Allandale25
Senior Member
"Most don't?" Classy, Steve, classy. Anyone can make a legal case. We'll see what the CTA says. Did Joseph say he expect their ruling in September? September is almost here so we'll have the CTA decision's soon I guess.
|
|
|
Moose Rail (National Capital Region)
- Thread starter SaugeenJunction
- Start date
"Most don't?" Classy, Steve, classy. Anyone can make a legal case. We'll see what the CTA says. Did Joseph say he expect their ruling in September? September is almost here so we'll have the CTA decision's soon I guess.
steveintoronto
Superstar
You exactly make the point. The CTA has already ruled. It's the enforcement of it that's pending.
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012
As I stated, some don't follow the links, even when a point is made repeatedly, and then claim they didn't know...hey...
Edit to Add: And because I know some will still refuse to read what's presented:
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.
?
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Charles
New Member
I'm not ready to wade into the technical issues or the legal issues as those are not my area of expertise. I speak only as a resident, a commuter, a property owner, and a businessman/potential investor. As I state in the skyscraper forum, I see this as a house of cards. 50 different collectives all dependent on one another for survival. Each of those collectives is dependent upon the property owners within their locality voluntarily funding this scheme. Human nature in itself will prevent this from happening. On top of this you are trying to run a train service where there is insufficient demand, in some locations where the corridors are already at capacity, and other corridors which require significant capital injection. You are trying to layer this network on top of existing transit that, while not perfect, seems to meet the needs of the vast majority of residents. I can't imagine the business case to be made for any one of this let alone a station operator.
Joseph Potvin
New Member
@Allandale25,
You've cited an article from a year ago. It's out-of-date. Instead of authorization last autumn 2016 with a "Certificate of Fitness", Moose receive clarification from the Agency about the process and sequence it wants us to follow. So we're following it, and we proceeded with our approach to capital markets to advance the project.
What we do anticipate in September is that the Agency will complete its decision on the unauthorized removal and obstruction of the track at Bayview. They might take longer (and possibly a lot longer), given the country-wide precedent implications no matter what enforcement route they take.
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
Allandale25
Senior Member
Good point and I think I was getting my September reference points mixed up. The CTA decision on the bridge where it'll consider what you've submitted and the City of Ottawa letter I posed is indeed for September 2017. Sorry, that's what I meant. I'm not from Ottawa so doing the best I can to keep all these links and media references organized.
Joseph Potvin
New Member
Thanks @steveintoronto,
My colleaugues and I noticed that the Agency's 7 June 2017 decision was not posted on our site. Sorry, we thought it was there already.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/LET-R-27-2017.pdf
This is the letter that led to a flurry of news at that time, e.g.
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/constructi...ty-in-hot-water-with-rail-authority-1.3448729
It led to this reply by the City:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...Line-Show-Cause-Response-Case-No-17-01....pdf
We await the Agency's next move.
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:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Ottawa Sun ran this story two weeks back:
Again, I have to emphasize that I don't just respect Potvin for his entrepreneurial spirit, I respect and admire him for *holding heavy-handed bureaucracies* to account. We've lost far too many rights-of-way in this nation in the name of 'progress'...and it's not just the sense of alarm for blocking future use of those rights-of-way...it's *against the Law*!
CN and CP have run roughshod over various Railway Acts since their inception, albeit they're far from being alone. Fortunately some 'mavericks' know what the Law states, and they are pursuing it.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/08/15/bridge-barricades-ramped-up-after-transport-canada-questionsBy Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 07:40 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 08:14 PM EDT
Fenced off defunct Prince of Wales Bridge. The CTA says the City of Ottawa may have breached its duty as a rail line owner when it dismantled a section of the Ottawa River Line near the Prince of Wales Bridge to build a new entrance to Bayview Station. Julie Oliver/Postmedia
Related Stories
A meeting between city officials and Transport Canada over concerns about the Prince of Wales Bridge sped up plans to block off entry points on the historic Ottawa River crossing, according to emails and documents recently released to the Sun.
A contractor installed chain-link fences at the bridge access points last September after Transport Canada summoned city staff to the federal headquarters in at the end of 2015 to discuss security on the out-of-service rail bridge.
According to internal city emails released through access to information, Transport Canada contacted the city on Nov. 23, 2015, with concerns about security on the bridge after being tipped off by reports in the media.
While the emails don’t indicate what issue triggered Transport Canada’s interest, Ottawa police in August that year reported robberies on and around the bridge.
City officials met with the agency on Dec. 2, 2015, to explain that it increased patrols and had plans to permanently barricade the bridge.
Two days before Christmas that year, a Transport Canada engineer reminded the city of the municipality’s obligations under the federal Railway Safety Act to protect the security of the public and the property.
The city emails and documents were produced between Jan. 1, 2016, and Sept. 23, 2016, the date the Sun made the request. Email exchanges between staff, politicians and consultants illustrate the drudgery to get the barricades constructed.
The city started ramping up plans to build security gates at the bridge access points and working with consultants on a design, but after Councillors Jeff Leiper and Catherine McKenney learned about the plan in April 2016, the design was put on hold.
The project started out as strong security gates but it eventually ended up being fencing.
After confirming the plan with the city’s legal department, the asset management department restarted the barricade project in June 2016.
