Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Any data available from the more recent census?

I haven't found an equivalent table yet but will keep looking. I believe that StatsCan is still in the process of analyzing the 2016 data and releasing it piece by piece. If I find something I will post it.

From the page below I'm assuming it will be available at the end of November (29th) under "Journey to work"

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/release-dates-diffusion-eng.cfm

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Perhaps some of the railway enthusiasts out there could help me fill in some of the blanks in my summary below.

MOOSE has from the beginning stated that creating their rail network was the easy part because they would be using existing rail lines and they would have the right to use those lines under the Constitution Act. However, as I look at the various components of the proposed network I see several issues that would preclude that from happening.

Bristol leg:
The track has been abandoned and the rail lines removed. It no longer forms part of the overall federal rail network and is not covered under the Constitution Act. The current landowners have no obligation to grant a right of way to anyone.
http://www.capitalgems.ca/morris-island-railway-bridge-ruin.html
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

LaPeche leg:
The track was legally abandoned and no longer forms part of the federal railway network. MOOSE's attempt to have this status rescinded or reversed has been dismissed by the CTA. The tracks have been removed.
The current landowners have no obligation to grant any right of way under the Constitution Act and have other plans for this corridor.
This also prevents the use of Morrison's Quarry as a rail yard.
https://sentierschelseatrails.org/2017/08/04/two-big-steps-for-chelsea-community-trail/
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

Montebello leg:
At least part of this leg is under the control of the STO and is used for their Rapibus corridor. The bridge over the Gatineau River has tracks but is used by buses and I don't believe STO would allow for a train to utilize that bridge at the same time as buses. A decision by CTA in 2012 dismissed MOOSE's complaint and concluded that the the rail corridor does not fall under federal jurisdiction. Consequently the Constitution Act does not apply and there is no obligation to grant a right of way.
I don't know what the state of the rail beyond the Rapibus portion is.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

O-Train, Trillium Line, POW Bridge:
This portion of the network does fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the Certificate of Fitness for the City of Ottawa indicates that it will be used for light rail.
Capacity issues: Currently the line is maxed out with trains every 12 minutes in both directions (10 trains/hour). MOOSE would like to add an additional 8 trains I believe, 2 per hour in each directin over two lines. There is insufficient capacity for this. The Constitution Act may grant a right of way but nothing states it has to be done at the expense of exisiting use of the line. The City could allow the transit of MOOSE trains but at off peak hours which would be rather pointless for MOOSE. Even if the two entities shared equally it would only allow for half of the proposed MOOSE trains to transit through that portion.
Compatibility: The Trillium line is being run as light rail (as per Certificate of Fitness linked below) but still has a legacy as heavy rail. I don't know if the O-Train and MOOSE are compatible with one another in regards to station design, etc. Definitely the long term plan to electrify the line (which is necessary to expand further to the South after Phase 2) is not compatible with a double decker heavy rail car.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY

Arnprior leg:
* Apparently this leg is still being used on a limited basis. I don't know enough about this leg to comment otherwise.
My conclusion: POSSIBLE

Smith Falls leg:
Under federal jurisdiction and so the Constitution Act would apply.
Capacity issues: I understand that much of this line is single track and it is a busy corridor. In fact, VIA's plans for High Frequency Rail (HFR) on this corridor would require an expansion of the tracks. So, while MOOSE may be granted a right of way, there could be challenges fitting the amount of trains in that they wish and at the times they desire.
Note VIA's comments about "The Challenge" in the article below. Adding MOOSE would only compound the issue.
http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT WITH ISSUES.

Alexandria leg:
Pretty much the same as the Smith Falls leg.

I would welcome additional inputs into this summary as to the actual rail lines and the potential for use by MOOSE.

* - denotes an edit to add information provided in subsequent postings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who keep giving reasons how this 'could' happen, I use the term "VIABLE" as per the definition below, it does not mean it is 'impossible'.
vi·a·ble
ˈvīəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: viable
capable of working successfully; feasible.
"the proposed investment was economically viable"

Thanks for that detailed assessment. I found it pretty much accurate but i would like to add about the rapibus corridor. During the Mayor's campaign to be re-elected and i did vote to re-elect the mayor, he mentioned that there would be a plan to eventually convert the rapibus corridor to light rail and this would cover most of the route MOOSE wants to use so I don't see how MOOSE can make money there either.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I'm assuming that electrification of the Trillium Line would be done exactly as it is with the Confederation Line, as it would makes sense at that time to run the same type of vehicles on both tracks. Looking at the image linked to below, I can't imagine a double decker passenger car running fitting underneath those electrical lines. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

https://ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/inline-media/lrt_train.jpg

