Rural Commuter Rail

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

There seems to be some miscommunication.

Let me just post this:

Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the works and undertakings power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

“
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Roads, 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;
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country;
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Three or more of the Provinces.
”

Section 92(10)(a) and (b) grants federal jurisdiction over modes of interprovincial and international transportation and communication, leaving intraprovincial transportation and communication to the provinces. Section 92(10)(c), however, applies to works of all types. The Parliament of Canada exercises authority over these three matters under section 91(29), which states:

“
29. Such Classes of Subjects as are implicitly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

”
Contents
1 Extent of jurisdiction
2 Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)
3 Notes
4 Further reading
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

Further to the above, there's the need for involving the NCC:

Power to construct railway
13 (1) The Commission may construct in the National Capital Region, in accordance with plans prepared under this Act, a railway and related facilities.

Marginal note:Sale, lease, etc.
(2) The Commission may

(a) sell, convey or lease any railway and related facilities, or any portion thereof, constructed pursuant to subsection (1) to any railway company; or

(b) enter into agreements with any railway company for

(i) the sole, joint or several use of the railway or facilities, or any portion thereof,

(ii) the maintenance by the company of the railway or facilities, or any portion thereof, and

(iii) the operation of the railway or facilities, or any portion thereof.

Marginal note:Application of Part III of the Canada Transportation Act
(3) Part III of the Canada Transportation Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require, is applicable to the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, but nothing in this section is deemed to constitute the Commission a railway company except for the purpose of subsection (2).

R.S., 1985, c. N-4, s. 13; 1996, c. 10, s. 236.
Expropriation
Marginal note:Expropriation
14 (1) Where in the opinion of the Commission the acquisition of any land or interest therein by the Commission without the consent of the owner is required for the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall so advise the appropriate Minister in relation to Part I of the Expropriation Act.
[...]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/FullText.html

It might be best, if the City of Ottawa is unable to hold their legal duties within the law, to cede the property in part or whole to the NCC. The NCC has no powers to operate outside of the Transportation Act (the NCC Act and Transpo Act are cross referenced with notes) and access to the rail line by any the CTA deems to certify will and must be permitted.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

There seems to be some miscommunication.

Let me just post this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

I defer from commenting further at this time...

Yes, those are things under provincial jurisdiction. That is where the o-train would fall if it the city discontinued the unused part of its railway.

[John Urban]

Post deleted, due to repost under new username as Post #1313.

@Mods: please feel free to deactivate this account, as I will stick to the other account from now on...

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, those are things under provincial jurisdiction. That is where the o-train would fall if it the city discontinued the unused part of its railway.

lol...the CTA wouldn't agree. Not to mention that the City is on record as stating that they wish to keep the bridge and the rail line.

Pardon me for being brusque here, but when do you get it? It's not for the City to decide on the integrity and legal status of any federally regulated railway. That's for the CTA to decide, and they have, and will do so even further.

Not to mention the NCC.

(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Three or more of the Provinces.

Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (more detail in my prior post)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by John Urban

Are you sure? Then how could VIA operate a Montreal-Montebello-Ottawa service after the Alexandria Bridge and old Union Station (nowadays: Government Conference Centre) were abandoned in 1966? The service continued until it was cut in 1981 by the federal government and it of course used the Prince of Wales bridge:

Source: VIA Rail timetable, effective 1981/06/01

Before 1966, even CP's transcontinental trains crossed the Prince of Wales bridge, along with quite a few other trains:

Source: CP train timetable, effective 1955/04/24

TLDR: It's been only 37, not 98 years that the Prince of Wales bridge has not seen regular and frequent passenger operations...

Thanks for the info. I was obviously mistaken.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

lol...the CTA wouldn't agree. Not to mention that the City is on record as stating that they wish to keep the bridge and the rail line.

Pardon me for being brusque here, but when do you get it? It's not for the City to decide on the integrity and legal status of any federally regulated railway. That's for the CTA to decide, and they have, and will do so even further.

Not to mention the NCC.

As I said earlier, the city's earlier statements about wanting to keep the bridge were made in a context when there was little cost to doing so. Now that the CTA has attached a significant cost to the city keeping the bridge they may rethink that plan (I certainly think they should).

When the interprovincial nature of the railway ends (again in the scenario where the city opts to discontinue the unused portion of the line which was an option offered by the CTA) so does the CTA's jurisdiction. Mr Potvin has already tried to get the CTA to assert jurisdiction over several provincial railways in Quebec (that were once under federal jurisdiction when they were part of interprovincial railways) and the CTA has declined to do so.

