Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[Allandale25]

Digging on some details, came across this:

http://www.ottawalife.com/article/canadas-earliest-and-most-recent-railway-scandals

Helpful article Steve. What I can't figure out is why this particular station and its location came as a surprise to those supporting Moose's plan or even the CTA. Wouldn't the track plans have been available for years given construction is happening and the LRT will open in 2018? Why are people just noticing now that the station would be physically on the former north-south track right-of-way?

From the article: "The placement can’t be accidental.When pressed by the Canadian Transportation Agency, Ottawa quietly admitted in an email to the federal regulator in February 2017, that “the main station building . . . will obstruct the Ottawa River Line.”"

Also, what would the scope and how big would this "bypass" track be at Bayview? " And it kindly offers, on behalf of a later city council a decade-and-a-half from now, that it will need to spend tens of millions of dollars to somehow build a bypass track." I'm not an expert but it looks like there's a lot of space at Bayview to work with.

 

[steveintoronto]

What I can't figure out is why this particular station and its location came as a surprise to those supporting Moose's plan or even the CTA.

Wouldn't the track plans have been available for years given construction is happening and the LRT will open in 2018?

In digging, I came across a fair number of articles, all quite revealing, but unfortunately didn't bookmark them. One of them was from a CTA ruling over a year ago, closer to two IIRC, (edit: On further recollection, it may have been four. It's in the CTA data-bank, in which I couldn't find the latest decision) warning the City to comply with regs. This didn't just come out of the blue. In fact, again, IIRC, Ottawa Council *discussed it* especially one councillor who made an issue of it, and they went ahead and did it anyway. I'll try and find that article(s) and quote exactly. Potvin and Moose deserve no less.

Also, what would the scope and how big would this "bypass" track be at Bayview?

That figure I have trouble with too, but *apparently* the present building would have to be relocated. I tried to assess the situation with Google, and the glitch appears to be the alignment under Albert St. The odd thing about that is the claim by the City itself that (gist) "It still wants to reconnect the track when it eventually uses the PoW Bridge to reach Gatineau" (with who, btw, they have a signed intention of doing).

There are some excellent articles on it, but some pull their punches, the one I linked above didn't, and in a way, I'm posting some views that Potvin must censor himself from doing.

Whether I agree with Potvin or not is immaterial (and mostly I do), he's done a lot of excellent legal research and won't want to trip up now on making a point that wouldn't stand in a legal dispute.

Your sixth sense is ringing like mine, and allow me to state it: "WTF were they (Ottawa Council) thinking?"

Allandale:

My Googling Zen is low right now, and can't remember the search parameters I used at the CTA to find what I did prior, but suffice to say CTA *at the very least* had warned the City of Ottawa that they were in 'non-compliance' with their Transport Act responsibilities.

Here's the gist:

City Chased By mOOse

Jon Willing - October 7th, 2011
The organization Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises Inc., or mOOSe, as it’s calling itself, is going after City Hall for allegedly letting the Prince of Wales Bridge to fall into disrepair. The bridge connects Ottawa and Gatineau over the Ottawa River, just north of Bayview station. The city bought the bridge in anticipation of using it one day for rail, but it’s not used today.

Now, mOOse is telling the Canada Transportation Agency the city must fix the bridge and that could cost up to $40 million.

This organization wants to start a regional rail system and it has been to City Hall a couple times to make presentations, but I’m not really sure how seriously council is taking it. The whole situation reminds me a bit of the Lansdowne Park Conservancy trying to get the attention of City Hall.

Anyway, you can read the memo from city solicitor Rick O’Connor below.

