Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[kEiThZ]

Since it is not germane to MOOSE and thus off topic, is anyone aware of a good thread/resource to look at for the airport link part of Trillium Line?

Not much other than what the city itself has put out as part of the Stage 2 consultations.

 

[gweed123]

If only dreams could get funding. The fundamental issue in the region is that Ottawa and Gatineau chose different solutions and have different transit authorities. It is ridiculous. But not sure what the solution is, given various thorny issues with Quebec. It's pretty obvious to me that it would been ideal to have one LRT line running from Leitrim (or now Riverside South) right to Lacrosse connecting across the PoW bridge at Alexander Tache.

I think the issue would be operating more than capital. With the Feds investing so much in transit, they could cover the central (interprovincial) portion, with each city/province covering the costs on their respective sides. Perhaps the agreement between the MTA and NJT in New Jersey is worth looking it. The MTA has a couple west-of-Hudson lines that serve NJ for the bulk of their trips, but NY at the ends of them. There's some sort of an operating agreement between the two, but I don't know the details of it.

Why two transfers? You get on at the airport and transfer at Bayview after 2023. Heck, they could have eliminated the transfer by interlining services if they had gone with twin tracks and electrification. Instead they went with single tracks and DMU. So we have the transfer at Bayview. But who knows, if there's enough ridership, maybe in the 20230s, they can push for LRT conversion.

The plan right now as I understand it is for the airport line to operate as an independent spur, with a transfer at South Keys. Not ideal for sure, and I think it stems from the lack of track space for higher frequencies.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think the issue would be operating more than capital. With the Feds investing so much in transit, they could cover the central (interprovincial) portion, with each city/province covering the costs on their respective sides.

I agree capital investment is less of an issue. It's easy to split costs when you have the feds involved. And Gatineau is a somewhat more important town for Quebec. I didn't want to imply that capital funding was the problem. That said, it's my understanding that Gatineau picked BRT because they didn't think they had the ridership base to justify LRT investment. The frustration with that viewpoint, of course, is that it didn't take into consideration the regional implications at all. It's like they only thought about what's good for Gatineau and went with that.

You'd think they could work something out on operating costs between the two provinces. I mean LRT on the Rapibus corridor would do a lot to increase the value of property near the corridor, while reducing Gatineau's operating costs. Good for Gatineau. But they'd also lose a lot of revenue, and maybe that's the issue. Wish, the Feds, the NCC and the two mayors could be locked in a room till they came up with a proper solution.

The plan right now as I understand it is for the airport line to operate as an independent spur, with a transfer at South Keys. Not ideal for sure, and I think it stems from the lack of track space for higher frequencies.

I thought this was changed with their further extensions since the plan was first announced. I could be wrong. In any event, really only impacts the airport. The rest of the line is still pretty solid. And heck, if they keep the 97 running, I think you'll tons of riders (particularly from the East) sticking to the bus.

 

[steveintoronto]

I think the issue would be operating more than capital. With the Feds investing so much in transit, they could cover the central (interprovincial) portion, with each city/province covering the costs on their respective sides.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...onsortiaNA-MooseConsortium_2017-07-01bPDF.pdf

I attached the complete five page document in a post last night.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Two transfers - as it stands today it will be, at least most of the time, as there is insufficient headway capacity to run both branches frequently enough to service them both at all times. And the demand isn't balanced. During peak hours, they will need all trains running from the park and ride lots, with just a handful of passengers to and from the airport. (Currently, with 4 buses an hour direct to Hurdman and downtown, they are lucky to move 100 passengers an hour to or from the airport. Why build capacity for 1000? They may decide to alternate trains on weekends and off-peak to provide 20 minute service on each branch, which ought to be enough.

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting. If they can't even fit in enough frequencies for the airport, what exactly is MOOSE's gameplan for getting capacity on the corridor? Seems to me that would be a bigger issue than the bridge.

 

[rbt]

Interesting. If they can't even fit in enough frequencies for the airport, what exactly is MOOSE's gameplan for getting capacity on the corridor? Seems to me that would be a bigger issue than the bridge.

