Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[Allandale25]

^ How can it be a "precedent" when the CTA just interpreted the Act? On one hand you're saying it's a precedent and a crack has been opened and on the other you're saying the powers have always been there?

Edit/update: A technical ruling on the Act is just that and I wouldn't jump to conclusions about precedence or openings.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ How can it be a "precedent" when the CTA just interpreted the Act? On one hand you're saying it's a precedent and a crack has been opened and on the other you're saying the powers have always been there?

A technical ruling on the Act is just that and I would jump to convlconclu about precedence or openings.

I bite my lip when responding to you, it's difficult to remain objective.

The *ruling* was a precedent as a presented case. The written law it was based on has been clearly evident for some time. If you don't think the ruling is a precedent, then feel absolutely free to cite a similar case! Please, be me guest, it will save me further researching the case...

What's incredibly encouraging is what was cited for their judgement:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4381185/R-2018-23-Eng.pdf

I realize the implications of the ruling are a bit much for some to understand, but I'm not only impressed with the ruling, but very hopeful that further will follow...

I would jump to convlconclu about precedence or openings.

Are you stating you 'jump to concussions'? It may be wise to stop.

Addendum: I keep checking through the Determination to see if the the deliberation was initiated by Joseph Potvin and/or Moose Rail. I credit Potvin, but the records might show it being Moose...but this ruling appears to be completely by the Agency's own impetus, albeit possibly as a result of a petition by Potvin and or Moose.

I'll dig some more to determine that. If the Agency is now moving under its own volition, this becomes even more interesting...

Post Script:
The entire determination doesn't mention Moose or Potvin at all. The applications they brought set the stage, but here's how the Agency now 'owns' this action. I'll quote only the first paragraph, it sets the tone for the rest:

*Very* interesting. As much as the CTA is an 'arm's length' agency of the government, and ostensibly above political sway, there's a 'symbiosis' at work here, intentional or otherwise. A very subjective observation, but I suspect events will soon prove that to be the case.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Here is MOOSE Consortium's statement on Agency Decision R-2018-23:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...8-23_PrinceOfWalesBridge_EN_2018-02-20PDF.pdf

A few people here have commented on what elements of this decision provide significant precedent. The central point of this decision is new, I think. As far as I've seen, no previous decision has clarified issue of effective discontinuance.

This Determination addresses the issue of whether the City has effectively discontinued the operation of a portion of its ORL without complying with the mandatory discontinuance process.​

I invite anyone to find any other decision on "effective discontinuance" in Canadian (or other country) railway law. The roots of this go back to MOOSE's 2011 complaint which resulted in Decision 210-R-2012 https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

Now this enforcement action in Decision R-2018-25 breaks new ground, particularly expressed in paragraphs 20 though 25:

[20] The Agency finds that the most reasonable interpretation of the Division V discontinuance requirement, particularly when read in concert with Division IV and the national transportation policy, is that where a railway company does not trigger the discontinuance process, it must intend to operate the line at the present time or at some point in the future, and have the ability to bring a currently inoperable line into operable condition within a reasonable period of time if, for example, the Agency grants running rights to another railway company upon application.
[21] The choice provided by section 142 of the CTA to a railway company is to either operate or discontinue its lines. The law does not include an option of no longer operating a railway line without completing the discontinuance process.
[22] This does not mean that the CTA obligates railway companies to keep every line that they own in fully-operable condition at all times. There may well be situations where a railway company decides, for example, to relocate a portion of a line or limit its maintenance activities on an unused line, to the point where the line is rendered temporarily inoperable. It does not follow, however, that lines can be allowed to fall into a state of permanent or long-term inoperability without the discontinuance process having been respected. Such an interpretation would undermine the very purpose and logic of the discontinuance provisions. To comply with the legislative scheme, a railway company must ensure, at minimum, that it is in a position to restore a line that has not been discontinued to operability within a reasonable period of time, in order to meet its obligations under Division IV of the CTA.
[23] The City references the fact that in Decision No. 210-R-2012, the Agency stated that "[ ] 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 SafetyAct." This Determination confirms and clarifies that decision. The Agency does not examine a railway company's maintenance and safety practices to determine compliance with the discontinuance process, but may conclude that a railway company has failed to respect that process if the company has removed infrastructure, created physical barriers, or allowed one of its lines to fall into a state of disrepair such that operation of the line by the company or by another company granted running rights is not possible within a reasonable period of time.
...
[25] In determining what is a reasonable time period within which the City must be able to make that currently inoperable line operable, the Agency has considered, on the one hand, the City's transportation plans and the fact that there have been no applications pursuant to Division IV of the CTA in respect of the line and, on the other hand, the impact that allowing the line to fall into a state of permanent or long-term inoperability would have on the City's ability to comply with its obligations, were such an application to be made. On balance, the Agency finds that in the circumstances of this case, it would be reasonable to require that the City be in a position to make the line operable within 12 months of the date of an Agency order pursuant to Division IV of the CTA.​

