Chief William Commanda Bridge (former Prince of Wales Bridge)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 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)

And what is the political reason the Cabinet would want to do that? The existence of a power does not mean it will be used.

[c_speed3108]

I suspect a big part of the point of the appeal is to buy time. The appeal will take significantly longer than the time CTA gave them to get the rail line back in order.

The appeal/request to the cabinet is more likely where they _could_ have some luck given the NCC's longer range plan.

The lack of any buyer (with the means) to buy it also plays into it as the result would be permanent shutdown rather than some eventual repair.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I suspect a big part of the point of the appeal is to buy time. The appeal will take significantly longer than the time CTA gave them to get the rail line back in order.

The appeal/request to the cabinet is more likely where they _could_ have some luck given the NCC's longer range plan.

The lack of any buyer (with the means) to buy it also plays into it as the result would be permanent shutdown rather than some eventual repair.

In terms of the time it'll take for the appeal to work its way through the courts, I assume that this provides even more time for Stage 2 construction and for shovels to get in the ground.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

Good Day.

yep - the CTA in as far as it goes is absolutely correct, and to be commended. My main point here was that this is virtually purely a delaying tactic - which Jimbo virtually fully admitted to.

The ddouble-ddumb-ass on him is that the Bayview station could and should have been properly designed for at grade height (rather than the shuffle make-do bupkis now-unnecessary swervy ballast ramp up to the present (perm and temp) station platform), and space for twin tracks - which may or may not be the design for the T-Line Phase 2 Bayview station ( that is - should have been - I believe it is not, but it -should- have been, to be built during the shutdown) Now... who knows. But such a design foresight and heads-up on what should be / will be / may not be coming should have been a no-brainer of advance and economic planning and design. It could have been done, and done right. BUT - I think it is another typical City SNAFUBAR.

Bayview is now the end result of so many temp and interim and make-do compromises that a final clean-it-all-up-in-one-blast opportunity has now been missed (until electrification and full double-tracking (yeah, right)), and the PoW bridge situation is now a direct result of it all.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

yep - the CTA in as far as it goes is absolutely correct, and to be commended. My main point here was that this is virtually purely a delaying tactic - which Jimbo virtually fully admitted to.

The ddouble-ddumb-ass on him is that the Bayview station could and should have been properly designed for at grade height (rather than the shuffle make-do bupkis now-unnecessary swervy ballast ramp up to the present (perm and temp) station platform), and space for twin tracks - which may or may not be the design for the T-Line Phase 2 Bayview station ( that is - should have been - I believe it is not, but it -should- have been, to be built during the shutdown) Now... who knows. But such a design foresight and heads-up on what should be / will be / may not be coming should have been a no-brainer of advance and economic planning and design. It could have been done, and done right. BUT - I think it is another typical City SNAFUBAR.

Bayview is now the end result of so many temp and interim and make-do compromises that a final clean-it-all-up-in-one-blast opportunity has now been missed (until electrification and full double-tracking (yeah, right)), and the PoW bridge situation is now a direct result of it all.

I think how much Bayview should have been futureproofed is an interesting discussion (I think the city was desperately trying to keep the short-term cost down). But even if they had done that, the CTA complaint would have been the same as it relates to the old freight line, some 40m to the west of Bayview.

[Truenorth00]

They aren't going to do anything that sees money changing hands. Unless there is some huge concern over the precedent they are setting.

And people are acting like a ministerial appeal is some huge deal.

Garneau overturns the ruling with some caveats for the City. The city drops their Federal Court appeal and everybody goes on their merry way happy. Except for MOOSE, I guess.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

yep - the CTA in as far as it goes is absolutely correct, and to be commended.

The CTA has to follow the laws as they are written. The Governor-in-Council has more power to deviate from the law. Since the Federal government is invested in the Trillium line expansion, they have an invested interest in this.

[rocketphish]

City to appeal agency's order to replace ripped-up rail
Mayor Jim Watson asking transport minister to intercede in squabble with federal agency

CBC News
Posted: Mar 06, 2018 11:38 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 06, 2018 12:37 PM ET

The City of Ottawa is appealing a federal agency's order to restore, sell or scrap a portion of rail line near the Prince of Wales Bridge, and the mayor is asking a federal minister to step in.

As part of light rail construction, the city removed a section of the line north of Bayview Station.

