Rural Commuter Rail

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea why but city lawyers might be reluctant to recommend such an appeal.

Would anyone care to articulate here the potential grounds for appeal, based in the Canada Transportation Act or any previous case law?

Anyone care to offer a rationale under which the Agency would back down?

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Would anyone care to articulate here the potential grounds for appeal, based in the Canada Transportation Act or any previous case law?

Anyone care to offer a rationale under which the Agency would back down?

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

Certainly the timeframe was arbitrary. Nowhere in law or regulation does it say unused railways have to be maintained in 12 month readiness to implement a new service.

I have no idea why you think this is a victory. This just encourages railways to discontinue their unused lines, which screws up your whole stated business model.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Certainly the timeframe was arbitrary. Nowhere in law or regulation does it say unused railways have to be maintained in 12 month readiness to implement a new service.

I have no idea why you think this is a victory. This just encourages railways to discontinue their unused lines, which screws up your whole stated business model.

There might not be a timeline, but the CTA can force a railway to provide certain services.

It's made you think that they want to discontinue their unused lines. They've made no other indication that they actually do.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

but the CTA can force a railway to provide certain services.

Where does it say that anywhere?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It's made you think that they want to discontinue their unused lines. They've made no other indication that they actually do.

1. The Bridge has not appear to have been used for passenger services in 98 years (when Union Station opened downtown). It has not been used for freight services for a long time.
2. Moose is no closer to being operational than they were 7 years ago (further in fact because there have been several instances of discontinued track all over their planned routes). They cannot even convince investors to put up a few million for a feasibility study. Even in the most optimistic scenario they are many years away from operating some sort of service.
3. The City of Ottawa has no specific plans to make use of the bridge. There is no consensus within the region on how inter-provincial services should work. Over the last few days at least a half dozen different different ideas for the PoW bridge have been proposed on this forum alone (O-Train extension to Taché or Montcalm, O-Train extension to Terrasses de la Chaudière, extension of Rapibus to Bayview, people-mover, Truckway, Pedestrian/Cycling Bridge).
4. Despite having no users, and no potential users for any foreseeable future, the CTA is now requiring the city to spend a significant among of money (exact amount unknown) to upgrade the line to 12-month readiness, just in case maybe someday somebody wants to use it. That is not a rationale behaviour for the city (or any owner of unused railway lines) to undertake.

[roger1818]

Hindsite being 20/20, the city should have started the process of discontinuing the rail line on the POW bridge when they bought it about 15 years ago.

From my understanding other railways get first dibs on the rail line but second dibs goes to "federal provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities" for any purpose. This to me doesn't have to include rail and thus the city could have bought the bridge from itself to be used for non rail purposes. This way it would no longer have been a federal rail line and there would have been no need to keep the tracks connected. Had they wanted to extend LRT, they could have applied to have it re-instated at that time.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Where does it say that anywhere?

I think I was mistaken. They can't force a company to create a new line (with the exception being VIA), but they require authorization to cancel passenger rail service. (I believe).

Originally Posted by acottawa

1. The Bridge has not appear to have been used for passenger services in 98 years (when Union Station opened downtown). It has not been used for freight services for a long time.
2. Moose is no closer to being operational than they were 7 years ago (further in fact because there have been several instances of discontinued track all over their planned routes). They cannot even convince investors to put up a few million for a feasibility study. Even in the most optimistic scenario they are many years away from operating some sort of service.
3. The City of Ottawa has no specific plans to make use of the bridge. There is no consensus within the region on how inter-provincial services should work. Over the last few days at least a half dozen different different ideas for the PoW bridge have been proposed on this forum alone (O-Train extension to Taché or Montcalm, O-Train extension to Terrasses de la Chaudière, extension of Rapibus to Bayview, people-mover, Truckway, Pedestrian/Cycling Bridge).
4. Despite having no users, and no potential users for any foreseeable future, the CTA is now requiring the city to spend a significant among of money (exact amount unknown) to upgrade the line to 12-month readiness, just in case maybe someday somebody wants to use it. That is not a rationale behaviour for the city (or any owner of unused railway lines) to undertake.

