Rural Commuter Rail

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

In my opinion, I would rather see the narrow, high maintenance steel trusses on the POW replaced with a wide modern deck suitable for buses, bikes and pedestrians, and eventually double-tracked trains.

Because STO is leaning towards retaining their BRT for the near future, it makes more sense to have them provide service to Bayview. Not all commuters from Gatineau go downtown, many of them go to Tunney's or Confederation Heights, so I doubt the fears of Bayview being overwhelmed. The STO buses can easily make a loop around the CBD in the morning if this is an issue. The afternoon rush hour is not as critical.

I disagree on this point. This is the weakness of a hub and spoke system. Inbound, it is local transit to frequent rapid transit and a short wait. In reverse, your last leg may involve a lengthy transfer wait for local transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Charles5

In my opinion, I would like to see the O-train line be extended across the POW Bridge as part of LRT Stage 2. If necessary, funding for this could come (at least partially) from a delay on completing the airport link which in my mind is a lower requirement at this time.

This is not going to happen with the higher levels of government funding it and the airport offering to pay for the airport station.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is not going to happen with the higher levels of government funding it and the airport offering to pay for the airport station.

I wasn't aware that the airport was paying for their station. Obviously that money can't be redirected.

Regardless, if the City becomes compelled to spend a lot of money repairing the POW over the next few years anyway as a result of the CTA order, I would see at least a review to see if it could be blended into Stage 2 and see if operations could extend across the POW Bridge.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Charles5

In my opinion, I would like to see the O-train line be extended across the POW Bridge as part of LRT Stage 2. If necessary, funding for this could come (at least partially) from a delay on completing the airport link which in my mind is a lower requirement at this time.

Any transfer has to be done at Bayview. Or it'll be a mess.

Transferring from Confederation Line directly to an STO service makes sense. Transferring to the Trillium Line just to cross the river and have to transfer again on to STO makes no sense.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I disagree on this point. This is the weakness of a hub and spoke system. Inbound, it is local transit to frequent rapid transit and a short wait. In reverse, your last leg may involve a lengthy transfer wait for local transit.

I don't see your point about last leg either as it exists regardless STO buses are caught at Lyon or Bayview. Afternoon peak is usually spread out over a longer period as people's schedule for leaving work is often less critical than arriving on time.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Any transfer has to be done at Bayview. Or it'll be a mess.

Transferring from Confederation Line directly to an STO service makes sense. Transferring to the Trillium Line just to cross the river and have to transfer again on to STO makes no sense.

But crossing the river only to transfer again is exactly what happens at the moment, only at Lebreton, for thousands of people every day.

Unfortunately that's a reality of having two separate transit systems constrained by only a few intersecting points.

I do agree with you in principle however, having STO make the trip across the river should allow for fewer transfers as folks could simply carry on down their Rapibus network. However, I still think that there would be significant transfers on the far side of the river, only now from one STO route to another STO route, since it would not be possible to have all routes cross the river at POW, just like it doesn't do it now at Lebreton.

There is one big risk in having STO buses do the river crossing at POW. That is that the rail line would need to be discontinued. This would mean that the possibility exists that the POW Bridge would have to offered for sale for potential use by another rail company first and their is the chance that another entity could actually take ownership of the Bridge.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Charles5

But crossing the river only to transfer again is exactly what happens at the moment, only at Lebreton, for thousands of people every day.

Unfortunately that's a reality of having two separate transit systems constrained by only a few intersecting points.

.....

There is one big risk in having STO buses do the river crossing at POW. That is that the rail line would need to be discontinued. This would mean that the possibility exists that the POW Bridge would have to be offered for sale for potential use by another rail company first and there is the chance that another entity could actually take ownership of the Bridge.

Good Day.

Absolutely correct. Bridge gone, Opportunity gone.

And thus.... the only quick answer, at the least cost, to both retain the bridge and sample the demand, is to institute the single-track test/pilot service as noted by Eric Darwin of WestSideAction. It would get everybody off our backs and potentially begin the drive to a proper link. (Jimbo notwithstanding.)
They would have to put rail in from the north end of the now new T-Line to C-Line platform, to a new 2001-type platform just to the north, and then reconnect to the south end of the PoW. Run across the bridge to a 2001-type platform on the south side of Tache at the end of the Rapibus line, maybe even with a 2001-type bus platform for the Tache and Rapibus buses to turn into. Yes, the bridge still needs to be refurbished (needs to be done at the least anyway), but the rest is 2001 O-Train pilot cheap. We still have 2 and a half Talents (one to run, one spare, one-half as spare parts), and no signalling requirements with just one shuttle back-and-forth.
Leave service to Les Terrasses Chaudiere as a future possibility. We need a quickie now.
First expansion would be to double-track Lemieux Island to allow two train service. Still need only two operational trains, even if one goes down.
AS for the MUP - a pathway between the two platform ends will do, as there is no service between the two platforms, just the train transferring twice a day.

