Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
We're fighting with VIA? Where'd you get that idea?
|
I wasn't referring to VIA there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
Dismantling the approach track without Division V authorization, and blockading it, is what, in your view? An oversight?
All we did is call mom, because they didn't want to share their toys. In your view, that makes us the bully. Accuse of us being the crybabies if you will, but hardly the bullies.
|
Wasn't referring to the POW bridge. Was referring to your citation of Section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act.
But while we're at it, I can't see any organization being suddenly gleeful to work with a counterparty that just got a regulator to impose massive financial costs on them. You were within your rights to complain of course. And they'll be within their rights to insist that you don't run any trains during peak hours. What then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
Sure, but we don't report interim business discussions via blogs.
|
I don't think anybody is looking for specific details of your discussion here. I think it's more of, "We've talked with VIA. They are definitely interested in sharing their track. We're discussing how traffic flow will work and how we'll share the cost of building a second track on that sub." Etc.
VIA is less of a concern than OC Transpo here. The Trillium Line is critical to your proposal. The City, the Province and the Feds are proceeding with a massive plan which includes hundreds of millions spent on upgrading this corridor with tenders out in less than a year. And they are also on the verge of signing contracts for a fleet to operate on there. If they are taking Moose's plans into account, it's certainly not evident from their actions at all. If you are talking with them, surely you can share some details as to how open they are to Moose's proposal. Otherwise, I don't think the rest of us are wrong in assuming that there's conflict coming for you.
Threaded Mode