Is the Railway safe in your community?

Railway Safety Act Review 2017-2018 Regional Roundtable

October 13, 2017 (9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.), Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Participants

  1. Michael Bourque, President & CEO, Railway Association of Canada (RAC)
  2. Orlando Cordova, General Manager & Chief Operating Officer, Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. TBC
  3. Ian Simpson, General Manager, New Brunswick & Maine (NMB) Railways TBC
  4. Justin Smith, Trainmaster/Operations Supervisor, Cape Breton and Central NS Railway
  5. John Walker, Railway Manager, Sydney Coal Railway TBC
  6. Erick Burley, Manager, Rail Logistics & Quality, Irving Oil
  7. Luc Desjardins, President, l’Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick and, Mayor of Petit-Rocher
  8. Bev Gaston, President, Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick, and Mayor of Doaktown TBC
  1. Linda Gregory, Deputy Warden, Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
  1. Bill Karsten, Councillor, Halifax Regional Municipality, and 3rd Vice President and Board Member, Federation of Canadian Municipalities  
  2. Denis Caron, President & CEO, Belledune Port Authority TBC
  3. Ted Bartlett, President, Board of Directors, Transport Action Atlantic TBC
  4. Michael MacNeil, Cape Breton Railway Victims Association TBC
  5. Daniel Savard, Senior Planner, Policy Branch, Department of Environment and Local Government, Government of New Brunswick
  6. Andrew Paton, Senior Planner, Service Nova Scotia & Municipal Relations, Government of Nova Scotia
  7. Shannon Sanford, Director, Policy and Legislative Affairs (Branch), Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of New Brunswick

 

Observers

Michael Gullo, Director, Policy, Economic and Environmental Affairs, Railway Association of Canada (RAC)

First off I want to thank the Federal Minister of Transportation Marc Garneau for the invitation to attend Railway Safety Act Review 2017-2018 Regional Roundtable.

Unfortunately I have work responsibility on this date and unable to attend. I would like to ask that my comments and links to our concerns be read and a record of same be filed

 

 

Introduction

 

                                                                                                                                                  The Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway (reporting mark CBNS) is a short line railway operating in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. CBNS operates (245 miles or 394 kilometres) of main line and associated spurs between Truro in the central part of the province to Point Tupper on Cape Breton Island.

The rail lines operated by CBNS were previously owned by the Canadian National Railway. CBNS began operations in 1994 after the rail lines was purchased in October 1993 by the holding company RailTex. The purchase and operation of this route made CBNS one of the first short line railways to operate a route previously owned by a Canadian Class I railroad. On February 4, 2000, RailTex and all of its assets, including CBNS, were sold to the holding company RailAmerica. On December 12, 2012, RailAmerica and all of its assets, including CBNS, were sold to the holding company Genesee & Wyoming.

The CBNS main line crosses varied scenery in central and eastern Nova Scotia including mixed farmland, river valleys, forests, and the Pictou-Antigonish Highlands (considered geologically part of the Appalachian Mountains). The main line skirts various inlets of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and crosses the Strait of Canso to Cape Breton Island using the Canso Causeway. On Cape Breton Island the main line crosses the North Bras d'Or Uplands (North Mountain - also known as River Denys Mountain) before skirting the shores of Bras d'Or Lake along the Boisdale Hills to Sydney.

CBNS maintains the same two subdivisions over this line as did its previous owner Canadian National Railway (CN):

 

The line interchanges with the Sydney Coal Railway (SCR), formerly the Devco Railway, at Sydney, and with CN at Truro. Yards are maintained at Sydney, North Sydney, Point Tupper, Havre Boucher, Stellarton, and Truro.

The railroad's business is primarily transporting coal, metal products, paper products, chemicals, drywall products and limestone. CBNS transported approximately 22,000 car loads in 2008.[1]

 

Future of the Sydney Subdivision

The section of the Sydney Subdivision from Port Hawkesbury to Sydney has undergone a significant decline in traffic since CN sold the entire route to RailTex in 1993.

The first decline occurred in 1997, when CN stopped routing Terra Transport container traffic bound for Newfoundland via the Marine Atlantic ferry service at North Sydney. From 1978-1997, Terra Transport containers were hauled by rail to the North Sydney railway yard where they would be transferred onto truck chassis and placed on board a ferry destined for Newfoundland. Until the abandonment of CN's rail services in Newfoundland in 1988, they would be transferred onto CN's narrow gauge trains at the ferry terminal in Newfoundland and delivered to destinations across that province. Following railway abandonment in 1988, the containers remained on the truck chassis for delivery by truck. A combination of changes to Marine Atlantic's ferry service, coupled with a desire by CN Rail to increase traffic at the Port of Halifax, saw these containers re-routed to Halifax where they were hauled to Newfoundland by the shipping company OceanEx.

