HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 7:47 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
There's a big chance this whole thing will fail, but what if this Moose plan actually works? This could be a Made in Ottawa model that other cities imitate- "Property-Powered Rail" (just visited their website). Either way, I commend them for thinking outside the box and actually doing something.
Ironically, Ottawa is about the worst possible place to establish proof of concept for "property powered rail." The rail network is highly degraded, road access for rural exurbs is relatively good and housing costs are relatively low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 9:44 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I agree with your overall point, but a double tracked line has a lot of capacity (service as frequent as every few minutes) and this would be maybe an hourly service. On the Via line, even existing infrastructure might be workable of the moose trains ran during the gaps in via service.
It's more that Moose would be stopping in way more places, which would mean that Moose trains would be "blocking the line" when stopped. VIA wouldn't want to have to deal with that. At minimum 3 tracks would be needed at stations.

Running in gaps between VIA trains might be feasible between Ottawa and Alexandria but definitely not between Ottawa and Smiths Falls where VIA currently uses pretty much all the available track time.. VIA's up to nearly 20 trains a day now, on a single track, with lots of compound schedule delays from other segments of the network making any sort of gap scheduling a logistical nightmare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 11:06 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
It's more that Moose would be stopping in way more places, which would mean that Moose trains would be "blocking the line" when stopped. VIA wouldn't want to have to deal with that. At minimum 3 tracks would be needed at stations.

Running in gaps between VIA trains might be feasible between Ottawa and Alexandria but definitely not between Ottawa and Smiths Falls where VIA currently uses pretty much all the available track time.. VIA's up to nearly 20 trains a day now, on a single track, with lots of compound schedule delays from other segments of the network making any sort of gap scheduling a logistical nightmare.
There are are no trains from Toronto hitting Smiths Falls until about 10:30 and only 2 westbound trains in the morning rush hour so morning rush hour has lots of gap. Evening could be a challenge but there are only 2 trains in each direction in the whole rush hour period, so it could probably be done with a little planning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 11:45 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
So after putting in several billion for LRT on the Ottawa side and hundreds of millions for BRT on the Gatineau side, the provincial and municipal authorities are supposed to encourage tens of thousands of residents to move to these small towns to make sure MOOSE has a customer base?

Yeah, that's happening...../s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 7:59 AM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
There's a big chance this whole thing will fail, but what if this Moose plan actually works? This could be a Made in Ottawa model that other cities imitate- "Property-Powered Rail" (just visited their website). Either way, I commend them for thinking outside the box and actually doing something.
I agree. There are definitely some unanswered questions in their proposal, but it's refreshing to see someone think of something new and to invest their time and energy in it. We spend so much time on this forum bellyaching that nothing innovative ever comes our way, but it would seem that as soon as someone does propose something, we can only think of why it can't/won't/shouldn't work.

That's not to say that it will work - I still have my reservations. But can we just appreciate for one second that something - anything - exciting was proposed regardless of its likelihood?
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 10:53 AM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
It's more that Moose would be stopping in way more places, which would mean that Moose trains would be "blocking the line" when stopped. VIA wouldn't want to have to deal with that. At minimum 3 tracks would be needed at stations.
VIA is able to share double track with GO in Toronto and I don't see MOOSE being much different. If a MOOSE train is stopped at a station, VIA uses the other track. VIA owns the track so they can tell any oncoming MOOSE trains to wait for the VIA train to pass.

Quote:
Running in gaps between VIA trains might be feasible between Ottawa and Alexandria but definitely not between Ottawa and Smiths Falls where VIA currently uses pretty much all the available track time.. VIA's up to nearly 20 trains a day now, on a single track, with lots of compound schedule delays from other segments of the network making any sort of gap scheduling a logistical nightmare.
With single track you are correct, but IF MOOSE pays to double track the line, there will be more than enough capacity. Double track provides significantly more than double the capacity of single track.

I'm a huge MOOSE skeptic but the Smiths Falls subdivision is actually one of the more feasible routes. They might even be able to get VIA to split the cost of double tracking it. They have stated a willingness to work with regional transportations services. The bigger issue will be the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Federal Bridge as it will be much more expensive to replace and I believe VIA doesn't own it (I gather CN does).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 4:25 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
I agree. There are definitely some unanswered questions in their proposal, but it's refreshing to see someone think of something new and to invest their time and energy in it. We spend so much time on this forum bellyaching that nothing innovative ever comes our way, but it would seem that as soon as someone does propose something, we can only think of why it can't/won't/shouldn't work.

That's not to say that it will work - I still have my reservations. But can we just appreciate for one second that something - anything - exciting was proposed regardless of its likelihood?
Except to the extent that pipe dreams distract from potentially more realistic proposals (commuter trains to Barrhaven, extension of the trillium line, etc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 7:53 PM
zzptichka zzptichka is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Outaouias
Posts: 1,719
The only realistic scenario I can see for MOOSE is one line running from Smith Falls to Alexandria with connections to BRT at Fallowfield, O-Train at Confederation stn and Confederation line at Tremblay using only VIA tracks.
This way they might even get the City on board.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 9:56 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzptichka View Post
The only realistic scenario I can see for MOOSE is one line running from Smith Falls to Alexandria with connections to BRT at Fallowfield, O-Train at Confederation stn and Confederation line at Tremblay using only VIA tracks.
This way they might even get the City on board.
Via used to sell commuter passes for Smiths Falls and Alexandria (maybe they still do). Not sure there was much uptake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 10:01 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Via used to sell commuter passes for Smiths Falls and Alexandria (maybe they still do). Not sure there was much uptake.
It was posted in another thread that they do sell monthly passes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2017, 11:05 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Although MOOSE has long linked to this forum on our media page, we didn't notice the more recent discussions over here. Notifications weren't on.