Yet none of that takes into consideration what the city has stated over the last 6 years which is that they intend to keep and make use of the bridge.
You've stated your personal opinion based on facts, but your opinion is not the city's.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think I was mistaken. They can't force a company to create a new line (with the exception being VIA), but they require authorization to cancel passenger rail service. (I believe).

There has been no passenger service for a century, so no problem there.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Yet none of that takes into consideration what the city has stated over the last 6 years which is that they intend to keep and make use of the bridge.
You've stated your personal opinion based on facts, but your opinion is the city's.

That's true, I have stated what I believe a rationale approach for the city to take. They have not announced their next steps (and have until April 30 to do so) so they may or may not do the rationale thing.

I interpret (different people may have a different interpretation) that the city's intention to make use of the bridge was in a theoretical sense (maybe at some point type of thing). When they made those statements there was limited cost associated with keeping the bridge (mostly to chase away "trespassers"). The CTA has applied an enormous cost to the city to keep the bridge, which I believe will change the calculation the city will make with regard to the bridge, but we will see.

[McC]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There has been no passenger service for a century, so no problem there.

Not quite: no regular passenger service, but the Wakefield steam train used to cross on it's way to/from the Sci&Tech Museum.

[steveintoronto]

The CTA has the follow competencies and more:

Acts
The Agency has primary responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. It also shares responsibility for the following laws:

Canada Marine Act
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act
Coasting Trade Act
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Pilotage Act
Railway Relocation and Crossing Act
Railway Safety Act
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987
Note: For all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, users should consult the Acts as passed by Parliament which are published in the Canada Gazette and the annual Statutes of Canada, and the regulations published in the Canada Gazette. These publications are available in most public libraries.

Regulations
The Agency has sole responsibility for the following regulations:

Air Transportation Regulations (SOR/88-58)
FAQs: Air Transportation Regulations
Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations (SOR/99-244)
FAQs: Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations
Regulations on Operational Terms for Rail Level of Services Arbitration (SOR/2014-192)
FAQs: Regulations on Operational Terms for Rail Level of Services Arbitration
Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations (SOR/94-42)
FAQs: Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations
Railway Costing Regulations (SOR/80-310)
FAQs: Railway Costing Regulations
Railway Interswitching Regulations (SOR/88-41)
FAQs: Railway Interswitching Regulations
Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations (SOR/96-337)
FAQs: Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations
Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations (SOR/96-338)
FAQs: Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations
Railway Traffic Liability Regulations (SOR/91-488)
FAQs: Railway Traffic Liability Regulations

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations

That the PoW Bridge hasn't hosted passenger traffic recently has no bearing on the pertaining acts, The Transportation and Relocation and Crossing Acts being just two.

All items quoted linked at source for those who care to reference them.

[Charles5]

Joseph Potvin,

In July last year you indicated that...

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

The formal peer-reviewed feasibility study should be done by end of October.

Perhaps you could update us on how that went.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

[...]
4. Despite having no users, and no potential users for any foreseeable future, the CTA is now requiring the city to spend a significant among of money (exact amount unknown) to upgrade the line to 12-month readiness, just in case maybe someday somebody wants to use it. That is not a rationale behaviour for the city (or any owner of unused railway lines) to undertake.

The Transportation Act is and has been very clear on the requirements of owning a railway for long before the City of Ottawa acquired the bridge and the rail line that it hosts.

The City of Ottawa makes very clear in their own publication on the beginning of the O-Train as to who the regulator is, and under what Acts of Parliament it does so:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

And from the regulator:

http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Joseph Potvin,

In July last year you indicated that... "the formal peer-reviewed feasibility study should be done by end of October". Perhaps you could update us on how that went.