The second decline occurred in late 2001 when a large steel mill and several coal mines were closed by Sydney Steel Corporation and Cape Breton Development Corporation respectively in the Sydney area. This change resulted in the loss of thousands of car loads per year and threatened the financial viability of the line. The railway retains several small industrial customers and wholesalers that create a combined 1,500 car loads per year east of Port Hawkesbury.

At the same time as this major loss in traffic occurred on the Sydney Subdivision, Via Rail Canada was experimenting with operating a once-weekly return trip seasonal tourist train from Halifax to Sydney called the Bras d'Or. The financial uncertainty of the Sydney Subdivision saw CBNS apply in 2004 to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) for permission to abandon the section east of St. Peters Junction (several miles east of Port Hawkesbury) in 2005. This resulted in Via's decision to permanently cancel the Bras d'Or at the end of the 2004 operating season.

The section of the line east of St. Peters Junction (near Port Hawkesbury) to Sydney has the highest maintenance requirements per mile on the entire railway as it includes the longest railway bridge in the province, the Grand Narrows Bridge, as well as two large trestles at Ottawa Brook. CBNS has stated that at least 10,000 car loads per year are required to generate enough revenue to maintain the Sydney Subdivision's tracks and bridges in operating condition.[3]

In September 2005, the Government of Nova Scotia announced that it had reached an agreement with the CBNS whereby the government would provide the railway with a $10 million subsidy to keep the rail line from Port Hawkesbury to Sydney open for the next five years, expiring in March 2010. In return, CBNS withdrew its application to the NSUARB for permission to abandon this section of its main line. A one-year extension of this subsidy was approved by the government in September 2010 that was retroactive to April 2010.[3][4] On 3 October 2011, it was announced that the government had agreed to continue the subsidy for three more years, allowing RailAmerica access to $2 million over the timespan of the deal.[5]

Freight service for this section of the main line is currently provided by a small twice-weekly freight train that operates as a round trip between Sydney and Port Hawkesbury. Freight service west of Port Hawkesbury to the CN interchange at Truro is operated six times per week by larger freight trains.

In 2008, the holding company RailAmerica which was the corporate owner of CBNS at the time, encountered significant financial pressure from its corporate owner Fortress Investment Group. This saw CBNS dramatically increase the rates it charged to individuals and companies accessing railway property (e.g. driveways, storage, utility lines and pipes, etc.). The resulting backlash saw the provincial government under Premier Rodney MacDonald and his successor Darrell Dexter attempt to negotiate a means to regulate such rates.

In June 2014, the holding company Genesee & Wyoming Inc announced that it would not be seeking a renewal of the provincial government's maintenance subsidy granted since 2005 in exchange for keeping the Sydney Subdivision operating. The company has announced its intention to seek approval to abandon the line in fall 2014 from its regulator, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.[6]

Some municipal officials have criticized the standard of maintenance of the line in the Port Hawkesbury area.[7]

Genesee & Wyoming has ended 135 years of rail service to Sydney. The last 301 (westbound) left Sydney December 30, 2014. Under new provincial legislation the railway can't apply to abandon the line (remove the tracks) until six months after the Utility and Review Boards decision of the length of the discontinuance period on which the railway has to offer service to its customers. The boards decision was handed down January 15, 2015 and states that the railway must offer service (which can be trucks) until October 1, 2015. The earliest the railway can apply to abandon the line is April 1, 2016.

