Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

For anyone interested, I put together a Google My Maps showing where the lines would be. A bit easier to look at than just static images.

[Charles5]

Thanks for that OCCheetos. Makes it a little easier to visualize.

Considering that most daily commuters head into the downtown core, the rail lines from the North West don't seem to be optimized to accommodate the majority of folks. Have to swing down south only to come back up north again.

With Phase 2 LRT going out to Moodie and the 417, makes me think that most people in the NW would prefer to hop on the LRT vice taking a roundabout train that connects them to the LRT further up the line at Bayview.

That's one of the big issues with using existing rail lines. Forced to follow those routes as they are as opposed to optimizing the route for the benefit of the majority of people.

[roger1818]

People here are assuming that their target is people working downtown. I can't help but wonder if the target is actually for rural business parks to be built. The owners would pay Moose to bring their employees to them. The rural towns would like that is it would help rebuild their local industries as they don't want to become bedroom communities.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People here are assuming that their target is people working downtown. I can't help but wonder if the target is actually for rural business parks to be built. The owners would pay Moose to bring their employees to them. The rural towns would like that is it would help rebuild their local industries as they don't want to become bedroom communities.

This will require two way train traffic not just commuter runs. Without traffic issues in rural areas, this will be a challenge to attract passengers. Congestion and parking shortages drive transit ridership for many people.

This is certainly a massive change in the way we move people during the post war era. It will be great if it works, but you still have to wonder.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think demand will pick up after the LRT opens, although I think richcraft made a mistake by having any sort of mixed use component or any amenities.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I've always thought that if they had done it like THIS the development would have been in very high demand

The problem with mixed units in that development is the market. It's very tough to sell the commercial units without there being a lot more residential units to provide a market for those businesses. The initial three little buildings were 128 units. That's not enough to feed stores. Even today they may be up to about 300 units. Still not enough feed anything more than a convenience store.

There's also the other problem of the commercial complex across the street on Cyrville. That will be redeveloped at some point. And should see a lot more commercial square footage. Which would kill demand in the Richcraft area.

Not sure if the current Richcraft rental building has any stores at the bottom. But that's the building that offers some promise for ground level retail. And there's enough residents to support a coffee shop and maybe a convenience store.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People here are assuming that their target is people working downtown. I can't help but wonder if the target is actually for rural business parks to be built. The owners would pay Moose to bring their employees to them. The rural towns would like that is it would help rebuild their local industries as they don't want to become bedroom communities.

But like the residential, I think that the business model would require a land shortage in the main city, and Ottawa has lots of potential office locations.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But like the residential, I think that the business model would require a land shortage in the main city, and Ottawa has lots of potential office locations.

Spot on.

I will add, that it's not just downtown. The areas around Tremblay, Cyrville and Blair for example are ripe for development/redevelopment and addition of major commercial space. Just look at the plans for the Queensway Corporate Campus beside Cyrville:

http://wsmstaging.com/qcc/
http://cdn.arcestra.com/192689546187910420/Brochure.pdf

Ultimately, the problem for building offices in the boonies is this: you limit both the customer and the employee base. An office in the core has basically most of the city as a catchment area. Put an office in Orleans and you have only Eastern Ottawa as your catchment. Unless, your focus is local retail or services, why would anybody do that?

If there was a severe shortage of commercial land inside the Greenbelt, sure. As it stands, we're still decades away from the vision laid out here:
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/tod2_plan_main_en.pdf

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not like he's going to come on and say, "The mayor told me to stuff it."

&

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Actually, you nailed it! Mr. Watson has indeed told us to stuff it, to put it in your words. But he said the same to the NCC in 2013 in relation to the Interprovincial Transportation Strategy.

Here's Mayor Watson's perspective:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017...ing-to-be-for-our-train-says-watson.html

MOOSE received several media enquires in recent days about the 8 September letter from the City Solicitor to the Agency, and the memo from the GM of Transportation to the Mayor and Council, so we adapted our written replies into a posting on our media page:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/media/

Evidently Mr. Watson sees a region-wide commercial rail initiative as competition, however in our assessment, it is highly complementary to the City of Ottawa's stated mandate and goals.

In any case, entrepreneurs do not shy away from competition.

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]

Media Release: Morrison’s Quarry Owner Envisions MOOSE Railway Terminus
Moose Consortium Inc. (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) has exchanged letters of intent with the President of Morrison’s Quarry, relating to development of a prominent 200-acre property spanning the border of La Pêche and Chelsea, Québec. The companies envision a $200 million commercial—residential—recreational development that would also serve as the northern terminus of MOOSE’s planned 400 km metropolitan-scale passenger rail network.

