Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[White Pine]

Single track at end of a route works fine for frequent service -- that is how Trillium operates now. Single track with now-frequent service. Although Trillium will soon be twinned, the crossing train can hold at Bayview while waiting for the returning Gatineau train.

I think 5-7min headway is doable without twinning the bridge, as long as it is only a 1 stop hop.

I assume the Trillium O-Train could be extended north by 1 stop to interchange with the Gatineau LRT network.

The Trillium line is almost all single track, and there are no plans to change that. The two passing sidings will be extended slightly to allow for longer trains, and one of them will be extended enough to accomodate an extra station, I believe. The line will probably remain as unreliable as it currently is, as the city doesn't want to spend the money to double track it, opting instead to extend it and the tram (grade separated tram, though) to kingdom come. Hopefully they will at least grade separate the VIA crossing, which I'm told they're looking at doing. That will help with more reliable schedules, but they will still need to close the whole line to fix pretty much anything.

 

[steveintoronto]

As far as I can remember Stephen Harper turned it into government meeting rooms. Around the time he killed the Portrait Gallery. You know, as part of his quest to stop Canadians from committing culture.

I'm reading now, and have in the past, conflicting accounts of how usable that is, if in fact usable at all. I was led to believe that the remodelling of the old Ottawa Station was so extensive as to block re-use, but it remains an interesting point:
http://www.pastottawa.com/tag/alexandra-bridge/346/

More on the Gatineau proposal:

[...]
One line would start at the intersection of chemin Eardley and boulevard des Allumetières in Gatineau's west end and pass through 18 stations.

It would cross the Ottawa River over the Alexandra Bridge, connecting with Ottawa's Confederation Line at the future Rideau station.

One spur off that main line would cross the Prince of Wales bridge, linking a station at boulevards Alexandre-Taché and Saint-Joseph to Ottawa's Bayview station, itself a link between Ottawa's north-south Trillium Line and east-west Confederation Line.

A second spur would do a near-loop through Gatineau's Plateau neighbourhood, starting at Alexandre-Taché and boulevard Saint-Raymond, then following boulevard du Plateau and chemin Vanier to des Allumetières, passing through 12 stations.

The light rail line would connect to the Rapibus line at the Alexandre-Taché/Saint-Joseph station.

No funding plan
The project is still at its earliest stage, and it's not clear who will pay for the multi-billion dollar line.

"I don't want to get into that discussion now, we will get there," said Gatineau Mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin.

"But I think we will find solutions because it's good for all of us."

He said he expects a funding agreement to be signed shortly. Gatineau plans to ask the federal and provincial governments to foot the majority of the bill.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is leading his party into an election on Oct. 1, has pledged to support a light rail line in Gatineau that would connect to Ottawa.

Pedneaud-Jobin said he wants to get all political parties running in the next Quebec election on-record as supporting the line.

Hull-Aylmer Liberal MP Greg Fergus has long been a supporter of a light rail link between Aylmer and downtown Gatineau.

Ottawa won't pay, mayor says

The City of Ottawa owns the Prince of Wales bridge, but Gatineau and its partners will fully fund any future rail crossing, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson told his council colleagues in an email forwarded to CBC News. He would not agree to an interview because he had not been fully briefed on the proposal.

"The approach supports both transit agencies' long term objectives of a fully integrated system, reducing the number of buses on our roads, eliminating gridlock and air pollution, and encouraging the use of public transit and active transportation," Watson wrote.

Watson told councillors that while he supports Gatineau's preliminary plan, his own long-term transit priority remains getting trains to Stittsville and Barrhaven.

He promised Ottawa will be consulted at every stage of Gatineau's LRT study, and said council will evaluate the impact on this city's transit system when Gatineau completes its study in 2020.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/gatineau-aylmer-ottawa-light-rail-1.4713843

 

[OCCheetos]

The Trillium line is almost all single track, and there are no plans to change that. The two passing sidings will be extended slightly to allow for longer trains, and one of them will be extended enough to accomodate an extra station, I believe. The line will probably remain as unreliable as it currently is, as the city doesn't want to spend the money to double track it, opting instead to extend it and the tram (grade separated tram, though) to kingdom come. Hopefully they will at least grade separate the VIA crossing, which I'm told they're looking at doing. That will help with more reliable schedules, but they will still need to close the whole line to fix pretty much anything.

