Rural Commuter Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Yes they can, and they do. Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act is the primary revenue capture method used by Toronto and Ottawa in the areas near rail transit stations. I would say it not a very elegant method, but it's significant.
http://torontoist.com/2016/09/torontoist-explains-the-uses-and-misuses-of-section-37/

Similarly, I know they have proposed Tax-Increment Financing for some projects in Toronto. Broadly though, I think the public would take issues with government doing what you propose. In essence, imposing fees on everyone in the vicinity of a station with the threat of losing service if they don't pay up. We'll get to see how well your model sells first before discussing government's resorting to it.

What is available (legally) and what is politically feasible are very different things. That's why in places like Asia, the rail companies resort to outright property ownership to get land value capture. None of the hassles of charging unwilling ratepayers in zones, etc.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

As a person from a village outside Ottawa I find your assumptions of our qualities of living to be insulting. People living in rural villages are not living in a third world. These places can grow no problem (and are for the most part).

Thank-you!

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Broadly though, I think the public would take issues with government doing what you propose. In essence, imposing fees on everyone in the vicinity of a station with the threat of losing service if they don't pay up. We'll get to see how well your model sells first before discussing government's resorting to it.

Actually, I'm pleased to talk about that right now.

When MOOSE was invited to present to council in an open public meeting In one of the towns of this region, they wanted to explore how the PPR would work if they were to use an existing municipally-owned building as the station. So in reply we summarized this section of the PPR white paper:

It remains important to emphasize that each station owner-operator is at liberty to structure their business as desired. While the common-elements in the context of a freehold condominium business structure can be useful, the PPR model does not prescribe that any station owner-operator needs to conform with this or any other particular legal or business template. ... A private-sector station owner may prefer to structure their enterprise solely through a combination of fee-for-service and affirmative covenant contracts (which do not “run with the land”, i.e. do not bind future owners). Or a management company could serve as the general partner in a limited partnership consisting of each of the unit owners as limited partners. A municipality may choose to implement a general tax instrument from which proceeds are earmarked for the train service, station operations and a reserve fund, whether the station complex itself is privately or publicly owned. Amongst any and all station enterprises, the PPR formula for the train stopping fee remains the same generally-negotiated proportion of the marginal increase in real property income and asset value within a short walk of the station, approximating a 0.8 km radius.

MOOSE will never impose a station on any locality. It will stop the train where a locality has subscribed to the MOOSE Linked Localities Agreement (which is still being developed), based on the common fee-for-service formula.

So suppose, as you say, the public would take issue with their municipal government covering the train-stopping fee at a station through the generalized property tax base, or in some adjustment to the mill rate applicable to property taxes in the vicinity of a station. Well, that's something for that population to address with their councillors, especially in the lead up to their next municipal election. If their newly elected council pulls that plan, and if there are not enough participating owners within the 0.8 km to cover the fee, then the train will no longer service that station. No crisis. To us this seems respectful of straightforward democratic and market fundamentals.

Granted, it's entirely legitimate to take a melancholy view of all that.

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I suggest you travel to Europe or most of Asia. Lots of density with very few high rises. The high rise density thing is largely a nouveau-riche urbanism and North American concept. In most of the world, they achieve density quite simply through smaller detached homes, townhomes, and low rise apartment buildings. That is what most great cities should be pushing. Admittedly, Ottawa isn't great at this....

This is the Viennese suburb where my relatives stay:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0915597,16.2951791,750m/data=!3m1!1e3

I'm not sure how you would classify that as a high density neighbourhood. It's a suburb on the very fringe of the urban area with densities similar to North American suburbs.

It is certainly true that many parts of Europe achieve high density without high rises, but that is because everyone in central areas of the city lives in an apartment/flat and all of the buildings are 5-6 stories. Canadian cities (including Ottawa) fight very hard to preserve 19th and 20th century residential neighbourhoods with 2-3 story buildings (so high rise buildings are needed to compensate for these areas of lower density)

In most developed Asian cities high rise buildings are the norm.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not sure how you would classify that as a high density neighbourhood. It's a suburb on the very fringe of the urban area with densities similar to North American suburbs.

Modling has a higher density than urban Ottawa. And that's for a city on the fringe as you pointed out. Contextually, it's similar to Stittsville or maybe even further out like Carp.