What is with all the sudden interest from the Big Smoke in theoretical rural rail services in Ottawa?

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I said earlier, the city's earlier statements about wanting to keep the bridge were made in a context when there was little cost to doing so.

The costs were always there along with the responsibilities clearly stated in the Transportation Act and others.

When the interprovincial nature of the railway ends (again in the scenario where the city opts to discontinue the unused portion of the line which was an option offered by the CTA) so does the CTA's jurisdiction.

No it doesn't if any other party contests the application. It's all made clear in the decision and in the Acts cited for the decision. Not to mention that any infrastructure the crosses a border is the regulatory domain of the Feds, contrary to your misinterpretation of the Constitution Act and subsidiary ones.

Mr Potvin has already tried to get the CTA to assert jurisdiction over several provincial railways in Quebec (that were once under federal jurisdiction when they were part of interprovincial railways) and the CTA has declined to do so.

They were branches that went through the abandonment process...uncontested at the time. Evidently MOOSE wished to re-open a previous decision. Just like you want Ottawa to do now.

What is with all the sudden interest from the Big Smoke in theoretical rural rail services in Ottawa?

Because although you can't understand why VIA and the national government have an interest in this, it is a national issue with national implications.

Why is it that some some Ottawonians can't grasp the meaning of national matters even with Parliament right in the centre of town?

However, small town thinking doesn't prevent you from posting at Urban Toronto now, does it?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

When the interprovincial nature of the railway ends (again in the scenario where the city opts to discontinue the unused portion of the line which was an option offered by the CTA) so does the CTA's jurisdiction.

Assuming the city is able to discontinue the unused portion of the line. Before they can do that, they must offer it up for sale. If Moose (or another railway) is able to buy it, the unused portion of the line will not be discontinued.

Mr Potvin has already tried to get the CTA to assert jurisdiction over several provincial railways in Quebec (that were once under federal jurisdiction when they were part of interprovincial railways) and the CTA has declined to do so.

To my recollection, those were spur lines attached to the mainline and had been operating as provincial railways for several years. I am not so sure that the CTA would give the same ruling to the main lines directly connected to the bridge.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

The costs were always there along with the responsibilities clearly stated in the Transportation Act and others.

They may have been there, but the city was likely under the (mis)belief that they could defer those costs until if and when they wanted to use the infrastructure. Now that they know that they can't defer those costs, their decision may change.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Assuming the city is able to discontinue the unused portion of the line. Before they can do that, they must offer it up for sale. If Moose (or another railway) is able to buy it, the unused portion of the line will not be discontinued.

There is an aspect I'm still researching that goes beyond that even. And it falls under the Constitution Act as well as the NCC Act, and perhaps others. The bridge and its historical context are a "Work of Canada":

Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)
In general terms, works declared by the Parliament of Canada to be "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" tend to be part of the national infrastructure.

Whenever parliament invokes the power, it gains not only jurisdiction over the work but also any necessarily incidental operations. In Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (1993), such a declaration had been made with respect to Ontario Hydro's nuclear plant. The Supreme Court held that that declaration gave Parliament the authority to regulate the work "as a going concern" which included jurisdiction over workers at the plant and their labour unions.

The declaration must be made by the passing of legislation, but in addition to declaring specific works, whole classes of work can be defined as being "for the general advantage of Canada" by default; the Atomic Energy Control Act, for example, deemed all nuclear power plants to fall into this category. From 1867 to 1961 there were 470 uses of the declaratory power, of which 84% related to railways.

As of 2006, the declaratory power has been invoked at least 422 times,[6] but not since 1961,[7] and of which 64% was related to railways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92...Declaratory_power_under_section_92(10)(c)

Add to that the Federal regulation of Ottawa transit operations, and to make this short....I *dare* the City of Ottawa to take this to Federal Court.

In all fairness, the NCC is responsible for a lot of this mess to begin with by ripping up railways and stations willy-nilly in the Capital, but that's, errr...'water under the bridge'. The NCC and CTA are 'under new management' so to speak at this time.

To my recollection, those were spur lines attached to the mainline and had been operating as provincial railways for several years. I am not so sure that the CTA would give the same ruling to the main lines directly connected to the bridge.

That's right, under the law as it pertained to them, it was far less complicated and rigorous. No-one at the time of application to abandon contested it.

