Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[Charles]

– 77.3% of people polled said that they would use Moose to commute to work/school.
– 76.1% of people would consider moving from a 2 vehicle family to a 1 vehicle family.
– 33.3% of those polled rank – reduce wasted time due to driving and traffic congestion – as number one consideration for using Moose's rail service

For those of you who haven't visited the MOOSE website, you should be aware that these figures are extremely misleading due to the completely biased polling methodology. For example:
Question 1: The question does not ask 'IF' you will use MOOSE', it simply asks 'HOW' you would use MOOSE. Given the options available of course most people would use it to commute, that is 'IF' they were to use it at all. There is no option to indicate that you would not use the train.
Question 2: The question only provides two answers. The first is a statement that the family would move from 2 vehicles to 1 vehicle. The only other option is that you do not own a car.
Question 3: Once again the question assumes that everyone taking the survey has already decided to take the train and gives you a series of options, all of which are favourable outcomes from having this theoretical train in service.

 

[Charles]

Here is a satellite image during the construction of the Bayview LRT station. The black line indicates where the original alignment of the tracks were. The red line shows the new track alignment. The new track alignment goes INTO and THROUGH the station and will be able to reconnect to the POW Bridge. You can actually see the O-Train sitting on the tracks in the temporary station just South of the construction. As you can see for yourself, the construction of the station has not created a permanent blockade of the rail line despite what MOOSE and others are trying to claim, nor is there any requirement to build tunnels or underpasses to bypass the station.

 

[kEiThZ]

@Charles

Interesting. Wonder how this impacts the CTA ruling coming up.

 

[Charles]

The City's response to CTA can be found at the following link. I believe they make a substantial case that they have not and have no intention of discontinuing the line. Unfortunately the file does not include the Annexes, but there is sufficient information to understand the City's case.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...Line-Show-Cause-Response-Case-No-17-01....pdf

 

[Allandale25]

Helpful number crunching here on the Moose proposal.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7904700&postcount=562

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Helpful number crunching here on the Moose proposal.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7904700&postcount=562

And MOOSE's reply to those brittle numbers is here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7905131&postcount=566

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

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Here is a satellite image during the construction of the Bayview LRT station. The black line indicates where the original alignment of the tracks were. The red line shows the new track alignment. The new track alignment goes INTO and THROUGH the station and will be able to reconnect to the POW Bridge. You can actually see the O-Train sitting on the tracks in the temporary station just South of the construction. As you can see for yourself, the construction of the station has not created a permanent blockade of the rail line despite what MOOSE and others are trying to claim, nor is there any requirement to build tunnels or underpasses to bypass the station.

Charles,

A few questions:

1. Have you taken a look at the elevations at this site? To run the new track from the O-Train's existing platform to the bridge, do you prefer to run the track downhill towards the bridge, or to lower the platform a few meters and retrofit the new station?

2. Can you explain why the new Bayview Station was not designed to keep the original track layout? Was there some advantage to creating the new layout that puts the platform at the top of the artificial embankment?

3. Can you confirm that the new clearances under the OLRT and Albert St. overpasses meet the requirements of Transport Canada's "Standards Respecting
Railway Clearances"?

4. Do you suggest that since a work-around is somehow physically possible by some as yet un-designed, un-resourced, un-scheduled project, that the original track line is not "permanently" blockaded?

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

 

[Joseph Potvin]

I would like to revisit the issue of the Bayview Station. Many folks here have made the statement that the line has been "permanently" blocked thus preventing access to the POW bridge. This is an incorrect interpretation of the facts on the ground. The line has simply been realigned slightly to the east and there remains the full potential to continue northwards to the POW bridge.

@Charles,

Looking forward to your replies to questions here:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-21#post-1251747

On a related side note. If you were to look at satellite images rather than the google map (or actually come and have a look for yourself), you will see that the line from the POW bridge was not actually physically connected to the O-train line prior to the recent construction anyway. What may appear to be a switch a few hundred meters to the south doesn't actually exist.