Accidents

The CBNS has experienced two significant derailments since taking over operation of the Truro - Sydney railway line from CN in 1993:

  • On April 18, 2004, westbound freight train 301-18 derailed ten cars at mile 51.7 of the Hopewell Subdivision near Linacyat approximately 23h35 ADT. Nine of the ten derailed cars were loaded with liquified petroleum gas (propane). No individuals were injured, however, two schools and two residences were forced to evacuate for nine days while cleanup operations took place. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigated and determined that the train had been operated safely and that no mechanical defects existed in the locomotives or consist. The investigation determined that the derailment occurred as a result of a track issue; the slower freight train had been operating along a curve that was super-elevated. This type of track configuration dated to the high speed requirements of the Via Rail Canada "Dayliner" passenger trains which were canceled on January 15, 1990. The heavy weight of the slower freight train forced the lower track on the inside of the curve to collapse.[8]
  • On June 13, 2010, a westbound freight train derailed sixteen cars on the Hopewell Subdivision in Avondale Station. Six of the sixteen derailed cars were loaded with liquified petroleum gas (propane). No individuals were injured, however, several residences were forced to evacuate for multiple days while cleanup operations took place. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is currently investigating. A CBNS official was quoted in local media as stating that a preliminary finding had determined that a defect in a non-CBNS freight car was thought to have caused the derailment.[9]A subsequent minor derailment in Stellarton the following week where two freight cars left the tracks during a yard switching operation created a minor media sensation.[10] The derailment coincided with a public debate in Nova Scotia about whether the provincial government would extend the five-year subsidy agreement that was tied to maintaining the Sydney Subdivision (eastern section of the railway) where traffic had declined below sustainable levels. A site visit to view track conditions on the Hopewell Subdivision in Pictou County by Nova Scotia's Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal Bill Estabrooks in September 2010 revealed several track defects. Estabrooks stated that such defects could cause the railroad to lose its operating licence from the provincial government; however, RailAmerica argued the defects were minor and the railroad was safe.[11]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A local reporter Mary Campbell of The Spectator did some digging about the cost being charged landowners adjacent to the Cape Breton Railway. Below is her findings and assessment I asked G&W vice president of corporate communications Michael Williams how the company could justify continuing to charge such high fees for an inactive railway. This is what he said:

The fees cover the significant activities and expenses, described in detail below, that are incurred regardless of whether trains are running:

While many of the agreements do cover important safety concerns related to third-party use of railroad property near active rail lines, much of the railroad’s liability, and thus need for an agreement, comes solely from its ownership of the land. Whether or not trains are running, there is potential for liability anytime a person is granted permission to enter the property of another.

While the railroad does not actively seek users of its right of way, there is an understanding that from time to time, utilities or neighbors will have a reasonable need to utilize or cross the railroad property. Therefore, Genesee & Wyoming Railroad Services employs full-time staff to accommodate these requests, and the fees derived therefrom offset some of the costs involved with review, preparation and maintenance of the agreements.

Shorter version: we need to charge high application fees to pay for the people who review the applications. (I would be very curious to know how many people G&W actually employs to review these applications and how much they are paid.)

Here’s how Williams explains each of the charges:

Utility Crossing Agreement Processing

Application Fee for a utility crossing is $1,000. This covers document preparation, internal reviews, insurance review, legal review, business approvals and input into railroad document retention systems.

[“Input into railroad document retention systems?” Is that communications-speak for “filing?” Are they trying to make filing sound more important—and expensive—by calling it “input into railroad document retention systems?” That is such a gift to people like me.]

Engineering review fee for a utility crossing is $1,500. This covers review of new uses, sometimes including multiple revisions, by the engineering department to verify the installation plans submitted conform to CBNS and Transport Canada engineering standards.

Contractor’s Right of Entry fee for a utility crossing is $1,500. This covers activities similar to the application fee and includes contractor’s 60-day access to the railroad’s property to perform the installation of the utility.

Private Road Crossings Application fee for the private road crossing is $1,000. This covers activities similar to the application fee for utilities. Note that this fee is not collected from the applicant until a crossing has been approved due to there being a good chance that a new road crossing application could be denied. Additional fees to cover an engineering assessment and materials needed for the crossing vary based on the specific project and are likewise not charged until the crossing is approved.

The fees above, other than the private road crossing application fee, are all non-refundable. Expedited processing (1-2 weeks as opposed to 6-8 weeks) of any of these applications costs an additional $1,750. So, the total for each utility crossing is $4,000 — $5,750 if you want it processed quickly.

And here’s the best part: the railway charges separately for each utility.

Coaxial cables, copper telephone wires, electrical distribution and transmission lines? $4,000.

Pipelines that go over, under and on railroad property [and] may include natural gas, petroleum, water and sewer? $4,000.

Fiber optic wire lines and cable crossings that go over, under and on railroad property? $4,000.

The group, made up of people G&W would no doubt call its Cape Breton “neighbors,” argues the utility crossing fees violate the Railways Act, in particular, the $300 cap on crossing fees set by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB).