Frankly I welcome a Federal Court action to clear the air on a lot of these matters. The Bridge should be attained by the Feds via an arm's length agency like the NCC for the benefit of Canadians, under whose laws and grace it was built in the first place.

Not to mention:

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) has hit OC Transpo with a hefty fine after enforcement officers discovered major stops were not being called out on three trips.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-fines-next-stop-announcements-1.4456114

Guess who regulates OC Transpo?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

Frankly I welcome a Federal Court action to clear the air on a lot of these matters. The Bridge should be attained by the Feds via an arm's length agency like the NCC for the benefit of Canadians, under whose laws and grace it was built in the first place.

I like the idea of the NCC taking over the bridge, but I can't imagine they would want the responsibility even if it was "discontinued" (they certainly wouldn't want it if it wasn't).

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I like the idea of the NCC taking over the bridge, but I can't imagine they would want the responsibility even if it was "discontinued" (they certainly wouldn't want it if it wasn't).

It wouldn't be "discontinued". The NCC, even with their past peccadilloes, is a perfect 'guardian' of the structure and that portion of the rail line.

Be aware that the Transport Ministry alone has the power to 'assume' the structure, but best that it be a separate motion of Parliament to take possession, and have the ability to immediately compensate the City by doing so and grant money to the NCC specifically to refurbish it for all users to share, including OC Transpo (via their certified rail division), pedestrians, cyclists and any other future certified users (MOOSE, VIA, etc).

Works for general advantage of Canada
25 All works of the Commission, whether constructed or executed before or after February 6, 1959, are hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.

R.S., c. N-3, s. 23.

National Capital Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-4)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/page-3.html#h-9

The Plan for Canada’s Capital, 2017–2067
[...]
MILESTONE 17
IMPROVED INTERPROVINCIAL
TRANSPORTATION
The NCC will collaborate with the cities, transport
authorities and various community groups in the
Capital Region to continue the development of
multi-modal and interprovincial connections and
better transit integration. An initial element may be
a project by the City of Ottawa to create a multi-use
pathway across the Prince of Wales railway bridge
connecting Ottawa and Gatineau. In the medium
term, the NCC will advocate for the construction of a
full public transit connection on this bridge in order
to integrate the transit systems of both cities on their
primary north–south axis.

http://capital2067.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PFCC-English-complete-optimized.pdf pg 70 of the printed report, pdf pg 79

MOOSE' projected plan is to do both rail and added cycle/walkways across the bridge.

[Urban_Sky]

I decided to create a different username to match with my username on Urban Toronto, so quick-repost before I delete my "old" one-post account:

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.

If that was the case, CP (and later: VIA) wouldn't have been able to operate its Montreal-Montebello-Ottawa service after the Alexandria Bridge and old Union Station (nowadays: Government Conference Centre) were abandoned in 1966. The service continued until it was cut in 1981 by the federal government and it of course used the Prince of Wales bridge:

Source: VIA Rail timetable, effective 1981/06/01

Before 1966, even CP's transcontinental trains crossed the Prince of Wales bridge, along with quite a few other trains:

Source: CP train timetable, effective 1955/04/24

A more detailed version of this post can be found on Urban Toronto: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-38#post-1309695

TLDR: It's been only 37, not 98 years that the Prince of Wales bridge has not seen regular and frequent passenger operations - still more than a generation, but much less than a century...

Originally Posted by acottawa

Thanks for the info. I was obviously mistaken.

No problem. I started a collection of old railway timetables and it amazes me how the terminal stations have changed over time, not just in Ottawa, but also in Quebec City and Montreal...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

The costs were always there along with the responsibilities clearly stated in the Transportation Act and others.

In 2012 the CTA concluded that

...in the Agency’s opinion, 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 Safety Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.).

The recent decision by the CTA essentially reversed its earlier ruling, which added a significant new cost that it had not been required to pay under the older CTA ruling.

The city has no specific plans to use the bridge. There is no consensus within the national capital region on how to best improve inter provincial transit. None of the relevant governments and agencies (Federal Government, Ontario, Quebec, Ottawa, Gatineau or the NCC) has offered up any money related to the bridge or a service on it.

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

No it doesn't if any other party contests the application. It's all made clear in the decision and in the Acts cited for the decision. Not to mention that any infrastructure the crosses a border is the regulatory domain of the Feds, contrary to your misinterpretation of the Constitution Act and subsidiary ones.