Sent on behalf of M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor
De la part de M. Rick O’Connor, Greffier et Chef du contentieux

Mayor and Members of Council,

I am writing to apprise you of a recent complaint filed by Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais Systems and Enterprises Inc. (MOOSE) with the Canada Transportation Agency (CTA), alleging a violation of the Canada Transport Act. The complaint alleges that the City, by allowing the Prince of Wales Bridge to fall into a state of disrepair, has effectively discontinued the use of the railway line running across the bridge without having first complied with the process outlined in the Canada Transport Act. According to the complaint, MOOSE is “a federally incorporated for-profit company that serves as a key member of a planned commercial consortium seeking to bring about and operate cost-effective, timely, comfortable and ecologically sound public transportation services throughout Canada’s National Capital Region.” Though MOOSE had written to the CTA earlier this summer, the CTA contacted the City in respect of the complaint on October 4th, 2011.

In terms of the remedy requested, MOOSE has asked the CTA to order the City to “restore the Prince of Wales Bridge to a state required for conventional passenger rail service in accordance with present-day railway standards by not later than September 1, 2012”. According to the complaint, the anticipated cost of this work “could vary between $20M and $40M”.

This estimate is consistent with information provided to Council on June 18th, 2009 in a memo issued by Infrastructure Services (copy attached). The memo also noted that to be able to prepare a more precise Class A estimate of the restoration costs, “a detailed inspection of the structure and rail infrastructure would be required to define the needs,” and indicated that “this work would take approximately eight (8) months to complete at an approximate cost of $1.5M.”

Pursuant to the CTA’s rules, the City has 30 days in which to file its response and staff are in the process of compiling the information necessary to do so. According to today’s correspondence, the CTA strives to deal with cases within 120 days, though the complexity of this matter may require an extension of that timeline.

I will provide a further update as this application proceeds before the CTA.

M. Rick O’Connor, CMO

http://blogs.canoe.com/cityhall/transit/city-chased-by-moose/

 

[steveintoronto]

THE BEACHBURG SUB

Thursday, June 8, 2017
The Prince of Wales Bridge: Oh, no, not again

Just when you thought it was safe to put this piece of Ottawa's rail past and future on the back burner, the Prince of Wales Bridge has once again made headlines. The bridge, which has not seen action in many years, has long been neglected by its current owner, the City of Ottawa. After years of rejecting calls to preserve the bridge for use as an interprovincial light rail link, the city has finally come around to the idea of using the bridge for commuter trains in the future. So, all is well right? Well, not so, apparently.

As many locals know, the Prince of Wales Bridge was once a key piece of the Canadian Pacific Railway's rail network in Ottawa. It once played a key role in connecting the CP Ellwood, Prescott, Lachute and Maniwaki Subdivisions in the National Capital Region. In the final days of the Canadian Pacific's presence in the region in the late 1990s, the bridge was lightly used although it did connect CP to its last remaining customers on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. After CP left Ottawa, the bridge was purchased by the city as part of the deal it struck to buy the Ellwood Subdivision, which is now the O-Train Trillium Line.



In recent months, the city has been busy putting the final touches on the O-Train Confederation Line. The new electrified light rail line crosses over the old Ellwood Subdivision. The contractor building the line is in the midst of constructing the new Bayview O-Train station, which will allow commuters to transfer from the electrified Confederation Line with the diesel-powered Trillium Line (there will be no rail connection like a diamond due to interoperability issues between the two O-Train systems).

The problem that the city has now is that the old rail line that leads to the bridge was removed, which is a no-no under federal laws. This is the position of the Moose Consortium, a organization that has plans to establish a private regional commuter service on the existing rail lines in the capital region. Now the city is in big trouble, it seems, with the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is the body that grants permission for rail lines to be removed. Making matters worse for the city, it appears that it okayed permanent structures to be built atop the old rail line. Now the city has until the end of the month to explain to the federal agency why it has removed rail without following the proper procedures, according to local coverage.

In my former life as a journalist, I spoke to the man behind the Moose Consortium Joseph Potvin and he told me flat out he was going to make sure that the city lived up to its obligations as the owner of the rail line and the Prince of Wales Bridge. He told me more than once that he would do everything he could to make sure that the infrastructure at Bayview was kept in some sort of operational condition. He says fixing this mistake will cost the city $20 million.

Here's what I am wondering. If the city is serious about using this bridge for rail, which finally appears to be the case, why is the city building over this line? If what Moose is saying to true, why would there not be a plan in place to preserve this rail?

