Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[steveintoronto]

I don't know what definitions you have for heavy rail and light rail, but Canada is the only place I am aware of where these vehicles are considered light rail and this was only a regulatory move to get around the FRA crash-worthiness standards (and thus requires temporal separation from heavy rail vehicles). LINT vehicles are as heavy rail as it get's, as exemplified by this LINT entering Frankfurt Hbf (main station) on exactly the same tracks as HSR trains or freight trains:
Source: Verkehrswelten Blog

I'm fully aware that the O-Train uses them on heavy rail, which is what I detailed. Here's the *North American* use of the term:

Diesel light rail
A few recently opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains, including the Trillium Line in Ottawa (opened in 2001), the River Line in New Jersey (opened in 2004), and the Sprinter in northern San Diego County, California (opened in 2008). Diesel operations are chosen in corridors where lower ridership is expected (and thus do not justify the expense of the electric power infrastructure) or which have an "interurban" nature with stations spaced relatively far apart (electric power provides greater acceleration, making it essential for operations with closely spaced stations). Operations with diesel-powered trains can be an interim measure until ridership growth and the availability of funding allow the system to be upgraded to electric power operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_North_America

The acronym LINT is short for the German "leichter innovativer Nahverkehrstriebwagen" (light innovative local transport rail vehicle)
[...]
LINT 27
The one-piece railcars have 315-kilowatt (422 hp) engines and a maximum speed of 120 km/h (75 mph). The train has 52 2nd class seats, eight 1st class 1 seats and 13 tip-up seats. Up to three cars can run together in multiple unit form.

The trains are predominantly used on non-electrified light railways in North Rhine-Westphalia amongst other regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Coradia_LINT

The term "light rail" let alone "light rail vehicle" is used differently North Am to Europe. Subway vehicles are defined as "light rail" or "heavy rail" in different continents too.

The point as it relates to Allandale's question, is that yes, by the North Am understanding "LRVs" will still be used on the Trillium Line.

It's my wish that the TC status granted for the O-Train be available also for Metrolinx.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's an article that deals with how nebulous the "light rail" and "light rail vehicle" terms are: (Note the close similarity of the South Shore units to AMT Bombardier MR90 ones on the Deux Montagnes line)(To further complicate the definition, technically, the South Shore line, which like the San Diego Sprinter also hosts freight, and is termed an "interurban")

[What is Light Rail?

April 13, 2009 at 4:40 am By Andrew Smith


48 and Link, photo by Oran

Cap’n Transit described diesel multiple units (DMU) as “light rail” in a post about the Federal Railroad Administration’s relaxing of safety rules that mostly prevented DMUs from operating on freight lines. A DMU is a passenger rail car with a built-in diesel engine, so it doesn’t need to be pulled by a dedicated locomotive. Similarly, an electric multiple unit, or EMU is a passenger car with a built in electric motor; all Link cars are EMUs. The Cap’n Transit post struck me as odd: I had never heard of DMUs described as “light rail” before. It got me thinking: what exactly does “light rail” mean?

Generally, “light rail” is used to describe systems that are somewhere in the middle of the passenger train spectrum in terms of passenger capacity and speed. On the low end of that spectrum are streetcars and trams, and on the high end are large-capacity rail systems like the New York City subway or the DC Metro. The distinction isn’t always very useful, some “light rail” systems have capacities that are similar to larger “heavy rail” metros and some so-called “heavy-rail” systems have speeds that compare to that of streetcars. Still, any local or regional system that has a significant number of at-grade crossings is typically described as light rail.


The South Shore Line running in Michigan City, from wikipedia

The surprise I had with the description of DMUs as light rail is that I have mostly seen DMUs used in commuter rail systems, like Portland’s Westside Express. “Commuter Rail” is another nebulous and not-always accurate term that I take to mean time-of-day-specific or directional-service rather than frequent, all-day service. North San Diego County’s Sprinter service, which runs DMUs, decribes their operations as “light rail”, and that service has 30 minute headways during commuter hours and hourly service outside of that time. To me, that’s commuter rail, though it sounds like it’s pretty excellent commuter rail. Of course, then I see a photo like the one to the right, of the South Shore Line running down the middle of the street, connected to an overhead wire and I realize there’s are simply too many variables and varieties in the transit world to allow for easy one-world categorization.