One of the things a user on SSP mentioned was that the grade separation between the Trillium Line and Via will probably allow for the use of a better, more efficient signalling system. Currently, the Trillium Line is dispatched by Via from Montreal and is also stuck dealing with fixed signal timeouts and stuff like that.

The other thing is that due to the fact that the entire way the line is operated (in terms of stops and turnaround times) is going to change, it could end up being much more efficient than it currently is. (i.e. trains currently wait around ~5 minutes at either terminus before starting their next trip, which is a lot of wasted time.)

I'm not sure, but I think that once the Stage 2 upgrades are complete, the Trillium Line will no longer be constrained by track capacity, but rather by the number of available vehicles. Frequencies could in theory be increased marginally without needing to double track.

 

[steveintoronto]

Today's Ottawa Sun:

McLeod: Ottawa should take page from Gatineau's vision book
Jonathan McLeod
Published:June 28, 2018

Updated:June 28, 2018 6:00 AM EDT

[...]
All told, Gatineau’s proposed LRT won’t cover as much ground as the various proposed stages of Ottawa’s, but it does offer one truly innovative, brilliant, disruptive idea.

Their trains will cross a bridge.

Well, two, in fact. They want to connect with Ottawa’s LRT system in the west over the Prince of Wales Bridge, and they want to use the Alexandra Bridge to connect to the station at the Rideau Centre downtown.

It’s a marvellous idea, connecting Ottawa’s soon-to-be launched (we hope) system with Gatineau’s proposed system. We’ll be able to better accommodate all the cross-border commuting between our two cities.

It’s too bad Ottawa politicians never thought of this — oh sure, there’s been a lot of talk about doing … something … with the Prince of Wales Bridge, but the little burnt orange line that Gatineau planners drew on a map is the only thing to come close to crossing that bridge (legally) in almost 40 years.
[...]
There’s a lesson here: it doesn’t pay to be timid. Ottawa has been unveiling various stages of rail transit for well over a decade, but we’ve never got around to making a proper connection with Gatineau that would ensure efficient transit and allow us to make our downtown a thriving, more livable place.

Gatineau is being proactive. They’re being aggressive. They’re rolling out a plan before they have all the official approvals. They have a vision for what will improve their city, and they don’t want to let bureaucratic stasis defeat it.

Ottawa could learn from this.

http://ottawasun.com/news/local-news/mcleod-ottawa-should-take-page-from-gatineaus-vision-book

 

[kEiThZ]

Frequencies could in theory be increased marginally without needing to double track.

Eh? What makes you think this? The fact that they are adding so many sidings to pass tells me that going beyond will definitely require a second track. Maybe that can be avoided with full on automation. But there's really not that much being done in Stage 2 to increase the capacity of the Trillium Line. Far more is going into extensions and in-fill stations. And those will eat up all additional capacity.

In any event, Mr. Potvin has gone silent. He'll pop up again when he's got some sucker willing to fund yet another study.

 

[steveintoronto]

Editorial: Gatineau's LRT should get full support

OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL BOARD
Updated: June 26, 2018

Prince of Wales Bridge, May 23, 2018. (Photo by Jean Levac/Postmedia ) OTTWP

The City of Gatineau is pushing aggressively for its own light-rail transit system. Good: Until that goal is achieved, Gatineau’s bus-only transit will be out of synch with Ottawa’s new LRT.

Gatineau wants to build a 26-kilometre rail line at an estimated cost of $2.1 billion. It hopes to use the Alexandra and Prince of Wales bridges to cross the Ottawa River and connect with our LRT. This would be a huge step forward for the thousands of Ontarians and Quebecers who commute interprovincially. But it’s far from a done deal.

The first challenge is money. In the past, Gatineau has been overlooked by separatist governments, because, well, it was too federalist. It was neglected by federalist governments because, well, it was already federalist. But now, Gatineau has the timing right to press its case, with a Quebec election this fall and a federal election in 2019. Politicians are in promise mode.

