Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

In point of fact, no we haven't.

The reference was to the entrepreneurs on Dragon's Den, not to the members of MOOSE. It was an analogy simply to illustrate that regardless what others say or what the reality of the situation is, these folks continue to believe in their dream regardless of how unlikely the situation is.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Charles5, Would you please make the case here why you believe it was an excellent use of taxpayer money for the City of Ottawa's to dismantle the existing federally regulated railway connection between the Trillium Line and the Prince of Wales Bridge?

Also please let us know on what legal grounds you think it was permissible for the City to dismantle that track?

The other cases we have initiated have been to seek clarification of jurisdiction (federal or provincial). Please let us know why you think it's so awful to ask who's jurisdiction applies to a section of railway.

We've gone around in circles on this before so I'm not going to repeat myself regarding the POW bridge. I think the City's letter of response to the CTA speaks for itself and I, as a taxpayer am very comfortable with the actions taken to date and planned for the future.

In reference to other cases, I think you've done more than seeking clarification on jurisdiction. You have actively sought to prevent municipalities from taking actions and doing what they believe is in the best interests of their citizens. I don't see how your complaint to the Competition Bureau for example could be seen as a "clarification on jurisdiction".

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

We've gone around in circles on this before so I'm not going to repeat myself regarding the POW bridge.

@Charles5, The City's letter does not explain any benefit to taxpayers of the dismantling of the PoWB approach track, and it does clearly state that the City has no funds for reconnecting the line. So, your reply to my question is what exactly?

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

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

As I said, we've done this before and I know you're going to disagree regardless what I say. Anyway...the realignment of the tracks at Bayview and the construction of the current station are part of the ongoing efforts to develop an efficient light rail network within the City. To me that is to the benefit of taxpayers (and I'm one of them). As for reconnecting the line and the use of the POW Bridge. The current design allows for the extension of the track from the new Bayview station across the POW Bridge and the City has indicated many times that it has a desire to extend the line into Gatineau in its rightful priority.

To quote from the City's letter: "Applying the Discontinuance Rules based on some kind of Constructive Discontinuance principle to ORL at this time could prematurely preclude the City from being able to follow through with substantial and continued investments in public transit between Gatineau and Ottawa which is clearly not in the public best interest."

[Charles5]

Perhaps some of the railway enthusiasts out there could help me fill in some of the blanks in my summary below.

MOOSE has from the beginning stated that creating their rail network was the easy part because they would be using existing rail lines and they would have the right to use those lines under the Constitution Act. However, as I look at the various components of the proposed network I see several issues that would preclude that from happening.

Bristol leg:
The track has been abandoned and the rail lines removed. It no longer forms part of the overall federal rail network and is not covered under the Constitution Act. The current landowners have no obligation to grant a right of way to anyone.
http://www.capitalgems.ca/morris-island-railway-bridge-ruin.html
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

LaPeche leg:
The track was legally abandoned and no longer forms part of the federal railway network. MOOSE's attempt to have this status rescinded or reversed has been dismissed by the CTA. The tracks have been removed.
The current landowners have no obligation to grant any right of way under the Constitution Act and have other plans for this corridor.
This also prevents the use of Morrison's Quarry as a rail yard.
https://sentierschelseatrails.org/2017/08/04/two-big-steps-for-chelsea-community-trail/
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

Montebello leg:
At least part of this leg is under the control of the STO and is used for their Rapibus corridor. The bridge over the Gatineau River has tracks but is used by buses and I don't believe STO would allow for a train to utilize that bridge at the same time as buses. A decision by CTA in 2012 dismissed MOOSE's complaint and concluded that the the rail corridor does not fall under federal jurisdiction. Consequently the Constitution Act does not apply and there is no obligation to grant a right of way.
I don't know what the state of the rail beyond the Rapibus portion is.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

O-Train, Trillium Line, POW Bridge:
This portion of the network does fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the Certificate of Fitness for the City of Ottawa indicates that it will be used for light rail.
Capacity issues: Currently the line is maxed out with trains every 12 minutes in both directions (10 trains/hour). MOOSE would like to add an additional 8 trains I believe, 2 per hour in each directin over two lines. There is insufficient capacity for this. The Constitution Act may grant a right of way but nothing states it has to be done at the expense of exisiting use of the line. The City could allow the transit of MOOSE trains but at off peak hours which would be rather pointless for MOOSE. Even if the two entities shared equally it would only allow for half of the proposed MOOSE trains to transit through that portion.
Compatibility: The Trillium line is being run as light rail (as per Certificate of Fitness linked below) but still has a legacy as heavy rail. I don't know if the O-Train and MOOSE are compatible with one another in regards to station design, etc. Definitely the long term plan to electrify the line (which is necessary to expand further to the South after Phase 2) is not compatible with a double decker heavy rail car.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY

Arnprior leg:
* Apparently this leg is still being used on a limited basis. I don't know enough about this leg to comment otherwise.
My conclusion: POSSIBLE

Smith Falls leg:
Under federal jurisdiction and so the Constitution Act would apply.
Capacity issues: I understand that much of this line is single track and it is a busy corridor. In fact, VIA's plans for High Frequency Rail (HFR) on this corridor would require an expansion of the tracks. So, while MOOSE may be granted a right of way, there could be challenges fitting the amount of trains in that they wish and at the times they desire.
Note VIA's comments about "The Challenge" in the article below. Adding MOOSE would only compound the issue.
http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT WITH ISSUES.

Alexandria leg:
Pretty much the same as the Smith Falls leg.

I would welcome additional inputs into this summary as to the actual rail lines and the potential for use by MOOSE.

* - denotes an edit to add information provided in subsequent postings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who keep giving reasons how this 'could' happen, I use the term "VIABLE" as per the definition below, it does not mean it is 'impossible'.
vi·a·ble
ˈvīəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: viable
capable of working successfully; feasible.
"the proposed investment was economically viable"

[acottawa]

Well, technically the Declaratory Power - 92(10)(c) - can declare any work or undertaking to be federal jurisdiction. They could probably declare your driveway to be federal jurisdiction. The problem is that this power has not been used in decades (1961 was the last use) and is not compatible with a modern understanding of federalism.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@OtrainUser,


The streetcars in both Ottawa and Hull ran profitably until taken over by the City, followed by the dedicated destruction of the system under the NCC's consultant Jacques Gréber. A section of the Gréber Plan entitled "Railway Problem Fundamental Element of the Plan" stated:

"The remodeling of railroad facilities has therefore become the framework of the Master Plan. It consists of a series of gradual and co-ordinated operations, aimed at the elimination of all railroad interference in the present life and in the future development of the central part of the urban area of the Capital Region"

That reflects why trains declined also more generally in Canada and the US. They didn't fail. They were pushed down and out, and it's still underway (and clearly in evidence by some comments on this blog).

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

While this was true at the time in the late 1940s, it was inevitable with the car boom that followed World War II, that the profitable streetcar lines would soon be unprofitable. What we fail to mention is that streetcar networks were neglected during the Depression and war years and needed major investment. There was not enough profit to cover this. In the case of Hull, the city could not get rid of the streetcar soon enough in 1946 and 1947. This was not Greber dictating this. The equipment was very old and in disrepair. Modernization was needed. We reflect back on the golden age of streetcars but they were not so golden when considering the realities that were coming in the post war years. This was above and beyond Greber's ideas.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Well, technically the Declaratory Power - 92(10)(c) - can declare any work or undertaking to be federal jurisdiction. They could probably declare your driveway to be federal jurisdiction. The problem is that this power has not been used in decades (1961 was the last use) and is not compatible with a modern understanding of federalism.

Helpful insight.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Perhaps some of the railway enthusiasts out there could help me fill in some of the blanks in my summary below.

MOOSE has from the beginning stated that creating their rail network was the easy part because they would be using existing rail lines and they would have the right to use those lines under the Constitution Act. However, as I look at the various components of the proposed network I see several issues that would preclude that from happening.

Helpful and detailed work Charles. Thanks for sharing.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Charles5

LaPeche leg:
The track was legally abandoned and no longer forms part of the federal railway network. MOOSE's attempt to have this status rescinded or reversed has been dismissed by the CTA. The tracks have been removed.

It also does not have a direct connection to the POW bridge as the wye only turns to the eastward direction. https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4585816,-75.7310928,649m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3 There is room for building a new curve with a bridge over the creek but it would create a new impingement on the Rapibus route which the STO would never agree to.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Bristol leg:
The track has been abandoned and the rail lines removed. It no longer forms part of the overall federal rail network and is not covered under the Constitution Act. The current landowners have no obligation to grant a right of way to anyone.
http://www.capitalgems.ca/morris-island-railway-bridge-ruin.html
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

I'm not sure, but isn't part of this corridor owned by the city? I know the city owns a few rail corridors, but this might not be one of them. As far as viability, the landowners might not have an obligation, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. (I'm saying that this differs from other non-federally regulated tracks since we haven't heard anything from the owners of these sections of corridors on whether they'd allow it).