So is there an official definition for “light rail”? According to this research paper that chronicles the birth of light rail in America, the term “light rail transit” was introduced in 1972 to describe new North American systems that were modeled after Germany’s “Stadbahn” systems. After the Second World War, European cities were rebuilding their streetcar systems using bigger trains with high floors, more doors, and stream-lined payment. This ended up being a cheap way to upgrade capacity and still provide rapid service. Even before WWII, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia both had streetcar systems that ran into subways in their city centers. These systems are now usually called light rail, or sometimes, pre-metro, ie a light rail system that runs in tunnels in the center and on the surface elsewhere, like Link.

The first move toward “modern” light rail in North America was in the 1960s when San Francisco was building BART, and planners there decided to try the European model and move the Muni Metro into the BART tunnel on Market Street (more on the history of the San Francisco Muni Metro in this post). The FTA, then called the UMTA, wanted to create a sort of a modern PCC car, and along with engineering giant Parsons-Brinckerhoff wrote a specification for the “Standard Light Rail Vehicle”. San Francisco and Boston took bids for building the SLRV for the Muni Metro and the Green Line, respectively. The only company to submit a bid was a helicopter manufacturer, Boeing Vertol, who built 100 cars for the new Muni Metro, and 150 cars for for the Green Line. The cars were terrible, and have all been completely removed from service, thus ending any hope of a standard description of what “light rail” officially is.

Since then, however many cities across North America have built transit systems and called them “light rail”, starting with Edmonton in 1978, and 20 more following since. Some are entirely at-grade, like San Jose’s and San Diego’s, and some have significant underground sections, like Pittsburgh’s, Edmonton’s and, eventually, ours. So while there’s no set-in-stone definition for light rail, there are already a quite a few systems, with more coming on line all the time.]
https://www.seattletransitblog.com/2009/04/13/what-is-light-rail/

 

[steveintoronto]

Urban Sky just gave me a 'like' on my post two back, so now for the big question:

Would Moose and Trillium be allowed to share the same track? (VIA might also be collateral to this) It's a tricky question, and part of the answer is that the Confederation and Trillium lines aren't just kept separate for operational reasons, they're kept separate for *legal* reasons, and that's to not violate the exemption TC has granted the original "O-Line" (Trillium).

I'll find and paste-in TC's page detailing their involvement in *assisting!* OC Transpo gain the exemption (no longer on the web, I have it in my eml records) later, or at least highlighted excerpts (it was pages long). Something not being spoken about is that status, and I suspect Joseph has examined this at some point. Let me rephrase that: I'd be surprised if he hadn't! This not only bears on Moose, it bears on Metrolinx too. TC were directed to do this by the Transport Min of the time.

(Edit to Add: Under the Transportation Act, Ottawa is required to share those tracks, (Trillium) with provisos of costs being due, of course. This must be one of the lurking fears for Ottawa Council's effectively 'blocking' access to those tracks. More later when I can produce reference)(ironically, the Act specifically includes "municipalities" in their wording, even though the Trillium Line is federally incorporated under the title "Capital Railway")

 

[steveintoronto]

The only way I can imagine this working is to double track the whole corridor, grade separate the VIA crossing, and integrate it with the Trillium line.

Which brings you right back into this line of discussion, Seven. I was just glancing through some of the earliest posts to make sure I hadn't missed links and reference to what we're now focused on. There's some excellent posts in the string, I flagged this one since it aligns with what I'm now thinking too. I may or may not agree/disagree with double tracking, but if it is double-tracked, or the more reason for it to host more than one passenger carrier.

I'll find the Trans Act sections on sharing track and post later.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Would Moose and Trillium be allowed to share the same track?.

The real questions are, would Capital Railway join the MOOSE Consortium and become one of the train operators on the whole-region network? If not, why not?

the Confederation and Trillium lines aren't just kept separate for operational reasons, they're kept separate for *legal* reasons, and that's to not violate the exemption TC has granted the original "O-Line" (Trillium).

You've got the exemption on the wrong line. See below.

Something not being spoken about is that status, and I suspect Joseph has examined this at some point. Let me rephrase that: I'd be surprised if he hadn't!