Gatineau, however, seeks a better deal than Ottawa got: It wants federal and provincial governments to pay the whole shot. Ottawa didn’t even get close to that. Local residents were supposed to pay one-third of phase one of LRT, although our share ended up being larger. We are on the hook for one-third of the cost of the next round of expansion, too. Proposed extensions to Kanata and Barrhaven are just dreams, because the city can’t afford its share.

In relying on public money to meet transit needs, both local governments are following a traditional track. Perhaps some big capital costs could be avoided by allowing a private sector company to own and operate light rail, but that’s not attractive to cities that use the profitable commuter main lines to subsidize less-used parts of the service. So private involvement may be limited.

If all goes well, Gatineau trains might connect with our LRT – in a decade. Gatineau is late to the light-rail party, reflecting the piecemeal approach our region takes to transit planning.

Ottawa and Gatineau transit should be one seamless system. It is easy to imagine an interprovincial transit authority, but this would take real co-operation from the federal government and both provinces – the same people who have been unable to add another bridge across the Ottawa River.

A decade is a long time, and other developments, such as the impact of driverless cars, may disrupt bureaucrats’ vision on both sides of the river. Or, the transit planners and politicians may buckle down, shed their differences, and work together. Let’s hope they do. Let’s make true regional rail transit a reality.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-gatineaus-lrt-should-get-full-support

And of course, not to be overlooked is that the bridge, unless an abandonment process is agreed to with the CTA, must remain a federally regulated heavy rail line. Shared use with light rail can be applied for before the CTA, but would come with conditions, and almost inevitably be approved, especially if the Federal Cabinet decides to buy and retain ownership of it, as well should be the case. It and the Alexandra bridge would then remain open-access for all users certified by the CTA.

 

[OCCheetos]

Eh? What makes you think this? The fact that they are adding so many sidings to pass tells me that going beyond will definitely require a second track. Maybe that can be avoided with full on automation. But there's really not that much being done in Stage 2 to increase the capacity of the Trillium Line. Far more is going into extensions and in-fill stations. And those will eat up all additional capacity.

In any event, Mr. Potvin has gone silent. He'll pop up again when he's got some sucker willing to fund yet another study.

They'd be marginal increases. The current target for Stage 2 is 10 minute frequencies, but I think it could be possible to cut that down to 8 minutes. Anything less would absolutely require double tracking.

 

[kEiThZ]

They'd be marginal increases. The current target for Stage 2 is 10 minute frequencies, but I think it could be possible to cut that down to 8 minutes. Anything less would absolutely require double tracking.

Exactly why I said any additional capacity gets eaten by demand from extensions. They will need to double track at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Potvin may have hit a stroke of luck with the new transport minister. If he get someone to fund his sprawlicious scheme, he could not have a better political ally.

 

[gweed123]

In my opinion this is the better use of the PoW bridge. Also, a disused grade separated route seems to exist on the Ottawa side of the Alexandra bridge that runs along but above the Rideau Canal, away from the road that could link up well with the Ottawa LRT station. I scouted it today as I am in Ottawa. Anyways interesting development!

Personally, I'd prefer an entirely new bridge that crosses just west of the paper mill and enters into a tunnel under Bank St (there's a pretty sizeable cliff on the Ottawa side, so it could go directly from bridge to tunnel). That way, you could build at interchange with Parliament Station, and actually drop people off where they're intending to go, instead of forcing them to transfer on either side of downtown. Although I will admit, using the Alexandria and connecting at Rideau is still much closer to downtown than Bayview is. Given the location, it could be a prime spot for a "signature" bridge that could become a landmark in its own right.

Yes, this would be more costly, but I think it would be worth it. It would also set up a future southerly expansion along Bank St should the Ottawa and Gatineau systems ever become integrated. Or at the very least, open up the opportunity for a cross-platform transfer between an Ottawa line (under Bank St) and a Gatineau line at Parliament Station.

 

[Catenary]

One of the things a user on SSP mentioned was that the grade separation between the Trillium Line and Via will probably allow for the use of a better, more efficient signalling system. Currently, the Trillium Line is dispatched by Via from Montreal and is also stuck dealing with fixed signal timeouts and stuff like that.

The other thing is that due to the fact that the entire way the line is operated (in terms of stops and turnaround times) is going to change, it could end up being much more efficient than it currently is. (i.e. trains currently wait around ~5 minutes at either terminus before starting their next trip, which is a lot of wasted time.)