Edit: The Beachburg subdivision isn't city owned, but it is still displayed as a rail corridor on geoOttawa, so take that for whatever it's worth. The Renfrew subdivision (the Arnprior leg) is however city-owned, but it is still an active railway.

Arnprior leg:
I don't know enough about this leg to comment. I believe it is unused but the tracks still remain so I expect that it is still under federal jurisdiction.

The tracks would probably need upgrading to meet speed and safety requirements, but otherwise, it's used by a single freight train twice a day (to and from Arnprior) several times a week. Capacity wouldn't be an issue here.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

LaPeche leg:
The track was legally abandoned and no longer forms part of the federal railway network. MOOSE's attempt to have this status rescinded or reversed has been dismissed by the CTA. The tracks have been removed.
The current landowners have no obligation to grant any right of way under the Constitution Act and have other plans for this corridor.
This also prevents the use of Morrison's Quarry as a rail yard.
https://sentierschelseatrails.org/2017/08/04/two-big-steps-for-chelsea-community-trail/
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

It seems a little odd that MOOSE wouldn't just use Walkley yard for storage and maintenance. I mean, it's right there and practically empty most of the time. There's room to build maintenance buildings (in the north eastern corner), but I guess they would have to pay fees to use the yard.

As far as the corridor goes, it's a damn shame that it's been torn up. A rail link to Chelsea and Wakefield would probably be one of the better parts of this plan. It is strange however that no one was willing to fork up a few million dollars to repair flood damage, but what would happen if the new bike trail were washed out, who would pay for those repairs? Would money be spent upgrading the existing land to prevent further damage? It would seem a little hypocritical if that were to happen.

O-Train, Trillium Line, POW Bridge:
This portion of the network does fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the Certificate of Fitness for the City of Ottawa indicates that it will be used for light rail.
Capacity issues: Currently the line is maxed out with trains every 12 minutes in both directions (10 trains/hour). MOOSE would like to add an additional 8 trains I believe, 2 per hour in each directin over two lines. There is insufficient capacity for this. The Constitution Act may grant a right of way but nothing states it has to be done at the expense of exisiting use of the line. The City could allow the transit of MOOSE trains but at off peak hours which would be rather pointless for MOOSE. Even if the two entities shared equally it would only allow for half of the proposed MOOSE trains to transit through that portion.
Compatibility: The Trillium line is being run as light rail (as per Certificate of Fitness linked below) but still has a legacy as heavy rail. I don't know if the O-Train and MOOSE are compatible with one another in regards to station design, etc. Definitely the long term plan to electrify the line (which is necessary to expand further to the South after Phase 2) is not compatible with a double decker heavy rail car.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY

An important thing to note would be MOOSE's proposal to help fund further double tracking of the corridor. That would help/solve any capacity issues.
As far as compatibility, it's complicated, but I can see MOOSE being granted an exception to use some type of heavy rail along the corridor that would also allow it to be compatible with the main lines. (As in, it would need to be equipped with automatic train protection, etc.)

With regards to station design, all stations except Bayview are designed to be compatible with regular heavy rail traffic since the stations were built while the line was still considered a freight corridor. The platform extenders would need to be modified. With the platforms being extended for Stage 2, I don't think platforms would be an issue.

Your point on electrification is likely incorrect. Unless the city installed a special system that would only be compatible with their trains, the line could be electrified and continue to be compatible with any other types of rail vehicle. Electrified lines and heavy rail equipment exist, just look at Montreal for example.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Your point on electrification is likely incorrect. Unless the city installed a special system that would only be compatible with their trains, the line could be electrified and continue to be compatible with any other types of rail vehicle.

I'm assuming that electrification of the Trillium Line would be done exactly as it is with the Confederation Line, as it would makes sense at that time to run the same type of vehicles on both tracks. Looking at the image linked to below, I can't imagine a double decker passenger car running fitting underneath those electrical lines. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

https://ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/inline-media/lrt_train.jpg

If it was possible, then the potential to connect the existing Trillium Line and Confederation Line would exist and yet the decision has been to keep the lines separate. According to the Trillium Line Extension Planning and Environmental Assessment Study...
"The transfer at Bayview is required due to differences between diesel and electric LRT technology. This issue will be examined in the future, when the line is converted to electric LRT."
https://ottawa.ca/en/residents/transport...lanning/completed-projects/trillium-line

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

As far as compatibility, it's complicated, but I can see MOOSE being granted an exception to use some type of heavy rail along the corridor that would also allow it to be compatible with the main lines. (As in, it would need to be equipped with automatic train protection, etc.)