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Here's what MOOSE's 15 August, 2016 formal submission to the Agency says on this point. (Note for clarification: "Chaudière Extension" is the historically established name of the section of track that is the "Ellwood Sub" south of the inter-provincial border, and the "Lachute Sub" north of the border. In the past few years, the City of Ottawa has referred to this as "the Ottawa River Line". MOOSE prefers to use the name "Chaudière Extension" for consistency with all the original legislation and documentation, because they remain directly relevant today.)

5.4 On 1 October 2011 the "Transport Canada Delegation Agreement: for Regulation of the Design, Construction, Operation, Safety and Security of Ottawa Light Rail Transit System" came into effect between the Minister of Transport Canada and the City of Ottawa (attached). This agreement applies to the planned east-west Ottawa LRT railway. Paragraph 1.6 makes it explicit that this delegation does not apply to the existing north-south Capital Railway, and consequently, would not apply to the Ellwood Subdivision or its Chaudière Extension, which Capital Railway manages. The delegation agreement states:

“1.6. “RAILWAY” means any light rail transit system designed, constructed, operated and/or maintained by, or on behalf of, the CITY, including any expansions or modifications made thereto, and located generally within the CITY and between any point in the CITY and any point outside the CITY including any point outside Ontario. For greater certainty for the purposes of this Agreement, RAILWAY does not include the CAPITAL RAILWAY.” (emphasis added) ​

5.5 In September 2015 Ottawa's City Manager tabled at City Council a report entitled “Ottawa Light Rail Regulatory Framework, Report to the Transit Commission and Council” dated 1 September, 2015 (attached), concerning the under-construction Ottawa LRT railway. As detailed in paragraph 6.4 above, page 4 of his report is explicit in stating that the delegation agreement does not apply to the pre-existing Trillium Line, which is to say, it does not apply to the Ellwood Subdivision also known as the “Trillium Line”. The City Manager's report states:

“The resultant Transport Canada Delegation Agreement ... includes provisions for the development, adoption, monitoring and enforcement of City rail transit regulations pursuant to a delegated regulation model. ... It is worth noting that this delegated authority does not extend to other OC Transpo operations, (ie: Trillium Line, Bus, Para).” ​

Source (set of source documents): https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...adian_Transportation_Agency_Case_16-03784.zip

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

 

[steveintoronto]

Joseph! This is getting delicious. A point of clarity on the "delegation" as opposed to the "exemption". We may be referring to different points, all the more interesting, as you post yet more intriguing links and excerpts. I'm remiss in not producing what I've claimed for the Transport Canada pages on the O-Train, it's in my eml records, not online anymore (I've tried reverse Googling for the excerpts I have)...But!...the corresponding City of Ottawa report is still on-line:
Here's a screen grab of some of the report (I'm a little inebriated, can't figure out how to download this report f0r some reason)
[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

I'll add comment later, I'm arguing with the computer right now, and losing...

Edit to Add: I'm getting thrown by it not being pdf, I've forgotten how to save HTML...

Beyond the obvious discussion on the O-Train, and implications for Moose, here's my historical interest in delving on this issue a few years back:

["A simpler application, to become a provincial short line, could have been made but the federal designation will permit the railway to cross the provincial boundary into Quebec in the future."]

Which raises a series of fascinating questions as to why Metrolinx was required to (as we've brushed on in discussion before, and Potvin cited rulings) and OC Transpo wasn't/isn't?

What Potvin is up against here is a legal moving target! "Preferential treatment" is happening from a number of vectors. And I'm still perplexed by the "diamond" SCC judgement I cited some posts back (in effect of 'if a railway crosses another on the flat, and the first is Federally Regulated, then so is the intersecting one')(Judgment goes on to state that virtually all of the operation is too, save for exceptions listed).

Application appears to be far from linear or consistent...

 

[steveintoronto]

Here is my email account record of excerpts from the extensive TC report: (I'll search further later to see if I have a more extensive or complete file, it might be on an older HDD)

Ottawa, Ontario
Summary
Organization

City of Ottawa — Transportation Utilities and Public Works Department, OC Transpo
Status

Started 2001, extended to 2005
Overview

[The O-Train was Ottawa’s first experience with light rail transit. The O-Train travels an 8-km track past five stations, two of which connect to the city’s bus rapid transit system (the “Transitway”), over two bridges and through a tunnel beneath Dow’s Lake. The line serves Carleton University, a major employment centre, and a shopping mall in a densely populated neighbourhood.

