Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

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.

They updated it to state that they intended to keep the bridge "active"... not "not fix it".

Active meaning an "active railway", or not discontinued.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They updated it to state that they intended to keep the bridge "active"... not "not fix it".

Active meaning an "active railway", or not discontinued.

Please provide your source for the term "active" in the 3 year plan. Discontinuance would only apply if there is no future intent.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Please provide your source for the term "active" in the 3 year plan. Discontinuance would only apply if there is no future intent.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but any railway that is not discontinued is considered "active" regardless of what state it is in.

In their show cause letter, the city (re)stated that their three year plan was to retain the bridge.
(2.2 (b))

When the city purchased the corridor from CP, they assumed sole responsibility of operating and maintaining the railway. Now, at their discretion they can decide to leave sections of the line unmaintained; it isn't uncommon. However, being the sole owner of the track means that if another railway operator were to want to use those tracks (which they can, under federal law), then it is the responsibility of the owner to have maintained those rails for use because technically they are part of an "active" rail line.

MOOSE has offered to pay the costs of renovating the bridge (and even upgrade it), but by all means it seems that they could force the city to pay the entire cost.

Now I know someone will mention "but MOOSE isn't even a railway company. they don't have a certificate of fitness. they're wasting the city's money. etc.", but this is where I think it'd be good to go back to your (Charles') interpretation of the ruling which isn't that the line must be operable within 12 months of now, but instead 12 months after a future CTA ruling. (i.e. once MOOSE obtains the certificate)

Based on this interpretation, you could say that the CTA is basically telling the city to either be ready to pony up and own its responsibility as the owner of the railway, or quit playing this stupid game.



You also can't point a finger at either MOOSE or the CTA for "incurring unforeseen significant costs" since the bridge was the responsibility of the city all along.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

HFR is a concept, just as the OC Transpo's plans are for the bridge. No route has been set for HFR.

While the exact route has not been set, Via has indicated some strong ideas about what the route should be. Even if they are open to other options, as the map of possible ROWs below shows, using the Quebec route would be a significant detour and would thus get ruled out pretty quickly.

Before suggesting that Via could move the Ottawa trains, they are in the middle of a 20 million dollar upgrade to the station, so to turn around and abandon it wouldn't look very good.



For interest sake, I added a layer which includes the rapid transit routes. If you click on the picture, you can load the map to turn those layers on. As you can see both the Trillium Line LRT and the Rapibus BRT use portions of the Quebec route.

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.

While appealing the decision is certainly worth considering, I am not convinced that the outcome you are suggesting is a slam dunk would actually happen. More than likely the result would be the options in front of you still stand.

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

I find your definition of sharing rather strange. The definition of sharing is, "we want to run trains that are incompatible with yours on your tracks so therefore you will have to abandon your LRT service along the stretch of track we want to use. Don't worry, we will provide trains ever 30 minutes that your transit users can transfer to."

Imagine if the Bloor–Danforth line was under federal control and someone came along and said, we want access to your tracks and since our trains aren't compatible with yours, you won't be able to use it anymore. How would John Tory react?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

MOOSE has offered to pay the costs of renovating the bridge (and even upgrade it), but by all means it seems that they could force the city to pay the entire cost.

Now I know someone will mention "but MOOSE isn't even a railway company. they don't have a certificate of fitness. they're wasting the city's money. etc.", but this is where I think it'd be good to go back to your (Charles') interpretation of the ruling which isn't that the line must be operable within 12 months of now, but instead 12 months after a future CTA ruling. (i.e. once MOOSE obtains the certificate)

Based on this interpretation, you could say that the CTA is basically telling the city to either be ready to pony up and own its responsibility as the owner of the railway, or quit playing this stupid game.

I agree with you that I think the city should stop playing the stupid game (which is why I think discontinuing is the best option).