My point was, that density has been achieve without any high rises and only a few apartment buildings. I also wanted to counter the ridiculous myth that everyone over there lives in apartments. They don't. Keep in mind FEX-ME said this:

most people like the idea of living in dense neighborhoods with transit and be more European, people take actions that go against this. Most people want detached homes with a lawn and a calm, safe, neighborhood.

Lots of people in Europe have that. Shocker.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is certainly true that many parts of Europe achieve high density without high rises, but that is because everyone in central areas of the city lives in an apartment/flat and all of the buildings are 5-6 stories. Canadian cities (including Ottawa) fight very hard to preserve 19th and 20th century residential neighbourhoods with 2-3 story buildings (so high rise buildings are needed to compensate for these areas of lower density)

Most European suburbs are basically on par or denser than our pre-war neighbourhoods. That is what helps their metros get decent density without resorting to lots of high rise construction. In Canada, we build shoebox condos in the core and then half acre lots for suburban homes. And yet still achieve lower density overall.

Originally Posted by acottawa

In most developed Asian cities high rise buildings are the norm.

Not everywhere. In Japan and Korea, you see lots of small homes outside the major metros.

[Allandale25]

Here's another map I did (not to scale; illustrative only) showing the convergence of the City of Ottawa's Stage 2 plan and the Moose Rail proposal.

Just goes to show how crucial this north-south corridor is for both proposals, one of which is further along in the procurement, government approval, and funding in place process.

If there any any errors on the map, don't hesitate to let me know and I'll correc them.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Here's another map I did (not to scale; illustrative only) showing the convergence of the City of Ottawa's Stage 2 plan and the Moose Rail proposal.

Just goes to show how crucial this north-south corridor is for both proposals, one of which is further along in the procurement, government approval, and funding in place process.

If there any any errors on the map, don't hesitate to let me know and I'll correc them.

The moose map is misleading you a bit since you couldn't actually get to those destinations via the routings you show. To get to the main train station (green route) you have to go along the diagonal track headed of in the north middle of the map of that the via trains take. I can't draw a correct map from my phone, but no routes would the track past southkeys, they would all go off the end of the map in the same direction in the southwest corner that you have red and purple going and split much farther out. Except the otrain, it goes the routing you show

[lrt's friend]

Wouldn't the all the routes use the VIA rail track through to the Ellwood Diamond instead of going towards Walkley Yards? The routes to Quebec would switch at Ellwood Diamond and the Alexandria route would continue into Ottawa station.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't the all the routes use the VIA rail track through to the Ellwood Diamond instead of going towards Walkley Yards? The routes to Quebec would switch at Ellwood Diamond and the Alexandria route would continue into Ottawa station.

Moose shows a Greenboro stop on their map, which would require zigzagging along the walkley yards spur to Greensboro, swinging north on the train line, then in one case turning again at Ellwood, of course the current track configuration doesn't support that route

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Moose shows a Greenboro stop on their map, which would require zigzagging along the walkley yards spur to Greensboro, swinging north on the train line, then in one case turning again at Ellwood, of course the current track configuration doesn't support that route

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not from Ottawa so I really struggled with figuring out the Moose map. Appreciate the feedback. Given it took me so little time to create the map I did not sure why Moose can't create a more realistic version of their map using Google Maps.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't the all the routes use the VIA rail track through to the Ellwood Diamond instead of going towards Walkley Yards? The routes to Quebec would switch at Ellwood Diamond and the Alexandria route would continue into Ottawa station.

There are no switches at the Ellwood Diamond and it doesn't look like there is room to add any, so the trains can't change lines there.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Moose shows a Greenboro stop on their map, which would require zigzagging along the walkley yards spur to Greensboro, swinging north on the train line,

The switches at the Walkley Dimond are east of the diamond, so the train will have to back into Greensboro Station and then continue north.

then in one case turning again at Ellwood, of course the current track configuration doesn't support that route

Im guessing Alexandria bound trains won't stop at Greensboro.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't the all the routes use the VIA rail track through to the Ellwood Diamond instead of going towards Walkley Yards? The routes to Quebec would switch at Ellwood Diamond and the Alexandria route would continue into Ottawa station.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There are no switches at the Ellwood Diamond and it doesn't look like there is room to add any, so the trains can't change lines there.



