[micheal_can]

Nobody said it isn't a good idea. This is about who will use it and how it will be used.

Exactly. Right now there are 2 competing uses for the bridge One is a possible future LRT, the other a possible Commuter rail. Which is better depends on who you ask. If the TC standards did not make it hard to run LRT vehicles on heavy rail lines, this would be a non issue.

Why? I'd like someone to explain to me why a city of about 800 000 (Gatineau is not served by OC Transpo), where a 25 km radius from Parliament Hill covers every immediate suburban area and about 90% of the population needs commuter rail. Especially, if this comes at the expense of improved urban transit (as MOOSE proposes).

Cities of similar size in Canada (Edmonton and Calgary) don't have commuter rail. Neither do a lot of cities of similar sizes elsewhere. And if they do, they usually don't have a light metro system on top. And to boot, any commuter rail system in Ottawa, puts you 1.5-5km outside the downtown core too. I'd like to see a city with a light metro that builds a commuter rail system on top to drop off passengers outside the downtown core. Let's find an example of that.

They are not talking about Gatineau. They are talking about: Wakefield, Montebello, Bristol, Arnprior,, Smith Falls and Alexandria. Gatineau and Ottawa will have many stops in it, but it is not just for those places.

This isn't about what Canada does or does not do. This is about what other cities do to curb congestion and copying it. Admit it, Canada is pretty horrible for mass transit.

You do know that the Grand Central Terminal in NYC does not have any surface lines what-so-ever going to it? The lines are all in tunnels. Right now, the Moose plan has it using existing rail corridors. However, this company is a land holding and air rights company. That means that if they could buy property in which to build a tunnel to downtown, they could.

Gotta start somewhere.

Ummm no. Stick to talking about trains. This would be a truly ignorant idea today. But we'll leave that for another forum.

.

Yes, lets, as we don't need to show how you might be wrong on yet another thing.

The only people creating multiple goals here are the folks who either have their private interests or fantasies or the sycophants who support them. Nobody else thinks there are "multiple goals" for the bridge or anything else transit related in Ottawa. As the last election showed, most voters are quite happy with the direction Ottawa is going and the leadership provided.

Right now, Moose and the Gatineau LRT are both years, if not decades away. This is not just about Ottawa. This is about the region. Even though the mayors have remained the same for a few terms, you cannot say the same about the council.

Dream big, plan big, and lets work towards the future that we want.

 

[Allandale25]

I re-read Joseph's earlier post:

I've not been back to this blog list for a while.

Anyways, stay tuned for the next stage in our work to prevent and reverse illegal destruction of federally-regulated railway infrastructure.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...nToMinisterTransportCanada_2018-09-18cPDF.pdf

MOOSE is advancing our whole region commercial plan. I can report that quite a few senior people within the City of Ottawa administration, and several councillors also consider our work highly beneficial to the future of both Ottawa and the National Capital Region.

Two thoughts:

1) Why is the Moose letter in the above link dated September 18, 2018 if the letter from Indriani Hulan at Transport Canada set a deadline of September 14, 2018?

So, my question has already been answered:

I reviewed the documents provided in the link above. Here's a summary, where I chronologically ordered the files:

First, from the 17Aug18 Transport Canada letter to Moose, I notice the passage below. One to two years from August 17, 2018 (date of the letter) or September 14, 2018 (deadline set out by the letter) to start the processing, I wonder how far along Phase II will be. Further, it seems like a very tall order.

It will September 18, 2019 at the earliest or September 18, 2020 at the latest before Transport Canada rules on this Section 40 petition by Moose. When do shovels hit the ground again for Phase 2?

2) With respect to this:

MOOSE is advancing our whole region commercial plan. I can report that quite a few senior people within the City of Ottawa administration, and several councillors also consider our work highly beneficial to the future of both Ottawa and the National Capital Region.

Who specifically? So let me get this straight, senior people within the City of Ottawa are working behind the scenes against the will of Council for the Phase 2 plan? Really? They are willing to risk their jobs for an unsolicited, unfunded, private sector idea? I'm skeptical.

 

[steveintoronto]

Currently there are a significant number of rail corridors across this country that are owned by members of the R.A.C. but are not currently in use. The railway companies keep them around for various reasons, potentially for future use.

Whether you, or anyone else, agrees or disagrees with this is irrelevant as far as the Law stands, and the CTA has ruled. Under the Transportation Act, the right of appeal to the Cabinet is itemized, but so far, there's not been a response from the Cabinet. The appeal by the City of Ottawa to courts was withdrawn.