Problem solved.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Absolutely correct. Bridge gone, Opportunity gone.

And thus.... the only quick answer, at the least cost, to both retain the bridge and sample the demand, is to institute the single-track test/pilot service as noted by Eric Darwin of WestSideAction. It would get everybody off our backs and potentially begin the drive to a proper link. (Jimbo notwithstanding.)
They would have to put rail in from the north end of the now new T-Line to C-Line platform, to a new 2001-type platform just to the north, and then reconnect to the south end of the PoW. Run across the bridge to a 2001-type platform on the south side of Tache at the end of the Rapibus line, maybe even with a 2001-type bus platform for the Tache and Rapibus buses to turn into. Yes, the bridge still needs to be refurbished (needs to be done at the least anyway), but the rest is 2001 O-Train pilot cheap. We still have 2 and a half Talents (one to run, one spare, one-half as spare parts), and no signalling requirements with just one shuttle back-and-forth.
Leave service to Les Terrasses Chaudiere as a future possibility. We need a quickie now.
First expansion would be to double-track Lemieux Island to allow two train service. Still need only two operational trains, even if one goes down.
AS for the MUP - a pathway between the two platform ends will do, as there is no service between the two platforms, just the train transferring twice a day.

Problem solved.

Rather than adding a passing track on Lemieux Island (which would end up being even shorter than the Gladstone passing track which is already too short), I think they'd just use Bayview as a "passing track". The Stage 2 plan already shows two platforms at Bayview, so trains could just pass there.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

There is one big risk in having STO buses do the river crossing at POW. That is that the rail line would need to be discontinued. This would mean that the possibility exists that the POW Bridge would have to offered for sale for potential use by another rail company first and their is the chance that another entity could actually take ownership of the Bridge.

Not to mention that it would also be very expensive.
Even more than just restoring it for rail service.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Rather than adding a passing track on Lemieux Island (which would end up being even shorter than the Gladstone passing track which is already too short), I think they'd just use Bayview as a "passing track". The Stage 2 plan already shows two platforms at Bayview, so trains could just pass there.

That would be if we continued the T-Line across.
Darwin's (and my) proposal is that the Gatineau service would operate as a separate G-Line (or FleurDeLys-Line) of the O-Train system, separate platform, separate service, quick and less expensive to install, minimal signals required (if any). Yes, it would mean a transfer, but it is only a pilot, and it would be up and running asap. It would then be no extra load on the T-Line (operationally), as it would not depend on nor interfere with T-Line operation.
And a short passing on Lemieux is all that is needed short-term for a first expansion.
Not the best, but gets us out of a jam, and gets CTA and MooSE out of the picture and off our backs. Then we and Gatineau can figure out where to properly progress. In this particular case - very small steps are best, to keep us going. <hope>

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

That would be if we continued the T-Line across.
Darwin's (and my) proposal is that the Gatineau service would operate as a separate G-Line (or FleurDeLys-Line) of the O-Train system, separate platform, separate service, quick and less expensive to install, minimal signals required (if any). Yes, it would mean a transfer, but it is only a pilot, and it would be up and running asap. It would then be no extra load on the T-Line (operationally), as it would not depend on nor interfere with T-Line operation.
And a short passing on Lemieux is all that is needed short-term for a first expansion.

Something like the the Venice Tronchetto shuttle Could work here, single track cable pulled trains (like the Pearson LINK train) with a bypass track in the middle. Non-polluting engine-less trains

• Video Link

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

They know it can be done in less time so its just BS from them. The point is that if they don't fix the bridge and cease operations on it then MOOSE can step in and do it themselves.

My prediction is the City will fix the bridge and extend LRT to Gatineau to stop MOOSE from using the bridge.

No, actually, Moose can't. They don't have a Certificate of Fitness yet from CTA. They can't just step in and start operating a railway, tomorrow. It's not that straight forward. In other posts, the proponents of Moose have even refused to work with or consider using a contractor, like CANDO, who do have their own Certificate of Fitness. Just because the CTA made a ruling on the bridge doesn't mean it automatically can now be used by Moose.