Moose has no money. All work done so far has been "in kind" which appears to mean pro bono. They cannot buy any bridges, land, rails, stations or anything else. They do not appear to have any paid employees, any assets, or any revenue. They are still trying to come up with a few million for a feasibility study (which seems to be the same state they have been in since 2011).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While the exact route has not been set, Via has indicated some strong ideas about what the route should be. Even if they are open to other options, as the map below shows, using the Quebec route would be a significant detour and would thus get ruled out pretty quickly.

Before suggesting that Via could move the Ottawa trains, they are in the middle of a 20 million dollar upgrade to the station, so to turn around and abandon it wouldn't look very good.

While it would be a bit of a detour, it would provide new rail services to areas in Quebec that haven't had any for decades.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I find your definition of sharing rather strange. The definition of sharing is, "we want to run trains that are incompatible with yours on your tracks so therefore you will have to abandon your LRT service along the stretch of track we want to use. Don't worry, we will provide trains ever 30 minutes that your transit users can transfer to."

Imagine if the Bloor–Danforth line was under federal control and someone came along and said, we want access to your tracks and since our trains aren't compatible with yours, you won't be able to use it anymore. How would John Tory react?

Well said.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I agree with you that I think the city should stop playing the stupid game (which is why I think discontinuing is the best option).

Moose has no money. All work done so far has been "in kind" which appears to mean pro bono. They cannot buy any bridges, land, rails, stations or anything else. They do not appear to have any paid employees, any assets, or any revenue. They are still trying to come up with a few million for a feasibility study (which seems to be the same state they have been in since 2011).

Well, as of yet there's still absolutely no indication that that will happen.

Not sure if it's been asked, but even if the city discontinued the bridge and no one purchased it, what would the city be able to do then? The bridge is still interprovincial. Would the city have the jurisdiction to convert it to BRT or pedestrian walkway without federal assistance? And even then, should they assume that responsibility?

As far as the CTA is concerned, they clearly think that there is the potential for future requests to access the bridge, from MOOSE or otherwise.

[steveintoronto]

Decision No. 210-R-2012
June 6, 2012
[...]
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.
[...]
The City
[17] The City submits that at the time of the purchase it had no immediate plan or legal authority to operate trains across the Ottawa River. The City states that it has never obtained nor sought to obtain a certificate of fitness to authorize it to operate a railway line across the Bridge. The City also points out that the Certificate of Fitness issued, and later varied, by the Agency does not provide the City with the authority to operate a railway line across the Ottawa River, by way of the Bridge or any other means.

[18] The City submits that there are currently no railway operations on the Bridge such that it is not part of any railway line. The City states that it cannot take steps to discontinue a railway line that it does not operate. The City therefore claims that it is under no statutory obligation to include the Bridge in its plan.

[19] The City denies that the lack of an annotated line on the Bridge on Schedule B of the City’s plan indicates its intention to discontinue use of the Bridge.

[20] The City submits that it has at all times complied with the provisions of Division V of the CTA with respect to its ownership of the Bridge. The City claims that there is no requirement or obligation under the CTA to maintain the Bridge in a state of ready use for passenger rail service.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[21] In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
[...]
Issue 1: Did the City, when it purchased the Bridge, acquire a railway line for continued operation?
Bridge acquired for continued operation
[22] MOOSE submits that CP never filed a plan to discontinue the operation of the railway line over the Bridge. The City did not file any submission indicating that the railway line over the Bridge was discontinued by CP prior to the sale. Accordingly, the Agency finds that CP did not discontinue the railway line over the Bridge prior to its sale to the City. For the purposes of brevity, the railway line over the Bridge shall be referred to as the “railway line”.

[23] Subsection 141(3) of the CTA states that a railway company may sell, lease or otherwise transfer its railway lines, or its operating interest in its lines, for continued operation. The City filed with the Agency the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Railway for Continued Railway Operations between CP and the City, signed March 21, 2005. The Agreement includes the Ellwood and Prescott corridors, and the Bridge. The Agreement also includes the Vendor’s Conditions, which state: “Subject to the Purchaser executing an Acknowledgement and Undertaking, in a form satisfactory to the Vendor’s Solicitor, acting reasonably, acknowledging that the Lands, Fixtures and documents are being sold for continued railway operations.”

