Chief William Commanda Bridge (former Prince of Wales Bridge)

[OCCheetos]

The PRESTO twitter account has stated a few times that "mobile solutions" will be unveiled later this year. (They've been saying more or less the same thing for the last 5 years now, but they finally specifically said 'this year').

So, that could mean an app, or mobile payments.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

With every Confederation Line station having a reload machine, do you really need the Shopper's presence? I'm not surprised they haven't prioritized that in Ottawa.

But none of the suburbs will have Confederation Line stations for quite a while. Having to drive a car from Barrhaven or Kanata to Tunnies Pasture just to load your Presto Card seems a little ridiculous. The suburbs have multiple Shoppers Drug Marts, so you have a much better chance of having one nearby.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Especially since for most people their point of entry on the OC Transpo system won't be a rail station, but rather a bus.

Exactly. Few will ever be within walking distance of a Confederation Line station.

[Kitchissippi]

Can't everyone load their Presto card and renew passes online?

This is getting so far from the bridge discussion. LRT or BRT?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Can't everyone load their Presto card and renew passes online?

This is getting so far from the bridge discussion. LRT or BRT?

Good Day.

Online is not a top option if you really need to reload your card immediately, with either e-cash or a pass. (yeah, a lot of people just simply forget to do it ahead of time, and need it NOW.) and the auto-renew or auto-reload..... do you really trust electronic automated processes.... maybe you do, but a lot of people do not. I sure don't. Call me paranoid.... I do. The point remains - enough people have had problems to make it a valid point. EG: the more physical reload options available, the better. And it's better customer relations and PR.

And, along with other thread discussions.... yep they do tend to wander sometimes, and have to be dragged kicking-and-screaming back onto point.

So..... ! LRT ! LRT ! LRT for EveryBody !!!!!
Especially a quickie just from Bayview over to Alex-Tache (or for a few extra bucks, on from Tache over to TdChaudiere, with a ready-to-go Heritage bldg. for a station).
Just to get it up and running, keep the bridge, and get TC and MooSE off our backs. Git 'er dun !

(There - that otta stir things up again !

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Online is not a top option if you really need to reload your card immediately, with either e-cash or a pass. (yeah, a lot of people just simply forget to do it ahead of time, and need it NOW.) and the auto-renew or auto-reload..... do you really trust electronic automated processes.... maybe you do, but a lot of people do not. I sure don't. Call me paranoid.... I do. The point remains - enough people have had problems to make it a valid point. EG: the more physical reload options available, the better. And it's better customer relations and PR.

Some people also don't have the money on hand to re-load until the last minute.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I dont have to go to a station to reload my STO monthly pass so i dont see why Ottawa residents would have to go to a station to reload theirs.

If the city of Ottawa want increased ridership, things should be made easier. At least if its at Shoppers drug mart it puts reloading a monthly pass within walking distance like it should be IMO.

You can reload Presto online too:

https://www.prestocard.ca/en/about/loading-your-card

But for some reason people think those machines are important. And for some really strange reason, people think the machines need to be outside of stations.

If you have a Presto, and its registered you have an online account. Why would you not use it? If you're using it merely as a cash card, I guess you need the machine. But how many users are going to fall into this category? Use Presto regularly, but don't register it? I suspect there are more people who use cash fares than unregistered Prestos.

My card is set to auto-reload/renew. So I really don't think much about this. Anybody who uses transit regularly will not be using those machines at all. Even if you are a somewhat casual user, you can set Presto to a minimum balance. And again, in your best interest to register. If you lose the card, balance can be transferred to a new card.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You can reload Presto online too:

https://www.prestocard.ca/en/about/loading-your-card

But for some reason people think those machines are important. And for some really strange reason, people think the machines need to be outside of stations.

If you have a Presto, and its registered you have an online account. Why would you not use it? If you're using it merely as a cash card, I guess you need the machine. But how many users are going to fall into this category? Use Presto regularly, but don't register it? I suspect there are more people who use cash fares than unregistered Prestos.

