I agree.^ Interesting. Wouldn't the easiest and fastest thing to do by the CTA would just to be to dismiss their prior order?
The GIC Order regarding the Bayview station issue (Determination No. R-2018-23 of February 16, 2018) only rescinded that particular order, and that is what Joseph Potvin is trying to take advantage of in his newest submission by referring to the POW issue and Determination. Regardless, the GIC Order (2019-0295) is fairly straightforward. It states that "the Act does not impose on railway companies an obligation to maintain a railway line in an operational or near operational state in a context where there is no demand for service. The CTA may simply use that as their reference wherein clarification on the Act has been established and go ahead and rescind this other Determination as well.
I don't see any need for the City to even discontinue the line over the POW Bridge. The Explanatory Notes to the GIC Order indicates that "there is no service obligation for passenger movements under the Act", and that "a railway company could fulfill its level of service obligations through various means, such as refurbishing the railway line, using a competing railway, trucking the goods, or shipping the goods through a marine carrier."
In fact, there is risk (albeit very minor) in that by going through a discontinuance process the City would end up being obliged to sell the bridge, whereas they have indicated that they wish to keep it and make use of it in another fashion.
Who knows, they may not even have to tear up the existing rails to convert this to bicycle/pedestrian use. Perhaps a nice boardwalk could even be installed right over top of the rails.