News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 376     0 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

@Allandale25,

The Agency's decision ( https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017 ) dismisses the request to reverse the discontinuance order due to insufficient information. Look at each of the points in their "Analysis and Determinations" section. Basically, they told us exactly what information they're going to require before such an unusual step as a review, rescission or variance of the 1966, 1984 and 1985 Orders. It should be no surprise that, yes of course, we're doing the required additional homework and will next go back to the Agency with all those elements addressed.

What we're delighted with in the decision is that they acknowledged as valid the key historical finding that we unearthed and tabled: "On July 2, 1986, CP signed a letter of agreement (agreement) with the City of Hull (now the City of Gatineau), the Municipal Corporation of the Township of Hull, West Part (now the Municipality of Chelsea) and the Municipality of La Pêche (which now includes the village of Wakefield)."

Property investors along the line to La Pêche understand that re-building the railway is feasible.
http://ottawaconstructionnews.com/f...orrisons-quarry-between-la-peche-and-chelsea/

FWIW, everyone also thought Moose "lost" the 2012 decision relating to the Prince of Wales Bridge. And yet the Agency's current enforcement action against the City of Ottawa is based on it.

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
 
Joseph Potvin said:
@Allandale25,

The Agency's decision ( https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017 ) dismisses the request to reverse the discontinuance order due to insufficient information. Look at each of the points in their "Analysis and Determinations" section. Basically, they told us exactly what information they're going to require before such an unusual step as a review, rescission or variance of the 1966, 1984 and 1985 Orders. It should be no surprise that, yes of course, we're doing the required additional homework and will next go back to the Agency with all those elements addressed.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's look at each of the "Analysis and Determinations" points:
  • So you're going to provide more "new" facts that will convince the CTA to do a review, in reference to "[17]....however, the Agency finds that MOOSE has not established that these new facts warrant a review, rescission or variance of the 1966, 1984 and 1985 Orders."

  • A rail line between Hull and Wakefield that had a tourist train and no transcontinental or regular local freight service for its entire length (correct me if I'm wrong) was an integral part of CP's "railway network" simply because it connected to CP's tracks to the south. How is this any different to when the CTA let BCRY abandon the Barrie to Collingwood portion of the BCRY or the rumours Huron Central Railway wants to abandon the Sault Sainte Marie to Sudbury line? Both lines connected to the bigger CP/CN network. For this time, the CTA wrote "[18] MOOSE did not provide any evidence to support this claim other than citing the GO Decision.

  • Per [19], it seems like a pretty cut and dry issue. CP abandoned the line and offered to donate some crews for the tourist train but didn't provide next to any freight service for customers. Sounds pretty abandoned to me. I don't see much difference between the York Durham Heritage Railway having qualified engineers and running a tourist train and what happened here. Why does it matter who provided the crews? That argument seems like you're grasping. Not sure what new info can be provided.

  • Per [20], what CP "orders" were impacted by CP letting a tourist train to run on a dead ended rail line? Can you elaborate on what the CTA means by "orders"?

  • Per [21], you're going to do "additional homework" to find "orders" (freight movement orders?) on land titles, transfer or survey records? What would these types of records show that the CTA wouldn't already be aware of?

  • [22] appears to be irrelevant at this point.
When do you think you'll refile? If the CTA rules against you again per the above, will you remove this portion from your network?

What we're delighted with in the decision is that they acknowledged as valid the key historical finding that we unearthed and tabled: "On July 2, 1986, CP signed a letter of agreement (agreement) with the City of Hull (now the City of Gatineau), the Municipal Corporation of the Township of Hull, West Part (now the Municipality of Chelsea) and the Municipality of La Pêche (which now includes the village of Wakefield)."
Click to expand...

An agreement was signed. There was bad weather. The municipalities decided they didn't have the money to repair the tracks. The agreement was between CP and the municipalities. Have any of the municipalities or CP amended the agreement to now include MOOSE? It's a nice historical fact but I fail to see how it helps you.

FWIW, everyone also thought Moose "lost" the 2012 decision relating to the Prince of Wales Bridge. And yet the Agency's current enforcement action against the City of Ottawa is based on it.
Click to expand...

The CTA sent a letter to the City of Ottawa. This summer the City of Ottawa responded. No news since then, right? The CTA hasn't released a decision saying they reject Ottawa's answers and have now ruled Ottawa was wrong and MOOSE gets to use the bridge?
 
