Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

MOOSE has been pretty diplomatic over the last 6 years, and it wasn't really until people started tearing up tracks under potentially unlawful circumstances that MOOSE went to the CTA. I believe I recall Mr. Potvin himself stating that they never tried to use any constitutional "magic" to try and stop CN from tearing up their tracks from the Beachburg subdivision beacause they followed the law.

Moose has been filing CTA complaints since at least 2012
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012

They have also launched numerous court challenges. Their whole media list on the website is a long list of legal challenges, regulatory challenges, etc. That's pretty much all they do.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is the core of Moose's business plan. Moose wants the CTA to order the the city to let Moose use its tracks. The Trillium line tracks operate at capacity, there is no room to add another 6 Moose trains per hour. Moose has not identified any plan to add capacity to the trillium line.

Use is not the same as having the O-Train "kicked off". "Use" is very broad, and as many people have pointed out, the city could just say "ok, you can use the track between 12AM and 5AM" and there wouldn't be much that MOOSE could say about it.

I thought I remembered reading in some post that Mr. Potvin said that MOOSE would be willing to consider funding extra double tracking in order to increase capacity, but I'm going to take some time to try and find the exact post (if it actually exists).

MOOSE's plan is to suggest to the city that they incorporate the Trillium line into MOOSE's line to form a larger transportation network across the NCR.
At this point it's still just a suggestion, but in short, they work together to provide better transit.
I don't see what's so confrontational about that.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

MOOSE's plan is to suggest to the city that they incorporate the Trillium line into MOOSE's line to form a larger transportation network across the NCR.
At this point it's still just a suggestion, but in short, they work together to provide better transit.
I don't see what's so confrontational about that.

"Moose requests that the Agency order the City of Ottawa to immediately change the course of construction activities..."
"Failing timely issuance of a railway reconstruction order from the Agency, Moose will submit a letter to the Minister of Transport Canada..."
"Failing timely issuance of the specified railway reconstruction order...Moose will apply to the Federal Court of Canada..."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...eNo16-03784_210-R-2012_2016-08-15PDF.pdf

And

"The Agency is asked to order the City of Ottawa to provide all manner of assistance for Moose..."
"the Agency is asked to order the City of Ottawa to cover all of Moose Consortium's reasonable costs..."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...ransportation_Agency_Case_16-03784-2.zip

None of that sounds confrontational to me, seems like just a suggestion (sarcasm). This is from a group of people who aren't a railway company, don't have any trains, don't have any financing, and haven't even done a feasibility study yet.

I haven't even included the submissions that MOOSE has made to the Competition Bureau, or their Affidavit in Quebec Superior Court in regards to tracks on the Quebec side.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

"Moose requests that the Agency order the City of Ottawa to immediately change the course of construction activities..."
"Failing timely issuance of a railway reconstruction order from the Agency, Moose will submit a letter to the Minister of Transport Canada..."
"Failing timely issuance of the specified railway reconstruction order...Moose will apply to the Federal Court of Canada..."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...eNo16-03784_210-R-2012_2016-08-15PDF.pdf

And

"The Agency is asked to order the City of Ottawa to provide all manner of assistance for Moose..."
"the Agency is asked to order the City of Ottawa to cover all of Moose Consortium's reasonable costs..."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...ransportation_Agency_Case_16-03784-2.zip

None of that sounds confrontational to me, seems like just a suggestion (sarcasm). This is from a group of people who aren't a railway company, don't have any trains, don't have any financing, and haven't even done a feasibility study yet.

I haven't even included the submissions that MOOSE has made to the Competition Bureau, or their Affidavit in Quebec Superior Court in regards to tracks on the Quebec side.

Neither of those refer to the "suggestion" that I was talking about.

In any case, all of the instances you mentioned occurred after years of diplomatic talks and only after MOOSE believed that the respective agencies hadn't followed the proper procedures in dismantling sections of railway.

You seem to think that MOOSE just popped into existence and started aggressively abusing the CTA for its own gain, but again if that were the case, why didn't MOOSE try to stop CN from lifting the tracks on Beachburg subdivision?

If you thought someone had done something wrong, wouldn't you confront them then?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moose has been filing CTA complaints since at least 2012
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012

Do you understand why they filed a case with the CTA? They felt that the STO was going to dismantle what they thought was a federally regulated railway without following proper procedures.