My card is set to auto-reload/renew. So I really don't think much about this. Anybody who uses transit regularly will not be using those machines at all. Even if you are a somewhat casual user, you can set Presto to a minimum balance. And again, in your best interest to register. If you lose the card, balance can be transferred to a new card.

Hopefully the process is simpler than when I set up my Presto card. It was a horrible experience, but that was pretty early on. But I set my card to auto-reload and as a result I never have to worry about being short of funds on my card.

[J.OT13]

Not everyone has internet (think seniors) and not everyone has credit cards (high school students, some people with low-income or bad credit). And doesn't the online payment take up to 48 hours to register? And what about tourist? Or people who usually drive but have to take transit because their car broke down. There are plenty of reasons why we should have these machines at every station, and it makes sense they're outside the gates; so you actually pay BEFORE you get in.

[roger1818]

All further Presto discussion should be in the PRESTO/Fare Collection thread.

[steveintoronto]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't believe it is the case that all railways that cross federally regulated railways are therefore federally regulated.

Many SCC decisions disagree.

The Law isn't based on whether you agree with it or not. It's based on legislation.

In Attorney General for Alberta v. Attorney-General for Canada1, Lord Moulton said at p. 370:

By s. 8 of the Dominion Railway Act Parliament treats in a special manner the crossing of Dominion railways by provincial railways. These portions of the provincial railways are made subject to the clauses of the Dominion railway legislation, which deal also with the crossings of two Dominion railways, so that the provincial railways are in such matters treated administratively in precisely the same way as Dominion railways themselves. The Parliament of the Dominion is entitled to legislate as to these crossings because they are upon the right of way and track of the Dominion railway as to which the Dominion Parliament has exclusive rights of legislation, and moreover, as the provincial railways are there by permission and not of right, they can fairly be put under terms and regulations.

1 [1915] A.C. 363, 19 C.R.C. 153, 22 D.L.R. 501.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2/document.do

Here's just one modern aspect that determines the status of the line:

Transport Canada
Chapter 4: Regulatory Framework
[...]

The regulatory framework for railway safety encompasses the federal and provincial legislation, regulations, rules, and standards that provide the structure in which railway companies can operate safely. Some 34 Canadian railways1 have interprovincial or Canada-U.S. operations and are therefore regulated by federal law. These include the two major freight-carrying railways, CN and CP,2 the passenger rail company VIA Rail, and more than 30 short line companies. [...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tcss/RSA_re...apter4-374.htm

Addendum: Here is one of many SCC decisions on applicability of Federal powers over railways, *even if they don't cross interprovincially*...in this case RE: GO Transit:

Supreme Court of Canada
The Queen v. Board of Transport Commissioners, [1968] S.C.R. 118
Date: 1967-11-20

The Canadian National Railways, extending beyond the limits of the province of Ontario, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, and the question is whether the commuter service can be said not to form part of this railway. To come to this conclusion, it would be necessary to hold that federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial railways extends only to interprovincial services provided on such railways. It is not possible to so hold. The constitutional jurisdiction depends on the character of the railway line and not on the character of a particular service provided on that railway line. The fact that for some purposes the commuter service should be considered as a distinct service does not make it a distinct line of railway. From a physical point of view, the commuter service trains are part of the overall operations of the line over which they run. Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over everything that physically forms part of a railway subject to its jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of Canada Judgments
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2/document.do

[Truenorth00]

Will be interesting to see what the city does here. I would like the City to call Moose's bluff. They don't have any serious investment. So put it up for discontinuance. If the NCC or Gatineau takes the bridge off the City's hands great. If Moose, by some miracle gets the bridge, they'll still have to negotiate access to the Trillium Corridor. Maybe, we can get them to pay for twin tracking.

There's no reason that I see for the city to really own the bridge. I fail to see what it does for Ottawa residents. The major beneficiary in any PoW development would actually be les Gatinois. Not Ottawa residents.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

Many SCC decisions disagree.

