CBRM Councillor Accidentally Reveals Sydney Port's #1 Risk Factor

Joe Ward Follow Me

Posted this 2016-06-27 8:59 PM ADT (updated 2016-08-17 4:05 PM ADT)

Councillor Jim MacLeod is the representative for CBRM's District 12. At the council meeting on June 21st, he made a short but passionate comment. And though he was talking about Fire Services, he actually made the case for why he should resign immediately from the Port of Sydney Development Corporation board.

"It's not what we could, should, or we didn't do. We didn't do it... because we never had professional opinions. And there's no professionals around this table... when it comes to fire services." - Councillor Jim MacLeod, District 12, CBRM

Mr. MacLeod is right.

But when he arrives at the next Port of Sydney Development Corporation board meeting, there are no professionals around that table either... when it comes to port development expertise. From CEO Usher on down, everyone is far out of their depth of expertise.

I'm not revealing anything that Jim or the rest of the port board doesn't know.

Their own articles of incorporation outline the level of expertise required. It also insists that no elected officials should be on the board. But Mayor Cecil Clarke, Jim, and the other councillors on the port board ignored that during the first AGM. And they decided to keep themselves in place.

Mr. MacLeod: It's clear that you now know what you could and what you should do. And that is resign from the Port of Sydney Development corporation, and recruit a professional into your place. Set an example for your colleagues to do the right thing. Though I agree, the rationale for doing so is your own.

With the election coming up on October 15th, MacLeod also said something that should really hit home with the rest of the councillors who are permitting this to all go on without putting a stop to it:

"But we all have to accept responsibility around this table, not just one or two or three..."

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

Like 9 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 15

7,750 25

Jim MacLeod is a Councillor for CBRM District 12. On June 21st, 2016, he explained some valid logic. But the same logic applies to his board appointment.