Sure. MOOSE has shifted from a potential contract with one investment syndication management firm (though, we only exchanged letters of intent with a foreign investor oriented company, and did not proceed), to now having a signed contract with a much more prominent investment syndication management firm (Canadian investor oriented, but which shall remain confidential for the time being). Three national-level professional service companies have been selected to undertake the comprehensive financial system design and engineering studies. Based on the interim peer-reviewed feasibility analysis to date, an investor package is being prepared to finance those comprehensive studies. Meanwhile step-by-step arrangements are being discussed with all railway stakeholders in the Greater National Capital Region.

Sorry that much of the substance is confidential for the time being. This is simply due the need to take time to validate elements of our plan with all the relevant business and government entities, without posting un-negotiated working arrangements in public. Naturally the general public has a right to know and to provide input, and we to put up considerable information online, and link to all media coverage of our intiative (whether or not we consider it accurate or favourable). And that's also why I personally make time to respond to questions and comments on blogs such as this one.

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

The Transportation Act is and has been very clear on the requirements of owning a railway for long before the City of Ottawa acquired the bridge and the rail line that it hosts.

The City of Ottawa makes very clear in their own publication on the beginning of the O-Train as to who the regulator is, and under what Acts of Parliament it does so:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

And from the regulator:

http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

Yes, but the city has no immediate or planned (with any level of detail) use for the interprovincial portion of the railway. Which is why I have argued that its most rational approach would be to begin the discontinuance process. This has two advantages of saving the city a lot of money and getting out of the interprovincial railway business, which creates a pathway to be a provincially regulated railway (and get the CTA mostly off its back, although I think it still regulates railway safety for provincial railways).

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, but the city has no immediate or planned (with any level of detail) use for the interprovincial portion of the railway. Which is why I have argued that its most rational approach would be to begin the discontinuance process. This has two advantages of saving the city a lot of money and getting out of the interprovincial railway business, which creates a pathway to be a provincially regulated railway (and get the CTA mostly off its back, although I think it still regulates railway safety for provincial railways).

I can't think of a better case being made than by what you state for the CTA's further intervention on the matter.

I was deferring from quoting the applicable sections of the Transportation Act, but since some appear unwilling to reference it, let alone understand it, and why the CTA ruled how they did, best I quote some relevant information to the proposed Bill C-101, still languishing in Parliament, but would address the gist of your apparent concern. Until such time as the Transportation Act is reformed, this remains the Law:

Under the National Transportation Act, 1987, an appeal lies from the National Transportation Agency to the Federal Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction. Also, the Governor in Council may, at any time, vary or rescind any decision, order, rule or regulation of the Agency, and any order that the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding on the Agency and on all parties.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp403-e.htm

In effect, the 'Governor in Council' is the Transport Minister, at this time, Marc Garneau. He favours VIA and the HFR project, and *unofficially* he will be very encouraged by the rulings from the CTA of late.

Perhaps what many of us have in common is a desire for the City of Ottawa to take this to the Federal Court of Appeal. An appeal is based on legal procedure and adherence or not. It is not based on testing "whether the CTA has jurisdiction or not".

I'm new to this forum, and I trust the relevant sections of the *present* Transportation Act, as cited in the CTA's rulings, have been itemized and presented here? If not, I will.

There appears to be rampant confusion on the basis of the CTA's most recent ruling. Although MOOSE set the stage to petition the CTA's intervention, the latter is now ruling on *points of law as delineated in the Transporation Act* and others, and nothing to do with MOOSE directly. The Transpo Act, btw, does not 'take from one and give to the other'. It enshrines the *sharing of track* if criteria are met and the CTA certifies that.

This whole debate of (gist) 'Moose wishing to deny the Trillium Line meeting proposed headway intervals' is a complete strawman argument.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

MOOSE has shifted from a potential contract with one investment syndication management firm (though, we only exchanged letters of intent with a foreign investor oriented company, and did not proceed), to now having a signed contract with a much more prominent investment syndication management firm (Canadian investor oriented, but which shall remain confidential for the time being). Three national-level professional service companies have been selected to undertake the comprehensive financial system design and engineering studies. Based on the interim peer-reviewed feasibility analysis to date, an investor package is being prepared to finance those comprehensive studies.

