News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 668     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Congratulations to our Avontuura Guides Winners!
 306     0 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

OCCheetos said:
One of the only cases where I can see this being applicable is when MOOSE tried to determine whether the city of Gatineau actually owned the Maniwaki subdivision (along the Rapibus corridor) which was dismissed by the CTA
Click to expand...

That 2011-12 case was about the Lachute Sub, and it was not about ownership, it was about jurisdiction.

[4] MOOSE requests the following relief from the Agency:
A confirmation that the railway infrastructure is under federal jurisdiction by virtue of paragraph 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
A determination that the transfer of the railway line was not done pursuant to sections 142 to 144 of the CTA; and,
An order that all tracks and related infrastructure be rebuilt or refurbished to federal railway standards.
Reference: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012​

Interestingly, the Agency determined that the line is federal up to the point that it reaches the Quebec shoreline. Interestingly also, we've been told by several sources that it was because of this case that the Rapibus budget was adjusted to fund the re-building of that railway in order to keep the PoWB connected with the rest of the Lachute Sub. So... did MOOSE lose? We don't think so.

The only case where we did (and still do) question ownership (in addition to jurisdiction) is the most recent Maniwaki Sub case in which the municipality of Chelsea unilaterally dismantled railway infrastructure that all publicly available records demonstrate to be jointly owned by the three municipalities of Gatineau, Chelsea and La Pêche. That's documented in our submission documents online , but not addressed by the Agency.


OCCheetos said:
and supposedly the mayor of Gatineau doesn't have any particularly negative views on MOOSE
Click to expand...

Don't assume. Why not ask them? That's what we do.

***

@OCCheetos, please advise if you are in accordance with these clarifications.

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
 
jys said:
The Conservatives are known to be 'flexible' in order to cut costs, so I am sure that they would love to talk with MOOSE and/or mediate a negotiation between the City of Ottawa and MOOSE.
Click to expand...

Ottawa LRT Phase 2 is not cheap to cancel or substantially change as they'll be very deep in a P3 style tender process (likely have contractors selected) before the election starts. Of course, they've also sunk $500M into the design.
 
rbt said:
Ottawa LRT Phase 2 is not cheap to cancel or substantially change as they'll be very deep in a P3 style tender process (likely have contractors selected) before the election starts. Of course, they've also sunk $500M into the design.
Click to expand...

The last PC Government - Mike Harris days - buried the already being dug Eglinton Subway.
 
Joseph Potvin said:
That 2011-12 case was about the Lachute Sub, and it was not about ownership, it was about jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
There's certainly a distinction between ownership and jurisdiction that I missed. My bad!

Interestingly, the Agency determined that the line is federal up to the point that it reaches the Quebec shoreline. Interestingly also, we've been told by several sources that it was because of this case that the Rapibus budget was adjusted to fund the re-building of that railway in order to keep the PoWB connected with the rest of the Lachute Sub. So... did MOOSE lose? We don't think so.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I know Gatineau wanted to keep the rail so that it could eventually be converted to light rail or something, but it's still a bit surprising that they would have done that because of the case. Overall though, it's good that the track is still there.

The only case where we did (and still do) question ownership (in addition to jurisdiction) is the most recent Maniwaki Sub case in which the municipality of Chelsea unilaterally dismantled railway infrastructure that all publicly available records demonstrate to be jointly owned by the three municipalities of Gatineau, Chelsea and La Pêche. That's documented in our submission documents online , but not addressed by the Agency.
Click to expand...

Is MOOSE still in the process of "doing its homework" with regards to that case?
​
Don't assume. Why not ask them? That's what we do.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I wouldn't know how to.
I was referring to something someone said in the SSP thread regarding Gatineau's views. Generally, there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about MOOSE from Gatineau (recently anyway), at least compared to Ottawa or Chelsea.
 
Allandale25 said:
I'd agree with @kEiThZ. If you read back through a lot of Potvin's posts on the other board, when he is specific, he's strongly indicated he thinks he has a better plan. Take a look at this comment:

"---Quote (Originally by Joseph Potvin)---
Not at all. We're just confident that professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa, and the taxpayers of Ottawa (and of Canada), will see a straightforward way to improve overall transit system performance with high-capacity trains on that line.
---End Quote---"

He's talking about the Trillium line. I don't know about you but when someone uses the words "confident" "will see" "improve" that makes their intentions pretty clear. I'm sure that provides a helpful context.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, those are more the words of a confident man trying to be confident about his plan, rather than the words of someone with malicious intent.
You have to remember that there still isn't anything that MOOSE could do under Canadian law to force the city to agree to their plan. Diplomacy is the only way.
 
micheal_can said:
The last PC Government - Mike Harris days - buried the already being dug Eglinton Subway.
Click to expand...