Last edited:
@Allandale25,

Gotta wait.

In the meantime, you might try your hand at explaining on this list your ideas about how dismantling the railway through Chelsea, and dismantling the approach track to the Prince of Wales Bridge are forward-thinking actions inspired by Section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act. Or instead do you agree with MOOSE in principle that the dismantling of these tracks in the midst of a private sector effort to develop a whole-region railway runs counter to the public interest, and counter to Parliament's intent as expressed in the National Transportation Policy?

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Otta
 
Joseph Potvin said:
@Allandale25,

Gotta wait.

In the meantime, you might try your hand at explaining on this list your ideas about how dismantling the railway through Chelsea, and dismantling the approach track to the Prince of Wales Bridge are forward-thinking actions inspired by Section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act. Or instead do you agree with MOOSE in principle that the dismantling of these tracks in the midst of a private sector effort to develop a whole-region railway runs counter to the public interest, and counter to Parliament's intent as expressed in the National Transportation Policy?
Click to expand...

I prefer to wait for the independent assessment by the CTA on the approach track issue as it relates to any existing Act. If you feel like another body is better to make that decision, who would it be? Since this is a private-sector proposal and you don't need government funding, I assume that you don't need and aren't asking for any special intervention or action by any elected MP or cabinet. Or, if you lose at the CTA are you going to ask cabinet to overrule them and agree with you that what you want is in keeping with the Act and the Policy?

What's the best link to review the current "National Transportation Policy"? As for the use of the line south of the approach tracks, last time I checked the City's project had the necessary funding and approvals and continues to move along.

Side note: are you planning on using heavy-rail like the GO train you showed in the cross section of the bridge and could it run on the same tracks as the existing 0-train rolling stock?

As for Chelsea, I prefer to wait to see if any further material is ever brought from you to the CTA and then their response.
 
Last edited:
I love waiting....for MOOSE. The longer MOOSE has to wait, the further along everybody else gets on Stage 2 and MOOSE becoming more unfeasible and irrelevant by the day. I can't wait for this horrible anti-urban, anti-ratepayer proposal to suffer a well-deserved fate.
 
Joseph Potvin said:
In the meantime, you might try your hand at explaining on this list your ideas about how dismantling the railway through Chelsea, and dismantling the approach track to the Prince of Wales Bridge are forward-thinking actions inspired by Section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act. Or instead do you agree with MOOSE in principle that the dismantling of these tracks in the midst of a private sector effort to develop a whole-region railway runs counter to the public interest, and counter to Parliament's intent as expressed in the National Transportation Policy?
Click to expand...

I think the key component that Joseph and MOOSE seem to be missing in the National Transportation Policy is the "viable and effective" portion (5.a). A rail network that has an insufficient population base to create ridership, has insufficient track capacity to run the proposed trains on, and which expects to draw about $200M in operating costs annually through 'voluntary' payments from the property value base is simply not a viable option.

Regarding the Chelsea line. CP decided decades ago that the line was not viable. The municipality of Chelsea has also determined that it is not viable. So, I am one of those who believes that dismantling portions of tracks which have no viable use either now or in the foreseeable future is certainly an option and does not run counter to the public interest.
 
Last edited:
You mean to say the Chinese aren't interest in raining down hundreds of millions on a shoddy scheme with a high regulatory burden and poor business case? Shocker.
 
Charles said:
I am one of those who believes that dismantling portions of tracks which have no viable use either now or in the foreseeable future is certainly an option and does not run counter to the public interest.
Click to expand...

@Charles, You're making that statement in relation to dismantling the approach track to the Prince of Wales Bridge, the sole railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the National Capital Region?

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
 
Joseph Potvin said:
@Charles, You're making that statement in relation to dismantling the approach track to the Prince of Wales Bridge, the sole railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the National Capital Region?
Click to expand...

Joseph, No. If you read the statement you'll see that I'm referring to the line in the Municipality of Chelsea. I'm quite comfortable with the decision to remove the rails there and convert it to a trail.

It's also a generic statement meaning that each situation needs to be looked at in its own rights and decisions made based on the current situation and the potential future uses.
 
Charles said:
Joseph, No. If you read the statement you'll see that I'm referring to the line in the Municipality of Chelsea. I'm quite comfortable with the decision to remove the rails there and convert it to a trail. It's also a generic statement meaning that each situation needs to be looked at in its own rights and decisions made based on the current situation and the potential future uses.
Click to expand...

