[steveintoronto]

Yeah, the CTA was the body I was thinking of when I put the quotes around "court". I don't know the intricate details of how it works, but it's clearly a tribunal process with arguments by the parties. The issue is their decision rules, which amount to "don't let public bodies interfere with or erode the shareholders' interests without compensating the shareholder". The application of their decision rules around compensation are the wild card.

- Paul

I'll see if I can dig out exact reference later as to the route of appeal, but here's what the CTA does regulate: (IIRC the Superior Court is the first stop for a legal appeal beyond the CTA, but many have ended up being SCC decisions, especially those that involve provincial agencies, or acting as the legal avenue for cities/municipalities in dispute with the Feds, or federally regulated entities)

[...]
Acts
The Agency has primary responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. It also shares responsibility for the following laws:

• Canada Marine Act
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
• Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act
• Coasting Trade Act
• Energy Supplies Emergency Act
• Pilotage Act
• Railway Relocation and Crossing Act
• Railway Safety Act
• Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987

Note: For all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, users should consult the Acts as passed by Parliament which are published in the Canada Gazette and the annual Statutes of Canada, and the regulations published in the Canada Gazette. These publications are available in most public libraries.

Regulations
The Agency has sole responsibility for the following regulations:

• Air Transportation Regulations (SOR/88-58)
  • FAQs: Air Transportation Regulations
• Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations (SOR/99-244)
  • FAQs: Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations
• Regulations on Operational Terms for Rail Level of Services Arbitration (SOR/2014-192)
  • FAQs: Regulations on Operational Terms for Rail Level of Services Arbitration
• Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations (SOR/94-42)
  • FAQs: Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations
• Railway Costing Regulations (SOR/80-310)
  • FAQs: Railway Costing Regulations
• Railway Interswitching Regulations (SOR/88-41)
  • FAQs: Railway Interswitching Regulations
• Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations (SOR/96-337)
  • FAQs: Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations
• Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations (SOR/96-338)
  • FAQs: Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations
• Railway Traffic Liability Regulations (SOR/91-488)
  • FAQs: Railway Traffic Liability Regulations
• • [...]

• • https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations
  See also:
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2014-104/page-1.html

There's quite a few SCC decisions I could cite by Googling, but the Transportation Act now in effect is relatively new (last ten years or so, combines a number of older ones) but just found a very recent decision by the SCC:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13664/index.do

This part of the ruling is relevant:
[...]
Section 40 of the CTA confers broad authority on the Governor in Council to address any orders or decisions of the Agency, including those involving questions of law. Where Parliament intends to limit the Governor in Council’s authority, it does so expressly, but the only inherent limitation on the authority conferred by s. 40 is that the Governor in Council’s authority is limited to matters already dealt with by the Commission. Limitations like those placed on the right to appeal a decision of the Agency to the Federal Court of Appeal or on the Governor in Council’s authority under other legislation are not found in s. 40.
[...]


Be aware that "CTA" here refers to the Cdn Transportation Act, not the Cdn Transortation Agency...the shared acronyms can and do cause confusion.

 

[Platform 27]

ok, not in a speech...in a Ontario government publication (web page) that explained the budget.

That promise (plus the one that was made in 2015 about 12 car trains coming by the end of 2017 the Kitchener line) were made in the full knowledge that there could not possibly be a bypass by now....just not physically possible....so if the bypass was part of the asterisk on those promise (real or imagined) then the government was intentionally lying...I guess.

but the point in that reply really was to counter this modern (ie last few years) notion that promises in this corridor are all made to KW and that those are the ones that matter.

Heck we even had a MPP from KW area give a speech at Queens Park last week that said (and I am paraphrasing from memory but I am sure I am not far off) that no one gets on the trains between Kitchener and Malton anyway.

It's really not hard to pull up the 2016 Budget online and find the relevant section. Quoting here in its entirety for convenience:

As a first step to phasing in GO RER, Metrolinx is continuing to implement short-term service improvements that will result in new travel options across the seven corridors of the GO rail network. In 2016–17, planned network-wide GO rail service improvements include the addition of up to:

• Six new trips during the morning/afternoon commutes (i.e., peak trips) on the Milton, Richmond Hill and Stouffville corridors;
• 10 new trips during the midday/evening (i.e., off-peak trips) on the Kitchener corridor to/from the City of Brampton; and
• 52 new trips on each weekend day (i.e., a typical Saturday) on the Kitchener corridor to/from the City of Brampton and the Barrie corridor to/from Aurora.

