Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

we negotiated a signed agreement with the Municipality of Bristol

I don't see any signature of a MOOSE representative on that "signed agreement". I would expect a 'negotiated' and 'signed agreement' to have representatives from both sides making certain commitments.



This was for a 'non-binding', 'non-exclusive', 'expression of interest'. I don't know if they could have been any more non-committal than that.

[Truenorth00]

No need to take Potvin seriously at this point. MOOSE is a failed troll. Nothing is going to change that. Mr. Potvin is Judy having a hard time coming to terms with reality. It's pitiable.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Exactly.

@Charles5, Have you got a few minutes to list a chronology of core NCR railway infrastructure that has been destroyed during the period that the companies involved in MOOSE have been working towards developing a passenger rail service for this region?

We're transparent in saying that we really didn't expect the public sector of the NCR to be so hell-bent on wrecking its own regional railways. There are clearly some smarter people on this discussion forum who "get it".

Business logic itself, metaphorically 'baseball', doesn't work when the owner digs up the field, cheered on by some (not all) of the commentators here.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

So basically its everyone else's fault which is what you are saying. You have absolutely refused to alter your routes or even start with one line which would have made more sense if you wanted to build support. It was all or nothing, and that's why you have nothing done at this point. It's not the city of ottawa fault for looking after it's own people first, not the feds for stepping in to overrule the CTA, it's your own doing why nothing is done and until you admit that then nothing will change.


So my advice to you is to start with one line that doesn't have to use the POW bridge and you do have to consider tunneling under downtown because no one will want to transfer to a crowded line 1 train at Bayview in either direction. At least the STO learned that the original idea isn't usually the best one and that changes are needed. You need to do the same.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

So basically its everyone else's fault which is what you are saying. You have absolutely refused to alter your routes or even start with one line which would have made more sense if you wanted to build support. It was all or nothing, and that's why you have nothing done at this point. It's not the city of ottawa fault for looking after it's own people first, not the feds for stepping in to overrule the CTA, it's your own doing why nothing is done and until you admit that then nothing will change.


So my advice to you is to start with one line that doesn't have to use the POW bridge and you do have to consider tunneling under downtown because no one will want to transfer to a crowded line 1 train at Bayview in either direction. At least the STO learned that the original idea isn't usually the best one and that changes are needed. You need to do the same.

This 100%. Probably the best thing would be a line from Arnprior to Maxville via Tremblay for proof of concept. I don't think VIA would object to this, considering Moose would act as a feeder service for the intercity routes.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Mr.P.

Washrooms - Phase 1 will have more that you falsely represent - Tuney's, Bayview, Hurdman, Blair. Phase 2 will have more, including LincolnFields, Moodie, Trim. Plus most access in the partner facilities and buildings accessed.

Moose posts online - yep, there we are - no answer, just a side-track, on an answer/out that I blatantly handed you, and you missed it. I repeat - Walkley - where are you ?

Bayview - knew you'd get here. Illegal ? Never tested in court, with most opinion saying you'd lose. CTA had to uphold the absolute letter, but expected it to be appealed, or overridden. Cabinet in right of the Crown overrode it, for the public good. Plus City always stated and documented for future plans and use - by the owner. No timeline under CTA is required - a part of City's appeal. Plus CN/CP have ceded interest in that trackage, by applying to abandon / release interest in any operations in this area. Thus the requirement for accommodating any operations other than the City's virtually disappears, and City can proceed to reduce the importance of providing for alternate operations by reason of no presently viable request or plan in the offing. Done.

Beachburg - several municipalities proposed getting together to propose a low-volume regional commuter service, if a viable partner came forward. Where were you ? There was indeed a small noise from you, but no viable input nor proposal. It died.
You did not oppose ? Yeah - no viable basis for complaint or objection, no viable plan on the horizon let alone the table. Done.

Bristol - yup, seen it, saw it. A good try at protecting and future-proofing for an opportunity to develop a low-volume commuter rail service, as above. But - the same long-term no-show of a viable plan or offer. now eight years later, for them, and still no-show. That is a long time for a municipal council to hold out a faint hope for a plan or offer, to hang on in the face of local residents and businesses asking why,what,when. The motion probably still stands on their record books, but it is now probably (to be polite) noted as "inactive". Done.

Investors - yes, indeed, angels to put up $25 mil at a pop, pop, pop. How many pops ?
Where are they, after they see the books, the plans, and the probabilities ? Still behind-the-scenes private not-for-present-attribution to keep their backers safe ? (Hint - I'm giving you another out here.)