MOOSE has only filed 3 (4?) complaints to the CTA in the last 6 years, all of which were addressing the dismantlement of tracks and I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

They have also launched numerous court challenges. Their whole media list on the website is a long list of legal challenges, regulatory challenges, etc. That's pretty much all they do.

Virtually all of those links refer to the PoW bridge case from earlier this year. There are actually quite a few links that aren't about it.

[Charles5]

@OCCheetos I'm not sure why we even respond to your posts anymore as it's becoming more and more obvious that you've bought into the whole MOOSE vision regardless of what evidence is put in front of you.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

In any case, all of the instances you mentioned occurred after years of diplomatic talks and only after MOOSE believed that the respective agencies hadn't followed the proper procedures in dismantling sections of railway.

I don't believe MOOSE even existed before 2011, and we've shown evidence of CTA submissions in 2012 regarding both STO and the City of Ottawa. Where is that "years of diplomatic talks".

In some cases MOOSE is even trying to get CTA to undo decisions that were made 20 or 30 years ago in regards to the Maniwaki Subdivision.

If you thought someone had done something wrong, wouldn't you confront them then?

So, they're allowed to 'confront', but they're not being "confrontational"? And the suggestion is just a suggestion, regardless of all these issues?

[OCCheetos]

I don't believe MOOSE even existed as a legal entity before 2011, and we've shown evidence of CTA submissions in 2012. Where is that "years of diplomatic talks".

In regards to the CN track, lifting of the track wasn't completed until mid-2015. If MOOSE were really just spamming the CTA with complaints, I'm sure they would have.

Now, I'll go and find all the links for everything I'm referencing here if you'd like, but
- There was the document posted in the Urban Toronto forum that was presented to city council
- Mr. Potvin has stated that he has met at least once with top OC Transpo officials
- He's also met with the mayor of Gatineau
- MOOSE had the support of communities in Quebec (La Peche, Chelsea) until more recently
- Mr. Potvin once mentioned a presentation to a town council
- Mr. Potvin has mentioned that they are in communication with VIA
- etc.

So, are you suggesting that two complaints to the CTA in 2012 over the possible mistreatment of railway regulations involving federal railways (one of which was more or less upheld by the CTA) has doomed MOOSE to being an evil corporation in your mind?

In some cases MOOSE is even trying to get CTA to undo decisions that were made 20 or 30 years ago.

I believe that in MOOSE's opinion, those decisions had already been "undone" by CP/Chelsea only a few years after. The Chelsea case is definitely MOOSE's weakest complaint to the CTA though.

So, they're allowed to 'confront', but they're not being "confrontational"? And the suggestion is just a suggestion, regardless of all these issues?

My wording was unclear. Confronting is confrontational, for sure, but does that make them only confrontational? Also, do you believe that they had no reason to be confrontational in the circumstances in which they were?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

MOOSE has only filed 3 (4?) complaints to the CTA in the last 6 years, all of which were addressing the dismantlement of tracks and I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

A paper company that has no assets, no revenue, no investors of any scale and no feasibility study has filed 3-4 complaints with the CTA, complaints with the Competition Bureau and initiated several court processes. Does that not strike you as odd?

Meanwhile none of these complaints and legal actions have gotten Moose any closer to their stated objective. They have either lost all of the cases or received inconclusive judgements.

In addition, all of this litigation has pissed off local municipalities, wasted taxpayers' money and probably distracted the company from actually focusing on their stated business.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Use is not the same as having the O-Train "kicked off". "Use" is very broad, and as many people have pointed out, the city could just say "ok, you can use the track between 12AM and 5AM" and there wouldn't be much that MOOSE could say about it.

Do you honestly think that Moose intends to ask the CTA for access to the Capital Railways track between 12 and 5?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A paper company that has no assets, no revenue, no investors of any scale and no feasibility study has filed 3-4 complaints with the CTA, complaints with the Competition Bureau and initiated several court processes. Does that not strike you as odd?

Well, they do want to use those rails in their project. I suppose you can see it as being a little premature since they're hardly properly set up yet, but it is still within their legal right.

Also, would you be able to point out the several court processes? I'm aware they've gone to the competition bureau a few times and have threatened to go to court once, but I might have missed the instance where they did go to court.

Meanwhile none of these complaints and legal actions have gotten Moose any closer to their stated objective. They have either lost all of the cases or received inconclusive judgements.

That isn't really true. (At least, from MOOSE's perspective). Also, the CTA upheld part of MOOSE's complaint against the city from 2012 (as in, the city must keep the PoW bridge as a rail bridge, for now.)