[24] The Agency finds that CP entered into the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Railway for Continued Railway Operations with the City in accordance with subsection 141(3) of the CTA. That agreement was for the sale of railway lines, including the railway line across the Bridge, for continued operation. There is no evidence indicating that CP had discontinued operation of the railway line prior to the sale.
[...]
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

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I find your definition of sharing rather strange. The definition of sharing is, "we want to run trains that are incompatible with yours on your tracks so therefore you will have to abandon your LRT service along the stretch of track we want to use. Don't worry, we will provide trains ever 30 minutes that your transit users can transfer to."

Imagine if the Bloor–Danforth line was under federal control and someone came along and said, we want access to your tracks and since our trains aren't compatible with yours, you won't be able to use it anymore. How would John Tory react?

That's sort of an Apples to Oranges comparison.

It was ultimately the City of Ottawa's decision to use incompatible rolling stock on the Trillium Line. It was historically, and still is regulated as a federal mainline railway that just happens to be used as a municipal rapid rail transit line.

Frankly, most of MOOSE's issues don't even seem to be coming from the idea of sharing tracks other than one thing the Mayor said a while back. (And Chelsea).

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Charles5

They complied.

This doesn't change that the CTA ruling finds that the city was (and still is!) in contempt of the law, by de-facto abandoning a right of way without bothering to go through the procedures of an official abandonment process. As far as I'm aware, they haven't yet fixed their legal neglect by going through either option shown by the CTA (i.e. either fixing the bridge or going through the abandonment process)...

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I find your definition of sharing rather strange. The definition of sharing is, "we want to run trains that are incompatible with yours on your tracks so therefore you will have to abandon your LRT service along the stretch of track we want to use. Don't worry, we will provide trains ever 30 minutes that your transit users can transfer to."

Imagine if the Bloor–Danforth line was under federal control and someone came along and said, we want access to your tracks and since our trains aren't compatible with yours, you won't be able to use it anymore. How would John Tory react?

There's a reason the Confederation Line and Trillium Line don't and aren't permitted to meet end to end.

The Trillium Line is "light" in terms of the vehicles used, but the line is a heavy rail one. And speaking of "imagining"...I think you'd best take that up with John Lennon.

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

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Not sure if it's been asked, but even if the city discontinued the bridge and no one purchased it, what would the city be able to do then? The bridge is still interprovincial. Would the city have the jurisdiction to convert it to BRT or pedestrian walkway without federal assistance? And even then, should they assume that responsibility?

.

I think if nobody wants it they pull up the track for scrap and can do whatever they want with the land and bridge. Not sure if they would try to demolish the bridge itself (or if it has additional heritage protection). They have held onto the old rail bridge to porter island in unused state for a long time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's sort of an Apples to Oranges comparison.

It was ultimately the City of Ottawa's decision to use incompatible rolling stock on the Trillium Line. It was historically, and still is regulated as a federal mainline railway that just happens to be used as a municipal rapid rail transit line.

Frankly, most of MOOSE's issues don't even seem to be coming from the idea of sharing tracks other than one thing the Mayor said a while back. (And Chelsea).

Which was all done with the approval of the CTA and Transport Canada. If the city had not stepped up CP would have discontinued the line long ago.

I believe Transport Canada and the CTA were ok with the former Barrhaven LRT plan, which would have seen the rail service discontinued all together to replace it with a tram style system.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

Decision No. 210-R-2012
June 6, 2012
[...]

This thread is a decade old, we have seen all the documents from Mr. Potvin's website, you don't have to copy and paste them again.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think if nobody wants it they pull up the track for scrap and can do whatever they want with the land and bridge. Not sure if they would try to demolish the bridge itself (or if it has additional heritage protection). They have held onto the old rail bridge to porter island in unused state for a long time.