But UARB executive director Paul Allen begs to differ. In an email to The Spectator, Allen explained that the board’s powers are set out in the Private Railway Crossing Fees Regulations made under the Railways Act. Those regulations define a crossing fee as: “the annual fee [emphasis his] charged by a railway company in respect of a private crossing.”

The regulations state:

Despite any agreement, a railway company must not charge a person a crossing fee of more than $300, other than with the approval of the Board under Section 4.

But, says Allen:

The Act and Regulations are silent on development fees [emphasis mine] to create the crossing in the first instance.

I’ve stressed the word “development fees,” because it’s not a term used by G&W. I made the mistake of asking Williams about “development fees” in my first approach to him and he said:

The railroad does not charge development fees. Perhaps such fees were charged prior to G&W’s acquisition of the company in 2012.

G&W charges utility crossing fees, private crossing fees and annual license fees, not development fees. It seems to me the UARB and the railway and our local politicians should at least be speaking the same language on this.

That said, Allen’s point stands: the Railways Act is silent on utility crossing fees.

 

What Does CN Do?

G&W is not, of course, the only railway to charge for utility crossings, so I thought it would be interesting to compare their charges to those of Canadian National (CN).

According to the CN website, the railway’s charges for “utility installations” in Eastern Canada look like this:

Show  10 25 50 100  entries

Search:

Utility

Application Fee 

Additional Reviews Fee

Electrical Consultant Fee

Copies of Plan to be Submitted

Communication Cable

$795.00 (GST included)

$159.00 (GST included)

Possibly

6

Gas/Oil Pipeline

$950.00 (+HST)

$159.00 (GST included)

No

6

Water Pipeline

$950.00 (+HST)

$159.00 (GST included)

No

3

Sanitary Pipeline

$950.00 (+HST)

$159.00 (GST included)

No

3

Power Line

$950.00 (+HST)

$159.00 (GST included)

Possibly

6

Showing 1 to 5 of 5 entries

PreviousNext

Note: I ran the $950 fee through Revenue Canada’s HST calculator for Nova Scotia and the result was $1,092.50.

The “Additional Reviews Fee” is what you pay if your original application is missing any documentation necessitating a second (or third, or, if I were doing it, probably a fourth) review.

If a land owner were doing the work along a CN track and were charged for two utility installations, They would pay $2,185. (That’s assuming they are organized and did not forget to submit any documents and it was not necessary to call in an electrical consultant).

To have water, sewer, cable and power hooked up would cost $4,072.50 — that is, roughly the price of one utility crossing with G&W.

The kicker? Were they living along a CN line, they would presumably be living along an active railway.

 

Letter vs Spirit

Grand Narrows rail bridge circa 1900 (Photo by C. W. Vernon, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

The Nova Scotia government empowered the UARB to cap annual rail license fees and the UARB did so, at $300 per year, to ensure property owners along rail lines do not have to pay unfairly high fees.

That being the case, could not the Private Railway Crossing Fees Regulations be amended to cap utility crossing fees too? Or to state that multiple crossings constructed at the same time should not entail multiple fees?

The answer is, of course they could — amending regulations is one of the things legislators do.

Legislators could even draft separate fee structures for active versus non-active railways, so that someone doing construction along an inactive rail line would pay less than someone doing that same work along an active line.

Speaking of which , I asked Williams if G&W planned to abandon the St. Peter’s to Sydney line and he said:

The railroad continues to evaluate various scenarios on the Sydney Subdivision, on which no decision or next steps have been finalized. There has been no consideration of abandoning the economically viable segment of the CBNS (Hopewell Subdivision) that continues to serve customers.

But he also acknowledged the line had been damaged by the recent rainstorm:

A full assessment of the storm damage was conducted last week. When the report is complete, the railroad will determine its available options and develop a schedule to proceed with repairs based on safety assessment.

Personally, I wish we were taking a serious look at rail as an alternative to crazy plans to twin highways and charge tolls to accommodate more cars and trucks (and if you’re about to tell me that rebuilding the rail line would be prohibitively expensive, all I can say is, have you priced a mile of highway lately? More to the point, have you priced a mile of public-private-partnership highway lately?)

But whatever the future of Cape Breton’s railway, it seems unfair to ask those living along it to pay to keep the dream alive. Given the line is inactive, given the CBNS fees are so much higher than CN’s and given the UARB already regulates annual crossing fees, it seems there is room for the provincial government to step in and set new regulations. Certainly, it was willing to step in — to the tune of $3 million a year — to assist the rail operator.