In addition, all of this litigation has pissed off local municipalities, wasted taxpayers' money and probably distracted the company from actually focusing on their stated business.

Define "pissed off". Not every town councillor in Chelsea was happy that they decided to tear up their tracks, and not everyone in Ottawa who is involved with transit planning is as opposed to MOOSE as Jim Watson is. If you want to go with what he says, then okay, but he can quite easily change his mind (see: official bilingualism).

Do you honestly think that Moose intends to ask the CTA for access to the Capital Railways track between 12 and 5?

Of course not, but the city is allowed to grant them access only between those times, if they want.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Also, would you be able to point out the several court processes?

Also, the CTA upheld part of MOOSE's complaint against the city from 2012 (as in, the city must keep the PoW bridge as a rail bridge, for now.)

Here's an example of a "court process". (link)

Also, regarding the CTA response to the 2012 complaint. We can all pick and choose which parts we want to refer to, but nothing in the decision indicated to me that the City must keep the POW bridge. I'd like to point out that "[31] The Agency finds that the City, since it took ownership of the railway line, has not discontinued operations."

and the only action that they ordered was for the City to "comply with section 141" which doesn't mean anything about having to "keep the POW Bridge". For the uninformed, Section 141 states simply that they need to keep their three year plan up to date. (link)

[Allandale25]

^ Helpful Charles, thank you.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Here's an example of a "court process". (link)

Thanks for the link. @acottawa claims that there are "numerous" or "several" though.

Also, regarding the CTA response to the 2012 complaint. We can all pick and choose which parts we want to refer to, but nothing in the decision indicated to me that the City must keep the POW bridge. I'd like to point out that "[31] The Agency finds that the City, since it took ownership of the railway line, has not discontinued operations."

and the only action that they ordered was for the City to "comply with section 141" which doesn't mean anything about having to "keep the POW Bridge". For the uninformed, Section 141 states simply that they need to keep their three year plan up to date. (link)

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Also, the CTA upheld part of MOOSE's complaint against the city from 2012 (as in, the city must keep the PoW bridge as a rail bridge, for now.)

"Ordering" the city to keep the bridge might have been a bit inaccurate on my part, but

Their three year plan stated (and still states) that they intend to use the PoW bridge for rail services.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Thanks for the link. @acottawa claims that there are "numerous" or "several" though.

This year alone they have gone to court over the chelsea trail
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/moose-consort...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

and announced they were preparing a legal challenge if the CTA doesn't give them what they want.
https://ontarioconstructionreport.com/mo...als-for-new-interprovincial-rail-system/

they also said they were taking Ottawa to court last year
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-...ls-threatened-by-track-issues-in-ottawa/

I don't have access to any legal databases, so it is hard to find the specific court documents, but I believe the previous iteration of the company (mOOse) was also involved in legal procedures.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Of course not, but the city is allowed to grant them access only between those times, if they want.

So you seem to understand that the only time moose could operate if the city maintains o-train operations is at night.

And you must understand that a night service would be incompatible with Moose's business model.

Why can't you understand that these two services are therefore mutually exclusive? If moose get the access it wants to the o-train tracks (6 trains per hour) then OC transpo cannot operate its service (about 10 trains per hour, which is the maximum capacity of the line). If OC transpo is successful in keeping moose away, then moose cannot operate any of its services.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This year alone they have gone to court over the chelsea trail
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/moose-consort...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

and announced they were preparing a legal challenge if the CTA doesn't give them what they want.
https://ontarioconstructionreport.com/mo...als-for-new-interprovincial-rail-system/

they also said they were taking Ottawa to court last year
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-...ls-threatened-by-track-issues-in-ottawa/

I don't have access to any legal databases, so it is hard to find the specific court documents, but I believe the previous iteration of the company (mOOse) was also involved in legal procedures.

Can't remember if the pending CTA decision is one of those, but they don't seem to really be in a hurry to address the outstanding issue. Meanwhile, the Phase 2 procurement work continues.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This year alone they have gone to court over the chelsea trail
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/moose-consort...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

I believe that the document @Charles5 linked was for this case.