Well, whether you think it wouldn't be worth much as a rail/BRT connection, it would still be valuable as a pedestrian connection which would still cost the city something. There's nothing sensible that the city can do without costing them something, unless your idea of sensible is to just not spend money at all.

Not every truss bridge is a rail bridge. I don't think there was ever rail service to Porter island. Besides, it was replaced with a new bridge only 100m away.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, whether you think it wouldn't be worth much as a rail/BRT connection, it would still be valuable as a pedestrian connection which would still cost the city something. There's nothing sensible that the city can do without costing them something, unless your idea of sensible is to just not spend money at all.

Not every truss bridge is a rail bridge. I don't think there was ever rail service to Porter island. Besides, it was replaced with a new bridge only 100m away.

I still don't think the city should take the lead role in an interprovincial pedestrian bridge (maybe it should pay for the first span which is entirely within the city of Ottawa).

You're right, but it is still an example of a bridge the city is willing to close and ignore.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but any railway that is not discontinued is considered "active" regardless of what state it is in.

I think it'd be good to go back to your (Charles') interpretation of the ruling which isn't that the line must be operable within 12 months of now, but instead 12 months after a future CTA ruling. (i.e. once MOOSE obtains the certificate)

Two points:

First, I actually agree with the CTA ruling in this case. I believe that owners of railway infrastructure cannot simply abandon it forever and let it decay if they wish it to remain 'active', that is that they intend to continue use of it. It does not mean that it has to be maintained in a usable condition but to rule that one should be able to restore the railway for use within a reasonable amount of time to me seems a valid argument. In this ruling, CTA has indicated that they believe that 12 months is a 'reasonable' amount of time. That point could and should be debated, but I still agree with the concept in principle.

The second point is that the 12 months would be after a CTA ruling. You equate that to MOOSE getting their certificate of fitness. The two issues are separate from one another. If MOOSE ever were to get a Certificate of Fitness, only then could they apply to the CTA for running rights under Div IV and there is no guarantee that it would be granted. Sect 138 (2) states "The Agency MAY grant the right"

"In the Agency’s most recent decision relating to running rights, the 2002 Ferroequus decision, the Agency characterized running rights as an “exceptional remedy” that should be granted only if there is evidence of market abuse or market failure. Despite having received a number of applications for running rights, the Agency has yet to grant one."
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04040.html#section2_c_4

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Two points:
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04040.html#section2_c_4

Agreed on all points save for provisos.

There's little doubt that the Transportation Act and regulatory functions contained therein need reformation.

What the Competition Bureau is focused on, however, is freight. Grain producers and shippers especially have abject concerns, not to mention the demise of the Wheat Board has made for many complications, not least the Hudson Bay Railway and Omnitrax.

As to why successive governments have dragged their heels on reformation is a good topic for discussion. I do, however, with some serious confidentiality breaches on the part of the CT Agency, see a more pro-active stance from the Agency's decisions of late.

As an aside to our present focus on the PoW Bridge, reformation starts at the top of the Ministry in terms of decisions even within the present framework. And that's going to be essential for the "407 By-Pass" greatly needed for GTHA.

The National Capital Act had/has powers that the GTHA can only dream of being enacted.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Before suggesting that Via could move the Ottawa trains, they are in the middle of a 20 million dollar upgrade to the station, so to turn around and abandon it wouldn't look very good.

I never suggested that. You assume far too much, albeit since it's all projection, many things are possible.

What I do see is some runs that start or terminate in Ottawa could do so from Gatineau via Ottawa. Gatineau region is more populace than many other cities VIA serves. It also allows VIA to show, as their mandate implies, that they serve cities interprovincially where possible. The route north of the river also has aspects of better entering Montreal, but that's another matter that involves the Mount Royal Tunnel and REM discussion.