I’d actually input that into my personal document retention system under “no-brainer.”

 

Gordon Sampson: Fees preventing owners from developing their properties

Gordon Sampson [email protected]

 

Route 223 extends from Little Bras d’Or through Georges River, Ironville, Barachois, Boisdale, Shenacadie, Big Beach, Christmas Island and Grand Narrows.

Advertisement 

After interviewing residents, I learned that there are 59 lease holders, and dozens of property owners who would be building if not for the exorbitant and illegal fees being charged by Genesee and Wyoming Railway though NSP.

For existing owners, G&W bills $4,000 per utility crossing “their” railway including phone lines, water, cable TV, Wi-Fi, plus $300 per utility as an annual fee. For new properties G & W has quoted from $14,000 to $22,000 for “Railway Assessment” before people, who are trying to invest in CBRM, are allowed to install electricity or utilities.

None of these fees have been approved by the NSUARB, are in violation of the Nova Scotia Railway Act and inconsistent with any other railway in Canada.

Here we see Robert and Susan MacNeil’s original mini-home on their property in Big Beach.Submitted photo

Robert and Susan MacNeil, ages 84 and 80, have been here for 20 years. “G & W is holding us hostage,” they say. “We have four acres but are on a lease. I don’t pay to cross the tracks; I’d rather go to jail. We have a trailer, septic, well, an old generator and solar panels. We’d like to have the same opportunity to build as everyone else in CBRM!”

Pictured here is Robert and Susan MacNeil’s present property at Big Beach.Submitted photo

Kevin and Elaine MacLellan are fed up. They put in septic and a well 11 years ago.

“We cannot get electricity: there’s no economic development allowed. Politicians came to our meetings and said it was easy to fix, then did nothing.”

Cathy Anderson and her parents have been leasing land in Georges River since 1961.

“When the railway was sold in 1993, it included a stipulation that we could purchase our land. Our lawyer said it be finalized in April of 2013, but we’re still waiting.”

Evelyn Green has a property at Georges River since 1962; she has paid a lawyer $1,000, went to all the meetings with the politicians but still has no resolution.

Article continues after ad

 

SUMMARY OF THE CBRV ISSUES by Mike Johnson 
Leaseholders:
On July 27 1993, the Nova Scotia Liberal government of John Savage, (which was in power for 6 more years), sold the CN Rail line between Truro and Sydney to Railtex of America.
This sale, which comprised 236 miles of track, was conveyed as Decision 498-R-1993, pursuant to section 158 of the National Transportation Act of 1987 which states “there would not be any changes to existing railway policies with re to fencing, public crossing maintenance, etc.” These policies date back to the creation of the National Railway in 1867.
Among other things, the Agreement said that CB&CNS agreed “to sell all parcels of land that are not within the line's contiguous 100' right of way to the lessees of that property or adjacent property owners at current market values.”
The current owners, G&W inherited that obligation, as did subsequent governments and are currently in violation of that clause in the agreement, as well as many others. In particular, they have failed to complete any transaction that allowed an adjoining landowner or lessee to purchase the designated property, though several attempts have been made, with Lawyers Steve Andrea, Mike Tobin, and Sheldon Nathanson acting for various residents. In one instance, leaseholder funds were placed in escrow for a sale that we never completed. Over the intervening period of time, the Railway has continued to collect the Leasing Fees. In many cases, the total Fees assessed and paid dating back to 1993 exceeds the value of the land.
The Law Firm currently representing G&W Railway in their ongoing efforts to frustrate these efforts and continue their violation of this section of Decision 498 is Mac, Mac and Mac of New Glasgow.
Crossing Fees:
The Private Railway Crossing Fees Regulations of Section 48 of the NS Railways Act states: “Despite any agreement, a railway company must not charge a person a crossing fee of more than $300, other than with the approval of the (NSUARB) Board under Section 4.“
Paul Allen, the Executive Director of the Board confirmed on December 6, 2012 that, as no application had ever been received from G&W under Section 4, they can only charge the $300.
Not withstanding that G&W has quoted as high as $540US for annual fees, they started a number of years ago to charge a 'One Time' Fee for existing properties of $4000 per Utility. Until recently, they had the gall to post this on the website for the CB&GNS Railway. Thus, if someone wanted to have power, water, land line, internet and cable TV, there would be $20k in 'One Time' Fees, plus $1500/year in annual cost, even though 4 of the utilities would use the same poles!!
Railway Assessment Fees:
In their final 'coup de grace' to ensure that there is no investment along 'their' rail lines, G&W started charging additional 'Railway Assessment Fees' for new construction. Minister MacLellan and MLA Pam Eyking started calling these 'Development Fees', as if to give them some legitimacy, though G&W does not use that term.
To date, there are about a dozen people/properties that have been quoted on these, through NSP, ranging from $10k to $19k, with no apparent consistency. Of course, nobody has actually paid these Assessment Fees, either for new construction or to install additional utilities. For myself, I was originally quoted $18k, later reduced to $14k, but not including an additional 'fee' for Bell Aliant, who actually owns the poles. If these residents were crossing a CN or CP Line, (which would actually be operating!) the cost to the Railway would be $1100.
Conclusions:
-G&W is in violation of Decision 438, and the Nova Scotia Railway Act and in defiance of the authority of the NSUARB. Their Fee Charges are inconsistent with any charges by any other Cdn. Railway, and they also prevent “enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due course of law,” as per the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960.
-The CB&GNS Railway is definitely stifling investment, construction, and development on all the properties between Little Bras d'Or and Grand Narrows. This is particularly ironic considering that we just fought a Mayoralty Election primarily based on Economic Development and Taxes. Yet, here you have an opportunity for $50 million investment in residential construction over the next 10 years, with a resulting increase in the tax base of $500k. But a foreign entity, which has been subsidized in excess of $50 million by the Province, and is a terrible 'corporate citizen', prevents that Development from happening.
-Our Province, Municipal governments and NSP are tacitly complicit in this exercise in that they have failed to represent and protect their constituents, or in the case of NSP, to fulfill their mandate to supply Power for all Nova Scotia citizens. Specifically our MLA, the Provincial Minister of Transportation, and the Premier have been asked and promised on several occasions that they would deal with these issues, but to date have not done so.