If it was possible, then the potential to connect the existing Trillium Line and Confederation Line would exist and yet the decision has been to keep the lines separate. According to the Trillium Line Extension Planning and Environmental Assessment Study...
"The transfer at Bayview is required due to differences between diesel and electric LRT technology. This issue will be examined in the future, when the line is converted to electric LRT."
https://ottawa.ca/en/residents/transport...lanning/completed-projects/trillium-line

I just checked the photo from the link you posted and i can see there is still room for a double-decker train even though the wires are there.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Smith Falls leg:
Under federal jurisdiction and so the Constitution Act would apply.
Capacity issues: I understand that much of this line is single track and it is a busy corridor. In fact, VIA's plans for High Frequency Rail (HFR) on this corridor would require an expansion of the tracks. So, while MOOSE may be granted a right of way, there could be challenges fitting the amount of trains in that they wish and at the times they desire.
Note VIA's comments about "The Challenge" in the article below. Adding MOOSE would only compound the issue.
http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks
My conclusion: POSSIBLE BUT WITH ISSUES.

Alexandria leg:
Pretty much the same as the Smith Falls leg.

I think "The Challenge" pointed out in the article you listed there is likely referring to the rail corridor south of Ottawa. That rail is used frequently by freight trains, so capacity would certainly be an issue along there.

The track to Smith Falls is used solely by Via and currently has 20 trains total per day. If MOOSE were to use those tracks, upgrades would probably still be needed, but not with the same level of issues you seem to think there would be.

The track to Alexandria is very similar with the exception of one freight train which is similar to the Arnprior train mentioned early. (One run per day between Walkley Yard and Coteau, several days a week).

Overall, it doesn't seem like either of these legs would pose as big of a problem as originally thought.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think "The Challenge" pointed out in the article you listed there is likely referring to the rail corridor south of Ottawa. That rail is used frequently by freight trains, so capacity would certainly be an issue along there.

I suspect you are right. Link below is a map showing VIA tracks in yellow vs CN tracks in blue.

http://storage.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1500569189396

The route from Smith Falls to Ottawa and then down to Alexandria however is still the one that VIA wishes to operate its "High Frequency Rail", tripling ridership on the corridor. (I do acknowledge that tripling ridership doesn't equate to tripling the number of trains, however other sources have talked about a 2.5X increase in VIA trains.)

As I've said in my summary, the two southern legs (Alexandria and Smith Falls) are actually the ones where I think there is the technical potential for a regional line. My conclusion remains that this is POSSIBLE BUT WITH ISSUES.

Once again I'm dealing only with the technical issues of running a train. I still don't believe MOOSE is viable based on its funding model which in my opinion is unreliable and unsustainable, nor do I see sufficient ridership to justify a regional rail network. But those are separate discussions.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The lack of forethought in what we are doing is amazing.

How we develop any light rail system on the Quebec side leaves me puzzled?

Is it going to be compatible with the Confederation Line or with the Trillium Line or neither or both?

We could end up with a patchwork quilt of a system, that ends up costing a lot more in the long-run because of the number of different technologies that we will have to maintain, each with its own maintenance facility.

Unless there is interlining, there is really no need to worry about compatibility of equipment on Confederation, Trillium and any future Quebec lines. Trillium and Confederation lines already have their own separate maintenance facilities, so there's no additional cost there.

As users, most people probably don't care if the trains are the same or not, as long as they run at an acceptable schedule and frequency.

Clearly any extension of Trillium line into Quebec would use the same technology as the Trillium line. Any new Quebec line (Aylmer LRT?) would only require compatibility if they plan to interline. As for maintenance, that line would be run by STO so that's their problem.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Horus

Unless there is interlining, there is really no need to worry about compatibility of equipment on Confederation, Trillium and any future Quebec lines. Trillium and Confederation lines already have their own separate maintenance facilities, so there's no additional cost there.

As users, most people probably don't care if the trains are the same or not, as long as they run at an acceptable schedule and frequency.

Clearly any extension of Trillium line into Quebec would use the same technology as the Trillium line. Any new Quebec line (Aylmer LRT?) would only require compatibility if they plan to interline. As for maintenance, that line would be run by STO so that's their problem.