There was skepticism internally about the project, even though the city needed to satisfy Transport Canada.
In June 2016, one infrastructure staffer predicted in an email that there would be a “media circus,” the fences would be vandalized, and the plan seemed to conflict with the Canada 150 celebrations in 2017.
By the middle of August 2016, the secret was out: the city was working to put barricades on the bridge. The Sun's story even caught some higher-ups at OC Transpo off guard, judging by an internal email thread produced after article was published.
Leiper already had sounded the alarm bells internally in April 2016 about the barricades when staff brought him into the loop. When the Sun story was published, Leiper followed up with a Sunday afternoon email to city manager Steve Kanellakos complaining about the plan and expressing his opposition.
Responded Kanellakos: “Quite frankly, this was not on my radar until it was reported in the media,” and he had transit head John Manconi and then-planning boss John Moser get him more information. Moser quickly halted the design work.
By then, the city’s intention to block pedestrian access to the bridge was a hot topic, especially for those who for years have enjoyed walking the deck planks or watching the sunset from a perch over the Ottawa River.
In fact, when a Transpo special constable on bike patrol responded to the bridge for trespassers on Aug. 17, 2016, he found about 40 people on the deck and many were jumping off the bridge into the water. Some of them told the special constable, who was there to enforce the trespass rules, they had been doing it for years without any consequences.
The city wanted to install robust gates at four separate bridge locations and the cost was approaching $450,000, prompting staff to review the requirements.
In the end, the city only spent about $46,000 on standard chain-link fences at the access points.
On Sept. 20, 2016, during the work installing the fences, a communications staffer forwarded to his boss a tweet showing an already vandalized fence.
During the work, the city was also arranging private security to protect the job site and watch for trespassers. One hiccup was having security watch the Gatineau side of the bridge because although the full bridge is owned by the City of Ottawa, it cross into Gatineau and there’s different licensing for private security on the other side of the river. The city had to call up a second security company with Quebec credentials.
In its analysis of barricade options, the city predicted there would be an annual $10,000 cost to repair the chain-link fences.
On Tuesday, the city estimated there has been 35-40 inspections or repairs on the new fences since they were installed last September. About $15,000 has been spent on repairs.
Again, I have to emphasize that I don't just respect Potvin for his entrepreneurial spirit, I respect and admire him for *holding heavy-handed bureaucracies* to account. We've lost far too many rights-of-way in this nation in the name of 'progress'...and it's not just the sense of alarm for blocking future use of those rights-of-way...it's *against the Law*!
CN and CP have run roughshod over various Railway Acts since their inception, albeit they're far from being alone. Fortunately some 'mavericks' know what the Law states, and they are pursuing it.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Thanks for posting that. It's helpful. Maybe you could add some kind of CTA timeline to your website. It feels kind of scattered right now because it seems to be in the media section and the blog section.
Indeed.
Also, for a Urban Toronto pro-tip, you can create a signature for each of your posts so that the signature material you're now using doesn't have to be embedded in each posting.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Same here. Colour me skeptical too. I really don't see why property owners in the vicinity of stations would gladly hand over tens of thousands of dollars in value gains, for station access. And this isn't even the biggest issue in my books. There seems to be a presumption of densification. Which seems to be a fundamental contradiction with rural and suburban living. I mean, how many buildings do we see in the vicinity of existing transit stops in Ottawa, outside the greenbelt?
Anybody I have ever known who has left the greenbelt has done it for one reason only: more space for less. If they wanted condo living, they'd be inside the Greenbelt. I have a condo at Cyrville. Just look at how little densification there has been. And that place, should be the very definition of TOD. In fact, the developer original had plans for several 20 storey buildings. And had to scale it back drastically to 4 storey brownstones when they figured out it's challenging to sell high rises outside the downtown core.
Charles
New Member
It's always interesting how something taken out of context can be used to show one side's argument vs the other's. In this particular quote, which goes back to a 2012 finding by the CTA, the conclusion at the beginning of the document (yes there are two conclusions, one at the beginning and one at the end) the one quoted states the following which actually sides with the City of Ottawa:
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.
The reference to abiding by section 141 to me simply appears to identify the requirement to maintain a plan for use. From the same source document:
[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.
steveintoronto
Superstar
[...]
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/LET-R-27-2017.pdf
This has the same relevance to *all operators* of rail nationally. It's a national service that MOOSE is bringing this point before the CTA, and maybe even a full court. They're blazing a trail for other operators that Transport Canada should be doing!
Edit to Add: There's a real irony here, in that Metrolinx is bending over backwards to maintain the Don Branch for their use and that of VIA (HFR) while OC Transpo appears to be doing everything in their power to stop anyone else using Prince of Wales bridge, contrary to the requirements of various Acts. And btw, unless a case can be made otherwise, freight operators can also petition to use that branch and any of the Metrolinx owned track. There may be operating requirements placed on them (bogie weight, truck radius, etc) but in general *any* operator has the right, with qualifications, mostly sharing costs, to use any other track if applied for to the CTA.
Attachments
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Thanks Charles. That's helpful.
steveintoronto
Superstar
The entire opening of the case was posted. If you find that hard to follow, don't blame anyone else. I copied this from the post you quoted:
Attachments
Charles
New Member
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.