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

 

[kEiThZ]

So they have an infinitesimally small shot at the bridge. And yet, Capital Railways has no obligation yet for them to share the corridor.

The good thing is that Moose may end up doing us all a favour and finally accelerating that Gatineau-Ottawa link. And thankfully, it won't be on Moose's ridiculous sprawl promoting terms.

Onwards to Stage 2.

 

[steveintoronto]

Fortunately brighter minds exist outside of this string, and although they use correctly spelled words and sympathetic syntax, it's a shame their knowledgeable nuances will be lost on the nebulous, but for what it's worth:

Future of Prince of Wales Bridge must be decided
By Aileen Duncan on February 20, 2018
For many, it’s a no-brainer to use the rail bridge near Bayview station to connect Ottawa and Gatineau. What’s at stake here, and what has changed?

[...]
A game-changing legal decision
But then! On February 16, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ruled on an issue brought forth by MOOSE Consortium Inc. In short, they are requiring the City of Ottawa to confirm by April 30, 2018 what their intention is to do with the rail line – and by proxy, the bridge. They have two choices – either to operate the line, or discontinue the line.

Currently, the rail line and bridge appear to be in a state of long-term (or permanent) inoperability. This is not acceptable to the CTA, because the City did not follow the discontinuance processes required by law. The City can provide notice they are discontinuing the line, which would provide other parties with an opportunity to purchase the tracks.

If the City choses to operate the line, they will be required to repair the train tracks and the bridge to a baseline state where they would be operational within 12 months. This might occur if the CTA ruled that a competitor (e.g. MOOSE Inc.) is authorized to operate on the rail line.

Wait… why are the CTA involved?
The CTA are an independent, quasi-judicial agency of Parliament. They make decisions on issues relating to air, rail and marine transportation under the Canada Transportation Act.

The Prince of Wales Bridge is currently classified as an active railway, meaning the Minister of Transport is also an significant stakeholder in the future of the Prince of Wales Bridge. Before being purchased by the City of Ottawa in 2005, the railway and bridge were owned by CP Rail.

Elephant in the Room: Where will the money come from?
There have been several figures tossed around about the costs of repairing the Prince of Wales Bridge. The most common is $40 million, though it could be less than that or significantly more.

The City of Ottawa doesn’t have several million dollars of unallocated funds in their budget, so we have to understand this decision has financial implications. This is particularly true since municipalities are not permitted to have a deficit.

That being said, we are in a period where we’re investing in infrastructure. The federal government is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years through the Investing in Canada plan. Several years ago, the National Capital Commission indicated they would provide up to 33% of the funds required to renovate the bridge – presumably this is still somewhere in their budgets, especially since they continue to support a pathway on the bridge in their strategic planning documents.

What about the provinces? What about Gatineau? The number of stakeholders means that no one wants to pay for the whole thing, but perhaps through a collaborative approach we can make the numbers work.

This decision will provide a clear direction. If this isn’t a project that our elected officials are willing to pass on to taxpayers, the private sector provides an alternative. MOOSE Inc. have proposed to take on the work of renovating the bridge in order to move forward with their plan to build an interprovincial train provider connecting several cities in Ontario and Quebec – from Montebello to Arnprior, from Wakefield to Smith Falls, and from Alexandria to Bristol.