The Canadian Transportation Agency's (CTA) mid-February decision would force the city to either put the line up for sale, which could lead to its permanent closure if no buyers come forth, or restore it to a state where it could be re-opened to rail traffic within 12 months.

Given until the end of April to respond, city officials had said they would likely appeal the decision, which they saw as the agency going too far.

In a memo Tuesday, Mayor Jim Watson said the city has started filing an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal.If approved, that appeal process could take a year or two.

Watson told reporters later that day he doesn't think the agency's decision is fair.

"We have every intention of using that bridge … we believe it's in [our] best interest that we don't go spend money now when we're not ready for that service to go," he said.

"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."

Watson also said he's written to federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau to request a review under Section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act, which gives the federal cabinet the power to change or throw out an agency ruling.

"You can certainly appreciate the City's surprise and disappointment in being asked to make this unfortunate 'either or' determination at this point in time," Watson wrote in the letter, which was attached to Tuesday's memo.

"Particularly, it appears that the CTA has rendered its decision without taking into account the ongoing discussions between the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa, as well as with local Members of Parliament, with respect to the future potential use of the [bridge] in connecting our two transit systems."

Watson wrote it would take two to three years to get the bridge ready, rather than the 12 months imposed by the agency, and he said he doesn't believe are any viable groups with enough money to run rail over the bridge.

A group called Moose Consortium Inc. has submitted plans for a rail line over the bridge that would go around Bayview Station and service outlying communities such as Smiths Falls, Casselman, Arnprior, Montebello and Wakefield.

That group reported the rail line's removal in 2016 to the CTA, and claims it can pay the $50 million it estimates it will take to fix the bridge.

The letter

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

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The CTA has to follow the laws as they are written. The Governor-in-Council has more power to deviate from the law. Since the Federal government is invested in the Trillium line expansion, they have an invested interest in this.

^ Indeed.

Also, here's a key article that has quotes from MP Adam Vaughan.

Vaughan said his government will work in partnership with cities on the key issues including transit, housing, social equity, immigration, in addition to others which are part of the federal government's responsibilities.

But, he added, the specific plans will be up to the cities, and Ottawa won't interfere.

Ottawa's job 'not to draw lines on maps'

Asked if the federal Liberals will specifically support Mayor Tory's SmartTrack plan or if they'll be open to the decisions city council makes, Vaughan said, "Our job in Ottawa is not to draw lines on maps."

[acottawa]

I wonder how Mr. Vaughan explains the Confederation Line to Trim Road extension.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I wonder how Mr. Vaughan explains the Confederation Line to Trim Road extension.

Not sure but since I'm not in Ottawa I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you please elaborate?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Not sure but since I'm not in Ottawa I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you please elaborate?

Trim road is on the far edge of the city. The city had no plans to extend the Confederation line that far out, but the Liberal platform put it in there so now Ottawa has to plan for the extension. The city had the good sense to refuse to pay anything, but there are any number of transit priorities that federal money could have gone to instead.

[Allandale25]

Really helpful post in the Moose thread here in Urban Toronto by Charles and so I wanted to post it here as well in full.

My thoughts on the CTA decision and the City's plan to appeal. (Apologies for the long-winded post.)

First of all, I think we need to make sure we differentiate between the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) ('The Act") and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ("The Agency"). The Act is the Law, the Agency interprets the law and makes rulings based on that interpretation and enforces them.

The Law is the law. The interpretation of the Law is subject to challenge and appeal.

Under the Act, there are three primary clauses that are relevant:
1. Railway owners must indicate their intent to continue using their rail lines in their three year plan.
2. If railway owners do not intend to continue using their lines they must go through the discontinuance process.
3. Other railway operators may be granted running rights on a rail line, either with the agreement of the owner, or as mandated by the Agency.

The current decision by the Agency has three key interpretations:
1. Railway owners are not required to maintain rail lines in a usable/operational condition at all times.
2. Railway owners may not allow railway lines to deteriorate or be altered to the point that they can not be restored.
3. A reasonable time frame to restore a rail line to operable condition is 12 months.

