Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Not at all. We're just confident that professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa, and the taxpayers of Ottawa (and of Canada), will see a straightforward way to improve overall transit system performance with high-capacity trains on that line.

Do you have in mind some reason(s) that the city staff or its citizens ought to maintain low capacity at the centre?

I'm pretty sure the current Trillium Line expansion plan for 2021 is to double the length of the trains.

I'd also say one of the biggest problems with the Trillium line currently (other than capacity) is efficiency. The Coradia LINTs are designed as (European) regional / inter-city trains, not so much for rapid transit. Loading/Unloading the trains is pretty slow since there are only two (relatively narrow) doors per train. Trying to get a train full of university students in a timely manner through those doors just doesn't work and causes big delays. I'm not sure that even higher capacity bi-level trains can solve that problem...

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Not at all. We're just confident that professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa, and the taxpayers of Ottawa (and of Canada), will see a straightforward way to improve overall transit system performance with high-capacity trains on that line.

Do you have in mind some reason(s) that the city staff or its citizens ought to maintain low capacity at the centre? If so, please elaborate.

Because the current issue with the Trillium Line is not capacity of the trains but rather their frequency and speed which are limited by the track. Running high capacity trains that match the Trillium Line's current frequency (~12 minutes) would be unnecessary; taking them out to Chelsea and Smiths Falls at half that frequency would be an incredible waste of energy.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Because the current issue with the Trillium Line is not capacity of the trains but rather their frequency and speed which are limited by the track. Running high capacity trains that match the Trillium Line's current frequency (~12 minutes) would be unnecessary; taking them out to Chelsea and Smiths Falls at half that frequency would be an incredible waste of energy.

Half the frequency?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Half the frequency?

The line is split so each half would have to run at half the frequency, assuming no trains run to Ottawa south, or an extra transfer is forced onto those riders.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The line is split so each half would have to run at half the frequency, assuming no trains run to Ottawa south, or an extra transfer is forced onto those riders.

Yeah, but when have you ever seen a rural or exurban train running at a 20 minute frequency?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yeah, but when have you ever seen a rural or exurban train running at a 20 minute frequency?

You could just run the inner portion of line at higher frequencies and let other runs continue out to the rural sections of the line..

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You could just run the inner portion of line at higher frequencies and let other runs continue out to the rural sections of the line..

So just like the Trillium Line, but without service to most of the stops, and with bigger, louder, heavier, dirtier rolling stock?

[Guideway]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yeah, but when have you ever seen a rural or exurban train running at a 20 minute frequency?

I'm pretty sure Sydney trains do that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Guideway

I'm pretty sure Sydney trains do that.

I'm not really sure I would call Sydney Trains a rural train service. The farthest station is 60km from central Sydney (in a region with a population of five million). I guess a few of the outer stations could be considered exurban, but most are well within the established suburbs of Sydney.

[lrt's friend]

Is there not a reason why Toronto's GO RER is being electrified? To increase speed, frequency and allow for more frequent stopping in urban Toronto.

If we are proposing heavy bi-level diesel trains, will this not slow down service within the urban parts of the Trillium Line and make it impractical to add stations at South Keys, Walkley and Gladstone? Heavy bi-level trains have poor braking and acceleration compared to light rail vehicles.

Will heavy bi-level trains operate with the current set of overpasses and tunnels on the current Trillium Line?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is there not a reason why Toronto's GO RER is being electrified? To increase speed, frequency and allow for more frequent stopping in urban Toronto.

If we are proposing heavy bi-level diesel trains, will this not slow down service within the urban parts of the Trillium Line and make it impractical to add stations at South Keys, Walkley and Gladstone? Heavy bi-level trains have poor braking and acceleration compared to light rail vehicles.

Will heavy bi-level trains operate with the current set of overpasses and tunnels on the current Trillium Line?

I'm not sure the city will ever allow their trains to be completely replaced by bi-level trains. So, that's not going to affect the city building new stations along the existing rail.

The line used to be used by freight trains, so there's no reason that a bi-level couldn't use it since the track would have had to respect a standard clearance. (The exception being Bayview which is what MOOSE has taking the city to court over).