Next Steps
The City might appeal the CTA decision to get more time to prepare their response and revise their cost assessments. This makes sense given the City’s latest engineering analysis is a couple years old. If the City of Ottawa is going to be legally bound to complete this project, the responsible approach would be to have a reasonably accurate assessment of how much this will cost.

Still, we have some momentum here. This is an election year for the City of Ottawa. We are going to the polls at the end of October, and the question of how we move forward with the Prince of Wales Bridge should be a part of the debates.

It’s been a long-standing issue. But after years of delays and inaction, the time for a decision on the Prince of Wales Bridge has arrived.

Aileen Duncan is an infrastructure nerd, cultural writer, and a cyclist. She advocates for the Prince of Wales Bridge to be made safe and accessible in the near term. Follow Aileen on Twitter.
https://apt613.ca/future-of-prince-of-wales-bridge-must-be-decided/

 

[Allandale25]

Me: "I would jump to convlconclu about precedence or openings."

Are you stating you 'jump to concussions'? It may be wise to stop.

Yea, that's exactly what I meant to write. It was a grammatical error and typo. Apologies. I do try to proof read before I hit send but in this rare case something slipping through.

But no, I won't stop offering my view here.

You *continue* to show your interest in being respectful of people expressing views other than your own write things like this, Steve: "Fortunately brighter minds exist outside of this string, and although they use correctly spelled words and sympathetic syntax, it's a shame their knowledgeable nuances will be lost on the nebulous,".

 

[steveintoronto]

Yea, that's exactly what I meant to write.

Excellent. I'm glad that's made clear.

You *continue* to show your interest in being respectful of people expressing views other than your own write things like this

Thank you.

And your examples to show this isn't a ruling precedent?

 

[Allandale25]

Here is MOOSE Consortium's statement on Agency Decision R-2018-23:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...8-23_PrinceOfWalesBridge_EN_2018-02-20PDF.pdf

Do the timelines in the ruling provide an incentive to change your mind on working with a third party, like CANDO, who already has their Certificate of Fitness? Given Ottawa may now pursue the Discountance process, wouldn't that create more of an incentive to argue to the CTA during that process that your company should take over the line?

And your examples to show this isn't a ruling precedent?

I never committed, agreed to, or offered to find examples specifically for you. Not sure how you got that impression from my comments. I simply offered a view. Just go ahead and disagree with it. I don't mind.

 

[muller877]

I bite my lip when responding to you, it's difficult to remain objective.

The *ruling* was a precedent as a presented case. The written law it was based on has been clearly evident for some time. If you don't think the ruling is a precedent, then feel absolutely free to cite a similar case! Please, be me guest, it will save me further researching the case...
.

Steve is correct. This is equivalent to a court decision. As per the Transportation Act

Ottawa has 2 legal options if they do not like the decision (again per the Transportation Act):
1. Appeal it to the Federal Court of Appeals (1 level below the Supreme Court). Of course they can only do this if the CTA erred in a matter of law
2. Ask the Federal government to overturn it (via an order in counsel)

They should (or I expect are) exploring both alternatives.

If they fail in their appeal I would fix up the bridge and include provision for a connection so it can be used for both freight and LRT in the future. Costs a bit of money to fix up but eventually the LRT will need to go to Hull/Gatineau. they don't have to connect...just have a plan to connect it per the ruling above.

Then I would permit MOOSE to use it for running rights only. In the past the CTA has ruled that running rights are permitted for operating trains (sharing a track in transit from one point to another). Running rights are NOT permitted for soliciting traffic along the way (i.e. picking up or dropping off passengers).

I would also stipulate the times available and the rights along the tracks as being prohibitive to operations. Plus any running rights cost will include the cost of upgrading the tracks to the standards that MOOSE needs to operate the train. And paying to get rid of all level crossings.

 

[Allandale25]

Steve is correct. This is equivalent to a court decision. As per the Transportation Act

Ottawa has 2 legal options if they do not like the decision (again per the Transportation Act):
1. Appeal it to the Federal Court of Appeals (1 level below the Supreme Court). Of course they can only do this if the CTA erred in a matter of law
2. Ask the Federal government to overturn it (via an order in counsel)

They should (or I expect are) exploring both alternatives.