Further insight to what is actually happening in Cape Breton and our elected officials seem to close their eyes or what I like to call " Who is really hindering development "  

 

 

Another example of a Canadian right of way being sold to an American Railway company that doesn’t seem to be in the best interest of Canadians.

 

Feds demand Omnitrax fix Churchill rail line

If tracks aren't fixed, government will seek repayment of $18.8M

CBC News Posted: Sep 01, 2017 6:06 PM CT Last Updated: Sep 02, 2017 6:30 PM CT

 

The federal government says it has "formally demanded" that Omnitrax fix the washed-out rail line to the northern Manitoba town of Churchill.

In a release Friday afternoon, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said that the government is looking at all its options to ensure the contract is "respected and fulfilled," including seeking the repayment of $18.8 million it contributed to the Hudson Bay Railway line in 2008.

"Omnitrax Inc. has legal obligations to repair the rail line and its tracks," the release stated, noting the agreement requires the Denver-based company to "operate, maintain and repair the entire Hudson Bay Railway Line in a diligent and timely manner until March 31, 2029."

Severe flooding washed out the line to Gillam, Man. in May, disconnecting residents of the northern Manitoba community from the rail service that locals have described as a lifeline to the south. 

Since then, food prices have soared and businesses have been forced to lay off staff as goods and materials usually shipped by freight are flown into the community at a much higher cost. 

In July, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Omnitrax has a legal obligation to fix the line, but stopped short of threatening legal action. 

Omnitrax has said it won't pay up to $60 million to repair the tracks. It has asked the federal and provincial governments for help.

"The government shares the concerns of the citizens of Churchill and northern Manitoba," Carr was quoted as saying in the release.

"We remain committed to the people of northern Manitoba and are currently exploring ways in which we can speed up the repairs of the rail line, while keeping in mind the immediate needs of the communities."

The government would consider working with a new owner, the release stated.

Mayor 'cautiously optimistic'

 Churchill Mayor Mike Spence said Saturday that the important part is getting all the parties on the same track. 

"I'm in contact with the federal government, I have been right from day one up to days ago. We are cautiously optimistic that the line will be up and running by the end of fall," Spence told CBC News.  

"Time is ticking here, you know, we've got about 60 days. And I think they know, they've indicated, that they are prepared to have that line up and running. And we expect that."