Read more:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/media/

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

[Radster]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Media Release: Morrison’s Quarry Owner Envisions MOOSE Railway Terminus
Moose Consortium Inc. (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) has exchanged letters of intent with the President of Morrison’s Quarry, relating to development of a prominent 200-acre property spanning the border of La Pêche and Chelsea, Québec. The companies envision a $200 million commercial—residential—recreational development that would also serve as the northern terminus of MOOSE’s planned 400 km metropolitan-scale passenger rail network.

Read more:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/media/

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

Another pipe dream. I live right near there, in Farm Point. Tracks on that ROW have been ripped out by now and a multi-use pathway will be span the length of that ROW, this has been embraced by most Chelsea residents, its a done deal.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Radster

Another pipe dream. I live right near there, in Farm Point. Tracks on that ROW have been ripped out by now and a multi-use pathway will be span the length of that ROW, this has been embraced by most Chelsea residents, its a done deal.

Hello Radster, We're almost neighbours then. I'm about 6 km south of you. Yup, the track is missing from where I look out my window too.

May I ask you about the "done deal" part of your comment?

1. Will the multi-use pathway require rebuilding and ongoing maintenance of all the blocked or collapsed culverts, and for stabilizing the unstable land areas? If so, can you please provide your ballpark estimate of the overall cost of this re-habilitated drainage infrastructure?

2. What will be the source of funds for the "done deal" you speak of, if re-habilitated drainage infrastructure is included?

3. You may or may not see what our investors see in the PPR business concept, and certainly some on this blog consider our concept stranger than a hyperloop. But are you saying that to build a 20 km section of railway to connect a major commercial-residential-recreational project to the regional market is beyond the capacity of Canadian business? Or are you saying it's a pipe-dream to imagine that accountable elected officials and professional staff working in the public interest would ever go along with such a dumb idea?

4. RE: "this has been embraced by most Chelsea residents". Are you sure? Can you please provide a link to a report of a survey, of an election result, of a consultation process, or any other empirical study which demonstrated that the population of the Municipality of Chelsea decided to not keep the railway in addition to getting the pathway it's seeking? Please share the source of your comment that the Rails-TO-Trails design was chosen over a Rails-WITH-Trails design.

5. Just one other thing: Can you please share a copy of any legal document which demonstrates that the Municipality of Chelsea is sole owner of the corridor in question?

***

From the MOOSE Consortium perspective, the only tangible difference in our plans caused by the removal of the track is that our rehabilitaton of the ballast will be more expensive in the Chelsea section, because we won't be able to operate the usual rail-mounted undercutter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_cleaner

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

[Guideway]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

From the MOOSE Consortium perspective, the only tangible difference in our plans caused by the removal of the track is that our rehabilitaton of the ballast will be more expensive in the Chelsea section, because we won't be able to operate the usual rail-mounted undercutter:

Several beginner questions here:

1. Would the trains going to be running on diesel or would they be electric?
2. Would all 3 lines be double tracked or will they be single track, like the O-train?
3. This project is a rural commuter train system, so I'm wondering if the trains would be running all day or only during rush hour.
4. With Jim Watson not willing to give MOOSE the bridge, how do you expect to get over the Ottawa river?

“I don’t think MOOSE has the experience, credibility or financing to do what they want to do . . . our bridge is going to be for our train to go over Gatineau.” -Jim Watson

Sorry for my overload of questions, I'm just very interested in having decent rural commuter rail.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Hello Radster, We're almost neighbours then. I'm about 6 km south of you. Yup, the track is missing from where I look out my window too.

May I ask you about the "done deal" part of your comment?

1. Will the multi-use pathway require rebuilding and ongoing maintenance of all the blocked or collapsed culverts, and for stabilizing the unstable land areas? If so, can you please provide your ballpark estimate of the overall cost of this re-habilitated drainage infrastructure?

2. What will be the source of funds for the "done deal" you speak of, if re-habilitated drainage infrastructure is included?

3. You may or may not see what our investors see in the PPR business concept, and certainly some on this blog consider our concept stranger than a hyperloop. But are you saying that to build a 20 km section of railway to connect a major commercial-residential-recreational project to the regional market is beyond the capacity of Canadian business? Or are you saying it's a pipe-dream to imagine that accountable elected officials and professional staff working in the public interest would ever go along with such a dumb idea?

4. RE: "this has been embraced by most Chelsea residents". Are you sure? Can you please provide a link to a report of a survey, of an election result, of a consultation process, or any other empirical study which demonstrated that the population of the Municipality of Chelsea decided to not keep the railway in addition to getting the pathway it's seeking? Please share the source of your comment that the Rails-TO-Trails design was chosen over a Rails-WITH-Trails design.

5. Just one other thing: Can you please share a copy of any legal document which demonstrates that the Municipality of Chelsea is sole owner of the corridor in question?