That isn't in the plan, as Joseph said in Post #652.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Correct, these would not run on the same track as an LRT.

But it will be for the LRT operators to justify to the mobile public why passengers arriving comfortably into the core area on high-capacity trains should have to disembark and crowd onto low-capacity trains. We expect any terribly inconvenient and entirely unnecessary capacity bottleneck of that type to last, at most, one election cycle. Most likely such incongruities will get resolved ahead of time, since there are several places those LRTs can be re-deployed as feeder systems into a main line for overall system efficiency.

So 2/3 of their plan is based on the assumption that OC Transpo/The City of Ottawa will abandon the Trillium Line north of Greenboro to let Moose run its trains on it instead. If not, the Lavender and Red routes would have to stop at Bayview and not serve Smiths Falls and Arnprior as those segments would no longer be interpersonal routes. Now they could try and negotiate access to the Renfrew and Smiths Falls subdivisions, but that doesn't seem to be in their playbook. Regardless, the Blue line could run as proposed without access to the Trillium Line.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Urban sprawl isn't going to stop just because a proposed rail system doesn't go through. The existence and projected growth of areas like Kanata, Stittsville, Barrhaven, and Manotick are evidence of that. The proposal for Stage 2 of the Trillium line even mentions it.

Sure, areas like Bristol, or Vars may not have the same level of growth as the ones mentioned above, but they're still going to grow regardless.

Except the core element of Moose's business model is for huge numbers of people to relocate outside of the NCR to farther out rural areas. If, in theory, Moose were successful it would mean sprawl would happen much faster over a much wider area than would naturally happen.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I'm assuming that electrification of the Trillium Line would be done exactly as it is with the Confederation Line, as it would makes sense at that time to run the same type of vehicles on both tracks. Looking at the image linked to below, I can't imagine a double decker passenger car running fitting underneath those electrical lines. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

https://ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/inline-media/lrt_train.jpg

If it was possible, then the potential to connect the existing Trillium Line and Confederation Line would exist and yet the decision has been to keep the lines separate. According to the Trillium Line Extension Planning and Environmental Assessment Study...
"The transfer at Bayview is required due to differences between diesel and electric LRT technology. This issue will be examined in the future, when the line is converted to electric LRT."
https://ottawa.ca/en/residents/transport...lanning/completed-projects/trillium-line

If they were to convert the Trillium line to the same type of vehicle as the Confederation line it would require rebuilding every station along the line. It would be far less expensive to just add standard overhead lines and purchase new electric "heavy" rail vehicles.

I think the wording in that document is using LRT to describe the current type of train being used, which is sort of in between.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That isn't in the plan, as Joseph said in Post #652.



So 2/3 of their plan is based on the assumption that OC Transpo/The City of Ottawa will abandon the Trillium Line north of Greenboro to let Moose run its trains on it instead. If not, the Lavender and Red routes would have to stop at Bayview and not serve Smiths Falls and Arnprior as those segments would no longer be interpersonal routes. Now they could try and negotiate access to the Renfrew and Smiths Falls subdivisions, but that doesn't seem to be in their playbook. Regardless, the Blue line could run as proposed without access to the Trillium Line.

I'm not saying MOOSE's plan is perfect. It's pretty clear to me that the city will never purposefully abandon the Trillium line to allow another service to take its place. It's up to MOOSE to find a solution that will work, whether it be through exceptions or otherwise.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If they were to convert the Trillium line to the same type of vehicle as the Confederation line it would require rebuilding every station along the line. It would be far less expensive to just add standard overhead lines and purchase new electric "heavy" rail vehicles.

I think the wording in that document is using LRT to describe the current type of train being used, which is sort of in between.

The lack of forethought in what we are doing is amazing.

How we develop any light rail system on the Quebec side leaves me puzzled?

Is it going to be compatible with the Confederation Line or with the Trillium Line or neither or both?

We could end up with a patchwork quilt of a system, that ends up costing a lot more in the long-run because of the number of different technologies that we will have to maintain, each with its own maintenance facility.

[Charles5]

Some interesting data tables from the StatsCan census of 2011. Able to select a town or city and find out how many of them commute for work to other locations.

For example: Smith Falls had all of 525 people that commuted into Ottawa. I wonder how many of those you could convince to take an hourly train ride rather than their car.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...oral=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Some interesting data tables from the StatsCan census of 2011. Able to select a town or city and find out how many of them commute for work to other locations.

For example: Smith Falls had all of 525 people that commuted into Ottawa. I wonder how many of those you could convince to take an hourly train ride rather than their car.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...oral=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

Any data available from the more recent census?