My thoughts on the Agency interpretations:
1. I think this is a no-brainer and all parties would agree to this. Anything other than this would prevent owners from conducting maintenance, modifications, improvements, or alterations.
2. Once again, I don't think most parties would have a disagreement with this. No one is suggesting letting bridges crumble to the ground or building roads over railway corridors is acceptable without going through discontinuance.
3. Here is where I think there is room for debate and appeal. Where did the 12 months come from? Why is that considered a reasonable time frame to restore a railway line? Is 12 months applicable across the board or is that only for this particular rail line? In regards to the POW Bridge scenario, the City has indicated that it could restore the line within 3 years. Why is 3 year unreasonable whereas 1 year is considered reasonable? Why not make it shorter, for example 3 months? etc. etc.

I don't have an answer nor do I preclude to know the solution. All I'm suggesting is that the Agency has set a precedence here and the precedence in my mind is the 12 month timeline from an order under Div IV of the Act. I believe that that precedence can be challenged from both sides, from the owners perspective suggesting it is too short a time frame to be reasonable, but also from third parties who would like to gain running rights who may argue that that time frame is too long and it should be shorter.

On a related side note. Since the 12 months timeline is new and precedent setting, one cannot say that the City was previously in contravention. It is only if they fail to abide by the Agency's order that they could subsequently be found to not be in compliance.

[SF Thomas]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And what is the political reason the Cabinet would want to do that? The existence of a power does not mean it will be used.

Despite the City of Ottawa's rather stellar mishap in disconnecting the rail line to the PoW bridge without considering federal railway regulations, what would be the value in enforcing the CTA ruling as is?

Ottawa has the PoW bridge in its long term transit plan as a connection to Gatineau. There are no other viable plans at the moment which would see trains using that bridge again. It isn't going to be be used for freight or regular passengers again in the near future. MOOSE is the only interested party at the moment and doesn't have the funds to get its plan off the ground any time soon, nor is it likely to get necessary approvals in the near future either.

Even if there was a group with the funds and a viable plan, the bridge would still need significant repairs which would probably take a year or two on their own. Probably as much time as digging a tunnel to reconnect the line under Bayview, if not more. Since Ottawa owns the rest of the line leading up to the PoW bridge as well, and any other usage of the tracks would interfere with the Trillium Line the city probably wouldn't give permission to use the rail line either.

The Government of Canada also has a stake in this since any transit plans Ottawa and Gatineau make also impact commuters who work in the civil service.

While it is an extraordinary situation, there doesn't seem to be any major risk from using a cabinet veto in this case either. Voters probably won't care, and if they do it will be Ottawa voters annoyed at both the city and federal government that let the PoW bridge get decommissioned or forced them to pay to fix something that was avoidable. Now the city municipal government and Watson probably get more blame in this scenario, but the feds probably still get some.

[acottawa]

To add to Charles's point, it is also not clear how the CTA order could ever be enforced. What does operable condition mean? Operable condition for a freight train, a light vehicle like the Lint, a heavy commuter train or a hand cart? What class of track? What operating speed? Tracks and bridges are usually engineered with a purpose in mind.

Realistically the only feasible use of the bridge until a transit decision is made (which could take decades or never happen) would be a freight operator who wanted to run trains at night. The o-train was originally designed with this option but I don't think there were ever any takers.

[J.OT13]

'This bridge isn’t going away': Residents want clarity on plan for Prince of Wales Bridge

Jon Willing
Ottawa Sun
March 6, 2018

The federal Liberal cabinet should quash a decision by a regulator compelling the City of Ottawa to fix the Prince of Wales Bridge, Mayor Jim Watson says.

The city is taking a double-barrelled approach in its fight against a Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) order. On top of asking for help from cabinet, the city is also asking the Federal Court of Appeal to consider hearing an appeal.

The CTA order, sent to the city last month, orders the city to restore the rail line north of Bayview station, including the Prince of Wales Bridge, so that it would be operable within 12 months of the agency giving running rights to another rail company, or to discontinue the line altogether.

The order follows a 2016 complaint by the Moose Consortium, which raised concerns about the city removing tracks while building the joint Confederation Line-Trillium Line station. Moose (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems and Enterprises) wants to run a privately financed regional rail system and has eyed the Prince of Wales Bridge as an interprovincial link.

In a letter sent Tuesday to federal Transportation Minister Marc Garneau, Watson wrote that the CTA made the order without considering ongoing discussions between the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, including local MPs, about connecting the OC Transpo and STO transit networks using the bridge.