It's been several months since the Moose proponent was here claiming they could get a Certificate of Fitness for Moose and suggested it could be a matter of weeks.

Plus, as we've seen, the City is considering an appeal or could just do a discountance. Given City Council and the Province and Federal government are all on board with the the City's Stage 2 plan, there doesn't appear to be an interested from elected leaders to change their plans at this point on Stage 2.

[Joseph Potvin]

Here's our view:

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...PrinceOfWalesBridge_EN_2018-02-20PDF.pdf

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

[Allandale25]

I've posted this over at Urban Toronto but I'm not sure everyone here will see it and thought folks here might be interested.

Joseph:

"The Agency ... may conclude that a railway company has failed to respect that process if the company has (a) removed infrastructure, (b) created physical barriers, or (c) allowed one of its lines to fall into a state of disrepair such that operation of the line by the company or by another company granted running rights is not possible within a reasonable period of time." (Letters added for clarity.)​

Discussion on this blog has focused on (c), which primarily involves the PoWB itself.

What of the (a) dismantled approach track, and the (b) purposeful design of the new Bayview Station to permanently block the corridor?

So far the City's spokespeople imply that (a) and (b) were necessary to accommodate the OLRT project. That is false.

^ For (b), I thought you said the Bayview Station design that's under construction right now for the Confederation Line LRT wouldn't impact your plan? Here's what your letter said:

"REMISZ also drafted, and MOOSE has already proposed to the City and to the Agency, a way to reconnect the dismantled approach track to the bridge connecting Ottawa and Gatineau. This essential remediation project would cost of approximately $25M, but it leaves the City of Ottawa's new Bayview Station design exactly as it is, and would not interfere with the delivery timeline of the OLRT Project."

Can you elaborate how your recent letter says your plan "wouldn't interfere" but you have concerns about (b)?

Also, from your plan and the Stage 2 Ottawa plan, my understanding is that you want to run heavy rail commuter trains (via two routes interlined - red and purple). A heavy rail MP40-3C is shown on your bridge diagram.

I've also included a shot from Google maps but I realize it doesn't show Bayview Station under construction. Just context. Feel free to create your own maps marked up to explain further. I find it helps. Are there any more recent aerial shots of the Bayview location showing the LRT station construction progress?




Sorry one more image. Joseph, I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding what you're proposing for your "Greenboro Station" where the green line, purple line, and red line intersect. Would it be at the existing Greenboro O-Train Station (just south of Presswood Junction)? Or would you move it slightly to the north so that it intersects with the green line that continues northeast to the VIA Station at Ellwood Junction? I can adjust the dotted blue line on the comparison map I did.

[I have attached a historic Ottawa rail map that notes the names of the rail junctions - Presswood and Ellwood]

[Allandale25]

^ Sorry the pictures above are so big.

[OCCheetos]

The LRT station is too low for a bi-level train to pass under it, so their proposal is to build a new tunnel under the LRT tracks west(?) of the station.
Also, the station is literally on top of where the tracks used to be. (The physical barrier).

Correction: The Albert Street bridge is too low for the trains to pass under, however the original path the track took under the bridge was obstructed by the station.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The LRT station is too low for a bi-level train to pass under it, so their proposal is to build a new tunnel under the LRT tracks west(?) of the station.
Also, the station is literally on top of where the tracks used to be. (The physical barrier).

Correction: The Albert Street bridge is too low for the trains to pass under, however the original path the track took under the bridge was obstructed by the station.

It seems crazy to require the city to build an underpass they will never use in the off chance that MOOSE or some other railway might use it.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It seems crazy to require the city to build an underpass they will never use in the off chance that MOOSE or some other railway might use it.

See my post here:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-34#post-1308695

Issues (a) and (b) require a workaround.

What seems crazy is that the City unnecessarily dismantled and unnecessarily obstructed a federally regulated railway without authorization, on a long-shot bet that nobody would call them on it.

Not only did MOOSE call them on it, we gave them full advance notice every single step of the way since 2011.

Now, it's legally decided. The Agency has left the City two straightforward options.

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

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

See my post here:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-34#post-1308695

Now, it's legally decided. The Agency has left the City two straightforward options.

With the third less straightforward option being an appeal, right?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

With the third less straightforward option being an appeal, right?

Appeals to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal seem to be extremely rare. I have no idea why but city lawyers might be reluctant to recommend such an appeal.