Somebody on the UrbanToronto blog mentioned this afternoon that there were thoughtful comments over here that merited response. It's been a very active discussion indeed, so sorry for not contributing. (Despite the blog name "UrbanToronto" there are some people from the Greater NCR there. After all, this blog is about "Skyscrapers".)

So as time permits, I and possibly some of my colleagues in MOOSE will review and pick up interesting comments from the past few weeks, as well as address new comments. If an issue raised here has been answered on that other site, we might point to 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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 1:23 AM
Norman Bates Norman Bates is offline
Living With My Mother
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Although MOOSE has long linked to this forum on our media page, we didn't notice the more recent discussions over here. Notifications weren't on.

Somebody on the UrbanToronto blog mentioned this afternoon that there were thoughtful comments over here that merited response. It's been a very active discussion indeed, so sorry for not contributing. (Despite the blog name "UrbanToronto" there are some people from the Greater NCR there. After all, this blog is about "Skyscrapers".)

So as time permits, I and possibly some of my colleagues in MOOSE will review and pick up interesting comments from the past few weeks, as well as address new comments. If an issue raised here has been answered on that other site, we might point to 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
I think many of us will look forward to your contributions.

I for one am a big supporter of rail in all its various forms. But so far, and based on the information I've seen to date, the Moose initiative is giving off the vibe of vapourware.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 1:36 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates View Post
I think many of us will look forward to your contributions.

I for one am a big supporter of rail in all its various forms. But so far, and based on the information I've seen to date, the Moose initiative is giving off the vibe of vapourware.
I'd like to know how far they've gotten in their discussions with the Ottawa, Gatineau and the two provinces on actually getting this into service. Their plan is very reliant on sharing rail corridors with OC Transpo and VIA and yet nobody seems to know how far those negotiations have gone (or even if there have been any).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 9:55 AM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Their plan is very reliant on sharing rail corridors with OC Transpo and VIA
See Section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-20.html#h-72

But also, see our first submission to the Competition Bureau.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...-06-29_PDF.pdf


Basically, every serious hockey game needs a referee.

No ref? Gotta stick to model railway toys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 10:27 AM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates View Post
...based on the information I've seen to date, the Moose initiative is giving off the vibe of vapourware.
Please identify any inflated claims you have come across in anything we have said.

I trust you will refer to any of the extensive sources we have published via our site, or comments we have posted online. Media reports are highly varied in terms of accuracy.

Even the very welcome and complementary OttawaSUN editorial yesterday suggested that MOOSE would be privatizing transit in the Greater NCR. But we're not privatizing something that's currently public.

Through the autonomous entrepreurial initiative of its founding companies, MOOSE is creating a whole-region transit integration service where none exists, filling a gap in the market. And once we're running, we expect that OC-Transpo's LRT and buses, and STO's buses, will be deployable to more neighbourhoods, and will see greater use. Furthermore, from the outset, we've invited OC-Transpo to be the train operator on the Smiths Falls to La Pêche line, and STO to be the operator on the Arnprior to Montebello line. MOOSE is an open consortium. If they choose not to be operators in a regional system, that's okay. If they're still thinking about it, they should hurry up. We're proceeding in discussions with other operators.

Why the NCC hasn't done what we're planning to do, under Section 13 of the National Capital Act, we really don't understand at all. The "privatization" term would apply if the NCC initiated something like this through a PPP. But they didn't. So we are.

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 11:29 AM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Except to the extent that pipe dreams distract from potentially more realistic proposals (commuter trains to Barrhaven, extension of the trillium line, etc).
Hello acottawa,

How would your preferred commuter trains to Barrhaven, and extension of the Trillium line, be paid for?

By taxpayers. It's working, so far! Except that, apparently, the city doesn't have $50M to refurbish its $2B bridge to Gatineau (hmm... and also now to repair the approach track that they broke and blockaded a year ago).

Just as a thought experiment, please outline in this thread how you would arrange to finance your dream lines if "the taxpayers" was not the answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 12:24 PM
Norman Bates Norman Bates is offline
Living With My Mother
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Please identify any inflated claims you have come across in anything we have said.
Fair enough. I accept your challenge. What about the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Through the autonomous entrepreurial initiative of its founding companies, MOOSE is creating a whole-region transit integration service where none exists, filling a gap in the market.
What non-paper-based things have you created to this date?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
We're proceeding in discussions with other operators.
What other operators? What steps have you already taken to substantiate your statement that discussions are in fact proceeding at this time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
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
Speaking as someone who was a Director General with enterprise-wide infrastructure responsibilities I find that what you've written reads more like marketing rhetoric than sober facts and figures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 1:54 PM
Athens Athens is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates View Post
Fair enough. I accept your challenge. What about the following:


What non-paper-based things have you created to this date?
What non-paper based thing is there to do at this point? Start construction? Because it can't be done without all the hurdles out if the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 1:55 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post

Just as a thought experiment, please outline in this thread how you would arrange to finance your dream lines if "the taxpayers" was not the answer.
I don't believe there are no-taxpayer options for rail transportation (at least not while roads remain free). I'm not just saying this on your project, I have made the same point on other threads where people insist the "private sector" will pay. Passenger rail was last economically viable before cars became prevalent in the 1950s. While I wish you well in your endeavour, rail projects (including yours) are capital intensive, the revenue streams are back-loaded, and the competition is nearly free, which is why every project in North America (or Europe for that matter) in the last 60 years has required taxpayer funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 2:04 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I don't believe there are no-taxpayer options for rail transportation (at least not while roads remain free). I'm not just saying this on your project, I have made the same point on other threads where people insist the "private sector" will pay.
Looking forward to your substantive comments on the Property-Powered Rail white paper.

Or, wait for the feasibility study.

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.