The switches at the Walkley Dimond are east of the diamond, so the train will have to back into Greensboro Station and then continue north.



Im guessing Alexandria bound trains won't stop at Greensboro.

There used to be a switch at Ellwood, you could see the disused line from the otrain, but they removed it completely just a few years ago, but of course its not in the right direction

[lrt's friend]

There were two railway connections at the Ellwood Diamond over the years, one that would allow trains to connect to the Trillium Line in the right direction so I am sure that there must be space to recreate it. The following link shows maps of local railways over the years.

http://churcher.crcml.org/Map/ottawamap.html

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There were two railway connections at the Ellwood Diamond over the years, one that would allow trains to connect to the Trillium Line in the right direction so I am sure that there must be space to recreate it. The following link shows maps of local railways over the years.

http://churcher.crcml.org/Map/ottawamap.html

True but the western one (removed in 1967) has been obliterated by the cloverleaf for the airport parkway, so there is really no hope of recreating it.

The eastern one (removed in 2003) could be reconnected, but that would likely mean waiting for the engineer walk to the other end of the train to run it backwards for the other half of the route.

Also, once the diamond is grade separated (during LRT Stage 2?), it may no longer be feasible to make any connections.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True but the western one (removed in 1967) has been obliterated by the cloverleaf for the airport parkway, so there is really no hope of recreating it.

The eastern one (removed in 2003) could be reconnected, but that would likely mean waiting for the engineer walk to the other end of the train to run it backwards for the other half of the route.

Also, once the diamond is grade separated (during LRT Stage 2?), it may no longer be feasible to make any connections.

Give the angle of the connection, I expect it is still possible to do the easy connection at the Ellwood Diamond despite the Brookfield interchange.

[rocketphish]

Ambitious Moose rail plan builds support, both inside and outside Ottawa
While the plan is still being studied, there appears to be at least a significant appetite in both Ottawa and outside it for greater connectivity

By: Kieran Delamont, Metro
Published on Sun Jul 30 2017

Claire Charron is a life-long city dweller. Having grown up in Hull, she moved to Ottawa proper 45 years ago. Her daughter and grandkids, on the other hand, live in Kemptville. Having sold her car years ago (“I can walk wherever, I can take the bus,” she said), current transit offerings make visiting her family challenging. The closest she can get by OC Transpo is Barrhaven; she often needs to get picked up by her son-in-law to make it the rest of the way.

It’s this sort of problem, she argues, which makes a regional transit network, like the proposed Moose rail network, a much-needed infrastructure development.

It’s not just Charron who supports the plan, either: as Moose battles with the City of Ottawa over their removal of 240 metres of track near the Princess of Wales Bridge, several surrounding municipalities—those that stand to benefit the most from the arrival of rail transit—have publicly lined up alongside the Moose Consortium.

Smith’s Falls, for instance, has been one of the earliest backers of Moose’s proposal, with Mayor Shawn Panko going to bat for Moose. “It is difficult to imagine a more symbolic offense to Canada’s 150th Anniversary than to break the one strategic railway connection in the National Capital Region between two founding provinces,” wrote Panko, in a letter to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

“If successful, the Moose proposal will be a key driver of economic growth and prosperity for the Town of Smiths Falls, our residents, business and industry,” wrote Panko, in a letter to the Canadian Transportation Agency. “The benefits will stretch out well beyond the town’s borders as the reality of commuter rail service to and from the Ottawa region will benefit much of Lanark County and the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.”

Moose has found similar support on the other side of the Ottawa River, as well. The town of Bristol, QC, has been an open supporter of the plan. Early in 2017, Bristol’s town council passed a resolution that expressed interest in committing formal municipal resources to helping make the Moose network a reality, calling the plan “a way to strengthen the social vitality and economic resilience of the Municipality of Bristol in relation to the Greater National Capital Region.”

This is not to say that support has been universal—the town of Arnprior, for example, has remained on the fence publicly as it relates to Moose transit. Previously, they had passed on endorsing Moose’s business plan as it exists now, but remained open to the plan in the future.

As the population of the greater Ottawa region increases—North Grenville, for instance, has seen over 9 per cent growth since 2011—so too does the need for connectivity. “There’s housing projects being built, and there’s lots of people coming,” said Charron. “It’s grown in the last 8 years, it’s amazing.”