The Law isn't based on whether you agree with it or not. It's based on legislation.


1 [1915] A.C. 363, 19 C.R.C. 153, 22 D.L.R. 501.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2/document.do

Here's just one modern aspect that determines the status of the line:

Transport Canada
Chapter 4: Regulatory Framework
[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tcss/RSA_re...apter4-374.htm

Addendum: Here is one of many SCC decisions on applicability of Federal powers over railways, *even if they don't cross interprovincially*...in this case RE: GO Transit:

Supreme Court of Canada
The Queen v. Board of Transport Commissioners, [1968] S.C.R. 118
Date: 1967-11-20

Supreme Court of Canada Judgments
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2/document.do

Yes, the crossings are federally regulated, which is what I said. None of your examples provides an indication that the entire length of a provincial railway becomes federal jurisdiction because there is a crossing at some point in its length, which is what the person I was responding to had suggested.

[PHrenetic]

Good DAy.

City is applying to appeal the CTA PoW restore-to-within-12-months-of-service order. (Just trying to buy time...at our legal expense.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...view-1.4563928

Watson just don't git it, do he !!?!!
Self-created problem by removing and burying the switch and derail to the freight line, and then burying and building the station on top of the freight line rail path in the ROW.
ddouble-ddumb-ass on him, and now he's scrambling.

Service to Gatineau as Phase 3B - unless he gits off his lard-ass, he ain't even been thinking about it, except for motherhood-and-platitudes statements to keep the whole issue at bay.

NoJoy!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

City is applying to appeal the CTA PoW restore-to-within-12-months-of-service order. (Just trying to buy time...at our legal expense.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...view-1.4563928

Quote from article:

"We want to get service to Kanata as Phase 3A [of the light rail network], as I call it, then Phase 3B would be to Gatineau."

If Kanata is 3A and Gatineau is 3B, what is Barrhaven? IMHO, the City of Ottawa's LRT priorities (assuming no support from Gatineau) for stage 3 should be:

1. Kanata (Terry Fox)
2. Barrhaven (Fallowfield or maybe Marketplace)
3. Gatineau (Terrasses de la Chaudière)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Quote from article:



If Kanata is 3A and Gatineau is 3B, what is Barrhaven? IMHO, the City of Ottawa's LRT priorities (assuming no support from Gatineau) for stage 3 should be:

1. Kanata (Terry Fox)
2. Barrhaven (Fallowfield or maybe Marketplace)
3. Gatineau (Terrasses de la Chaudière)

How about allowing ridership to drive planning decisions? And you are assuming Gatineau, the feds and or either or both provinces won't contribute.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Self-created problem by removing and burying the switch and derail to the freight line, and then burying and building the station on top of the freight line rail path in the ROW.
ddouble-ddumb-ass on him, and now he's scrambling.

I take the CTA's point that the city didn't do the right paperwork and in that regard I am not confident the appeal will be successful (the political appeal to cabinet may be though).

But I am not sure it is fair to characterize the decision as "double dumbass."
Keeping the old freight alignment would have involved significant expense (much longer bridge, greater distance between the two platforms) for absolutely no possible use. If the Trillium line is ever extended over the bridge (or replaced with a bus or any other technology) then a new alignment will be needed anyway (which would roughly follow the existing pathway). Even if the fantasy of the Toronto railfans comes true and the federal government orders the city to remove the Trillium line to make way for another service, the old freight alignment would still be of little use as the new operator would still probably want to take advantage of the existing station, etc.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How about allowing ridership to drive planning decisions?

Do you really think more Ottawa residents ride to Gatineau than either Barrhaven or Kanata residents ride to downtown?

And you are assuming Gatineau, the feds and or either or both provinces won't contribute.

Yes I am. The feds might. I have my doubts as to if anyone else will.