The O-Train was initiated to assess the technical feasibility of using an existing rail corridor for rapid transit, to validate expectations about ridership, performance and cost, and to allow proper analysis of possible larger-scale implementation.
[...]
The O-Train travels on an 8-km length of existing freight rail track, and connects to the city’s bus rapid transit system (the “Transitway”) on each end of the line. The existing corridor is owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). The line serves Carleton University, a major employment centre, and a shopping mall in a densely populated neighbourhood.

The pilot project is unique by North American standards and involves four “firsts.” It is the first time that light rail
passenger trains had been mixed with heavy rail traffic on an existing rail network, and the first time passenger rail services had been operated by a single operator. In addition, this was the first time Bombardier Talent DMU trains had been used anywhere in North America, and the first trains driven by bus operators.

[...]
The O-Train was initiated to:

Assess the technical feasibility of using an existing rail corridor for rapid transit
Validate expectations about ridership, performance and cost
Allow proper analysis of possible larger-scale implementation
[...]
Negotiating an agreement with CPR. With no prior experience in light rail, the region needed considerable outside expertise to implement the pilot project. Municipal officials negotiated a lump sum build/design contract with CPR, which gave them access to CPR’s knowledge and experience and enabled the region to control the project costs and implement the service quickly.

Partner expertise. There were no examples in North America of a single operator passenger train, so municipal officials relied on the expertise of its partners to design and implement the O-Train. More than a dozen partners lent their experience and knowledge to the project. Some of them include:

CPR, as owner of the corridor, engaged Morrison Hershfield (an engineering and management firm) to manage the project. This included design and construction administration, upgrading the lines and maintenance facilities, and building the rail stations.
Bombardier provided and maintains the trains and, with AR Concepts, developed and installed the signaling system.
Transport Canada worked with the city to develop an operating plan that met federal legislation requirements under the Rail Safety Act. The plan includes operating rules, emergency procedures, employee training programs, and a Safety Management System.
[...]
The 8-km line. Prior to the O-Train project, the CPR freight line and its rail yard were seldom used and in poor condition. CPR upgraded the line to accommodate the O-Train, and no other trains use the track except when the O-Train is not operating.

The CPR track crosses two other active rail lines, making the signalling and braking systems (discussed below) important safety elements.
[...]
Bombardier Talent Diesel Multiple Units (DMU). Three Bombardier Talent DMU trains were commissioned. The trains were built in Germany and shipped first to Montreal before arriving in Ottawa in January 2001.

The trains use Clear No. 1 diesel fuel, which contains less sulphur than other grades. The trains comply with exhaust emission requirements of Euro-II contaminant standards (the standards set by the European Union).

Each train weighs 72,000 kg, is 48 metres long, with seating capacity for 137 passengers and standing capacity for 150.

Each train is equipped with two four-stroke diesel engines, water-cooled in-line motors, and a horizontal-shaft design with exhaust gas turbocharger and charge cooler. Top speed is 120 km/hr.
[...]
Recognition. The O-Train has won several awards:

Canadian Urban Transit Association’s Corporate Innovation Award (June 2002)
American Public Works Association’s Project of the Year Award (January 2003)
FCM-CH2M Hill Sustainable Community Award, in the sustainable transportation category (May 2003)

Participants

City of Ottawa
Transport Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Canadian Pacific Railway
Canadian National Railway
VIA Rail
Carleton University
Public Works and Government Services Canada
National Capital Commission
Ottawa Police Services
Women’s Initiative for a Safe Environment
Transport 2000
Canadian Transport Agency
Local citizens and advocacy groups
[...]
The Bombardier trains were better suited for long distance commuter service. Although the trains were a good choice for this pilot project, as the city proceeds with a more in-depth Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Plan Study, alternative vehicles and propulsion systems will be studied. Several requirements including turning radius for inner city use, platform height, train acceleration and vibration would be problematic for downtown service. The new trains being studied are lighter and can be mixed with downtown traffic.
[...]
http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

Edit to Add: Hallelujah! TC have restored the file and at the original link above, albeit "archived". Just glancing through the entire file again, there's lots more to dwell on, but this is revealing of the different Council 'Zen' at the time:

Several councillors also visited various European countries and saw, firsthand, how municipalities there had benefited from light rail projects. These councillors recognized that in order to halt urban sprawl, reduce traffic congestion, and avoid gridlock, a new vision for transit was needed.