I'm not sure, but I think that once the Stage 2 upgrades are complete, the Trillium Line will no longer be constrained by track capacity, but rather by the number of available vehicles. Frequencies could in theory be increased marginally without needing to double track.

I'm a little late to this conversation, but I think I'm the person you're referring to on SSP.

I doubt that a new signal system will come soon, but I know that there is a desire to move dispatching in house. The line is currently dispatched by RailTerm, who is also the dispatcher for VIA. RailTerm is also the Capital Railways and VIA maintenance contractor, but with maintenance going to the phase 2 bidder when the system is expanded, some of the synergies with RailTerm are lost.

When the system was expanded in 2013, there was a goal of 8 minute headways, slightly less than double the existing 15 minute headways. An engineering report from a reputable third party claimed this was possible, but we now know how wrong they were. The system is finally stable enough to run a fixed 12 minute schedule, a truly minor improvement over the old system.

A modern system of CBTC cold run the line much closer to an 8 minute frequency. Add in some selective siding extensions, and that could improve even more. The issue then becomes reliability: a single track system relies on all the trains at critical points to operate perfectly. If one train has a fault as minor as someone holding a door and forcing a reset, the impacts will ripple down the line in both directions.

 

[OCCheetos]

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...les-bridge-appeal-while-court-hears-challenge

The city has asked the federal government to suspend their request to overturn the CTA order since they believe they have a good chance at overturning it in court first.

 

[steveintoronto]

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...les-bridge-appeal-while-court-hears-challenge

The city has asked the federal government to suspend their request to overturn the CTA order since they believe they have a good chance at overturning it in court first.

The story appears bizarre:

[...]In documents filed in the Federal Court of Appeal on June 29, the city says the CTA doesn’t have the power to investigate if a rail line has been discontinued, and even if it does, the agency is exceeding its jurisdiction by “imposing non-existent maintenance standards” on the rail line. Only the federal minister of transport has the power to issue maintenance orders, the city says.
[...]
Nothing compels the city under the Railway Act to operate a rail line, or even maintain it in a state of ready-to-use service, the city says in the court filing. Fixing the line for a third-party group, like Moose, would provide a “financial windfall” to a private venture, leaving property taxpayers picking up the tab, the city says.
[...]

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...les-bridge-appeal-while-court-hears-challenge

Perhaps the reporter got facts wrong, but of course the Railway Act doesn't state that, the Transportation Act does. I'll quote the relevant section later. Not only is it stated in Federal Legislation, there are precedents in case law where the CTA has had to resort to Federal Courts to impose the ruling, which the CTA certainly has the power to do.

[...]
Abandonment will not be ordered if the agency determines that the operation of the line is at present economic or, if not, that there is a reasonable probability that it will become so in the foreseeable future, and, in either case, that continued operation is in the public interest. Otherwise, it must, within six months after receiving the application, order abandonment to take place no earlier than 30 days or later than one year from the date of the order.

Where a line is ordered continued as being in the public interest and that line is not yet economic (see preceding paragraph), the railway company may apply for a subsidy to cover the losses incurred; the subsidy applies only to branch lines and not to any main lines ordered continued. Where the operation of the line is ordered continued, the Agency must reconsider the application at least once every three years after it has received the application. Where the Agency has dismissed an abandonment application, the rail carrier may re-apply for abandonment at its convenience.

Under the National Transportation Act, 1987, an appeal lies from the National Transportation Agency to the Federal Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction. Also, the Governor in Council may, at any time, vary or rescind any decision, order, rule or regulation of the Agency, and any order that the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding on the Agency and on all parties.
[...]

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp403-e.htm

See: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/transfer-and-discontinuance-railway-lines
for the most current regulations and links to the Transportation Act.

When the tracks connecting the 'spur' to the network were lifted, the first infraction occurred.

I'll find and quote from the Transportation Act later. I'll see what other media reports are stating, this claim is so bizarre that either the reporter got it wrong, or the City of Ottawa needs better legal counsel.

Or it might all be a ruse, God only knows why. Perhaps an attempt at face-saving if the Cabinet has already said 'no'?