[steveintoronto]

Watson had best be careful for what he calls for. I also think this should be appealed, as the "Governor in Council" upon which Watson calls, has the power to assume control of the bridge directly, and dispose of it in a manner Watson wouldn't wish. (disposal including assigning ownership)

This is 'interesting stuff'. The GinC has never been called on before to intercede in this way. In effect, the GinC is the Minister. Unless the Transportation Act is amended (highly unlikely at this time, but quite possibly later) GinC can't overturn the ruling unless it was reached by means inconsistent with the law. What he/she can do is change the terms of the claim under the law. And that pertains to ownership if need be to ensure that the Act(s) is(are) complied with.

Here's some of the powers available to address a dispute like this, and the GinC and/or Minister (or one in the same) can use this power even if this section of this Act isn't being contested:

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-4)
Full Document: HTMLFull Document: Railway Relocation and Crossing Act | XMLFull Document: Railway Relocation and Crossing Act [34 KB] | PDFFull Document: Railway Relocation and Crossing Act [257 KB]
Act current to 2018-02-15

[...]
Powers to acquire land
(2) When the Agency makes an order under subsection (1) requiring a railway company to build a railway line or to make any connections between railway lines, all the provisions of law at that time applicable to the taking of land by the railway company, to its valuation and sale and conveyance to the company, and to the compensation therefor, apply to the land required for the proper carrying out of that order.

R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 8; R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 116; 1999, c. 31, s. 187(E).
Marginal note:Acquisition of railway land
9 When the Agency makes an order under section 7 requiring a railway company to cease to operate over a line within a transportation study area, the Agency may recommend that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services acquire any land that is or was occupied as part of its railway undertaking by the railway company subject to such conditions as the Agency may prescribe, and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services may acquire such land by purchase or by expropriation under the Expropriation Act.

R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 9; R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359; 1999, c. 31, s. 188.
Marginal note:Necessary laws
10 An order under section 7 or 8 shall be issued only after the Agency is satisfied that the government of the province and each municipality that has agreed to the accepted plan have caused such laws to be passed or such orders to be made as are necessary to carry the accepted plan into effect.

R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 10; R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note: Power to dispose of property
11 The Minister of Public Works and Government Services may sell or lease or otherwise dispose of any land acquired pursuant to section 9 if that disposition is consistent with the accepted plan and any conditions prescribed by the Agency with respect to the acquisition of the land by that Minister.

R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 11; R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359; 1999, c. 31, s. 189.
[...]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...2.html#docCont

The National Capital Act cites same.

National Capital Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-4)
[...]
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.

Marginal note:Idem
(2) For the purposes of the Expropriation Act, any land or interest therein that, in the opinion of the Minister mentioned in subsection (1), is required for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be land or an interest therein that, in his opinion, is required for a public work or other public purpose, and, in relation thereto, a reference to the Crown in that Act shall be construed as a reference to the Commission.

R.S., c. N-3, s. 13; R.S., c. 16(1st Supp.), s. 42.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...age-3.html#h-8

[Allandale25]

^ Will be fascinating to see how this plays out and the response of the Minister. I assume lots of speculation will occur in this thread between now and then.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by steveintoronto

This is 'interesting stuff'. The GinC has never been called on before to intercede in this way. In effect, the GinC is the Minister. Unless the Transportation Act is amended (highly unlikely at this time, but quite possibly later) GinC can't overturn the ruling unless it was reached by means inconsistent with the law. What he/she can do is change the terms of the claim under the law. And that pertains to ownership if need be to ensure that the Act(s) is(are) complied with.

The Governor-in-Council is the Cabinet. It faces no restrictions in overturning rulings.

40 The Governor in Council may, at any time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council, either on petition of a party or an interested person or of the Governor in Council’s own motion, vary or rescind any decision, order, rule or regulation of the Agency, whether the decision or order is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether the rule or regulation is general or limited in its scope and application, and any order that the Governor in Council may make to do so is binding on the Agency and on all parties.