To clarify then, without sacrificing confidentiality. The due diligence review by LeMine led them to make a decision not to invest in MOOSE or fund your feasibility study requirements. However, you currently have a signed contract and several service companies to conduct those feasibility studies, but you are still working on a package to finance those studies. I assume then that this signed contract does not provide any financing for that feasibility study (which MOOSE has estimated at $5M). Is that correct?


Last year, in regards to the anticipated results of the LeMine due diligence review, you stated:

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

We'll work out a communications approach with LeMine-Consortia N.A., of course, one way or the other.

Can you confirm if any form of public notification was made in that regard. What was the resultant "communications approach" and can you provide direction to where we might find it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

I can't think of a better case being made by what you state for the CTA's further intervention on the matter.

I was deferring from quoting the applicable sections of the Transportation Act, but since some appear unwilling to reference it, let alone understand it, and why the CTA ruled how they did, best I quote some relevant information to the proposed Bill C-101, still languishing in Parliament, but would address the gist of your apparent concern. Until such time as the Transportation Act is reformed, this remains the Law:


http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp403-e.htm

In effect, the 'Governor in Council' is the Transport Minister, at this time, Marc Garneau. He favours VIA and the HFR project, and *unofficially* he will be very encouraged by the rulings from the CTA of late.

Perhaps what many of us have in common is a desire for the City of Ottawa to take this to the Federal Court of Appeal. An appeal is based on legal procedure and adherence or not. It is not based on testing "whether the CTA has jurisdiction or not".

I'm new to this forum, and I trust the relevant sections of the *present* Transportation Act, as cited in the CTA's rulings, have been itemized and presented here? If not, I will.

What does Via or HFR have to do with anything? This is a little tiny 8 km local transit line. The complaint was brought by a local individual that thinks he is going to start a local rural rail company.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

To clarify then, without sacrificing confidentiality. The due diligence review by LeMine led them to make a decision not to invest in MOOSE or fund your feasibility study requirements. However, you currently have a signed contract and several service companies to conduct those feasibility studies, but you are still working on a package to finance those studies. I assume then that this signed contract does not provide any financing for that feasibility study (which MOOSE has estimated at $5M). Is that correct?


Last year, in regards to the anticipated results of the LeMine due diligence review, you stated:



Can you confirm if any form of public notification was made in that regard. What was the resultant "communications approach" and can you provide direction to where we might find it.

My reading is that the Lemine thing fell through and he is now going to try to get angel investors to fund the feasibility study.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What does Via or HFR have to do with anything? This is a little tiny 8 km local transit line. The complaint was brought by a local individual that thinks he is going to start a local rural rail company.

It's to do with how our nation's railways are regulated, according to the law.

As to the CTA's latest decision on the PoW Bridge, MOOSE and/or Potvin were not mentioned once. You exactly make my point.

City of Ottawa - Determination as to whether the City of Ottawa has contravened Part III, Division V of the CTA by effectively discontinuing the operation of a portion of its Ottawa River Line without complying with the mandatory discontinuance process.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/r-2018-23

It's not about what you *think* it says. It's about what it actually does state.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

It's to do with how our nation's railways are regulated, according to the law.

As to the CTA's latest decision on the PoW Bridge, MOOSE and/or Potvin were not mentioned once. You exactly make my point.

And the regulator has given the city two options: file the paperwork to discontinue or spend a lot of money, both options provided for in law. If it chooses the former, the portion of the railway in actual use would no longer be included in:

Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province

and therefore not subject to federal jurisdiction (i.e. under CTA jurisdiction)

Whether or not Mr. Potvin is mentioned, he filed the complaint (he posts such things on his website). The CTA took no prior interest in the bridge.