As of this time, the CTA decisions stand.

As to some other posters' continuing character assassination and continued misrepresenting of the facts and record, I might deal with later. Reality has precedence at this point in time.

There's an *obligation* put upon every federally regulated railway in Canada to abide by the terms and conditions their licence to operate states. That they're being held to those Acts seems to upset some.

The relevant acts were and still are in some instances being or up for review. I'd suggest if you don't like the Law as it stands, then petition for change.

 

[OCCheetos]

Who specifically? So let me get this straight, senior people within the City of Ottawa are working behind the scenes against the will of Council for the Phase 2 plan? Really? They are willing to risk their jobs for an unsolicited, unfunded, private sector idea? I'm skeptical.

No one said that they're doing "behind the scenes work" for MOOSE, just that they have opinions about MOOSE.

I'm not sure what you mean by "against the will of Council for the Phase 2 plan". Nothing that MOOSE has proposed has any significant implications for Stage 2 other than to possibly double track the Trillium Line corridor which isn't a bad thing. The only thing i'd say about that is that if MOOSE wants things to work out they better get it done before the spring of 2020 when construction work on the Trillium Line corridor between Greenboro and Bayview begins. Any later would make it difficult to adapt the Stage 2 plan for double tracking in time for the 2021 completion date.

 

[steveintoronto]

I wrote:

"What's so curious is the venom against such entrepreneurship. It's the basis of almost every major city's present day rail transit system. And like it or not, Ontario, even under the previous regime, turned to private capital to DBFOM most of GO's expansion. The present regime will go even further.

Some of the most successful rail transit systems in the world are privately funded, built and operated."

What's your problem with that, the verb tense, or that private capital is needed for the "financing" part of DBFOM?

But thank you for clarifying you're aware of who is providing the capital funding in Table 1 above.

 

[steveintoronto]

Any later would make it difficult to adapt the Stage 2 plan for double tracking in time for the 2021 completion date.

There's also the legal necessities under the present wording of the Transportation Act for Capital Railways (City of Ottawa's federal certified railway company) to apply to abandon the present classification of use, and/or a change in regulations (or a 'waiver' by US terminology) to allow for the mixed use of that RoW, or reuse outside of the Transportation Act.

Under the various railway acts under federal jurisdiction, you can't just 'keep railways as pets'. Just as buildings are required to be maintained in a safe and stable manner, so is railway infrastructure, unless the abandonment process has been undertaken. Or else lose your certification to operate. That licence to operate must be (gist) "for the good of Canada", not the private interests claiming ownership to the RoW. An essential part of the abandonment process is to make the RoW available for use or sale to another operator or competitor.

Addendum:

Design Build Finance Operate Maintain (DBFOM) Concessions
With the design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) concessions approach, the responsibilities for designing, building, financing and operating are bundled together and transferred to private sector partners. There is a great deal of variety in DBFOM arrangements in the United States, and especially the degree to which financial responsibilities are actually transferred to the private sector. One commonality that cuts across all DBFOM projects is that they are either partly or wholly financed by debt leveraging revenue streams dedicated to the project. Direct user fees (tolls) are the most common revenue source. Availability payments have also been used in this capacity. Future revenues are leveraged to issue bonds or other debt that provide funds for capital and project development costs. Often they are also supplemented by public sector grants in the form of money or contributions in kind, such as right-of-way. Private partners usually required to make equity investments as well.

More about DBFOM Concessions

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/alternative_project_delivery/defined/new_build_facilities/dbfom.aspx

Metrolinx' definition, which I've linked and referenced prior, may be slightly different from the above. The gist remains completely intact however.

5 APRIL 2018
NEWS
Ontario requests qualifications for GO rail expansion project
[...]
The RFQ outlines the scope of the work, which involves the operation of train services, planning timetables across the GO-owned network and compliance with Metrolinx safety and security policies.

The selected team will also be responsible for the design, finance and maintenance of the railway infrastructure; maintenance, refurbishment and procurement of all rolling stock; and building and overhauling train storage facilities.

Following the submission of applications by interested parties, IO and Metrolinx will draw up a shortlist containing teams that have the relevant experience and financial resources to undertake the project.

https://www.railway-technology.com/...qualifications-for-go-rail-expansion-project/

 

[kEiThZ]

Right now there are 2 competing uses for the bridge One is a possible future LRT, the other a possible Commuter rail.