I think there are two problems. One is the interoperability of equipment. The O-Train uses "light" vehicles designed for Europe that are not approved to share track with "heavy" equipment such the bi-level trains Moose proposes to use. The other problem is that the platforms are sized for the type of vehicle used. If the bilevel trains are any wider they not be able to get through the stations (unless those metal extenders are flipped up and down every time a train goes through).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think there are two problems. One is the interoperability of equipment. The O-Train uses "light" vehicles designed for Europe that are not approved to share track with "heavy" equipment such the bi-level trains Moose proposes to use. The other problem is that the platforms are sized for the type of vehicle used. If the bilevel trains are any wider they not be able to get through the stations (unless those metal extenders are flipped up and down every time a train goes through).

I think if MOOSE got their hands on bi-level trains that are compatible with the Indusi system used on the Trillium line, then I could see the CTA/TSB (or whoever regulates this) letting them operate the two types of vehicles together.

That being said, I imagine it would be hard to meet that criteria since heavy rail would take longer to brake in the case of an emergency brake situation which would render the ATP system useless. I have no idea if any heavy rail bi-level equipment that could meet those needs exists.

[Kitchissippi]

The Constitution is being quoted but I still fail to see how servicing a few thousand rural residents is to "the general Advantage of Canada", especially if it undermines the city's smart growth planning and creates more sprawl. It's a rather thin interpretation of the Act.

These expanded exurbs will undoubtedly not be solely dependent on the train, so more roads will have to be built with vehicles travelling longer distances for destinations not convenient by train.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think if MOOSE got their hands on bi-level trains that are compatible with the Indusi system used on the Trillium line, then I could see the CTA/TSB (or whoever regulates this) letting them operate the two types of vehicles together.

That being said, I imagine it would be hard to meet that criteria since heavy rail would take longer to brake in the case of an emergency brake situation which would render the ATP system useless. I have no idea if any heavy rail bi-level equipment that could meet those needs exists.

I don't know, this is a safety issue, I can't see why the CTA would be inclined to jeopardize safety. The "light" European trains are designed to crash into other "light" European trains. The "heavy" North American trains are designed to crash into other "heavy" North American trains.

[Charles5]

I’ve commented before how I believe that Property Powered Rail is an unsustainable means of funding anything. To illustrate the point I will use a simplified example with only one property owner and eliminating all other external variants that would influence property values, including inflation.

Original owner has property valued at $500K. He agrees to pay a ‘subscription’ for a rail station so that the train will stop near his property. His subscription equates to ½ of the difference in his property value with the train compared to without the train. His property rises in value to $550K as a result of the addition of train service.

Upon sale of the property the owner gives the rail company $25K and pockets the remainder $525K, a $25K profit for the owner and the rail company gets $25K for its operations. So far sounds good.

Now, the new owner has paid $550K for a property which has a value of $550K including the rail service. The rail company now approaches the individual and requests a subscription again. The cost of the subscription still equals ½ of the difference in value of the property with rail service compared to without rail service. These two figures remain $550K with and $500K without. So, the new owner now has the choice to agree to pay $25K on the sale of his home, thus being out of pocket $25K or he can refuse to pay the subscription at which point in time the rail company now longer provides service, the value of the property drops back down to the original value without rail service ($500K), and the owner will be out $50K upon sale. This second owner will lose one way or another, either $25K or $50K.

The cycle repeats itself for each subsequent owner. In summary, the increase in property value due to the addition of a service is a one-time boost. Secondary owners will have already paid a premium in their purchase price for this service and cannot expect each subsequent buyer to pay more and more for the same property with the same service. (Remember that we're using current year dollars to eliminate the inflation variable as well as any other non-relevant factors.)

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know, this is a safety issue, I can't see why the CTA would be inclined to jeopardize safety. The "light" European trains are designed to crash into other "light" European trains. The "heavy" North American trains are designed to crash into other "heavy" North American trains.

They're not designed to crash at all. Hence why the Trillium line uses an ATP system. It's supposed to prevent trains from ever getting in a situation where they could crash. It doesn't matter how crash worthy a train is so long as that works, and if it were to fail, then it wouldn't really matter who crashes into who.

In the end, the government decides, but what I mentioned would be the case for allowing mixed use.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They're not designed to crash at all. Hence why the Trillium line uses an ATP system. It's supposed to prevent trains from ever getting in a situation where they could crash. It doesn't matter how crash worthy a train is so long as that works, and if it were to fail, then it wouldn't really matter who crashes into who.