Contracts/Tenders don't work that way anymore.

Modern P3 contracts are much harder to kill and actually save anything. Killing Ottawa LRT, if it hits financial close, will not be cheap. If the funding agreement is written well, the party cancelling the contract will absorb all costs related to the project (letting the feds/municipality off the hook). It may well cost the province more to cancel Ottawa LRT than to pay their share and finish it.

That whole mechanism to lock in a maximum price also happens to lock in a minimum price too; even if you decide you no longer want it built (see gas plants).

We'll see what state it's in when May rolls around.
 
Last edited:
July 18, 2017, Ottawa Citizen: "Potvin sees a future commuter who rides into downtown Ottawa from Arnprior, heads up to Wakefield after work for a show at the Black Sheep Inn, then heads home to Arnprior, all by commuter train.

My calculations:

Arnprior to downtown: approximately 1.5 hrs.
Downtown to Wakefield: approximately 1.5 hrs
Wakefield back to Arnprior: approximately 2.5 hrs. That's not counting in the fact that you really hope that the once per hour train coincides nicely with the end of the show you went to see. Also doesn't account for the fact that you need to transfer between two different lines and there's a potential delay at the connection point.

I don't know many people who would willingly take the train out to a show, knowing that it would take you 2.5 to 3 hours to get home afterwards. I would never make that sort of trip. I hope that that isn't the type of passengers that MOOSE is counting on to make this network viable.
 
Last edited:
@crs1026

I just want to highlight the fact that the Ottawa Citizen article is factually incorrect. The City does not need to repair the bridge within the next 12 months. Rather what the CTA order states is that it must come up with a plan to bring the bridge to a state of repair (no time frame mandated) so that in the future the bridge could be brought into service within 12 months of a subsequent CTA order under Div IV.

A copy of the document can be found at the following link.

http://www.kitchissippiward.ca/sites/default/files/R-2018-23-eng.pdf
 
Charles said:
@crs1026

I just want to highlight the fact that the Ottawa Citizen article is factually incorrect. The City does not need to repair the bridge within the next 12 months. Rather what the CTA order states is that it must come up with a plan to bring the bridge to a state of repair (no time frame mandated) so that in the future the bridge could be brought into service within 12 months of a subsequent CTA order under Div IV.

A copy of the document can be found at the following link.

http://www.kitchissippiward.ca/sites/default/files/R-2018-23-eng.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm rushed to get out the door, but a quick glimpse indicates the mace that Paul quotes may not be the right one, it's another club to bludgeon with.

I'll discuss the ruling later. It's not what the City of Ottawa wanted.

Addendum:
Spin it any way you wish, it won't change the conclusion:
upload_2018-2-20_10-41-39.png


Further edit to add:

Don't want to get too abstract on the implications of this, but yet again, this isn't just about MOOSE and City of Ottawa.

It's about reestablishing access to existing rail infrastructure for a number of entities. And credit to Potvin!
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-20_10-41-39.png
    upload_2018-2-20_10-41-39.png
    85.3 KB · Views: 421
Last edited:
Without taking a position on what should happen with the Moose vs City of Ottawa plans going forward, the CTA ruling is helpful on a broader level - namely, it upholds the principle that a railway can't be abandoned by just letting it rust until it sinks into the weeds. That may not make City of Ottawa happy, but it's absolutely important to ensure that secondary rail lines and spurs across the country don't get abandoned without due process.

This also matters for going concern rail infrastructure like the Montreal Nord tunnel. In that project, it has been stated publicly that there will have to be regulatory approvals sought. Imagine what City of Montreal could have done to VIA unilaterally if that weren't the case.

- Paul
 
steveintoronto said:
It's about reestablishing access to existing rail infrastructure for a number of entities. And credit to Potvin!
Click to expand...

Two things to keep in mind regarding that this ruling may not change/impact: 1) City Council/Provincial/Federal support for Stage 2 of the Regional Transit Plan, its phasing, technology, and routing; and 2) allows Moose to just walk in and start using the bridge if the discountination process commences. They still don't have a Certificate of Fitness and as I said on another board, the proponent of Moose has stated they refuse to work with or consider using a contractor, like CANDO, who do have their own Certificate of Fitness. Just because the CTA made a ruling on the bridge doesn't mean it automatically can now be used by Moose.
 
Allandale25 said:
Just because the CTA made a ruling on the bridge doesn't mean it automatically can now be used by Moose.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But that's for the CTA to decide, conditions laid out in various Acts being met, not the City of Ottawa. I think you rather miss the point that Paul makes so well.
crs1026 said:
the CTA ruling is helpful on a broader level - namely, it upholds the principle that a railway can't be abandoned by just letting it rust until it sinks into the weeds. That may not make City of Ottawa happy, but it's absolutely important to ensure that secondary rail lines and spurs across the country don't get abandoned without due process.