No. There's one proposal to use the bridge with consideration from a higher level of government and a guy in his basement printing brochures.

They are talking about: Wakefield, Montebello, Bristol, Arnprior,, Smith Falls and Alexandria. Gatineau and Ottawa will have many stops in it, but it is not just for those places.

And why should Ottawa taxpayers give a damn about them? More specifically, why should Ottawa residents face worse service from a transfer of city owned asset (Capital Railways) or a diversion of funding from their transit priorities (including substantially higher frequency light rail), to service communities that in their entire sum would not add up to 10% of Ottawa's population? None of these places support hourly bus service today. And the province forecasts that all of them will have aging (read less commuters) populations going forward.

This is about what other cities do to curb congestion

There's no congestion coming in from Arnprior, Wakefield, Alexandria, etc. If you have actual stats to show significant amounts of traffic being put out from those towns, please post them. Otherwise this is a nonsensical and unsubstantiated assertion.

Gotta start somewhere.

That somewhere is a full buildout of the planned LRT network for Ottawa. We can talk about people who don't pay taxes in Ottawa after that.

Yes, lets, as we don't need to show how you might be wrong on yet another thing.

Nearly two decades in the RCAF. Several flying. And a chunk of it in acquisitions. Let's have at it. I'm ready to be educated on why a jet with an RCS and IR signature that would light up every sensor from 200 miles out is a good idea. Open a thread in the appropriate forum and I'm happy to discuss. Here's a start:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/f-35-fighter-jet-purchase.18477/

Right now, Moose and the Gatineau LRT are both years, if not decades away.

LOL. Equating the Gatineau LRT and MOOSE again as though both are equally serious. Gatineau LRT maybe a decade away. But it's an actual proposal with tentative backing from the federal and provincial governments.

MOOSE is not decades away. It's never happening. For the better part of a decade, Potvin hasn't even be able to raise funding for a proper feasibility study. And again, just a reminder, no single party owns all the rails that MOOSE wants to operate on. It's not just the City of Ottawa. They have to convince every rail operator and municipality in the region to get onboard. And Ottawa alone would sink them.

This is about the region.

The region does not own the corridor question or pay the taxes to build and operate transit in the region. If the province wants to start up something like GO Transit in Ottawa, then we can have a real discussion. But given that 90% of Ottawa's metro population stays within 25 km of the hill, the province will never be interested in such an idea. They aren't even willing to fund a commuter bus system for Ottawa.

 

[Allandale25]

No one said that they're doing "behind the scenes work" for MOOSE, just that they have opinions about MOOSE.

I'm not sure what you mean by "against the will of Council for the Phase 2 plan". Nothing that MOOSE has proposed has any significant implications for Stage 2 other than to possibly double track the Trillium Line corridor which isn't a bad thing. The only thing i'd say about that is that if MOOSE wants things to work out they better get it done before the spring of 2020 when construction work on the Trillium Line corridor between Greenboro and Bayview begins. Any later would make it difficult to adapt the Stage 2 plan for double tracking in time for the 2021 completion date.

I didn't say anyone said "behind the scenes work" is happening but I think that's a reasonable assumption on what Joseph is claiming when he says "I can report that quite a few senior people within the City of Ottawa administration, and several councillors also consider our work highly beneficial". Meeting with these folks is work, by both parties.

Further, I bet that if a Councillor brought forward a motion to implement the Moose plan, staff would stay that it does conflict with Stage 2. It's more than just double tracking. Take a look at the difference between the Moose proposal for Greenboro and the Stage 2 plan for instance.

 

[kEiThZ]

Who specifically? So let me get this straight, senior people within the City of Ottawa are working behind the scenes against the will of Council for the Phase 2 plan? Really? They are willing to risk their jobs for an unsolicited, unfunded, private sector idea? I'm skeptical.

If true, I'd like to know too. Should make for a doozy of an ethics complaint. I foresee termination for cause.

I am guessing some intern answered the phone and humoured him. So it became, "people inside the city government are on our side!" This is like Elon Musk claiming he had "verbal approval" to build a tunnel between NYC and DC. The MOOSE case is probably even less interesting than that.

 

[OCCheetos]

I didn't say anyone said "behind the scenes work" is happening but I think that's a reasonable assume on what Joseph is claiming when he says "I can report that quite a few senior people within the City of Ottawa administration, and several councillors also consider our work highly beneficial". Meeting with these folks is work.