In the end, the government decides, but what I mentioned would be the case for allowing mixed use.

Trains are totally designed to crash, which is why they have crash standards, the same as automobiles. If the ATP fails or there is type of failure that ATP cannot prevent then you want other measures in place to mitigate the crash. Using vehicles that do not meet crash standards is not a good idea and I can't imagine any reason why the CTA would approve it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Now, the new owner has paid $550K for a property which has a value of $550K including the rail service. The rail company now approaches the individual and requests a subscription again. The cost of the subscription still equals ½ of the difference in value of the property with rail service compared to without rail service. These two figures remain $550K with and $500K without. So, the new owner now has the choice to agree to pay $25K on the sale of his home, thus being out of pocket $25K or he can refuse to pay the subscription at which point in time the rail company now longer provides service, the value of the property drops back down to the original value without rail service ($500K), and the owner will be out $50K upon sale. This second owner will lose one way or another, either $25K or $50K.

The cycle repeats itself for each subsequent owner. In summary, the increase in property value due to the addition of a service is a one-time boost. Secondary owners will have already paid a premium in their purchase price for this service and cannot expect each subsequent buyer to pay more and more for the same property with the same service. (Remember that we're using current year dollars to eliminate the inflation variable as well as any other non-relevant factors.)

It depends on whether the premium is a percentage or a fixed amount and what limited literature exists seems to suggest it is a percentage.

If say the skytrain in Vancouver had been funded in this system and being near a skytrain station yields a 10% premium (as an example, it is probably lower than that) then the person that sold a house for 200k in 1990 would have paid skytrain 10k, the person that sold for 400k in 2000 would have paid 20k, the person that sold for a million this year would have paid skytrain 50k, etc.

The problem is such a system requires a very constrained real estate market where land is at a premium (due to an island, mountains, peninsula, etc) and house prices are going to increase faster than inflation over time and not be subject to the normal boom/bust cycle of real estate: Hong Kong, Singapore, Vancouver, Manhattan, etc. I can't see it working in a region without such constraints (rural Ottawa for example).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Trains are totally designed to crash, which is why they have crash standards, the same as automobiles. If the ATP fails or there is type of failure that ATP cannot prevent then you want other measures in place to mitigate the crash. Using vehicles that do not meet crash standards is not a good idea and I can't imagine any reason why the CTA would approve it.

Except that heavy rail lines already cross the Trillium line in two places. If an O-Train runs a red and ATP fails then it could be at risk of being hit full on by a Via train.

Sure, running heavy rail right on the O-Train line would definitely increase the odds of an accident happening (since there are just more trains running), and the odds of a CTA approval of this type of operation are rather low, but it is possible. More possible than the city giving up its control over the Trillium line at least.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It depends on whether the premium is a percentage or a fixed amount and what limited literature exists seems to suggest it is a percentage.

If say the skytrain in Vancouver had been funded in this system and being near a skytrain station yields a 10% premium (as an example, it is probably lower than that) then the person that sold a house for 200k in 1990 would have paid skytrain 10k, the person that sold for 400k in 2000 would have paid 20k, the person that sold for a million this year would have paid skytrain 50k, etc.

Actually whether its a percentage or fixed amount is irrelevant, but I did use a percentage in my example (1/2 (or 50%) of the increase). This is based right out of MOOSE's literature.

As I said earlier, I've eliminated all external variables including inflation and the local housing market. Your example is based on inflation and markets and the second owner onwards is paying a portion of the increase in value of your home that is totally unrelated to the fact that the train station is nearby. MOOSE tries to suggest that it's a win-win scenario, that the property owner comes out with more money in their pocket and MOOSE getting their share as well. It doesn't work that simply.

Try using another example. Try moving from house to house in the same neighbourhood next to a train station or to another neighbourhood near another train station. Even taking into account other variables and inflation such as you've done above you still lose out. You sell that million dollar house and pay out $50K to MOOSE, and then you have to spend $1M to buy the exact same house in the same neighbourhood.

If people want to pay a fee or subscription for a service that's up to them, but don't make it appear that this is a money generating scenario for the individual property owners (after the initial bump).

The only people who would make any money out of this scheme are those who own the property before the train station is added. Anyone after that is simply stuck paying the bills. That's why some developers might be interested in this since they get to sell off the properties to the rest of us.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Actually whether its a percentage or fixed amount is irrelevant, but I did use a percentage in my example (1/2 (or 50%) of the increase). This is based right out of MOOSE's literature.