Opposition - Of course there is opposition. You are proposing to make use of infrastructure of the public good for private gain. And that is indeed the nature of RailWays - publicly stated and supported. But that phrase also carries responsibilities - the public good. Opposition is based therein - opponents do not see your public good in sufficient quality or quantity for the required investment, an investment phrased in either your market-driven model or the public investment model.
Now - opposition from within - within the City, OC-T, Public Health (what - public health ? - sorry, can't see that one). Hello - Public Servants can offer advice, information, and support to a certain extent as part and parcel of their jobs, equally and equitably, to all comers, not just you, to aid in development of ideas to viability.
But - and it's a big BUT, the nature of Public Service is to the Public, not to developers (despite some laxness in these quarters), entrepreneurs, and other private interests. Public Service is -Public- service, supplied by Public Servants, to the Public. Any and All public servants knows this and honours it (or should), in thought and deed, no matter the political master of the time or moment, or the private pressure to perform otherwise. This is Idealistic ? Damn right it is. And it is what most Public Servants are made of, and honour, despite being ground down by disrespect and mis-representation of their work.

So. Stop picking and providing strawmen objections and diversions to straight questions, and a paranoid interpretation and apprehension of conspiracies of opposition when there is none.
Instead, give a real proposal, with backers, and financiers, and plans, to get going. Or Not.

P.S. - love your misguided attempt at the misinterpretation or misapplication of Frenetic (def: frantic, frenzied, fanatic) as an attempt to get my attention. My attention has already long been here, and wilfully restrained until you crossed the line. Instead - focus on the diametric opposite, which my name is intended to point to (or do you just not get it ?) : reasoned, rational, methodical, balanced.
As an attempted dig at my, and other, presentations, reason, and debate, by those who have a problem with your seeming flawed and diversion-filled 'logic' and non-answers.....missed again.

Good summary.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Bayview - knew you'd get here. Illegal ? Never tested in court

Yes it was illegal: the Canadian Transportation Agency is part of the Federal Court system. The City's motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, is obviously an "appeal" of a Federal Court decision. One day before their appeal was to be heard, Cabinet subverted the normal court process by using Section 40 to rescind its own regulatory Agency's determination, not because Cabinet decided the dismantlement and obstruction was not illegal, rather they explained that it would be advantageous to let the illegality stand.

Evidently, you and some of your friends here feel that this is okay. Others feel this is political interference in Canada's justice system.

If you think the dismantlement and permanent obstruction of the track at Bayview was not illegal, that's to say you do not agree with the Agency's original determination, would you consider please answering these two questions?

1. Is the track between Albert Street ON and Taché Blvd QC protected under Section 92 (10) (c) of Canada's Constitution? [y] [n]

2. Does the Certificate of Fitness, which authorizes Capital Railway as a federally regulated railway, state that it is authorized to provide service to Quebec? [y] [n]

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Administrative tribunals are not part of the court system. Their decisions can be reviewed by the courts, but that is not the same thing at all.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Administrative tribunals are not part of the court system. Their decisions can be reviewed by the courts, but that is not the same thing at all.

An order of the Canadian Transportation System is a legally empowered order with approximate equivalence to an order of the Federal Court. You can split inconsequential hairs about that if you like, but then perhaps you'll explain why the split you emphasize matters at all. The big moose in the room is that Cabinet rescinded its own regulator's order one day before the Federal Court of Appeal case was to be heard, and thereby subverted the normal legal process. Some therefore claim that the issue was never tested in court. No, sort of like a DPA. As Mark Trrain is purported to have said: "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

An order of the Canadian Transportation System is a legally empowered order with approximate equivalence to an order of the Federal Court. You can split inconsequential hairs about that if you like, but then perhaps you'll explain why the split you emphasize matters at all. The big moose in the room is that Cabinet rescinded its own regulator's order one day before the Federal Court of Appeal case was to be heard, and thereby subverted the normal legal process. Some therefore claim that the issue was never tested in court. No, sort of like a DPA. As Mark Trrain is purported to have said: "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

The cabinet overruling the administrative tribunal is the legal process, it is provided for in most legislation setting up administrative tribunals. This is unlike court orders, whose decisions are binding on the Government.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The cabinet overruling the administrative tribunal is the legal process, it is provided for in most legislation setting up administrative tribunals. This is unlike court orders, whose decisions are binding on the Government.

The Section 40 order, by which Cabinet rescinded the Agency's order, is a legally authorized political over-ride of the laws that Parliament has in place.

Presumably that is not the sort of "legal process" you advocate for generally. It can be justified when some compelling public interest is asserted or defended.

In a sentence or two, can you explain the compelling public interest purpose asserted or defended by disconnecting and permanently obstructing the one railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the NCR, which the NCC's own plan requires to remain intact?

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

The Section 40 order, by which Cabinet rescinded the Agency's order, is a legally authorized political over-ride of the laws that Parliament has in place.

No, it is Cabinet making use of the process envisioned by Parliament when it passed the law creating the tribunal.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

In a sentence or two, can you explain the compelling public interest purpose asserted or defended by disconnecting and permanently obstructing the one railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the NCR, which the NCC's own plan requires to remain intact?

Sure, the transportation needs of the three million or so annual passengers of the Capital Railway exceed the objective humouring a consultant/blogger who claims to have a really good idea for a different railway service, that incidentally nobody seems to want to pay for.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sure, the transportation needs of the three million or so annual passengers of the Capital Railway

In a sentence or two, can you explain the compelling needs that are advanced for the three million or so annual passengers of Capital Railway by disconnecting and permanently obstructing the one railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the NCR, which Capital Railway itself requires to provide the service to Quebec that its Certificate of Fitness is premised upon?