[Harley613]

This could be MASSIVE for my hometown of Wakefield, but I doubt it will ever see the light of day unfortunately.

http://ottawaconstructionnews.com/featur...ons-quarry-between-la-peche-and-chelsea/

Moose Consortium Inc. (MOOSE: Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) says it has exchanged letters of intent with the president of Morrison’s Quarry, relating to development of a 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.

“It’s era in stone and gravel production is coming to an end,” property owner Rudi Asseer said in a statement. “In recent years we’ve created one of the best recreational sites in the region, and we host the highest bungee jump in Canada. It’s now time to fully restore and revitalize this landscape into the most alluring place in the National Capital Region to live, work and visit.”

Asseer, who is also president of IMI Material Handling Logistics Inc., said: “We believe it makes both ecological and business sense for a multi-purpose project of this type to include passenger rail linkage with the region. We would love to see MOOSE restore train service to this property. This would benefit the entire region, and would play an important part in creating local high value jobs.”

MOOSE Consortium director general Joseph Potvin said that the railway developer has not yet issued its request for proposals for “Linked Localities” throughout the Greater National Capital Region. The company will begin station prioritization and selection to optimize return on investment in real property only after the current phase of planning is completed.

“But Morrison’s Quarry is different because this is the only practicable site for a full-scale terminus near the northern end of the line to La Pêche,” said Potvin. “No other location has room for the required daily train maintenance facilities, for new business expansion of significant scope, or for a park and ride large enough to support the surrounding area.”

The train may potentially still run four km. further north through the centre of Wakefield if there’s a successful bid for station development. But the last possible location for a full-service terminus near the intersection with Route 366 was permanently blocked in 2014 when a new elementary school was built directly on the railway corridor.

Architect Mark Thompson Brandt of MTBA Associates Inc., one of six founding directors of Moose Consortium Inc, said: “Regional passenger rail service is indispensable to any sustainable transportation concept under the NCC’s Plan for Canada’s Capital 2017-2067. It’s also consistent with the 2013 Interprovincial Transit Strategy. Similarly, the NCC’s Capital Urban Lands Plan emphasizes that main access routes, including passenger railways entering the Capital, ‘provide views and vistas worthy of protection’.”

A development at Morrison’s Quarry will be significant to the NCC in other ways too. It is close to the Carman Road bridge over Highway 5, which means that train service to this location would bring regional transit to within 2 km of Brown Lake and Carman Lake in Gatineau Park.

“The upside is that finally public access to this mid-section of the Park will no longer be car-dependent, as it has been since the loss of regular passenger rail 50 years ago,” said Potvin. “Yet we acknowledge there are some issues to resolve. Properly managing increased use by hikers and cyclists will require very thoughtful planning and engagement with the NCC, CPAWS, Friends of Gatineau Park and various community interests. So we want to emphasize the importance of comprehensive public engagement, and of accommodating the insights of experienced planners.”

Before agreements are formalized with shareholders and investors this autumn, MOOSE Consortium is inviting public discussion through the First Nations organizations, the National Capital Commission, and with officials and stakeholder organizations in the municipalities of La Pêche, Chelsea and Gatineau.

“We hope to initiate discussions soon with organizations representing the First Nations, who hold aboriginal prerogative for this entire region”, Potvin said. “And we expect to advance specific discussions with the National Capital Commission”.

Public deliberations about this initiative will begin during the lead-up to the November 2017 municipal elections in Gatineau, Chelsea and La Pêche.

The planned development would generate considerable new municipal tax revenue. But there are some complicated local issues to work out with stakeholders. A 20 km. section of the required track is presently being dismantled by the Municipality of Chelsea, even as MOOSE is assembling $60 million in private investment to re-develop this particular section of railway.

“In any case, this particular railway required a complete overhaul” said Scott Ivay, MOOSE Consortium’s railway operations specialist.

MOOSE says its plan includes high-quality trail development for cyclists and pedestrians that will enhance public safety and community lifestyle. The company’s ‘Rails-WITH-Trails’ design removes the inclination for people to walk on the tracks, and it provides access for incident response where roads are not present, the company statement said.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

We're planning on full-size bi-level trains, suitable for sharing track with VIA, CN, CP and Genesee-Wyoming.