This also matters for going concern rail infrastructure like the Montreal Nord tunnel. In that project, it has been stated publicly that there will have to be regulatory approvals sought. Imagine what City of Montreal could have done to VIA unilaterally if that weren't the case.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Now the exact details of both cases, especially the latter, are still to be examined and digested, but the glaring take-away from this decision is that it sets a precedent I believe, in that it took David v. Goliath to get a ruling where the Ministry wasn't even batting an eyelash. They were too friggin' scared to!

The awesome powers of the various acts have been articulated many times in this string, but as Paul has mused many times, and correctly, (gist) "All well and good that the acts state that, the Feds would never dare to use them".

And that slammed door might just have opened a crack. More comment later, I want to study this more.

Addendum:
Regulator sparks questions about future of Prince of Wales Bridge
Transportation agency orders city to restore rail line leading to blocked-off bridge
By Marc-André Cossette, CBC News Posted: Feb 20, 2018 4:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 20, 2018 8:13 AM ET

A decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency is sparking questions about the future of the abandoned Prince of Wales Bridge, with some in Ottawa hoping to see it back in operation much sooner than expected.

In a ruling issued Friday, the agency gave the City of Ottawa two options.

It can either try to sell a portion of the rail line leading to the Prince of Wales Bridge, which spans the Ottawa River just west of the city's downtown — which could lead to it being permanently closed if there are no buyers.

Or it can instead restore the tracks — including those that run over the bridge — so they can accommodate rail traffic within 12 months
"Faced with the potential to have to demolish the bridge or discontinue that rail line, I think most residents of Ottawa feel that it would be far preferable to put the bridge into service," said Kichissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, whose ward's eastern border is the bridge and O-Train tracks.

"It should put a bit of a fire under city council as well as our federal and provincial partners to find a way to fund it."

The agency made its decision in response to a complaint filed in 2016 by Moose Consortium Inc., a group hoping to rehabilitate the bridge as part of its plan to offer regional rail services to outlying communities in Quebec and Ontario.

The consortium filed its complaint after the City of Ottawa ripped up a quarter-kilometre section of rail tracks just south of the bridge in order to build a new entrance to the Bayview LRT station.

In a memo to councillors, City of Ottawa solicitor Rick O'Connor said the city's legal team is reviewing its options, which could include seeking judicial review.

That's an option Leiper said he would support, as it would buy the city more time to make an informed decision.

Mayor Jim Watson said the city will consult with lawyers and may consider appealing the ruling.

"I don't think it's reasonable for a federal agency to tell us to keep a bridge operational for rail when we don't have the funds to put rail across to Quebec at this point," he said.

Best case scenario

Still, Leiper said most people in Ottawa would welcome a functioning rail bridge linking Ottawa and Gatineau, helping to ease congestion and benefiting the environment.

"Everything points to the importance of keeping the bridge and getting it back in service," he said.

The City of Ottawa has envisioned converting the abandoned bridge to light rail so it could connect with Gatineau's transit system, but there is no concrete plan or funding in place to achieve that goal.

"What the Canadian Transportation Agency's decision forces us to do is make some plans around that sooner than we might have thought," Leiper said.

Potential for local, regional service

Hull-Aylmer MP Greg Fergus welcomed the CTA's decision, which he said leaves the door open not only to local rail service over the bridge but also the regional service proposed by Moose Consortium Inc.

"The more players that are in there, the better," Fergus said.

"I really do believe rail is the future for being able to move people efficiently, quickly and cheaply, so this is good news all around."

Fergus has also voiced his support for a tramway connecting Aylmer to downtown Gatineau with a potential link over the Prince of Wales Bridge.

Joseph Potvin, director general of Moose Consortium Inc., said he wasn't surprised by the agency's decision and hopes it will accelerate plans to rehabilitate the bridge.

"There's only one way to get between the O-Train line and the Quebec side — which is along the [bridge's] tracks," he said.

Potvin said his team recently submitted proposals to the City of Ottawa and the CTA for the bridge's rehabilitation, including plans for a bypass track around Bayview Station.

The plan also includes seismic upgrades to the bridge as well as cantilevered bike and pedestrian paths.

"There isn't a conflict with the two systems," Potvin said. "It would actually be entirely complementary."

Potvin said the rehabilitation of the bridge would cost $50 million, which the consortium proposes to finance in full.

His team has pegged the cost of bypassing Bayview Station at an additional $25 million.

In the meantime, all eyes remain on the City of Ottawa as it weighs its options in response to the agency's ruling.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rail-bridge-cta-decision-ottawa-1.4541486

Pics and links to legal docs at url posted immediately above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top