IIRC, their game plan was essentially for Ottawa to kill the LRT proposal and go Moose instead. Not unlike VIA's plan with regard to the tunnel and REM.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Both could fit, but you would have to double track everything, and probably double the bridge and tunnel, so a lot of money to spend. And the stations would have to be planned to accommodate whatever equipment both wanted to run. The current plan will allow 10 minute headways with passing tracks, and likely nothing could be added to that.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

[QUOTE="MOOSE seems to be trying to get the city to invest hundreds of millions in their business venture.[/QUOTE]

kEiThZ, MOOSE is not asking the City of Ottawa (or any other level of government) to invest a dime in our business venture.

See these links:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/business-model/
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/MooseRail_Brochure2016-OttawaPrint.pdf
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...onsortiaNA-MooseConsortium_2017-07-01bPDF.pdf

FWIW, it may interest you to know that the original Ottawa Electric Street Railway Company, and the Hull Electric Railway Company, were also both financed entirely by private sector investors.

Do you have any questions?

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

 

[Joseph Potvin]

So wouldn't that mean the Moose Plan would require an Ottawa City Council vote which would be a switch from the plan I assume they've endorsed? Would it require 2/3rds? Or is Moose counting on the CTA somehow forcing Ottawa Council to go with their plan because they allegedly removed that track near the Bayview Ave improperly?

If you read the 2013 Interprovincial Transportation Strategy prepared by the two cities and the NCC, as well as the 2017 Plan for Canada's Capital (which references the 2013 document), you will find that "MOOSE's plan" simply conforms with those plans. The problem with the City of Ottawa's situation currently is that it has pursued contradictory plans, and it has undertaken contradictory actions. At present, the City finds itself defending against an enforcement action led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, putting forward as its central argument that breaking the railway is consistent with keeping the railway in operation, because they declare an "intention" to unbreak it at some future time.

There's no Humpty Dumpty clause in the Canada Transportation Act.

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

 

[steveintoronto]

There's no Humpty Dumpty clause in the Canada Transportation Act.

lol!
Joseph, good to see you in top form! There's a number of things I sincerely look forward to discussing further...but as you well know, Mr Liu's interview with the Globe is pending for publication this coming week. I'm privy to some of the details, in all fairness to the author, (I can reveal he reads this string!), mum is the word for now.

You've done very well...

 

[steveintoronto]

IIRC, their game plan was essentially for Ottawa to kill the LRT proposal and go Moose instead. Not unlike VIA's plan with regard to the tunnel and REM.

Hold those thoughts! Indeed...you've caught the essence of some ideas about to explode in the wider press shortly.

 

[Allandale25]

If you read the 2013 Interprovincial Transportation Strategy prepared by the two cities and the NCC, as well as the 2017 Plan for Canada's Capital (which references the 2013 document), you will find that "MOOSE's plan" simply conforms with those plans. The problem with the City of Ottawa's situation currently is that it has pursued contradictory plans, and it has undertaken contradictory actions.

I have not read the 2013 document which is why I'm asking questions here. If people find the questions I'm asking annoying or frustrating feel free to ignore. It's an open forum.

I'm not from the Ottawa area so I've only seen media reports on the City's plans for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and only recently read (mostly here) of the Moose proposal.

At present, the City finds itself defending against an enforcement action led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, putting forward as its central argument that breaking the railway is consistent with keeping the railway in operation, because they declare an "intention" to unbreak it at some future time.

There's no Humpty Dumpty clause in the Canada Transportation Act.

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

But also at present, the Mayor has the votes on Council, full federal and provincial funding, and as best I can tell the City intends to start the RFP process this year for Phase 2. That's a lot more than can be said for other municipalities in Ontario. So are you essentially counting on the CTA intervening and slowing down or blocking the City's Phase 2 plan in order to get more time to convince them to adopt the Moose Plan?

 

[Joseph Potvin]

I have not read the 2013 document which is why I'm asking questions here. If people find the questions I'm asking annoying or frustrating feel free to ignore. It's an open forum.