 He said he's also heard from Omnitrax, who wanted to share its report on the condition of the tracks and be a part of discussions. 

"Putting together the model that works, that's important," Spence said. "But the first part of it naturally is, let's get the rail up and running so we can get our community back and get focused on doing what we do best." 

Spence added that Churchill's tourism and shipping industries can play a big role in developing a truly northern focus for Canada.   

"It boggles my mind when we've got a northern port here that's underutilized. You've got Quebec — they're planning a Plan North for northern development of their province. And here we are, we seem to be stuck into a mode here that's totally unacceptable as a province that has so much to offer in terms of a gateway to the communities north of us. That's where we need to go.

"And I believe that, in speaking with Minister Carr and the prime Minister, that there will be an opportunity for Churchill to play a role as we develop the next phase of developing a Northern Canada." 

Earlier Friday, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister promised provincial money to help Churchill. He said the province won't fund repairs of the rail line. 

Spence said he was surprised by the announcement, which he says includes existing and future funding. 

"But at the same time, we'll take it," Spence said. 

CBC News asked Omnitrax for a comment Friday afternoon but has not heard back.

 

The government of Nova Scotia has subsidized G & W over $20 million and this is the latest deal

 

Cape Breton Rail Line Preservation Agreement

Business

September 1, 2017 11:37 AM


The province and Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway Ltd. have signed a one-year preservation agreement to maintain the existing rail line between St. Peter’s Junction, near Port Hawkesbury, and Sydney.

Under the agreement, the company will not apply to abandon a portion of the rail line and the province will reimburse valid expenses up to $60,000 a month.

Repairs or improvements of the rail line will not be reimbursed, but expenses directly attributed to the line such as salaries, insurance, security and building maintenance will be covered under the agreement.

“This agreement preserves the existing rail line, which is a key component of the proposed container terminal in Sydney,” said Geoff McLellan, Minister of Business. “Government continues to work together with businesses, community and municipal leaders on economic development related to Cape Breton. Strong transportation links are a key component of building a stronger economy.”

“We are pleased to work with the Government of Nova Scotia to allow economic development initiatives like the proposed container terminal unfold,” said Louis Gravel, president of Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway. “We would like nothing more than to one day see a thriving operating railway between Port Hawkesbury and Sydney.” 

The rail line between St. Peter’s Junction and Truro is not affected by this agreement.


FOR BROADCAST USE:

     The province of Nova Scotia has signed a one-year 

preservation agreement with the Cape Breton and Central Nova 

Scotia Railway to maintain the St. Peter’s Junction to Sydney 

line.

     Business Minister Geoff MacLellan says the agreement 

preserves the existing rail line, which is a key component of 

the proposed container terminal in Sydney.

     The agreement reimburses the company for valid expenses 

such as maintaining security and buildings on the line.

-30-

Media Contacts: Sarah Gillis
                Department of Business
                902-266-8554
                Email: [email protected]

                Caroline Healey
                Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia
                Railway Ltd.
                514-948-6999 ext. 6000
                Email: [email protected]

G&W double dipping?

Nova Scotia government paying G & W $60,000/month to cover insurance and expenses, yet G & W still sending out bills to land owners with private crossings!  The Railway act states that if land is not being used for a railway, the owner of the land (G&W) is responsible to pay property tax. Why is the CBRM not charging G&W tax? If you don't pay your property tax the CBRM will put the land up for a tax sale. Who are the elected officials representing?

 

Summary

 

All railway right of ways in Canada should be expropriated back into Canadian ownership and held for Canadians whether it be a railway or a trail, after all it was expropriated from our ancestors to build this country.

 

Allowing CN to sell this Canadian public asset was a mistake that should be fixed immediately to protect Canadians.

 

Right of ways in Canada should be leased, never sold to a railway operator under strict conditions concerning safety, maintenance and maintaining a connected compassionate humanitarian relationship with its neighbours and communities it passes through.

 

If this roundtable expects a Railway company to follow the Railway act for concern of the public’s safety it needs to look at past relationship of the railway company with its neighbours along the right of way.

 

Permission to use a right of way in Canada that allows a railway to operate needs to be considered a privilege and not a right. A privilege that needs to be governed by the Railway act to never be neglected or abused.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


1,566
https://capebreton.lokol.me/is-the-railway-safe-in-your-community
Gov Political Commentary

0

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
seek-warrow-w
  • 1
arrow-eseek-eNo items to display

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.