 

[steveintoronto]

Addendum: I'm intrigued if not perplexed as to how the City of Ottawa could make the claim they are.

Part A – General

Guideline for Bridge Safety Management

• Table of Contents
• Printable Version
• Appendix - Guideline for Bridge Safety Management with Clarification Comments on Grey Background

0.1 - Definitions
For the purposes of this Guideline, the terms and definitions given in the Railway Safety Act and the Railway Safety Management System Regulationsapply in addition to those given below:

“bridge” means a “railway bridge” or an “overhead bridge” that the railway authority is responsible for with respect to inspection, evaluation, repairs, and the posting of load limits.

“Bridge Safety Management Program (BSMP)” means part of an overall railway safety management system that facilitates the management of risks associated with bridges. This includes the railway corporate structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes, standards, drawings, and personnel resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining the program.

“cursory inspection” means an inspection made by a Railway Bridge Engineer, a Railway Bridge Inspector, or Qualified Person to visually observe, from the track, an overhead bridge for which the railway authority does not have inspection and maintenance responsibilities, to determine if there are any obvious conditions that may threaten safe railway operations.

“overhead bridge” means any structure carrying pedestrian, highway, or railway traffic that spans over all or a portion of the railway right of way.

“professional engineer” means a person who is authorized under a Canadian Provincial or Territorial Engineering Act to engage in the practice of professional engineering.

“railway authority” means the railway company responsible for the maintenance of a bridge.

“railway bridge” means any structure with a deck, regardless of length, which supports one or more railway tracks, or any other under grade structure with an individual span length of 10 feet or more located at such a depth that it is affected by live loads.

“railway company” means as defined in the Canadian Transportation Act.

“railway right of way” means any land on which a line of railway is situated, including yard tracks, sidings, spurs and other track auxiliary to the line of railway.

“safety evaluation” means the documented review conducted by a Railway Bridge Engineer of all relevant bridge inspections, evaluations, assessments, reports, information and circumstances relating to a bridge to ensure that it is safe for its intended use.

“visual inspection” means a documented inspection made by a Railway Bridge Engineer or a Railway Bridge Inspector under the direction of a Railway Bridge Engineer to record any changes or repairs and identify defects which may have developed or deteriorated since the last inspection. It includes measuring specific defects, verifying the general conditions of the bridge and its surroundings in order to confirm its general safety.

[...]

0.4 - Responsibility
The railway authority is responsible for the condition of bridges over which it or other railway companies operate trains regardless of any agreements, division of ownership or maintenance expense. The railway authority shallFootnote1 ensure that the track is being adequately supported and shallFootnote2 be able to control, and restrict if necessary, the movement of trains on its segment of track, including the track on a bridge.

For overhead bridges that the railway authority is responsible for with respect to inspection, evaluation, repairs, and the posting of load limits, the railway authority shallFootnote3 ensure that the structure is adequate for its use or posted load limit and that safe railway operations are being maintained.

The railway authority is expected to carry out cursory inspections of overhead bridges for which it does not have inspection and maintenance responsibilities, document any obvious conditions that may threaten safe railway operations, notify the responsible authority of such conditions, and ensure corrective actions have been carried out.

If a railway authority, to which this part applies, assigns responsibility for the track and the bridge to another railway company, by lease or otherwise, written notification of the assignment should be provided to the appropriate TC Rail Safety regional office within 30 days following the assignment. The notification should be in writing and include the following:

1. a. The name and address of the railway authority that is assigning responsibility;
2. b. The name and address of the railway company to whom responsibility is assigned, (assignee);
3. c. A statement of the exact relationship between the railway authority and the assignee; and
4. d. A precise identification of the track segment and the individual bridges in the assignment.

[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/guideline-728.htm

So if the City of Ottawa is going to try and use the above as the basis of their case (The above is Transport Canada jurisdiction) , the Hand of the Law will still be in effect, just another hand.

But case law precedence already establishes the CTA's authority:

Here's an example, I'll cite others later:

Decision No. 397-R-2015
December 24, 2015

APPLICATION by Alberta Transportation pursuant to section 101 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended, and section 16 of the Railway Safety Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 32, (4th Supp.).