Would you be using a coneventional train or a DMU, similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar) Double Level DMUs?

Correct, these would not run on the same track as an LRT.

But it will be for the LRT operators to justify to the mobile public why passengers arriving comfortably into the core area on high-capacity trains should have to disembark and crowd onto low-capacity trains. We expect any terribly inconvenient and entirely unnecessary capacity bottleneck of that type to last, at most, one election cycle. Most likely such incongruities will get resolved ahead of time, since there are several places those LRTs can be re-deployed as feeder systems into a main line for overall system efficiency.

I'm confused. From my understanding:

1. MOOSE's proposed service does not provide a direct to downtown link and most people will need to transfer to the Confederation line at either Bayview or Tremblay.
2. Access to the Trillium line (from Greenboro to Bayview) is critical for MOOSE to call 2 of the 3 lines inter-provincial.
3. The map on MOOSE's website indicates stops at only Greenboro, Carleton and Bayview on the Trillium line. Would all of the other stop in between loose service if the LRT stops running on the line?
4. From my understanding the plan is to make the new stations only convenient for new developments. While some of these new developments will be inside the city of Ottawa, most will be outside. As a result, the vast majority of residents in the City of Ottawa will not find MOOSE useful for their daily commute. In fact if it disrupted the Trillium line, it would inconvenience more Ottawa residents than it would help.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm confused. From my understanding:

1. MOOSE's proposed service does not provide a direct to downtown link and most people will need to transfer to the Confederation line at either Bayview or Tremblay.
2. Access to the Trillium line (from Greenboro to Bayview) is critical for MOOSE to call 2 of the 3 lines inter-provincial.
3. The map on MOOSE's website indicates stops at only Greenboro, Carleton and Bayview on the Trillium line. Would all of the other stop in between loose service if the LRT stops running on the line?
4. From my understanding the plan is to make the new stations only convenient for new developments. While some of these new developments will be inside the city of Ottawa, most will be outside. As a result, the vast majority of residents in the City of Ottawa will not find MOOSE useful for their daily commute. In fact if it disrupted the Trillium line, it would inconvenience more Ottawa residents than it would help.

You don't sound confused, that is a pretty good summary. Moose customers who don't work close to a moose station will have to rely on OCtranspo or STO to get where they want to go. And unless Ottawa decides to implement a transfer agreement for non-taxpayers and non-residents, they will also need a bus pass.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Would you be using a coneventional train or a DMU, similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar) Double Level DMUs?

I think their idea is to use the same Bombardier bi-levels used by GO. (Judging by their renders on their website)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You don't sound confused, that is a pretty good summary. Moose customers who don't work close to a moose station will have to rely on OCtranspo or STO to get where they want to go. And unless Ottawa decides to implement a transfer agreement for non-taxpayers and non-residents, they will also need a bus pass.

You only need to look at the situation in Toronto to see how badly that can handicap a regional transit system... no one takes GO unless they can walk to and from Union because they don't want to pay a TTC pass on top of their GO one.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold

You expect Ottawa voters to convince Ottawa municipal politicians to spend money to alter Ottawa's transit system so that out-of-town commuters are not inconvenienced in having to switch trains? Seriously?

You'd have better luck getting Santa Claus to climb down your chimney with the a couple of full sized trains.

This is exactly why I think this proposal is so ridiculous and should be opposed. At best, it succeeds in putting up roadblocks for Trillium Line Stage 2. At worst, they succeed and leave everyone inside the Greenbelt with horrible transit.

His bullshit about capacity ignores the most obvious problem with urban transit. And why people don't use it: frequency. What would you prefer an LRT every 10 minutes. Or a heavy rail train with 30-60 minute frequencies and wider stop spacing?

Moose Rail is proposing to hijack the the Trillium Line to promote sprawl which benefits developers. I don't see a single benefit to any resident who lives inside the Greenbelt. I think people need to be a lot more vocal against this proposal. Especially those of us who live inside the Greenbelt and pay the taxes which built and maintain these lines.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Not at all. We're just confident that professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa, and the taxpayers of Ottawa (and of Canada), will see a straightforward way to improve overall transit system performance with high-capacity trains on that line.