Further, I bet that if a Councillor brought forward a motion to implement the Moose plan, staff would stay that it does conflict with Stage 2. It's more than just double tracking. Take a look at the difference between the Moose proposal for Greenboro and the Stage 2 plan for instance.

Potvin has long posted that he's had meetings with City transit officials before. Meeting with someone is quite different from, say, trying to sabotage Stage 2 in favour of MOOSE from the inside.

IIRC it was established that what MOOSE means as "Greenboro" is actually closer to where Mooney's Bay station is located, and in their more recent publications they reference Mooney's Bay as a transfer point to OC Transpo (with no mention of Greenboro). I'm not saying double tracking is trivial given the overpasses, bridges, and tunnel, but as of right now there is still sufficient time to develop a plan that works between MOOSE's proposals and the city's Stage 2 plans.

 

[Allandale25]

^ One more potential conflict and I'll admit I can't recall the exact technology proposed by Moose vs Stage 2: are they both looking at light rail vehicles or does Moose want to use non-electrified heavy rail? I seem to recall Moose showing the image of a GO train engine on the cross section of the Prince of Wales Bridge.

 

[kEiThZ]

Meeting with someone is quite different from, say, trying to sabotage Stage 2 in favour of MOOSE from the inside.

And a meeting with him is not a statement of support either as he portrays it. So Allandale is right. I'd like to know which staff members and councillors are meeting Potvin and who specifically thinks his work (which includes trying to get regulatory enforcement against the city) is "highly beneficial to the future of both Ottawa and the National Capital Region." I think voters and taxpayers have a right to know about such meetings.

I find it pretty interesting that MOOSE and Joseph Potvin don't show up in the City of Ottawa lobbying registry.

https://apps107.ottawa.ca/LobbyistRegistry/search/searchlobbyist.aspx?lang=en

I will have a ton more free time in a few months when I'm back. I'd be happy to ATI the City and find out who Potvin is dealing with.

but as of right now there is still sufficient time to develop a plan that works between MOOSE's proposals and the city's Stage 2 plans.

No. We're months away from a contract award for Trillium Stage 2. Presumably that means a Statement of Work has been drafted on all the deliverables to be provided. I would presume there's a large contract package with all the requirements ready to go. Accommodating MOOSE at this point is not some trivial affair. They will need to scrap a lot of the work done on Trillium Stage 2 and complete a new conceptual framework for these higher traffic levels, station locations, etc. And then draft a new SOW and RFP and re-run the process. And that's assuming that you don't need another EPR or some other required study beforehand. I don't get why you think this could all be done and still have shovels in the ground by 2020. Any accomodation of MOOSE at this stage means Ottawa riders will not be boarding a renewed and extended Trillium Line in 2021. Simple as that.

 

[OCCheetos]

And a meeting with him is not a statement of support either as he portrays it. So Allandale is right. I'd like to know which staff members and councillors are meeting Potvin and who specifically thinks his work (which includes trying to get regulatory enforcement against the city) is "highly beneficial to the future of both Ottawa and the National Capital Region." I think voters and taxpayers have a right to know about such meetings.

I think you're mixing up a lot of ideas. I don't think Potvin was referring to what they're doing at Bayview but rather MOOSE transportation proposals. I highly doubt that MOOSE has had meetings with city officials in which those officials didn't side with the city on the case (if meetings on that topic ever occurred, which I also doubt they did).

MOOSE meeting with the city is no different than the city meeting with any other existing or potential stakeholder. For example, I'm sure any of the private rural bus companies in the Ottawa region have met with the city and discussed things like transfers between their services...

 

[OCCheetos]

^ One more potential conflict and I'll admit I can't recall the exact technology proposed by Moose vs Stage 2: are they both looking at light rail vehicles or does Moose want to use non-electrified heavy rail? I seem to recall Moose showing the image of a GO train engine on the cross section of the Prince of Wales Bridge.

They were previously quite insistent on using only bi-levels but they've recently signedso their stance on that and have included LRT vehicles (i.e. DMUs) in their more recent publications.

 

[micheal_can]

The more I think about it, the POW bridge should b demolished. A new bridge that can carry 2 or more LRT lines and 2 or more heavy rail lines with a loading gauge that will allow the Bilevels to clear it would be the way to go.

Or maybe built the LRT bridge closer to downtown. In fact, you could tunnel new heavy rail lines under downtown too, and solve both issues.

It is funny how we are arguing on who should use a 140 year old bridge that is not in a great place for anything.