***

From the MOOSE Consortium perspective, the only tangible difference in our plans caused by the removal of the track is that our rehabilitaton of the ballast will be more expensive in the Chelsea section, because we won't be able to operate the usual rail-mounted undercutter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_cleaner

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 am always the skeptic, but I look at Chelsea politicians who support the permanent removal of the rail line as those who are unable to see beyond the ends of their noses. At least we are seeing some long-term vision with the Moose proposal. There is potential with a rail line to give the Gatineau Valley a badly needed economic shot in the arm.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am always the skeptic, but I look at Chelsea politicians who support the permanent removal of the rail line as those who are unable to see beyond the ends of their noses. At least we are seeing some long-term vision with the Moose proposal. There is potential with a rail line to give the Gatineau Valley a badly needed economic shot in the arm.

I can't say I blame them. The rails washed out twice in the last decade. After Quebec paid millions of dollars to fix them the first time they washed out again. Unless somebody is willing to come up with a major investment to stabilize the surrounding soil they will probably wash out again and again.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I can't say I blame them. The rails washed out twice in the last decade. After Quebec paid millions of dollars to fix them the first time they washed out again. Unless somebody is willing to come up with a major investment to stabilize the surrounding soil they will probably wash out again and again.

Did they fix the problem correctly the first time or did they do it on the cheap?

This is all strange for a rail line that has existed for well over 100 years.

Furthermore, any issues that relate to the rail line will also be issues for a Multi-use trail.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I can't say I blame them. The rails washed out twice in the last decade. After Quebec paid millions of dollars to fix them the first time they washed out again. Unless somebody is willing to come up with a major investment to stabilize the surrounding soil they will probably wash out again and again.

@acottawa,

Please help extend the following list of proponents who have a plan for financing the overhaul of the drainage throughout this corridor, and for stabilizing the slopes of poor quality infill and of leda clay.

1. Moose Consortium Inc. (currently planning on $60M from Gatineau to La Pêche)
2. ... um... can you help us out?


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 Joseph Potvin

@acottawa,

Please help extend the following list of proponents who have a plan for financing the overhaul of the drainage throughout this corridor, and for stabilizing the slopes of poor quality infill and of leda clay.

1. Moose Consortium Inc. (currently planning on $60M from Gatineau to La Pêche)
2. ... um... can you help us out?

Moose has had a number of years in which to purchase the railway and conduct the necessary upgrades (during which time the local municipalities were actively looking for a partner to run the tourist train) and did not.

At the point you have the money to undertake the upgrades you can go back to the municipality with an offer to purchase the MUP and convert it back into a railway.

I don't think you can expect the municipality to leave the unusable railway for an indefinite period of time while you sort out your financing.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moose has had a number of years in which to purchase the railway and conduct the necessary upgrades (during which time the local municipalities were actively looking for a partner to run the tourist train) and did not.

@acottawa,

That's not correct. The tourist steam train and the CCFO's tourist train operation agreement were for sale. Not the corridor.

Not even the CCFO had any financing plan to maintain its own corridor, which is precisely why the Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield train went out of business. The landlord (i.e. the CCFO) wanted railway lease fees AND wanted the tenant to also pay for primary infrastructure maintenance.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think you can expect the municipality to leave the unusable railway for an indefinite period of time while you sort out your financing.

Really? Please explain why not. They don't have money for a trail either. They have borrowed funds just to get the track removed, and to get rid of the track asap they're paying PNR Railworks in steel. Can you explain the rush? (Officially it's to extend the X-country ski season on the corridor. Do you go along with that?)

BTW, are you going to offer at least one other entity for the list of those coming forward with a plan to finance rehabilitation of this corridor? Or do you agree that Moose Consortium Inc. is the only entity with such a plan? Do you think Voie Verte Chelsea is going to scale effectively?

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

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Can you explain the rush? (Officially it's to extend the X-country ski season on the corridor. Do you go along with that?)

I am curious what your theory is as to why they were in such a rush.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Really? Please explain why not. They don't have money for a trail either. They have borrowed funds just to get the track removed, and to get rid of the track asap they're paying PNR Railworks in steel. Can you explain the rush? (Officially it's to extend the X-country ski season on the corridor. Do you go along with that?)

BTW, are you going to offer at least one other entity for the list of those coming forward with a plan to finance rehabilitation of this corridor? Or do you agree that Moose Consortium Inc. is the only entity with such a plan? Do you think Voie Verte Chelsea is going to scale effectively?

[/url]

I don't pretend to know anything about Chelsea politics. I know there is an election coming up, so that usually encourages politicians get projects underway. I'm not sure it is a rush, the tracks became unusable 6 years ago and it was clear nobody was coming forward with money four years ago.

Does Moose have a plan to finance the rehabilitation of the corridor? Your affidavit said you received $500k in financing and that you were in "discussions" for $5M for a feasibility study. All other funds were described in aspirational terms, which isn't really a plan to finance the rehabilitation of the corridor.