Here's the biggest question in my mind: Am I the only one who noticed when the Trillium Line was rebuilt that the Trillium Line's connection to the old trackage to the bridge was disconnected and buried? It's been several years since this part of the rail line was removed, but nothing was said then. While I appreciate that the removal of the 250 or so metres near the new Bayview Station is much more noticeable, I wonder why nothing was said about the original disconnection of the Prince of Wales trackage years ago.




I can only shake my head as a railfan and as a taxpayer that this situation is resolved properly.

http://beachburg.blogspot.ca/2017/06/the-prince-of-wales-bridge-oh-no-not.html

 

[dowlingm]

Possibly unpopular opinion: The only realistic thing to send across POWB is an O-Train linking Quebec with YOW. If Quebec and the Feds don't want to line up behind that, the CTA should allow Ottawa to sever and lift this disused track so something useful can be done with the remainder.

 

[kEiThZ]

Are you sure? When I went I on the stage2lrt.ca website it said LRT. Do you have a link or document you can point to where it says it'll be something on the Trillium Line other than LRT?

You can deduce this from the fact that they aren't getting new vehicles for the line after the rebuild. I'd argue it's a stupid decision. The line should have been converted to LRT, double tracked and electrified. Instead, they are going to spend hundreds of millions on marginal improvements.

As for Moose, good luck to them. Nobody really seems to be listening. I've not seen any serious public discussion from any councillor, mayor, etc. Just as well. As an Ottawa ratepayer, I wouldn't want a dime going to a plan that will encourage sprawl and will be a sop to developers. Ottawa's got a great transit plan that they are actually moving on. They should stick to it.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

RE: "The Prince of Wales Bridge: Oh, no, not again"

I've added a comment with some details on that blog:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?b...170293252843938809&page=1&token=1499470712880

 

[CapitalSeven]

You can deduce this from the fact that they aren't getting new vehicles for the line after the rebuild. I'd argue it's a stupid decision. The line should have been converted to LRT, double tracked and electrified. Instead, they are going to spend hundreds of millions on marginal improvements.

A lot of people feel that way, but there is a certain logic to Ottawa's plan, even if there are grounds to be concerned whether they will get it right this time with the upgrades. (The addition of some more passing tracks 3 years ago was badly botched, and now they are using twice as many trains and operators to offer 25% more service, which is slower and less reliable.) They are pumping the money into the east-west line where the ridership in more established communities is already there.

What I do admire about Ottawa's approach is the way they are defining fixed tranches in terms of time, money, and territory, and working on those quickly. Yet, at the ends-of-the line in stage 2, they have found ways to eke out more track and stations more or less within budget. The airport spur, I have to say, is a fairly ill-conceived vanity project, but it's only 150 million and will some day make sense as LRT. Stage 2, in 5 years or so, will build 39 km of track and 23 stations, and likely carry about 20k peak-hour passengers. For about 3.5 billion. About the same as a certain one-station line in Toronto

 

[Allandale25]

You can deduce this from the fact that they aren't getting new vehicles for the line after the rebuild. I'd argue it's a stupid decision.

Sorry I still don't understand. Ottawa won't be ordering more LRVs to serve the Trillium Line? They are keeping the O-Train vehicles?

 

[Allandale25]

RE: "The Prince of Wales Bridge: Oh, no, not again"

I've added a comment with some details on that blog:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?b...170293252843938809&page=1&token=1499470712880

Joseph, were the maps I created above accurate? Interested in your feedback.

 

[steveintoronto]

Possibly unpopular opinion: The only realistic thing to send across POWB is an O-Train linking Quebec with YOW. If Quebec and the Feds don't want to line up behind that, the CTA should allow Ottawa to sever and lift this disused track so something useful can be done with the remainder.

The CTA must rule by Law. And the Transportation Act is specific. It's not what the CTA or anyone else 'wants'. It's what the Act states.