“You can certainly appreciate the city’s surprise and disappointment in being asked to make this unfortunate ‘either or’ determination at this point in time,” Watson wrote.

Watson also said he didn’t believe there were viable rail operators that could use the railway.

The Canada Transportation Act allows appeals directly to cabinet.

A spokesperson for Garneau confirmed his office had received Watson’s letter and “will follow due process,” but wouldn’t comment further.

At city hall, Watson said it didn’t make sense for the city to spend millions now to upgrade the bridge when it was not ready to run trains to Gatineau, especially when the city’s third phase of LRT was projected to be to Kanata.

As Watson described it, “Phase 3A” would be to Kanata and “Phase 3B” would be to Gatineau.

The city doesn’t have money to fix the bridge. It doesn’t even have money yet to build LRT to Kanata.

With no work planned, the city contends the CTA’s order simply isn’t doable under current funding constraints.

“We don’t believe that the decision is fair for the City of Ottawa and for our taxpayers,” Watson said. “We have every intention, as I’ve said on many occasions, of using that bridge. We want to have the O-Train go over to Taché Boulevard Rapibus station so we have a more seamless transition between people who work in Gatineau and live in Ottawa, and vice versa.”

Watson still thinks a cycling and walking path across the bridge is out of the question.

“I believe that would be a complete waste of tax dollars to do something like that for $10 million and a few years down the road we have to rip it up and put rail in for the rail system,” Watson said, adding that the city had an obligation to seal up the bridge and keep people off until it was ready for trains.

Aileen Duncan, a Centretown resident who started a petition in 2016 to keep the bridge open, said people just want to know the city’s intentions for the crossing. The city had to block the bridge to pedestrians to protect its liability, but the fences keep getting cut.

Duncan acknowledged the difficulty with the bridge having an active railway designation and she saw positive signs in the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau talking about its future, but she predicted the “landmark” bridge would again become a flashpoint as the warmer months approached.

“It’s my impression that the public wants clarity on what the city intends to do with this bridge,” Duncan said.

“This bridge isn’t going away.”

http://ottawasun.com/news/local-news...e-6425371272df

This quote is pretty funny;

Watson still thinks a cycling and walking path across the bridge is out of the question.

“I believe that would be a complete waste of tax dollars to do something like that for $10 million and a few years down the road we have to rip it up and put rail in for the rail system,” Watson said, adding that the city had an obligation to seal up the bridge and keep people off until it was ready for trains.

But the Moodie Transitway extension, set to be ripped up and converted to rail in a few years, no prob. Or what about the Booth Street bridge? Forgot bike lanes... whatever! We can just spend a few mill to reconfigure it.

I feel this is something the City does on a regular basis. In the case of the POW, it's about restoring a key part of our infrastructure abandoned for 2 decades. The more we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. Get it done ASAP!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The more we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. Get it done ASAP!

Is it?

There is no consensus on what type of service to run or what type of technology to use or who will pay for it. If the city spends big $$$ now and guesses wrong about what the future use will be then it is a huge waste of money.

[Allandale25]

^ Good point.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Is it?

There is no consensus on what type of service to run or what type of technology to use or who will pay for it. If the city spends big $$$ now and guesses wrong about what the future use will be then it is a huge waste of money.

The longer the bridge decays, the more expensive it will be to repair.
A consensus should be made ASAP.
Not by tomorrow or next week of course, but maybe before 2023 (at least?)?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This quote is pretty funny;

But the Moodie Transitway extension, set to be ripped up and converted to rail in a few years, no prob. Or what about the Booth Street bridge? Forgot bike lanes... whatever! We can just spend a few mill to reconfigure it.

I feel this is something the City does on a regular basis. In the case of the POW, it's about restoring a key part of our infrastructure abandoned for 2 decades. The more we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. Get it done ASAP!

Originally Posted by acottawa

Is it?

There is no consensus on what type of service to run or what type of technology to use or who will pay for it. If the city spends big $$$ now and guesses wrong about what the future use will be then it is a huge waste of money.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The longer the bridge decays, the more expensive it will be to repair.
A consensus should be made ASAP.
Not by tomorrow or next week of course, but maybe before 2023 (at least?)?

There's probably an order of magnitude difference between making the bridge a bike path or operable as a railway. These are not the same thing.

There's also some very strict legalities here. I don't think the City can just turn a railway into a bike path on a whim.