If they fail in their appeal I would fix up the bridge and include provision for a connection so it can be used for both freight and LRT in the future. Costs a bit of money to fix up but eventually the LRT will need to go to Hull/Gatineau. they don't have to connect...just have a plan to connect it per the ruling above.

Then I would permit MOOSE to use it for running rights only. In the past the CTA has ruled that running rights are permitted for operating trains (sharing a track in transit from one point to another). Running rights are NOT permitted for soliciting traffic along the way (i.e. picking up or dropping off passengers).

I would also stipulate the times available and the rights along the tracks as being prohibitive to operations. Plus any running rights cost will include the cost of upgrading the tracks to the standards that MOOSE needs to operate the train. And paying to get rid of all level crossings.

I recognize that some of us may have different views on the degree to which this might be a precedent and I appreciate your respectful and approach to explaining your view. It helps with the level of professionalism on this forum.

From what I've seen, the City is arguing the cost is more than "a bit" and they have other priorities for the funding/revenue availability they have a the moment.

Regarding, giving Moose running rights only, the challenge that I see what the is Moose wants much more than just running rights for the bridge. They have a larger plan and in their minds it may only work if they can do the entire thing. Maybe the Moose proponent could clarify if they would be interested in a Bayview to Hull connection via the Bridge if that's all they can do or get approval for. But that raises other logistical questions in my mind. Where would their yard be? How would a private sector entity with no government subsidy stay afloat with only running rights for a small portion or not their entire plan?

 

[steveintoronto]

Good post Muller, but here's where it gets interesting:

If they fail in their appeal I would fix up the bridge and include provision for a connection so it can be used for both freight and LRT in the future. Costs a bit of money to fix up but eventually the LRT will need to go to Hull/Gatineau. they don't have to connect...just have a plan to connect it per the ruling above.

Then I would permit MOOSE to use it for running rights only. In the past the CTA has ruled that running rights are permitted for operating trains (sharing a track in transit from one point to another). Running rights are NOT permitted for soliciting traffic along the way (i.e. picking up or dropping off passengers).

I would also stipulate the times available and the rights along the tracks as being prohibitive to operations. Plus any running rights cost will include the cost of upgrading the tracks to the standards that MOOSE needs to operate the train. And paying to get rid of all level crossings.

The law clearly states that the 'host' railway has no choice in the matter of sharing the track, contingent on a finding by the CTA that the 'guest' railway meets all terms the CTA (interpreting the Transportation, Relocation and Crossing, Safety or other Act) deems necessary.

This is far more powerful than many realize, I'll quote the section later (it appears in two acts)(how Shakespearean is that?), and now it seems the CTA is flexing muscle in areas it never has before. This latest ruling *may indicate* the CTA becoming 'proactive'. We'll see. I'm waiting for a legal overview of their decision rather than quoting media articles except to counter some of the baseless comments being made. This has profound implications.

How "profound"? It's my view that the Ministry is jubilant behind closed doors. The CTA has done what they were always supposed to do, and the Ministry itself was too scared to do. I think no-one is more empowered by this decision than VIA!

I'll find reference and quote, but you certainly get the gist of this. And again, many keep making comment on this decision in terms of deriding MOOSE. Moose and/or Potvin's *earlier actions* catalysed reaching this progression, but the decision is purely about enforcing the law as written, not in ruling on behalf of an action taken by MOOSE.

Does this assist and act in the interests of MOOSE' intentions and rights? Absolutely, the comments on "competition" in the ruling are very interesting, almost political, but reflect a renewed emphasis on the original intent of the various railway acts in Canada.

But this helps *all* railway endeavours.

 

[steveintoronto]

Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10)

[...]

Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
Marginal note:Application by railway company

• 138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
  • (a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;
    
    
  • (b) use the whole or any portion of the right-of-way, tracks, terminals, stations or station grounds of any other railway company; and
    
    
  • (c) run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company.
• Marginal note: Application may be granted
  (2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
  
  
• Marginal note: Compensation
  (3) The railway company shall pay compensation to the other railway company for the right granted and, if they do not agree on the compensation, the Agency may, by order, fix the amount to be paid.

Marginal note: Request for joint or common use of right-of-way

• 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
  • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
    
    
  • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
  request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
  
  
• Marginal note: Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
  (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
  
  
• Marginal note: Compensation
  (3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.

DIVISION VTransferring and Discontinuing the Operation of Railway Lines
Definition of railway line

• 140 (1) In this Division, railway line includes a portion of a railway line, but does not include
  • (a) a yard track, siding or spur; or
    
    
  • (b) other track auxiliary to a railway line.
• Marginal note: Determination
  (2) The Agency may determine as a question of fact what constitutes a yard track, siding, spur or other track auxiliary to a railway line.

Marginal note:Three-year plan

• 141 (1) 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.
  
  
• Marginal note: Public availability of plan
  (2) The railway company shall make the plan available for public inspection in offices of the company that it designates for that purpose.
  
  
• Marginal note: Notification of changes
  (2.1) Whenever the railway company makes a change to the plan, it shall notify the following of the change within 10 days after the change:
  • (a) the Minister;
    
    
  • (b) the Agency;
    
    
  • (c) the minister responsible for transportation matters in the government of each province through which the railway line passes;
    
    
  • (d) the chairperson of every urban transit authority through whose territory the railway line passes; and
    
    
  • (e) the clerk or other senior administrative officer of every municipal or district government through which the railway line passes.
• Marginal note: When sale, etc., permitted
  (3) Subject to section 144.1, a railway company may sell, lease or otherwise transfer its railway lines, or its operating interest in its lines, for continued operation.
  
  
• Marginal note: Continued operation of a portion of a line
  (4) A railway company that sells, leases or otherwise transfers a portion of a grain-dependent branch line listed in Schedule I, or its operating interest in such a portion, to a person who intends to operate the portion shall continue to operate the remaining portion for three years, unless the Minister determines that it is not in the public interest for the company to do so.

• 1996, c. 10, s. 141;
• 2000, c. 16, s. 5;
• 2007, c. 19, s. 35.

Previous Version
Marginal note: Compliance with steps for discontinuance

• 142 (1) A railway company shall comply with the steps described in this Division before discontinuing operating a railway line.
  
  
• Marginal note: Limitation
  (2) A railway company shall not take steps to discontinue operating a railway line before the company’s intention to discontinue operating the line has been indicated in its plan for at least 12 months.
  
  
• Marginal note: Community-based groups
  (3) Subsection (2) does not apply and a railway company shall without delay take the steps described in section 143 if
  • (a) the federal government, a provincial, municipal or district government or a community-based group endorsed in writing by such a government has written to the company to express an interest in acquiring all or a portion of a grain-dependent branch line that is listed in Schedule I for the purpose of continuing to operate that line or portion of a line; and
    
    
  • (b) that line or portion of a line is indicated on the company’s plan as being a line or a portion of a line that the company intends to take steps to discontinue operating.

• 1996, c. 10, s. 142;
• 2000, c. 16, s. 6.

Marginal note: Advertisement of availability of railway line for continued rail operations

• 143 (1) The railway company shall advertise the availability of the railway line, or any operating interest that the company has in it, for sale, lease or other transfer for continued operation and its intention to discontinue operating the line if it is not transferred.
  
  
• Marginal note: Content of advertisement
  (2) The advertisement must include a description of the railway line and how it or the operating interest is to be transferred, whether by sale, lease or otherwise, and an outline of the steps that must be taken before the operation of the line may be discontinued, including
  • (a) a statement that the advertisement is directed to persons interested in buying, leasing or otherwise acquiring the railway line, or the railway company’s operating interest in it, for the purpose of continuing railway operations; and
    
    
  • (b) the date by which interested persons must make their interest known in writing to the company, but that date must be at least sixty days after the first publication of the advertisement.
• Marginal note: Disclosure of agreement with public passenger service provider
  (3) The advertisement must also disclose the existence of any agreement between the railway company and a public passenger service provider in respect of the operation of a passenger rail service on the railway line.