That was the old procedure, where if the abandonment is contested the CTA is required to do further analysis on the economics of the line. As this analysis from the Library of Parliament summarizes:

If the determination is that the operation of the line is uneconomic and that there is no reasonable probability of its becoming economic in the foreseeable future, the Agency must, within six months after receiving the application, order abandonment.

Even under the old laws it would be almost impossible to conclude a line that hasn't seen any use in decades and has no prospective clients is economically viable.

Under the current procedure there is just a bunch of notification requirements and offering the line to other parties.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/transfer-and-discontinuance-railway-lines

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

Because although you can't understand why VIA and the national government have an interest in this, it is a national issue with national implications.

Why is it that some some Ottawonians can't grasp the meaning of national matters even with Parliament right in the centre of town?

However, small town thinking doesn't prevent you from posting at Urban Toronto now, does it?

Ok, why don't you educate us small town rubes. What good is an unused, derelict bridge that hasn't been used in decades to Via and HFR?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ok, why don't you educate us small town rubes. What good is an unused, derelict bridge that hasn't been used in decades to Via and HFR?

I think what steveintoronto is trying to articulate is not that Via and HFR are interested in the POW bridge itself, but the precedent the ruling (and appeal) will set.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In 2012 the CTA concluded that
[...]

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.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

"90 days"...it's now in the sixth year.

Ok, why don't you educate us small town rubes. What good is an unused, derelict bridge that hasn't been used in decades to Via and HFR?

To get to the other side...

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

To get to the other side...

But in the HFR plans Via has released, there is absolutely no indication that they plan to run trains north of the Ottawa river and to do so would serve no clear benefit (in terms of HFR).

[steveintoronto]

But in the HFR plans Via has released, there is absolutely no indication that they plan to run trains north of the Ottawa river and to do so would serve no clear benefit (in terms of HFR).

HFR is a concept, just as the OC Transpo's plans are for the bridge. No route has been set for HFR. Let's settle on the term "Open Access" as the NCC ownership would have to be. Even if it wasn't, under the Transportation Act, CT Agency certification permitting, *ANYONE* has access.

That's a concept that seems to upset so many, and yet it's the backbone of rail law in this and many other nations.

Decision No. 210-R-2012
June 6, 2012
COMPLAINT by Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises Inc. pursuant to Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended.

File No.:
R8050/11-05135

INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
Application
[1] Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises Inc. (MOOSE) filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) pursuant to Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) against the City of Ottawa (City). MOOSE requests the Agency to determine:

that the Prince of Wales Bridge (Bridge) was in good condition when it was sold to the City in 2004, but is currently in a state of disrepair; and,
that the City, by allowing the Bridge to decline into disrepair and by representing that it plans to convert the Bridge from a railway to a roadway, has discontinued a federal railway work without due process under Division V of the CTA.
[2] MOOSE requests the Agency to order the City to restore the Bridge.

Issues
[3] The Agency has determined that this complaint raises the following issues:

Did the City, when it purchased the Bridge, acquire a railway line for continued operation?
If the City acquired a railway line for continued operation, has the City discontinued operating the railway line?
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.

[5] The Agency orders the City to comply with section 141 of the CTA.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

I repeat, urge your Cnclrs and Mayor to appeal the latest decision. It will bring needed further action from the Ministry to intervene, possibly via the NCC, to acquire the bridge, and then give OC Transpo shared access to the bridge as well as other deserving parties. The City would get fair market value for it, money that could be spent on...gosh...access to the bridge perhaps? Improvement of the existing Trillium Line. More rolling stock.

But that would be fair...and therein lies the angst for some. Sharing....

Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10)
Act current to 2018-01-30 and last amended on 2017-08-01.

[...]
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 V
Transferring 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.
[...continues at length...]

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

[acottawa]

Which "ministry"?

What department or agency would have an interest in intervening?

If any department, agency or crown corporation has some plan to try to turn the o-train, bridge and Q&G into some sort of intercity route then they haven't told the NCC, which recently agreed to sell the adjacent land to a hockey team, or the federal government, which continues to fund O-train expansion (a service incompatible with any sort of intercity rail services) or the Department of Finance which has never offered up a dollar for the bridge or any project intending to use the bridge or Via Rail, which continues to make large investments in the central station on a different rail line (its own).

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012
"90 days"...it's now in the sixth year.

Steve, Section 141 of the CTA only requires the railway owner to have a three year plan. The City was ordered to update their three year plan within 90 days, not to fix the bridge. They complied.