[micheal_can]

A company can do all they want, but once they do things outside the confines of their office, they must meet certain things. That is why Moose is just talk. Once they get everything else, they can be more, but right now, it is great to think of the advantage they could bring to the area.

 

[OCCheetos]

Some questions that got buried in pages and page of posts:
@Joseph Potvin

- Would 5 minute frequencies be a launch commitment?
- If the city told MOOSE that they would only allow MOOSE's trains along the Trillium Line corridor if they were able to share the tracks using their existing trains, would MOOSE consider this possibility?

and another:
- Would MOOSE commit to serving all of the new stations within the existing Trillium Line as outlined as part of Stage 2? (i.e. Gladstone and Walkley).

 

[steveintoronto]

- If the city told MOOSE that they would only allow MOOSE's trains along the Trillium Line corridor if they were able to share the tracks

But this is where the CTA rule both ways. It's not the City's decision. It's the CTA's. Or do you mean the City granting 'trackage rights' on Capital Rail without the CTA imposing it if petitioned to doing so?

 

[kEiThZ]

Some questions that got buried in pages and page of posts:
@Joseph Potvin

- Would 5 minute frequencies be a launch commitment?
- If the city told MOOSE that they would only allow MOOSE's trains along the Trillium Line corridor if they were able to share the tracks using their existing trains, would MOOSE consider this possibility?

and another:
- Would MOOSE commit to serving all of the new stations within the existing Trillium Line as outlined as part of Stage 2? (i.e. Gladstone and Walkley).

I want to know how MOOSE would deal with the issue of real estate owners near existing stations who don't want to pony up. Specifically, as raised by Charles: Carleton. If Carleton tells MOOSE they won't pay a cent, what's Mr. Potvin's plan? Abandon the largest university in the city and biggest trip generator in the corridor?

And while the CTA has enforced sharing, they've not seemed to do so on commercially advantageous terms. What happens if MOOSE gets access to the corridor and it's all outside rush hour? What's the plan then?

I expect you will not get any answers from Mr. Potvin. We'll just get generic nonsense deflection and a direction to read MOOSE's concept paper. But it's a worth a shot asking I guess.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I have a similar question about the change of location of Greenboro given that it appears to be in a different location on the Moose map. I realize Joseph seems to have indicated earlier that the station locations are flexible, but what would happen if Moose wants a station to move but the City doesn't? Does the CTA get involved in station decisions?

 

[Allandale25]

There can often be a large gap of new news on this topic. Here is some. The City has appealed the CTA's decision on the bridge. Article here and below from today.

Also, if you click on the article you'll see a letter from the Mayor to the Minister.

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: an hour ago

The City of Ottawa is appealing an order by the Canadian Transportation Agency to either sell a portion of the rail line leading to the Prince of Wales Bridge, or restore the tracks. (CBC)
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.

• City called out for ripping up rail line near Bayview Station
• Transportation agency orders city to restore rail line
• Regulator sparks questions about future of Prince of Wales Bridge

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."

Request to cabinet

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.

 

[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. (Terms are here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-4.html#h-20 )
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: (The GinC/Minister of Transport has the power to assign this to the NCC)

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-4)
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/acts/r-4/page-2.html#docCont

The National Capital Act:

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/acts/N-4/page-3.html#h-8

 

[Allandale25]

^ Looks like the courts and the Minister will decide.

 

[kEiThZ]

This should settle the matter soon. Cabinet can overrule decisions which are from non-judicial tribunals (like the CTA). And I can't see this government ruling against the City. Especially when they are putting in a few billon in transit spending.

I think they drop the court appeal if Cabinet gives the city the decision it wants.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Looks like the courts and the Minister will decide.