The input of community and non-profit groups cannot be understated. Transport 2000 was a critical partner on both the steering committee and sounding board. Municipal staff worked with several community groups every step of the way to resolve any issues that would affect local neighbourhoods.

How prescient is that?

 

[steveintoronto]

Just getting a chance to delve on Joseph Potvin's latest links before even discussing the implications:

SUBJECT:
OTTAWA LIGHT RAIL
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
[...]

[...]

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/fefggckfyx0ls2zcvyivvreu/30890507082017082708494.PDF

I can see the basis of the confusion as to "delegation" and "exception" already. If I take JP's 'exclusion' reference correctly, I'll surmise until reading further that the prior 'legal accommodations' on the original 'O-Train Pilot Project' still stand, and is/are 'excluded' in this "delegation" ...30 more pages to go on that report. I'll read diligently later.

Downloaded and will read https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...ocumentation_RE210-R-2012_2016-07-25c_PDF.pdf
My immediate impression is that since this is dated a year ago, if it wasn't made clear in earlier posts, Ottawa City Council had/continues to have absolutely no excuse to not be aware of what was transpiring.

 

[kEiThZ]

A lot of people feel that way, but there is a certain logic to Ottawa's plan, even if there are grounds to be concerned whether they will get it right this time with the upgrades. (The addition of some more passing tracks 3 years ago was badly botched, and now they are using twice as many trains and operators to offer 25% more service, which is slower and less reliable.) They are pumping the money into the east-west line where the ridership in more established communities is already there.

What I do admire about Ottawa's approach is the way they are defining fixed tranches in terms of time, money, and territory, and working on those quickly. Yet, at the ends-of-the line in stage 2, they have found ways to eke out more track and stations more or less within budget. The airport spur, I have to say, is a fairly ill-conceived vanity project, but it's only 150 million and will some day make sense as LRT. Stage 2, in 5 years or so, will build 39 km of track and 23 stations, and likely carry about 20k peak-hour passengers. For about 3.5 billion. About the same as a certain one-station line in Toronto

Don't get me wrong. Overall, Ottawa's plan is utterly brilliant. I left Ottawa in 2012. I'll be back there in 2019. By 2023, Ottawa will have something like 80% of its residents within 5 km of a rail rapid transit station. That's a massive change in 10-11 years. I'd also argue that they showed how to effectively maximize transit dollars by using the money to build BRT corridors that could be easily converted later. Moreover their conversion to rail actually has their costs going down as their BRT is manpower and fuel intensive.

All that said, I was just surprised that they didn't push for more on the Trillium Line. Look at the work they are doing. How much more would double tracking have been as a minimum? I can understand holding off on electrification and LRT conversion. But no double track?

 

[steveintoronto]

This agreement applies to the planned east-west Ottawa LRT railway. Paragraph 1.6 makes it explicit that this delegation does not apply to the existing north-south Capital Railway, and consequently, would not apply to the Ellwood Subdivision or its Chaudière Extension, which Capital Railway manages. The delegation agreement states:
“1.6. “RAILWAY” means any light rail transit system designed, constructed, operated and/or maintained by, or on behalf of, the CITY, including any expansions or modifications made thereto, and located generally within the CITY and between any point in the CITY and any point outside the CITY including any point outside Ontario. For greater certainty for the purposes of this Agreement, RAILWAY does not include the CAPITAL RAILWAY.” (emphasis added)

That appears to be because they are covered separately, and are administrated under separate applications of the Railway Safety Act as separate entities, one under direct federal jurisdiction, the other provincial but falling under the terms of the Act:

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/fefggckfyx0ls2zcvyivvreu/30890507092017124117116.PDF

 

[Allandale25]

The real questions are, would Capital Railway join the MOOSE Consortium and become one of the train operators on the whole-region network? If not, why not?