Decision No. 210-R-2012
June 6, 2012
COMPLAINT by Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises Inc. pursuant to Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended.
[...]

Conclusion
[4] As indicated in the reasons that follow, the Agency finds that the City acquired the Bridge for continued operation. The Agency also finds that, for the purposes of the CTA, the City has not discontinued operating the railway line.

[5] The Agency orders the City to comply with section 141 of the CTA.
[...]
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[21] In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties during the pleadings.

Issue 1: Did the City, when it purchased the Bridge, acquire a railway line for continued operation?
Bridge acquired for continued operation
[22] MOOSE submits that CP never filed a plan to discontinue the operation of the railway line over the Bridge. The City did not file any submission indicating that the railway line over the Bridge was discontinued by CP prior to the sale. Accordingly, the Agency finds that CP did not discontinue the railway line over the Bridge prior to its sale to the City. For the purposes of brevity, the railway line over the Bridge shall be referred to as the “railway line”.

[23] Subsection 141(3) of the CTA states that a railway company may sell, lease or otherwise transfer its railway lines, or its operating interest in its lines, for continued operation. The City filed with the Agency the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Railway for Continued Railway Operations between CP and the City, signed March 21, 2005. The Agreement includes the Ellwood and Prescott corridors, and the Bridge. The Agreement also includes the Vendor’s Conditions, which state: “Subject to the Purchaser executing an Acknowledgement and Undertaking, in a form satisfactory to the Vendor’s Solicitor, acting reasonably, acknowledging that the Lands, Fixtures and documents are being sold for continued railway operations.”

[24] The Agency finds that CP entered into the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Railway for Continued Railway Operations with the City in accordance with subsection 141(3) of the CTA. That agreement was for the sale of railway lines, including the railway line across the Bridge, for continued operation. There is no evidence indicating that CP had discontinued operation of the railway line prior to the sale.

[...continues next pane...]

 

[steveintoronto]

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

 

[steveintoronto]

Nobody really seems to be listening. I've not seen any serious public discussion from any councillor, mayor, etc.

There's reams on-line, and if you Google "Jeff Leiper" you might be enlightened.

Construction near Prince of Wales Bridge lands City in hot water with rail authority
[...]
Kitchissippi Ward councillor Jeff Leiper tells CTV News it appears there was a breakdown in communication.

"Federal approval is obviously something the City has to be seeking," he says. "In this instance, I'll keep an open mind, but it looks like something broke down in the course of that. The other thing is, clearly the City is going to have to demonstrate to the CTA what its plans are, long-term, for reconnecting this rail."

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/constructi...ty-in-hot-water-with-rail-authority-1.3448729

 

[CapitalSeven]

Sorry I still don't understand. Ottawa won't be ordering more LRVs to serve the Trillium Line? They are keeping the O-Train vehicles?

Yes. The three original Bombardier vehicles were retired in 2015 and 6 new Alstoms of a similar design replaced them. They will be getting a few more of those for the extensions, and at some point may need to run pairs of them in peak hours to meet demand. No LRVs are involved and in fact there is no track connection between the two systems.

 

[steveintoronto]

The LINT vehicles, for North Am, are considered Light Rail Vehicles. Even in Europe, most are run on "light rail lines". It's the use of the vehicle rather than parentage that determines "LRV" or not, which are different definitions for Europe than for North Am.

 

[Urban Sky]

The LINT vehicles, for North Am, are considered Light Rail Vehicles. Even in Europe, most are run on "light rail lines". It's the use of the vehicle rather than parentage that determines "LRV" or not, which are different definitions for Europe than for North Am.

I don't know what definitions you have for heavy rail and light rail, but Canada is the only place I am aware of where these vehicles are considered light rail and this was only a regulatory move to get around the FRA crash-worthiness standards (and thus requires temporal separation from heavy rail vehicles). LINT vehicles are as heavy rail as it get's, as exemplified by this LINT entering Frankfurt Hbf (main station) on exactly the same tracks as HSR trains or freight trains:

Source: Verkehrswelten Blog