And I think this is best all around. What is possible is that the Minister circumvents it ever going to Appeal (I'm not positive, but initial reading of the process is that Ministerial intervention is *usually* after an appeal, that may be protocol rather than law) and 'proffers' an offer that is suitable for all concerned. And that's the NCC being granted funding beyond their accorded norm to buy the bridge, funds going to the City, and bring the bridge up to the standards required, and it be for open use (without further resorting to the various Acts via the CTA or higher) for all to use. The CTA might be required to intervene in the minutiae of operation if NCC diktats become contested. (The NCC has an extensive history of doing exactly this in the past).

One of the things that Transport would be terrified of is the CTA having to be tested in the Courts. It has happened in the past with the Board of Transport Commissioners, (Edit: And the The Board of Railway Commissioners prior to that) and the SCC has upheld their decisions in every case I'm familiar with, and their powers to reach those decisions.

It would most likely happen again in this case, and even so, the Feds would much prefer a workable fix be attained outside of the courts. Petitioning the Minister sets a precedent that could open the door on a lot of unpredictable outcomes.

I'm digging now to see if such has happened in the past...

 

[Charles]

Just in case anyone is interested, the results of the case in Quebec Superior Court regarding an injunction against Chelsea from removing the rail line can be found at the following location. It's in French, but I'm sure all of you who aren't bilingual are capable of using Google Translate.

http://t.soquij.ca/b2LPr

You may note that MOOSE isn't specifically mentioned in the decision, but Joseph Potvin on behalf of MOOSE did submit an affidavit in regards to this case which can be found on their website.

For the unilingual, here's an unofficial translation of the final paragraph which I believe sums this up nicely.

'As for the issue of serious or irreparable harm, although the court is of the opinion that the present request for a work stoppage should be rejected, it suffices to mention that the projected works are intended for purposes of public and municipal access versus private interests and that the prejudice is clearly in favor of the Municipality of Chelsea.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:
REJECTS the work stoppage request
WITH EXPENSES.'

 

[kEiThZ]

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:
REJECTS the work stoppage request
WITH EXPENSES.'

Mr. Potvin is so generous. Helping communities pay their legal bills. His potential investors sure will love this.

 

[Allandale25]

This should settle the matter soon. Cabinet can overrule decisions which are from non-judicial tribunals (like the CTA). And I can't see this government ruling against the City. Especially when they are putting in a few billon in transit spending.

I think they drop the court appeal if Cabinet gives the city the decision it wants.

Google MP Adam Vaughan's quotes about the federal government only providing funding to municipalities and they get to decide the mode and routing of transit. While the comments were made with respect to Toronto transit debates, for consistency, I don't see why it would be any different for Ottawa, leaving aside the jurisdiction of the bridge. Quick summary:

• The City of Ottawa wants to continue with its existing plan.
• The federal government has funded it.
• The studies are either done or underway and Stage 2 is on track for construction.
• The City has now asked the Minister to confirm that approach.
• Given MP Vaughan's quotes I would be surprised if the Minister made a special exception in approach for Ottawa.

 

[OCCheetos]

'As for the issue of serious or irreparable harm, although the court is of the opinion that the present request for a work stoppage should be rejected, it suffices to mention that the projected works are intended for purposes of public and municipal access versus private interests and that the prejudice is clearly in favor of the Municipality of Chelsea.

If only Pontiac County could have used that argument against CN back in 2013...

 

[kEiThZ]

@Allandale25

The political dimension of all this should never be far from minded. People detest the NCC in Ottawa. As an extension of that, people detest the imposition the federal government makes on the City that robs it of a lot of worthwhile initiatives. Nobody is going to like the fact that the City would have to spend tens of millions to remedy for what is essentially a nuisance ruling.

Now, it's not going to be a huge issue. But Ottawa areas MPs and MPPs are always sensitive to this. And there's nothing more egregious than spending millions to no actual net effect for possibly decades.

Should the City have severed the line? Absolutely not. Should the CTA have ruled the way it did? Absolutely. Should the Minister exercise his authority to exempt OC Transpo from the ruling? Absolutely.

I expect this will all be swept under the rug and tied up in a few months. Nobody wants loose ends coming up before any elections.