Who is Capital Railway?

 

[steveintoronto]

Who is Capital Railway?

Here's a Wikipedia definition:

Until 2015,[7] the system used three diesel-powered Bombardier Transportation Talent BR643 low-floor diesel multiple unit trains. (Currently, the line operates with Alstom Coradia LINT DMU trains.) It is legally considered a mainline railway despite being used for local public transport purposes, and the service it provides is, in terms of its route and service frequency, more like that of an urban railway than a metro or tramway. OC Transpo operates it under the official name ‘Capital Railway’, which appears on the trains along with their regular logo. It was, however, described as ‘light rail’, partly because plans called for it to be extended into Ottawa’s downtown as a tramway-like service, and partly because the Talents, though designed for mainline railways in Europe, are much smaller and lighter than most mainline trains in North America, and do not meet the Association of American Railroads' standards for crash strength. Ottawa is also authorized to run trains with only a single operator and no other crew, something rare on mainline railways in North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillium_Line

[2000. Light rail project (Capital Railway) incorporated as a federal railway]
http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

Regulatory Issues

To operate a rail service on the railway network, it was necessary for the Region to become a railway. The light rail pilot project was incorporated as a Federal Railway with the trademark ‘Capital Railway’ in early 2000. A simpler application, to become a provincial short line, could have been made but the federal designation will permit the railway to cross the provincial boundary into Quebec in the future.

Transport Canada is the approval authority for Federal Railways and it was necessary to obtain approvals for a non-standard system. The LRPP was the first diesel light rail system in North America and also the first one-person operation passenger railway.

The Department has hired staff with experience in rail operations to implement and supervise the operations of the railway. In addition to this, it was necessary to retain the services of consultants to assist in the development of appropriate rules to govern the operation, the safety management system and the training program for operators.

Transport Canada staff were helpful throughout the process but it was necessary for the LRPP to satisfy all the requirements that would have applied to a much bigger railway. Although this involved a large amount of effort, it positions the City well to expand the system.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

 

[kEiThZ]

I want to know how MOOSE plans on making hundreds of millions in capital investment for rail work when the population of their target communities are as follows:

• Wakefield, QC: 2,000 residents (La Peche municipality 7,619)
• Arnprior, ON: 10,500
• Montebello, QC: 978 (Papineau MRC 22,541)
• Bristol, QC: 1,128 (Pontiac MRC 14,358)
• Smiths Falls, ON: 8,978
• Alexandria, ON: 10,251

Distances from Ottawa:

• Wakefield, QC: 32 km
• Arnprior, ON: 55 km
• Montebello, QC: 61 km
• Bristol, QC: 64 km
• Smiths Falls, ON: 64 km
• Alexandria, ON: 80 km

What MOOSE is proposing are services that would be on par with some of the less frequent GO rail lines in the GTA. Even with substantial development, I fail to see how any of these communities can fill even a train a day to Ottawa. Let alone the fact that not all of these residents who do work in Ottawa work in the downtown core.

I see a taxpayer bailout in the making. And I hope there are no City of Ottawa dollars involved at all. The property developers who move thousands of residents dozens of kilometres from a city that's not even dense, should be made to bare the full cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

Who is Capital Railway?

I believe Capital Railway is the operating entity for OC Transpo and other authorities owning the corridor that the Trillium Line operates on....also owners of the Prince of Wales bridge.

MOOSE seems to be trying to get the city to invest hundreds of millions in their business venture.

 

[Allandale25]

I see a taxpayer bailout in the making. And I hope there are no City of Ottawa dollars involved at all. The property developers who move thousands of residents dozens of kilometres from a city that's not even dense, should be made to bare the full cost.

I'm interested in the timing of this. The article I linked to above seemed to suggest the Mayor wants the Stage 2 LRT (which I know understand from reading posts here will use O-Train style rolling stock and not the LRV rolling stock from the Confederation Line) to go out to tender this year.

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

At some point, Ottawa City Council will have a tender out and then approved. I assume then it would become a lot more difficult once shovles are in the ground to stop the project, change it, or run service beside it. Of course if there's a change in the Provincial government that could create an opening for Moose if the PCs pull Provincial funding. I assume the Feds may not appreciate that and could insist the project continues.