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html

 

[muller877]

I recognize that some of us may have different views on the degree to which this might be a precedent and I appreciate your respectful and approach to explaining your view. It helps with the level of professionalism on this forum.

From what I've seen, the City is arguing the cost is more than "a bit" and they have other priorities for the funding/revenue availability they have a the moment.

Regarding, giving Moose running rights only, the challenge that I see what the is Moose wants much more than just running rights for the bridge. They have a larger plan and in their minds it may only work if they can do the entire thing. Maybe the Moose proponent could clarify if they would be interested in a Bayview to Hull connection via the Bridge if that's all they can do or get approval for. But that raises other logistical questions in my mind. Where would their yard be? How would a private sector entity with no government subsidy stay afloat with only running rights for a small portion or not their entire plan?

People are commingling 2 parts of the CTA.

Moose won on whether the failure to maintain is discontinuing a railway. If Ottawa does not keep it in good enough shape to fix up they will have to go through the discontinuance process (which may allow Moose to buy it). Note that this DOES NOT mean that they have to have it in operational shape. Just good enough so that it can be fixed up and be ready in due time.

Running rights are completely different. If Ottawa maintains it and does not go through the discontinuance phase Moose would have to apply to the CTA to get running rights. They would have to agree to terms with Ottawa (including rental payments). And they cannot use it to solicit traffic on the route. Here is a good law firm article on running rights (not discontinuance):

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Files/142988_O_Sullivan_Tougas 2012 CTRF Paper - Running Rights.pdf

EDIT: to be clear, as i read it the CTA said that Ottawa has to either (1) go through the discontinuance process whereby Moose could use this process to utilize the tracks or (2) Ottawa has to keep it operational and then Moose could apply for running rights (not opining on if they would get them for their purpose).

 

[kEiThZ]

Steve is correct. This is equivalent to a court decision. As per the Transportation Act

Ottawa has 2 legal options if they do not like the decision (again per the Transportation Act):
1. Appeal it to the Federal Court of Appeals (1 level below the Supreme Court). Of course they can only do this if the CTA erred in a matter of law
2. Ask the Federal government to overturn it (via an order in counsel)

They should (or I expect are) exploring both alternatives.

If they fail in their appeal I would fix up the bridge and include provision for a connection so it can be used for both freight and LRT in the future. Costs a bit of money to fix up but eventually the LRT will need to go to Hull/Gatineau. they don't have to connect...just have a plan to connect it per the ruling above.

Then I would permit MOOSE to use it for running rights only. In the past the CTA has ruled that running rights are permitted for operating trains (sharing a track in transit from one point to another). Running rights are NOT permitted for soliciting traffic along the way (i.e. picking up or dropping off passengers).

I would also stipulate the times available and the rights along the tracks as being prohibitive to operations. Plus any running rights cost will include the cost of upgrading the tracks to the standards that MOOSE needs to operate the train. And paying to get rid of all level crossings.

Man would that be hilarious. I wonder what Mr. Potvin would say. I think already know. He'd spin it as some kind of victory and proof that MOOSE will be able to service paying customers (via the condominium arrangements) any day now.

OC Transpo should absolutely do this. And give Mr. Potvin and his associates every opportunity to pay as much as they want towards improving transit in Ottawa-Gatineau.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Moose won on whether the failure to maintain is discontinuing a railway.

@muller877,

It's more than that.

"The Agency ... may conclude that a railway company has failed to respect that process if the company has (a) removed infrastructure, (b) created physical barriers, or (c) allowed one of its lines to fall into a state of disrepair such that operation of the line by the company or by another company granted running rights is not possible within a reasonable period of time." (Letters added for clarity.)​

Discussion on this blog has focused on (c), which primarily involves the PoWB itself.

What of the (a) dismantled approach track, and the (b) purposeful design of the new Bayview Station to permanently block the corridor?

So far the City's spokespeople imply that (a) and (b) were necessary to accommodate the OLRT project. That is false.

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