The additional service is dependent on a number of factors, including negotiations with freight rail companies, the implementation of infrastructure and the delivery of new rail equipment.

YMMV (and cast your vote accordingly), but I wouldn't personally consider this a broken promise. They're pretty clearly labelled as "planned," not definite, and there's a clear proviso on the end that there are conditions and limitations in play.

For me, the most interesting thing this does tell us was back in Spring 2016, ML was planning evening and weekend service within the next fiscal year, and then something changed.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

What's this about a separate UPX maintenance facility? Details please

When Metrolinx thought that the UP Express would be electrified ahead of the rest of the network, a maintence facility was planned close to Woodbine, which even included a turntable due to a lack of space for a wye. I assume due to network-wide electrification or hydrification this idea has been dropped.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You seem to be the only person in a position to say that.

No one knows the cost.....as far as I have read.

Metrolinx reports cited 2.2 Billion for the entire extension beyond Bramalea. For a 30,000 PPD (15,000 each direction) daily ridership, that's even worse than a Scarborough subway, and I live in Waterloo...

In the absolute, this may be true. But consider the cost of whatever is needed next after the current 401 expansion is completed. Those new 401 lanes will be full on the day they open, but they will not deliver improved travel times for even the existing users. Solving congestion in the west GTA will have a new price point, this line can deliver value for its cost.



No disrespect meant, but car dealers must love it when you walk onto the lot.

Nobody conducts a productive negotiation from that opening position.


- Paul

I would say that usually I would not take this position, but Brampton and Kitchener service is critical to RER working. That is if Metrolinx wants RER to be successful.

That may be the physical cost of building the bypass (seems low to me but it is the operating figure) but what we are discussing is what is needed to give CN the motivation to say “yes, we will move our trains to the bypass” and, I suspect, “we will share it with CP so you can free up some space on your Milton line too”

I don't think it will cost 2.2 billion. They already own most of the track north of Georgetown. That must include RER costs.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

What's this about a separate UPX maintenance facility? Details please

When Metrolinx thought that the UP Express would be electrified ahead of the rest of the network, a maintence facility was planned close to Woodbine, which even included a turntable due to a lack of space for a wye. I assume due to network-wide electrification or hydrification this idea has been dropped.

The maintenance facility is actually planned just east of Islington.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Cool!

 

[Allandale25]

I don't think it will cost 2.2 billion. They already own most of the track north of Georgetown. That must include RER costs.

It'd be nice to have a further breakdown.

 

[crs1026]

That maintenace facility proposal predates both the Whitby maintenance facility and the broader electrification initiative. I would question whether it remains relevant since a) with the addition of the Whitby facility, there is more room to do work at Willowbrook and b) a small dedicated EMU base may have had merit when UP was the only anticipated EMU fleet, but with RER a much bigger fleet will be operated and location close to the airport is unproductive for fleet maintenance on the other lines.

If you look at the staffing chart, it is planned with a pretty hefty staff count. There's a maintenance complement that is sufficient to operate a couple nuclear reactors. And a maintenance planning, admin, security complement that on a per-railcar basis is prohibitive. I would scream about this long before I would complain about a premature 401 tunnel.

That proposal was conceived at a time when UPE was being planned with the most grandiose of mindset. A good example of how the "premium service paid for by business travellers' expense accounts" thinking contaminated areas of the operation where plain vanilla GO operations made more business sense. Can't blame the consultant..... they delivered what they were asked to deliver ..... but the proposal is a boondoggle.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

The maintenance facility is actually planned just east of Islington.

It maybe planned, but is really needed with all the changes taking place as well equipment wise?? I for one see no need for this to be built, especially if the GTTA Transit Hub happens.

It would be a good time to build the Y to allow trains to go to/from the airport that should been built on day one.

 

[Megaton327]

Took a couple of GO shots at Downsview Park today:

1) Service counter, just inside the east-side building adjacent to the doors out to the GO platform:

2) Panorama of the GO platform, this is taken from the opposite building looking over towards the GO side, which will not have a GO platform for the foreseeable future; thankfully they did do a bare minimum amount of construction of the portion of the platform immediately outside the station building to make it easier to add it, hopefully in the near future:

WARNING - large image 9.85MB panorama, external link: https://i.imgur.com/B1S6ZbO.jpg

 

[dowlingm]

It maybe planned, but is really needed with all the changes taking place as well equipment wise?? I for one see no need for this to be built, especially if the GTTA Transit Hub happens.

