of bumping obese travellers or making them buy two seats.

The agency had dismissed Gabor Lukacs’ complaint because it found he didn’t have standing since he was not obese and wasn’t directly affected by the practice.

“I’m very pleased with this decision,” Lukacs said Thursday before heading into a classroom at Dalhousie University, where he teaches mathematics.

“It recognizes the basic moral principle that you are allowed to stand up for the rights of others. It is a simple question of solidarity.”

In its 16-page decision Wednesday, the federal appeal court unanimously agreed that the agency erred in law. The three-member panel found that the fact that someone may not be directly affected by a practice should not prevent them from filing a complaint.

“If the objective is to ensure that air carriers provide their services free from unreasonable or unduly discriminatory practices, one should not have to wait until having been subjected to such practices before being allowed to file a complaint,” the panel wrote.

“There is no sound reason to limit standing ... to those with a direct, personal interest in the matter.”
[...]
Lukacs said that while the decision deals with one particular issue, it could open the door to more people being able to file complaints with the agency, a quasi-judicial tribunal mandated to provide consumer protection for air passengers and ensure accessible transportation.

“From now on the Canadian Transportation Agency cannot toss out a complaint on the grounds of standing,” said Lukacs, who was awarded $750 to be paid by the agency. “It will have to look at whether the complaint has some merit.”[...]

https://www.thestar.com/business/20...of-obese-people-in-passenger-rights-case.html
Very interesting...I'll find that decision and quote any relevant findings. I'm reminded of the OMB, also topical at this time and *ostensibly* about to be reformed.

I'm still boggled as to how OC Transpo has been able to elude remediative action for some five years on this situation.

 

[Charles]

... and then the City failed to comply with that order within the 90 days. See paragraphs 2 and following in...
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...2012_Prince_of_Wales_Bridge_25oct2012dPDF.pdf

You'll have to excuse my lack of comprehension here, but I don't see anything in para 2 that states that the City failed to comply. All it states is that the CTA did not respond to your queries for a period of 3 weeks at which point they indicated that the City was in compliance. The document referred to is an undated document other than it is the 2012-2015 plan. Specifically:

On 3 October, 2012 the Agency sent an email to Moose Inc. to state: "A copy of the most recent Three-Year Plan for the City of Ottawa is available on OC Transpo's Website (http://www.octranspo1.com/images/files/routes/o_train/3_year_rail_plan.pdf). Agency staff has reviewed the City's Three-Year Plan and has determined that it is in compliance with the Agency's order under Decision No. 210-R-2012."