I was starting to think you guys actually had a plan. Thankfully this is hope and a prayer. And I think citizens will forget everything about your nonsense once that LRT goes into service in May and they start riding it.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Do you have in mind some reason(s) that the city staff or its citizens ought to maintain low capacity at the centre? If so, please elaborate.

Frequency.

No rider gives a shit about capacity. Ask anybody if they care whether the bus they are riding on is a regular bus, articulated bus or a double decker. They only care about how long they have to wait for one. And your proposal will never have half the frequencies of the Confederation Line.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At best, it succeeds in putting up roadblocks for Trillium Line Stage 2.

How so? Integrated service is what the transit professionals who created the original O-Train plan, and who wrote the Interprovincial Transit Strategy were attempting to achieve. Recall that the O-Train's Certificate of Fitness today, and since 2000, states that it goes to Quebec.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At worst, they succeed and leave everyone inside the Greenbelt with horrible transit. His bullshit about capacity ignores the most obvious problem with urban transit. And why people don't use it: frequency. What would you prefer an LRT every 10 minutes. Or a heavy rail train with 30-60 minute frequencies and wider stop spacing? Moose Rail is proposing to hijack the the Trillium Line to promote sprawl which benefits developers. I don't see a single benefit to any resident who lives inside the Greenbelt. I think people need to be a lot more vocal against this proposal. Especially those of us who live inside the Greenbelt

Besides jumping to pre-conceived conclusions about frequency in the urban areas that would result from the engineering studies of various combinations of trains, and our negotiations with the municipalities, you've provided a good illustration of the "Sub-Optimization Principle". Evidently your concern is to optimize exclusively for the central area of Ottawa where you live, and based on your lifestyle. Your concern for the outcome at the National Capital Region level, or for its entire population and its visitors, is not quite as obvious.

More generally:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUBOPTIM.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/PRINCI_SUBOP.html
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/suboptimization.html

At risk being dismissed as a pointy-headed academic, I'll add that if you're interested in a formal description of "Sub-Optimization in Operations Problems", here is the seminal 1953 paper outlining this. Unfortunately it is (still!) behind a paywall, but here are two excerpts:

"Operations researchers have to sub-optimize (use low-level criteria) because it is so frequently impossible, either in principle or more frequently in practice, to calculate the consequences of any given action in terms of the appropriate high level criteria. ... This is the principle. This is the test of good sub-optimizing. The operations researcher will do most of his effective work on low-level problems. But he will do better work if he studies and bears in mind the characteristics of the optimization at the appropriate higher level, and the relation to it of his sub-optimizing criteria." (Hitch 1953: 88, 99)

Here's a current article of this topic that is free to access.

So, you're not wrong Truenorth00, but you're clearly sub-optimizing from the perspective of the National Capital Region. We acknowledge that's a legitimate perspective to take. We do, however, ask that you (and others in your camp) consider a whole-region perspective as also legitimate.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Especially those of us who live inside the Greenbelt and pay the taxes which built and maintain these lines.

That's a very curious statement. How does your argument hold for the provincial and federal taxpayer who's contributing the lion's share of capital financing for the OLRT and Trillium line projects? And, since the railway that MOOSE is interested in was built in the 1800s, can you please clarify which line you're referring to that was built by residents inside the Greenbelt? As far as we can tell, the only lines that really were built by "residents inside the Greenbelt" comprised the Ottawa Electric Railway system: that's to say Thomas Ahearn who was from LeBreton Flats. But even his system was entirely private-sector funded. And it was City of Ottawa council that voted to tear it out in the 60s, with the result that now there's a multi-billion dollar project to re-create that network, partially underground. The Hull Electric Railway was also locally (+Montreal) based private sector capital financing, and was also removed with a Hull council vote.

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]

Originally Posted by acottawa

unless Ottawa decides to implement a transfer agreement for non-taxpayers and non-residents, they will also need a bus pass.

OC-Transpo execs told us that passengers transferring to their system from MOOSE trains would get the same arrangement as is already provided to riders of the private out-of-town bus services: no charge. The rationale is that such services are benefitting Ottawa by reducing the number of cars filling Ottawa streets and parking lots.

MOOSE would reduce the number of cars per day in downtown Ottawa by about 25,000.

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