@Charles,

Thanks for your reply. Can you now please explain in what way you think the public interest at the NCR-level is served by a Rails-TO-Trails decision by the Municipality of Chelsea, which forecloses a Rails-WITH-Trails approach? We all agree that a trail of some sort is desirable. However you and the Municipal government evidently hold the view that in the foreseeable future there's no scenario in which it would make sense to run a train to La Pêche. You evidently hold that view that removal of such an option will protect the public from a harm. Is that correct?

Also, are you declining to explain how the public interest is served by removal and obstruction of the direct approach track to the PoWB, compared with a slightly different design at Bayview that would have had the O-Train stay on the original track?

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
 
Last edited:
Joseph Potvin said:
@Charles,

Also, are you declining to explain how the public interest is served by removal and obstruction of the direct approach track to the PoWB, compared with a slightly different design at Bayview that would have had the O-Train stay on the original track?
Click to expand...

Which part of the approach track does the municipality of Chelsea's decision impact? Do you have a map that highlights the specific section you are concerned about including the approach to the bridge? Hasn't the City of Hull protected the stretch of the approach track from their municipality to the Bridge? I note that the Mayor of Hull supports an LRT connect between his City and Ottawa. I assume you don't support what the Mayor of Hull wants because he seems to favour a publicly owned LRT instead of a privately (IE you, via Moose) owned and operated heavy rail option? When was the last time you met with the Mayor of Hull about the approach track through his City?

Even if your concern is only about what's happening in Chelsea, I assume that because the Moose team wasn't able to get a slate of its candidates to win the local election, you are hoping the CTA or NCR will overturn the local municipality's decision?
 
Joseph Potvin said:
@Charles,

Thanks for your reply. Can you now please explain in what way you think the public interest at the NCR-level is served by a Rails-TO-Trails decision by the Municipality of Chelsea, which forecloses a Rails-WITH-Trails approach? We all agree that a trail of some sort is desirable. However you and the Municipal government evidently hold the view that in the foreseeable future there's no scenario in which it would make sense to run a train to La Pêche. You evidently hold that view that removal of such an option will protect the public from a harm. Is that correct?

Also, are you declining to explain how the public interest is served by removal and obstruction of the direct approach track to the PoWB, compared with a slightly different design at Bayview that would have had the O-Train stay on the original track?
Click to expand...

It's not my place to have to explain to you whether decisions are made in the public interest or not. I give my opinion as an individual, a citizen and taxpayer.

Regarding Chelsea. The Municipality has done its due diligence in my opinion and has made the decision that the corridor has no viable future as a rail corridor. Rather than waste limited taxpayer money on the maintenance of infrastructure that has no potential use they have made the decision to convert that corridor to a trail. I see no issues in that decision and would support them in that.

The City of Ottawa's Certificate of Fitness identifies the operation of the Trillium Line for the purposes of light rail. The designers and architects have chosen to realign the track and build the station at Bayview to best accommodate the Trillium line and integrate it with the Confederation Line. I am comfortable with the decisions that have been made and support the representatives of the City in that decision.
 
@Joseph Potvin,

I'm curious. What is your position about the City of Ottawa's long term vision to electrify the Trillium Line. This is necessary in order to expand further South past Bowesville post Phase 2 LRT and into one of the most rapidly growing neighbourhoods of Ottawa. In my opinion this falls well within the City's mandate to operate the line for the purposes of Light Rail, however it would preclude the operation of double decker diesel trains on the line.
 
Allandale25 said:
I note that the Mayor of Hull supports an LRT connect between his City and Ottawa. I assume you don't support what the Mayor of Hull wants because he seems to favour a publicly owned LRT instead of a privately (IE you, via Moose) owned and operated heavy rail option? When was the last time you met with the Mayor of Hull about the approach track through his City?
Click to expand...

We met with the Mayor of Gatineau a year ago. He's been consistent for years that he wants Gatineau to be more connected to the region. The method is optional.

Allandale25 said:
Even if your concern is only about what's happening in Chelsea, I assume that because the Moose team wasn't able to get a slate of its candidates to win the local election, you are hoping the CTA or NCR will overturn the local municipality's decision?
Click to expand...

I didn't know Moose had a slate of candidates! All we hope is that we live in a rules-based democratic system.

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
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top