No problem, I was just pointing to the contradictory positions taken up by the City of Ottawa.
For some context see: http://www.ottawalife.com/article/canadas-earliest-and-most-recent-railway-scandals?c=9

I'm not from the Ottawa area so I've only seen media reports on the City's plans for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and only recently read (mostly here) of the Moose proposal.

In Mr. Watson's 2016 year-end interview with Metro published on 12 December he is quoted as saying: "the city has to keep thinking decades out and the next stop should be Gatineau. “We don’t have the money for it and we haven’t even done an environmental assessment, but I think when you’re looking at transit, you have to be looking long term,” he said. “I see Phase 4 as going into Gatineau through the Prince of Wales Bridge connecting their Rapibus system to our train system.”

Let's compare Mr. Watson's 2016 vision with the 2013 Interprovincial Transit Strategy co-authored by the professional transportation planners from the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, together with the two global engineering companies AECOM and MMM they had under contract, together with the overall mandate and coordination of the NCC. The strategy can be downloaded from Gatineau's STO website. However it's telling that it is nowhere to be found on City of Ottawa or OC-Transpo websites.

Page 75 of the Stategy's final report lists "Medium Term Actions (by 2018)" as including "O-train to Gatineau via Prince of Wales Bridge". Page 51 states: "An extension of the current O-Train across the Prince of Wales Bridge was raised frequently during the various public and stakeholder study meetings." And Page 82 of the Conclusions section recommended that the cities and the NCC "Take steps to provide an extension of the O-Train / North-South LRT to Gatineau via the Prince of Wales Bridge. ... An O-Train extension to Hull via the Prince of Wales Bridge in the medium term could provide relief to existing core area transit infrastructure and better connect non-downtown destinations to improve overall network connectivity."

That strategy resulted from five years of collaborative study and public consultation. Yet when it was published in the spring of 2013 Mr. Watson immediately expressed his opposition to these recommendations. He made the following statement to a Le Droit reporter at the time: « Ce n'est pas notre priorité d'offrir un service ferroviaire à une autreville, dans ne autre province. » [Translation: "It's not our priority to offer a rail service to some other city in some other province."] Source: http://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/act...t-la-pour-rester-insiste-le-maire-dottawa.php As a result, the City of Ottawa’s current Transportation Master Plan passed by Council contradicts City staff's own Interprovincial Transit Strategy by opposing any use of the bridge for passenger rail transit for 15 or 20 years, long after the terms of the current politicians.

But also at present, the Mayor has the votes on Council, full federal and provincial funding, and as best I can tell the City intends to start the RFP process this year for Phase 2. That's a lot more than can be said for other municipalities in Ontario. So are you essentially counting on the CTA intervening and slowing down or blocking the City's Phase 2 plan in order to get more time to convince them to adopt the Moose Plan?

MOOSE is not trying to "convince them to adopt the Moose Plan". We are not lobbyists. We are simply developing a business that implements that part of City of Ottawa's own plans that synergise with the plans of the NCC and Gatineau. And we believe we have come up with a way to finance an attractive, safe and highly affordable metropolitan-scale passenger rail service without dependence on the public purse. So we're making arrangments on capital markets, and we're in the midst our regulatory filing for authorization to develop this service in conformance with all applicable laws.

In the meantime we are counting on the City of Ottawa to conform with the Constitution of Canada. and with the Canada Transportation Act. When they don't, MOOSE expects the federal regulator to fulfill the intent of Parliament. See: http://ottawaconstructionnews.com/l...ing_wp_cron=1487725529.5092608928680419921875

We also think it is entirely reasonable to expect the City of Ottawa Council to respect what their own professional staff, consultants and focus-group participants recommended in the 2013 Interprovincial Transit Strategy. And that's consistent with what their transit professionals have been recommending all the way back to the original plan of the O-Train, which was to operate through to Gatineau. https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000 The federal Certificate of Fitness that the O-Train operates under today still states that it goes to Quebec.

Hope those references are useful.

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

 

[dowlingm]

Presumably these are the same tracks Moose would have run on to Wakefield?
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/chelsea-pulls-out-the-last-spike-from-wakefield-steam-train