Just something I'm going to throw out there:
Pontiac County (and the other regions who were looking to set up a commuter rail system) filed for an injunction to stop CN from lifting their tracks. They weren't successful, but would anyone here who claims that MOOSE is in the wrong for making complaints to the CTA and to the courts agree that the local governments mentioned above are guilty of the exact same thing? Or is this just something particular to MOOSE?

and announced they were preparing a legal challenge if the CTA doesn't give them what they want.
https://ontarioconstructionreport.com/mo...als-for-new-interprovincial-rail-system/

That's... A pretty big mischaracterisation of what MOOSE was saying. A "response" (of any sort) is quite different than "MOOSE not getting what they want". MOOSE was talking about a legal case if the CTA failed to respond to their complaint at all, not because the CTA didn't give them what they wanted.

For the most part MOOSE hasn't really reacted with taking organizations to court because of the outcome of a CTA ruling (the Chelsea court case was filed before the CTA ruling)

they also said they were taking Ottawa to court last year
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-...ls-threatened-by-track-issues-in-ottawa/

Based on the context of that article, I feel like he was referring to the CTA, and not an actual court.

Now they’ve torn up the tracks, we’re going back to CTA and asking them to re-open that case

When we’re taking the City of Ottawa to court we’re not lambasting, we’re simply defending the integrity of the railway,

I also believe that, since the only mentions of "legal", the law and "court" all refer to things that the CTA typically deal with. But, perhaps Mr. Potvin can clarify what he was taking about in this case.

I don't have access to any legal databases, so it is hard to find the specific court documents, but I believe the previous iteration of the company (mOOse) was also involved in legal procedures.

So, there had been one court case, one "talk of" a legal case, and another article that could have been referring to a possible legal case (or possibly not).

That's not "numerous" cases, nor is it even "several". But okay, mistakes happen.

Unless you or another member can provide any actual examples of your last claim (mOOse), I think it's fair to say that I'll take it with a grain of salt for the time being.

So you seem to understand that the only time moose could operate if the city maintains o-train operations is at night.

And you must understand that a night service would be incompatible with Moose's business model.

Why can't you understand that these two services are therefore mutually exclusive? If moose get the access it wants to the o-train tracks (6 trains per hour) then OC transpo cannot operate its service (about 10 trains per hour, which is the maximum capacity of the line). If OC transpo is successful in keeping moose away, then moose cannot operate any of its services.

I think that's why MOOSE isn't going to the CTA to gain access to the track.

They're trying the diplomatic method I mentioned a few posts back and the one that Mr. Potvin has been trying to explain for months.

But for some reason it always comes back to "MOOSE is going to get the CTA to kick the city off its own tracks"

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's... A pretty big mischaracterisation of what MOOSE was saying. A "response" (of any sort) is quite different than "MOOSE not getting what they want". MOOSE was talking about a legal case if the CTA failed to respond to their complaint at all, not because the CTA didn't give them what they wanted.

Have to disagree. The wording is pretty specific. It doesn't say "if CTA doesn't reply". It specifically says "Failing timely issuance of a railway reconstruction order from the Agency" and "Failing timely issuance of the specified railway reconstruction order from the Minister of Transport Canada, Moose will apply to the Federal Court of Canada".
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...eNo16-03784_210-R-2012_2016-08-15PDF.pdf

In other words, MOOSE wants the City to be ordered to change their construction plans and expects the CTA to issue that order. If CTA or TC don't do what MOOSE wants (ie: issue the order to the City), then MOOSE is threatening legal action.

A reply that simply dismisses MOOSE's complaint, or responds in a manner other than an order to reconstruct does not meet the requirements set by MOOSE in its escalation sequence.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They're trying the diplomatic method I mentioned a few posts back and the one that Mr. Potvin has been trying to explain for months.

- There was the document posted in the Urban Toronto forum that was presented to city council
- Mr. Potvin has stated that he has met at least once with top OC Transpo officials
- He's also met with the mayor of Gatineau
- MOOSE had the support of communities in Quebec (La Peche, Chelsea) until more recently
- Mr. Potvin once mentioned a presentation to a town council
- Mr. Potvin has mentioned that they are in communication with VIA
- etc.

That letter you refer to as a diplomatic action, I'm not sure if you've actually read it. It's simply a back door approach to try and get the City in essence to sign a blank cheque. It tries to have Council agree to something that MOOSE has proposed or drafted, without any real oversight or review, that essentially creates a contractual type of agreement. The City staff is smarter than that and that's why the motion was never passed, but I see don't put that in the category of "diplomatic" by any means.

As for the rest of your examples, yes, Joseph Potvin has said that he talks to a lot of people, that simply makes him a salesman.

[Allandale25]

^ Key word: "Once".