Economically speaking, this makes some sense. North Grenville, for instance, has nearly three times as many workers as it does jobs, per data released by the town last week. And it is growing—the population increased by over 9 per cent since 2011, in contrast to the 5.5 per cent growth achieved by the Ottawa region (which was itself higher than the rest of the province).

These are most often areas that are underserved—or not served at all—by transit. In a recent poll conducted by the North Grenville Times, 76 per cent of residents expressed support for the concept of a transit network in the area.

The lack of connectivity between Ottawa and its surrounding communities is far from a new problem. OC Transpo relies on a collection of partnerships to provide service in and out of the city, called “Rural Partner Routes.” But those run infrequently—Kemptville’s bus runs into Ottawa in the morning and out of the city at the end of the workday, for example—and are left to individual transportation companies, with varying schedules and capacities. One of the buses from Kemptville, says Charron, is full with government workers on a daily basis—to her, a sign of demand for regional transit.

While many questions remain about Moose’s proposal—the feasibility of it is still undergoing study—the bigger point for riders like Charron is that the region needs to look further down the road when it comes to transit planning.

“You don’t want to wait until it gets to the stage where you think, ‘oh my god we have to do something,” she said. “This would be a perfect thing to do. It’s one way to think ahead and plan, because the demand is already there.”

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017...s-support-inside-and-outside-ottawa.html

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Give the angle of the connection, I expect it is still possible to do the easy connection at the Ellwood Diamond despite the Brookfield interchange.

Possibly with current elevations, but with grade separation, there may not be room to get the tracks at the same elevation.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Claire Charron is a life-long city dweller. Having grown up in Hull, she moved to Ottawa proper 45 years ago. Her daughter and grandkids, on the other hand, live in Kemptville. Having sold her car years ago (“I can walk wherever, I can take the bus,” she said), current transit offerings make visiting her family challenging. The closest she can get by OC Transpo is Barrhaven; she often needs to get picked up by her son-in-law to make it the rest of the way.

I love it how they try to tug at people's heartstrings about Claire's wish to see her grandkids, but do you build a rail system so that one grandmother can travel to her daughter's house once or twice a week? It is the people who will be using it every day that will make or break the viability of the service.

The lack of connectivity between Ottawa and its surrounding communities is far from a new problem. OC Transpo relies on a collection of partnerships to provide service in and out of the city, called “Rural Partner Routes.” But those run infrequently—Kemptville’s bus runs into Ottawa in the morning and out of the city at the end of the workday, for example—and are left to individual transportation companies, with varying schedules and capacities. One of the buses from Kemptville, says Charron, is full with government workers on a daily basis—to her, a sign of demand for regional transit.

There is a reason why the “Rural Partner Routes” have such limited service. If it were financially viable to have buses running all day long, they would be doing it. Despite all the rhetoric from MOOSE, I doubt if they will be able to run more than a couple trains during rush hour. Yes a few more people will take the train than currently take the bus and a few people might move to this rural communities because of MOOSE, but it won't be enough to support 50 trains a day on each route. As a result, MOOSE will actually create more Claires.

[1overcosc]

The Rural Partner Routes are hamstrung by the fact that they are private and as such, are required to break even.

It's no coincidence that the only "Rural Partner" systems that are even somewhat extensive (Russell's & Clarence-Rockland's) happen to be the two systems are that are municipally owned and thus publically funded (with both municipal subsidies and provincial gas taxes).

[Horus]

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is a reason why the “Rural Partner Routes” have such limited service. If it were financially viable to have buses running all day long, they would be doing it. Despite all the rhetoric from MOOSE, I doubt if they will be able to run more than a couple trains during rush hour. Yes a few more people will take the train than currently take the bus and a few people might move to this rural communities because of MOOSE, but it won't be enough to support 50 trains a day on each route. As a result, MOOSE will actually create more Claires.

Unless I've completely misinterpreted some of Joseph Potvin's comments, fare revenues are irrelevant in the MOOSE model. MOOSE gets funding from stopping fees from local station authorities. Presumably, more stop events at a given station equates to higher fees. Theoretically then, MOOSE can run all-day two-way service to its network of stations, although I'd expect that there would have to be some formula to balance the increased operating costs that would result.

Whether or not the promise of frequent service to these MOOSE-serviced communities ends up driving ridership, and therefore value to the stations, remains to be seen.