Yes, that switch was removed by the City of Ottawa in 2009. You'll find the details at paragraph 12 here:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...2012_Prince_of_Wales_Bridge_25oct2012dPDF.pdf

That request for enforcement from Moose to the federal regulator is from 2012. Interestingly, the current 3-Year Plan from the City of Ottawa to the federal regulator still refers to the switch, which has been missing for eight years.
http://www.octranspo1.com/images/files/reports/CR_3_year_network_plan_2016-2018_Dec_31_2015.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

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes, that switch was removed by the City of Ottawa in 2009. You'll find the details at paragraph 12 here:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...2012_Prince_of_Wales_Bridge_25oct2012dPDF.pdf

Very competent, researched and referenced piece.

 

[Charles]

Joseph,

I am not about to enter into details in areas where I am not an authority, specifically technical specifications and requirements. However, as a general observer, here are my thoughts. Having walked the area, I do not see any significant difference in elevation between the original track alignment and the new realigned tracks so I don't see the issue with changes in elevation. To suggest that the platform needs to be dropped "several meters" appears to me to be blatant exaggeration. I can't imagine that all of the folks who were involved in the design of the station (licensed professionals), knowing full well the intent to continue on to the POW Bridge in the future, would have created a design that was incompatible with that intent.

Perhaps there is something in the word "permanent" that I don't understand. The fact that there is a rail line being built through the station seems to indicate quite clearly that there is intent to maintain the ability to utilize the bridge in the future. I believe that the City of Ottawa's response which I have linked to above speaks for itself in that regard.

Interesting that you state the bridge is too low (which it may well be, I'm no expert), yet your solution is to build an underpass under the same roadway and assuming the bridge is the high point in that roadway, any underpass through the embankment at the end of the bridge would either be a lower height or would require a drop in elevation for the tracks in my mind.

 

[Allandale25]

This comment is very revealing and helpful at understanding how well the Moose proponents understand transit in the Canadian context.

Sure, do it your way then. Place the burden for rail transit on all the taxpayers generally, whether or not they ever experience any particular benefit.

And MOOSE's reply to those brittle numbers is here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7905131&postcount=566

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

 

[Joseph Potvin]

...as a general observer, here are my thoughts. Having walked the area, I do not see any significant difference in elevation between the original track alignment and the new realigned tracks so I don't see the issue with changes in elevation. .. Interesting that you state the bridge is too low (which it may well be, I'm no expert), yet your solution is to build an underpass under the same roadway and assuming the bridge is the high point in that roadway, any underpass through the embankment at the end of the bridge would either be a lower height or would require a drop in elevation for the tracks in my mind.

@Charles,

The spur from the main Ellwood Sub leading up to the Bayview platform was created with a grade, and leaves just 14' or so of clearance above the O-Train, to the underside of the Albert Street bridge. This is not enough height for regular-sized North American style freight or passenger trains.

Full-sized trains had previously been passing for years under the Albert Street bridge via the original track, indeed all the ballast for the new O-Train track in the last 1990s came by train from Quebec across the Prince of Wales Bridge. Here are a couple of photos:
http://churcher.crcml.org/circle/POWbridge02.jpg
http://churcher.crcml.org/circle/POWbridge01.jpg

As for the definition of "permanent", it would appear that in your use of the word, if you demolish your house without a demolition permit, you could argue to the municipality that the house is not permanently gone, because you have every intention of rebuilding it.

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

 

[Joseph Potvin]

This comment is very revealing and helpful at understanding how well the Moose proponents understand transit in the Canadian context.

@Allendale25,

What do you believe it reveals?

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]

@Allendale25,

What do you believe it reveals?

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

I'm going to see if others were able to pick up on the line of thinking I have for the sentence and comment here. Maybe I'm the only one. But I doubt it.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm going to see if others were able to pick up on the line of thinking I have for the sentence and comment here. Maybe I'm the only one. But I doubt it.

Considering the 'flak' Potvin is having to navigate, his comments are warranted.

He makes an excellent legal case if you'd follow his links. But of course, most don't, and the legal facets are wasted on some posters.

This isn't just about MOOSE, it's about compliance with the Law. And why it takes a 'maverick' to get some departments and ministries to conform to what the Law states. Sure as hell, the DoT isn't doing the job it should be doing, as many independent agency (TSBC) reports detail.
Rail reports

It seems it takes a 'maverick' to get the CTA to act too, but at least they are complying when prodded...