It would be a good time to build the Y to allow trains to go to/from the airport that should been built on day one.

At present UPX cars are maintained at VIA TMC. In an electrification scenario UPX-GO would either need ask VIA to electrify part of TMC, do their own maintenance at Willowbrook or Whitby (which are presumably optimised for low door vehicles), or build the proposed facility which also removes a bunch of non-revenue movements from (at present) the LSW between Union and Willowbrook.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

That maintenace facility proposal predates both the Whitby maintenance facility and the broader electrification initiative. I would question whether it remains relevant since a) with the addition of the Whitby facility, there is more room to do work at Willowbrook and b) a small dedicated EMU base may have had merit when UP was the only anticipated EMU fleet, but with RER a much bigger fleet will be operated and location close to the airport is unproductive for fleet maintenance on the other lines.

If you look at the staffing chart, it is planned with a pretty hefty staff count. There's a maintenance complement that is sufficient to operate a couple nuclear reactors. And a maintenance planning, admin, security complement that on a per-railcar basis is prohibitive. I would scream about this long before I would complain about a premature 401 tunnel.

That proposal was conceived at a time when UPE was being planned with the most grandiose of mindset. A good example of how the "premium service paid for by business travellers' expense accounts" thinking contaminated areas of the operation where plain vanilla GO operations made more business sense. Can't blame the consultant..... they delivered what they were asked to deliver ..... but the proposal is a boondoggle.

- Paul

At present UPX cars are maintained at VIA TMC. In an electrification scenario UPX-GO would either need ask VIA to electrify part of TMC, do their own maintenance at Willowbrook or Whitby (which are presumably optimised for low door vehicles), or build the proposed facility which also removes a bunch of non-revenue movements from (at present) the LSW between Union and Willowbrook.

Willowbrook is not going to be handling any electrified equipment; modifying the facility to handle it was prohibitively expensive, so it will remain as the facility to handle the diesel fleet until it is no more. This was a key driver for the Whitby facility, along with the fact that RER demanded more maintenance capacity.

The maintenance facility for an electrified UPX was still on the books when planning and pre-works for the EMRF were underway, and I was not aware of that changing. The Whitby facility will undertake only the most major maintenance tasks for UPX; everything else will be handled at the Resources Road facility. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of UPX units deadheading all that way, eating up capacity that will already be full of a) GO trains running revenue service on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines b) electrified GO trains from all other electrified lines deadheading to/from Whitby for maintenance and/or midday storage, and c) VIA trains on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal run (at least to Pickering Junction). UPX is a relatively small amount of additional traffic, but it's a lot of deadheading in a jam packed corridor.

 

[crs1026]

^1) Is there confidence that Resources Road would have anywhere near the capacity needed to do the maintainance for the entire RER electric fleet? It's a pretty space constrained spot.
2) I can understand that one might not want wires in some of the diesel maintenance shops, and WB may not have been designed to accommodate them. However, Willowbrook did get attention in the EA, didn't it? At minimum, it will clearly be a layover facility for electrics.

- Paul

 

[jcam]

It maybe planned, but is really needed with all the changes taking place as well equipment wise?? I for one see no need for this to be built, especially if the GTTA Transit Hub happens.

It would be a good time to build the Y to allow trains to go to/from the airport that should been built on day one.

I'd be curious to know whether they'll actually shift the use of this property for either the construction staging or the actual tunnel start of the 401 tunnel. I'm curious to see an early 30% design concept of how they plan on doing it, what with the existing Islington bridge and Resource Rd. access to Lowes, etc.

 

[dowlingm]

Willowbrook is not going to be handling any electrified equipment; modifying the facility to handle it was prohibitively expensive, so it will remain as the facility to handle the diesel fleet until it is no more.

Metrolinx RER Initial Business Case. When did Willowbrook get screened out?

I agree with @crs1026 that it seems unlikely that Willowbrook won't at least be wired as a storage yard, with Obico hosting some diesel trainsets to make room during those works.

EDIT to note that the screengrab below mentions on the next page that allowance was made for possible UPX maintenance at Willowbrook (the reference to PM Bays 3 and 4 below).