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

In a sentence or two, can you explain the compelling needs that are advanced for the three million or so annual passengers of Capital Railway by disconnecting and permanently obstructing the one railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the NCR, which Capital Railway itself requires to provide the service to Quebec that its Certificate of Fitness is premised upon?

The advantage to the passengers is a more direct and efficient connection to the. Confederation Line. Nowhere does the CTA require service to Quebec, in fact it specifies OC Transpo is authorized to operate services “serving five stations from Greenboro Station in the south to Bayview Station in the north.”. Also, there does not seem to be any permanent disconnection as the only construction that seems to be required is the relocation of a pedestrian path if they wanted to build a connection to the bridge for some future service; the connection that was lost was the bypass of the station, which was of no use for any service OCTranspo may be contemplating.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The advantage to the passengers is a more direct and efficient connection to the. Confederation Line. Nowhere does the CTA require service to Quebec, in fact it specifies OC Transpo is authorized to operate services “serving five stations from Greenboro Station in the south to Bayview Station in the north.”. Also, there does not seem to be any permanent disconnection as the only construction that seems to be required is the relocation of a pedestrian path if they wanted to build a connection to the bridge for some future service; the connection that was lost was the bypass of the station, which was of no use for any service OCTranspo may be contemplating.

There is restricted clearance beneath the Albert Street overpass which is what MOOSE was contesting.

A few months ago I sent some questions to the Stage 2 team which included one about a Bayview bypass. They said that they have one in mind if they were ever to be formally requested to construct one.

On the Trinity site plan there is a rail line marked as "possible future bypass line" which follows the old alignment, as well as one of the bypass alignments proposed by MOOSE.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

There is restricted clearance beneath the Albert Street overpass which is what MOOSE was contesting.

A few months ago I sent some questions to the Stage 2 team which included one about a Bayview bypass. They said that they have one in mind if they were ever to be formally requested to construct one.

On the Trinity site plan there is a rail line marked as "possible future bypass line" which follows the old alignment, as well as one of the bypass alignments proposed by MOOSE.

The restricted height doesn’t effect any vehicle OCTranspo owns or any vehicle a reasonably person would propose for such a service.

Does Trinity have any inside information or are they trying to make investors think the station will be closer than it is?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The restricted height doesn’t effect any vehicle OCTranspo owns or any vehicle a reasonably person would propose for such a service.

Does Trinity have any inside information or are they trying to make investors think the station will be closer than it is?

I don't think that would hold up in court. The city has a legal obligation to keeping the corridor open for use by non-dmu vehicles, hence the weird future bypass plan at Ellwood as well. That said, I agree that any service would be best provided with DMUs.

I assume that information came directly from the city. Other than requiring information on the location of sanitary pipes, etc. Trinity is/was also working closely with the city on integrating the building with the new station at Bayview (the pedestrian overpass, which is included in the site plan too).

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

On the Trinity site plan there is a rail line marked as "possible future bypass line" which follows the old alignment, as well as one of the bypass alignments proposed by MOOSE.

@OCCheetos,

Interesting. The City has never referred to that route in its submissions to the Agency or the Federal Court of Appeal. (Their future reconnection line in those venues has been illustrated as coming from the raised spur on the east side of the main line, which as you comment, does not meet federal railway clearances for a main line, thus would not work. The insufficient clearance is allowable there, even under federal regulation, because it is a spur.)

Do you have more specifics or a URL about that particular site plan illustrating the "possible future bypass line"? There have been so many versions. (This one does not show that, for example: http://www.trinity-group.com/property/albert-preston/ )

My colleagues and I were aware by informal observation that the new Bayview Station varies from the earlier technical drawings in a manner that would probably allow conventional federal railway clearances to be re-established along the main line (albeit by demolishing some of the western side of the new station).

But we missed noticing any official document that confirmed that they were hedging their bets as we surmised, in the event that existing federal railway laws were to be enforced.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I don't think that would hold up in court. The city has a legal obligation to keeping the corridor open for use by non-dmu vehicles

Apparently they don’t.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Do you have more specifics or a URL about that particular site plan illustrating the "possible future bypass line"?

I believe that OCCheetos is referring to this document (link).

Note that the document is dated February 2016, which is before MOOSE made its initial complaint to the CTA (July 2016 I believe) about Bayview Station.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Note that the document is dated February 2016, which is before MOOSE made its initial complaint to the CTA (July 2016 I believe) about Bayview Station.

Thanks for the link.

MOOSE's initial complaint was in 2011, which obtained a decision and an order in 2012.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

Our request for enforcement of the 2012 decision and order was in summer 2016.

Since the document you linked to is dated February 2016, that was prior to the City's contractor dismantling and obstructing the main line railway at Bayview. There was not yet any need to request enforcement of the Decision and order at that point.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com