Case number:
15-01539

INTRODUCTION
[1] On March 26, 2015, Alberta Transportation filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) pursuant to section 101 of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) for an order related to the reconstruction and future maintenance of the existing grade separation carrying Highway 22X over and across the track of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) at mileage 10.73 of the Macleod Subdivision, 3 kilometres south of Midnapore, in the province of Alberta, and pursuant to section 16 of the Railway Safety Act (RSA), to apportion the costs of reconstructing and maintaining that grade separation (the 2015 application).

[2] While the parties do not contest the proposed construction of the grade separation, they do not agree on the apportionment of the costs of reconstruction and maintenance.

[3] This decision provides a short history at this crossing; addresses a preliminary matter regarding the scope of the application to be decided by the Agency; determines whether this constitutes reconstruction on a new or existing route; and apportions the costs of reconstruction and maintenance.
[...]

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/397-r-2015

I'm running out to grab a bag of popcorn, this should be fascinating watching...

Edit to Add: Bear in mind also that the Ottawa River is a Navigable Water, and as such Federal jurisdiction applies in a multiplicity of ways, the involvement of two provinces being just one:
Navigable Waters Bridges Regulations - Laws.justice.gc.ca

I think it best for all concerned that the bridge is purchased, either willingly from the City of Ottawa or by Order, and the bridge be owned and administered by a federal agency, perhaps the NCC, as an open-access heavy rail bridge usable for LRT as well as retaining the original design use should someone like VIA wish access.

 

[OCCheetos]

The story appears bizarre:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...les-bridge-appeal-while-court-hears-challenge

Perhaps the reporter got facts wrong, but of course the Railway Act doesn't state that, the Transportation Act does. I'll quote the relevant section later. Not only is it stated in Federal Legislation, there are precedents in case law where the CTA has had to resort to Federal Courts to impose the ruling, which the CTA certainly has the power to do.


http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp403-e.htm

See: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/transfer-and-discontinuance-railway-lines
for the most current regulations and links to the Transportation Act.

When the tracks connecting the 'spur' to the network were lifted, the first infraction occurred.

I'll find and quote from the Transportation Act later. I'll see what other media reports are stating, this claim is so bizarre that either the reporter got it wrong, or the City of Ottawa needs better legal counsel.

Or it might all be a ruse, God only knows why. Perhaps an attempt at face-saving if the Cabinet has already said 'no'?

Cabinet throwing out the order to repair a neglected part of a line would probably look really bad given the current Omnitrax situation.

It's also interesting to note that the city has put out an RFQ for the bridge.

A request for qualifications asks for firms that can provide professional guidance on the bridge’s substructure."

That's some kind of progress.

Edit: Here it is.

 

[steveintoronto]

Cabinet throwing out the order to repair a neglected part of a line would probably look really bad given the current Omnitrax situation.

Excellent point. And indeed, I think some backtracking by the Feds on the Churchill Line is in the works, which makes your point all the more viable. I wonder if the City cleared the 'cover story' with the Feds after being turned down, if indeed that happened?

There's also the spectre of the Cabinet (in effect) "overturning: the CTA ruling. In my previous searches a month or so ago, I did find such instances, but at this juncture in time, it would be a bone-headed move especially with some provinces looking to test the CTA's authority. That relates to the Navigable Waters Act revisions presently being prepared. It's not direct, but connected, especially now Ontario is going to be trying to chip away at Fed Regs.
https://canadians.org/blog/does-new-canadian-navigable-waters-act-protect-lakes-and-rivers-pipelines

From the RFQ link you posted:

Description

The City of Ottawa, hereinafter referred to as the City, is seeking qualification submissions to provide professional engineering services to carry out Preliminary Design, Detailed Design and Contract Administration Services for Substructure repairs of Prince of Wales Bridges, as described in the Terms of Reference in the RFQ.

The Procurement of goods and/or services specified in this bid document may be subject to the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and/or the Ontario-Quebec Procurement Agreement (OQPA).
All information submitted in response to this RFQ is subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Excellent find! The FOI aspect must already be having the local journos applying in droves. The story is still very curious in ways, not least the Gatineau claim for access.

Note the RFQ date:
Publication
2018/07/05 02:04:18 PM EDT