25

Depth
Martin MacLellan Follow Me 2016-06-28 7:20 AM ADT Reply 3 0 There is absolutely no oversight here. This is a text book example of how not to construct a board of directors and in clear violation of Article 5. Shameful!. Shameful! Imagine what insightful decisions we can expect from this group. Keep up the excellent work Joe.
Rod Gale Follow Me 2016-06-28 8:10 AM ADT Reply 2 0 Why are we allowing the future of this key resource to this confederacy of dunces.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me 2016-06-28 9:04 AM ADT Reply 2 0 I am so glad that people are monitoring the meetings, but my reaction to Jim's statement is rather different from your's. I would say that he is frustrated, aware that he is responsible, and ready to make it public, since he did. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2016-06-28 9:26 AM ADT Reply 1 0 My reaction is only to acknowledge his recognition that things don't move forward successfully when we don't have the proper expertise in place. I agree with Jim and share his frustration. And I hope that he now realizes that his position with the Port of Sydney Development Corporation board puts him into the very same risk of failure scenario that he talked about with Fire Services. Since we know Jim is aware, I now call about him to mitigate that risk. Resign from the port board and encourage all other elected officials to follow his leadership in so doing.
[comment deleted] Posted 2016-06-28 9:07 AM ADT
Michael MacNeil Follow Me 2016-06-28 10:20 AM ADT Reply 3 0 In addition to the board of directors, we have a CEO making $200,000.00/year, 4 managers, 5 staff and two port marketers who claim to have spent $3 million of their own money marketing the port. What do all these people do? I could be corrected, but I believe the Cruise Ship business was built up years ago by a volunteer board of local business owners, Bernadette MacNeil and a few staff. Why all the overhead expense and all the eggs in one basket on one idea that has been floating around for 15 years? Add the fact that it is also competing with another group who want to do the same thing a 90 minute drive away in Medford. The Medford group has an ice free location that didn't need to be dredged, a railway that still operates and a shipping company that was interested and nothing is happening there. It is time to start spreading some of those eggs out before somebody drops the basket. Martin MacLellan Follow Me 2016-06-29 11:57 AM ADT Reply 0 0 Well said Michael. Michael MacNeil Follow Me 2016-06-29 12:34 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Thanks Martin, I'm not much of a writer but I like to share my opinion. I also would like to share a comment from Robert MacDonald posted under another post in here. Robert is really pissed at the decision to sell Archibald's wharf, and I also think it was a bad decision for a municipality that is supposed to be interested in development to sell that land after the New multi million dollar terminal was built opening into the Downtown. They are in the Cape Breton Post today bragging about the 1 millionth visitor from the Cruise ships. Yet the NFLD ferries carry 3 times the passengers that the Cruise ships bring in every year. Don't get me wrong I think the Cruise Ships are a fantastic boost for our municipality. But if you were really interested in turning things around Why not go after both????? Anyway here is Roberts comment and extends to more regions in the CBRM than North Sydney. "Look back to the initial concept of 'Amalgamation'. It promised strength in unity, that together we would have a focused government, with a clear mandate and mutual prosperity for every area of CBRM. Instead we are consistently left in the dark, with rumours and mistrust. We find ourselves embarrassed by our surroundings, while progressive developments elsewhere are flaunted. What we need is fresh and untainted representation on council that can't be bought or sold. I for one, am fed up with the schoolyard bullies stealing my lunch money." Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-01 12:23 PM ADT Reply 1 0 There is talk that Maher might be pulling out of Melford terminal, also they do not have an operating railway....the 30 mile spur that would have to be laid to reach the terminal site would cost well over 100 million because it would be a new construction avoiding the heavy grades of the previous line that ran near the site before the causeway was built. At only 30+ million to get our line in decent shape the rail argument is mute. The only thing Melford has going for it is the port itself, Sydney's port has or will have all the marine services needed to attract this kind of business. Between the 2 ports Sydney is more likely to happen. Just my two cents Robert MacDonald Follow Me 2016-07-02 3:14 PM ADT Reply 0 1 I guess you can spare your "two cents" if you can also include "only 30+ million" in the same paragraph. How much to repair or replace the numerous ancient rail bridges, was that included in the 30+million? Also what kind of a time frame are talking about to bring the line up to standard and then what about continuing maintenance? Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-02 8:10 PM ADT Reply 1 0 The rail studies stated which rail bridges required work and the costs were included in the 30+ million. The age of most of these rail bridges is not a factor as most of these bridges were built to much higher standards then newer rail bridges. Steam locomotives were heavier than current diesel/electric locomotives. The bridges were built to handle the weight of the steam locomotives. The time frame for the studies was 5 to 6 million a year over 5 years. Of course if Sydney does land a container terminal that can be shortened. All the work on the line can be completed in a year if need be but the reports were based over 5 years to spread the costs out. Continuing maintenance would be about 1.5 to 2 million per year over the 100 miles of the Sydney Subdivision, that figure would keep the track speeds at Class 2 track speeds. This figure is a bargain if the rail line can keep even 20% of the current trucks off the highway. Of course if there is a container terminal in Sydney the rail line would be able to cover this cost with the increased traffic. Any money invested in rail will go a lot further then the same amount invested in highways. [comment deleted] Posted 2016-07-03 2:03 PM ADT [comment deleted] Posted 2016-07-03 2:13 PM ADT [comment deleted] Posted 2016-07-03 2:43 PM ADT Robert MacDonald Follow Me 2016-07-03 2:42 PM ADT Reply 1 0 So I did a bit of googling… If the rail is to extend over the Barra Strait, it will do so over a swing bridge first completed in 1890. According to research by local historian Rannie Gillis, published in the CB Post March 27, 2015, to replace that one structure alone would cost upwards to 70million dollars. So if there was a chance that 30million could bring the entire line up to current safety standards, providing a greener and safer alternative to transport trucks on our highways, I am a tad doubtful. But you have to appreciate that those of us in the CBRM, that have been left out of the info loop, will remain skeptical of yet another study (with positive results), we've had to foot the bill for. Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-03 4:14 PM ADT Reply 0 0 The Grand Narrows Bridge needs only minimal work, I believe it was 4 million for this bridge. A good chunk of that cost was to replace the bridge ties and some general maintenance that hasn't been performed in the past few years. Although this bridge was built in 1890 it is still a strong bridge and is not slated to be replaced. Many of North America's large rail bridges are this old, if not older and carry trains safely at reduced speeds. Grand Narrows was built with very heavy high grade steel and iron. The speed for this bridge is restricted to 10mph because the rail break at the swing section, much like the causeway. It is very safe for rail transport at this speed. Mary Campbell Follow Me 2016-07-03 6:04 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Hi Jason, that's very interesting. Could you tell me the source of your information? I was just looking at the 2015 "Summary Report: Overview of Studies Undertaken with Respect to Rail Services on the Sydney Subdivision," by ATN Consulting. They cite a study by CANARAIL (http://www.novascotia.ca/tran/rail/canarail-final-report.pdf), a railway engineering consulting company, that says that the $28.4M estimate to bring the Sydney-St Peter's Junction sub-division up to Class III standards a) comes from Genosee & Wyoming and b) is "insufficient" in terms of culverts; geotechnical remedial work; and signals and communication. As for bridges, there are 27 along that portion of the line and the estimate for all of them comes from a Bridge Inspection Report prepared by PARSONS in May 2014, which the CANARAIL report cites: "Based on our opinion, the repair cost for bridge structures will be more in the upper portion of the PARSONS cost estimate bracket, that is between $9.7M to $14.5 M. In the event of increased train traffic, it is important to undertake a structural capacity study of the bridges prior to any traffic with special focus on the portion of the structures that rest in the tidal zone range of 8 –12 ft.from mean water levels." Which suggests it could be higher than $14.5M, ultimately. I also find it puzzling that a built-from scratch, state-of-the-art, fully automated, $1.5B port could be served by a Class III rail line with portions subject to a 10mph slow order. Any thoughts? Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-03 6:56 PM ADT Reply 0 0 My source was the rail studies, and many CBNS rail employees that I have talked too. Included in the 9.7 to 14.5 million was the two trestles in Ottawa Brook, both of these trestles require more work then the Grand Narrows bridge. These two trestles are near the end of their service lives and will have to be replaced at some point in the future (within 10 years) if the line sees heavy traffic. Thankfully the cost to replace these trestles is a more reasonable 13 million (as quoted to me by a rail employee). As for your question about the rail class yes it perfectly normal to have sections of track with speed restrictions, CN has many sections of track with reduced rail speeds (usually bridges), this is a common rail practice followed by most Class 1 to 3 rail lines in North America. The two permanent slow sections between Sydney and Truro are Grand Narrows and the Causeway swing bridge. Even if the rest of the track was brought up to Class 3 standards these two structures would have a 10Mph Speed restriction. The Sydney to Truro rail line under CN was a Class 3 track, most of the work to bring it back to those speeds is related to tie failure and bank erosion. This work can be carried out relatively quickly should the line reactivate. Hope this helps. madeline yakimchuk Follow Me 2016-07-03 7:14 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Jason, please take this with the humour with which it is intended... "and my sources are buddy down the road, my third cousin, and some studies I read before." Mary Campbell Follow Me 2016-07-03 7:29 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Yes, that's very helpful (I love sourced information). But I'm still skeptical about the $30M price tag for upgrades -- the CANARAIL report says that estimate is too low. And the estimate for bridge repair (between $4.8 to $14.5M) represents +/- 50% accuracy -- which the CANARAIL report says is "too large accuracy to status on the exact cost repair in the time frame program. The actual level of information does not permit to status on representative work required or on costs associated. The accuracy should be approximately 30%." Moreover, it says that "In the event of increased train traffic, it is important to undertake a structural capacity study of the bridges prior to any traffic with special focus on the portion of the structures that rest in the tidal zone range of 8 –12 ft.from mean water levels." Which, if I'm reading it correctly (and I may not be) seems to suggest the cost estimates could be way off and further study of the bridges will be necessary anyway should traffic be increased. All of which to me says that $30M price tag is unlikely to be correct. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the rail line repaired, I just think we need to have as accurate an estimate of total costs as possible. Robert MacDonald Follow Me 2016-07-03 7:34 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Ok Jason I fold, you refuse to believe the research of Rannie Gillis and then imply that something that was published in the Cape Breton Post might have been inaccurate… I am at a loss to comment further. Michael MacNeil Follow Me 2016-07-03 8:06 PM ADT Reply 0 0 There was an excellent article in the Cape Breton Magazine that somebody should find and post. It was all about building the grand narrows bridge and the engineer that build it. I believe his name was Reid and he also owned the first NFLD/ ns ferry the SS Bruce. He also owned and built most of the NFLD railway. Anyway he was a very talented and dedicated engineer. They blame his death on standing out in the cold brasdor lakes up to his chest directing the construction. They talk about the currents and depths of up to 90 feet and how he got around the challenges. Must read for all. Robert I noticed a crane / fixer and equipment at CME. The June deadline is up and they should not be allowed to make the biggest mistake in Cape Breton history and allow that expansion to go ahead. Expanding that shipyard there with an empty marine park is like tearing the tourist bureau at can so causeway and building a shipyard. It is like tearing down the entrance to the National Pstk and building a ship yard. Robert MacDonald Follow Me 2016-07-03 10:27 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I've noticed that as well Michael, but the sad truth is that Archibald Wharf is now the property of CME and theirs to do with as they please. Sadly Cape Breton has already had too many of these mistakes and I'm sure there will be more to come. Other more progressive minded areas are insisting industry be located in industrial parks. But CBRM has welcomed (with a rock bottom price) industrial expansion into an urban area with our banks, shops and businesses. All consideration is given to the new owners, with little concern or respect for the taxpayers of North Sydney. But such is life here on good ole CB. Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-03 8:07 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I refuse to believe a lot of stories published by the Cape Breton Post...lol But as for the research of Rannie Gillis, which info are you referring too? Robert MacDonald Follow Me 2016-07-03 10:33 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Rannie Gillis writes a weekly column for the CB Post. He has published several books on the history of our area and is widely respected for his research on various topics of interest. Michael MacNeil Follow Me 2016-07-03 7:48 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Jason I actually worked on the bridge in the early 80's myself and a buddy were hired to assist with a sandblasting firm from Halifax that went bankrupt and never finished the bridge. I went away to Toronto, so not sure if another firm was ever brought in, but I don't think so . I walked the bridge many times and can say she was rusty . I also do not think there would be enough height to let a double stacked train pass. I'm on an iPhone so can't really dig up the info easily , but in answe to your statement abou Medford having grade problems, Mary Campbell called Rithie Mann and I believe he explained the truth about that. What we should be concerned about is that wether a train is reinstated or not, we should be making CN het the right of way back before it is chopped up. C N at least owes us this because in my opinion they had no right to sell the right of way to begin with. Good luck with the Container Terminal but in the mean time the right of way is what is important thing that our government should be looking out to protect until a business case can be built Jason Morrison Follow Me 2016-07-03 8:03 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Hi Michael, I have a report from Rail America (the previous owner of the rail line before Genesee and Wyoming) that states the Grand Narrows bridge will support double stacked rail cars. I am sure being the owners of rail line at the time they issued the report they would have checked for clearances. One can only hope anyway ;) I agree 100% about the right of way, it should be returned to province, but I would prefer it returned with the rails left in place. It cost much less to reactivate a rail line that has been dormant then to rebuilt it. Loosing a piece of infrastructure well be no benefit in the long term. Michael MacNeil Follow Me 2016-07-03 8:29 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Support is such a wide open word... Is it wide and high enough for the passage of a double stacked train? Railway reports are not dependable when they are trying to sell a railway to another company. Actual measurements would be better and I'm sure that they are out there somewhere on the Internet Proof of the valiidity of a railway document is the one CN signed with the government stating that if a future owner gave up that CN would step in and take over. That signed legal document is worth xxxx
Eileen MacNeil Follow Me 2016-07-02 9:39 AM ADT Reply 1 0 This councillor is talking out two sides of his mouth, He's admitted he doesn't have expetise with regard to fire services, yet sits on the Port Development Board with the same lack of expetise. The decent option would be to resign from the latter board and insist others do so while ensuring new members have the expertise to do the job. Bring some respectability back to council and stop acting like Cecil's puppets!!