As I said earlier, I've eliminated all external variables including inflation and the local housing market. Your example is based on inflation and markets and the second owner onwards is paying a portion of the increase in value of your home that is totally unrelated to the fact that the train station is nearby. MOOSE tries to suggest that it's a win-win scenario, that the property owner comes out with more money in their pocket and MOOSE getting their share as well. It doesn't work that simply.

Try using another example. Try moving from house to house in the same neighbourhood next to a train station or to another neighbourhood near another train station. Even taking into account other variables and inflation such as you've done above you still lose out. You sell that million dollar house and pay out $50K to MOOSE, and then you have to spend $1M to buy the exact same house in the same neighbourhood.

If people want to pay a fee or subscription for a service that's up to them, but don't make it appear that this is a money generating scenario for the individual property owners (after the initial bump).

The only people who would make any money out of this scheme are those who own the property before the train station is added. Anyone after that is simply stuck paying the bills. That's why some developers might be interested in this since they get to sell off the properties to the rest of us.

Agree that selling and re-buying within the same neighbourhood would result in extra cost, but inflation also applies to the "rail component" as well as as the non rail component. If a similar house in Burnaby is worth 500k if it is not near a rail station and 550k if it is near a rail station (and therefore when it is sold the buyer pays the rail company 25k and pockets 25k more than the other owner) and the same houses are worth 1 million and 1.1 million 10 years later then both buyers still make more than their non-rail counterparts.

[Charles5]

Let's use another example taking inflation into account.

Initial property value $100K. Rail service increase property values by 10%. Subscription is 50% of difference in value between having train service or not.

Owner #1. Sells for $110K, pays rail company $5K, keeps $5K profit.
Owner #2. Sells for $220K, but without rail it would have only been $200K. Pays rail company $10K. Comes out even since price increase would have been $100K even without rail service while his gain was $110K-$10K=$100K.
Owner #3. Sells for $330K, but without rail service would have only been $300K. Pays rail service $15K. Loses $5K because without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$15K ($95K)
Owner #4. Sells for $440, but without rail service would have only been $400K. Pays rail company $20K. Loses $10K because without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$20K ($90K)
Owner #5. Sells for $550K, but without rail service would have only been $500K. Pays rail company $25K. Loses $15K since without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$25K ($85K).

In other words, the more often the house changes hands, the greater the losses to the new homeowners. If the house never changes hands then there is no funding for the rail service and it will die. A lose-lose type of scenario in my mind.

In acottawa's example above, it would equate to Owner #2 where they break even. Without rail it would be a rise in value from $500k to $1M, an increase of $500k. With rail it would increase from $550K to $1.1M an increase of $550K, but would owe the rail company $50K, thus reducing the increase to $500K.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Let's use another example taking inflation into account.

Initial property value $100K. Rail service increase property values by 10%. Subscription is 50% of different between in value between having train service or not.

Owner #1. Sells for $110K, pays rail company $5K, keeps $5K profit.
Owner #2. Sells for $220K, but without rail it would have only been $200K. Pays rail company $10K. Comes out even since price increase would have been $100K even without rail service while his gain was $110K-$10K=$100K.
Owner #3. Sells for $330K, but without rail service would have only been $300K. Pays rail service $15K. Loses $5K because without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$15K ($95K)
Owner #4. Sells for $440, but without rail service would have only been $400K. Pays rail company $20K. Loses $10K because without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$20K ($90K)
Owner #5. Sells for $550K, but without rail service would have only been $500K. Pays rail company $25K. Loses $15K since without rail service he would have gained $100K vice $110K-$25K ($85K).

In acottawa's example above, it would equate to Owner #2 where they break even. Without rail it would be a rise in value from $500k to $1M, an increase of $500k. With rail it would increase from $550K to $1.1M an increase of $550K, but would owe the rail company $50K, thus reducing the increase to $500K.

You're not applying a consistent inflation multiplier to the rail and non-rail. Here is a $100 property assuming a 20% increase each time it is sold.

Without With Rail Company Owner Extra Profit
$100.00 $110.00 $5.00 $105.00 $5.00
$120.00 $132.00 $6.00 $126.00 $6.00
$144.00 $158.40 $7.20 $151.20 $7.20
$172.80 $190.08 $8.64 $181.44 $8.64
$207.36 $228.10 $10.37 $217.73 $10.37
$248.83 $273.72 $12.44 $261.27 $12.44
$298.60 $328.46 $14.93 $313.53 $14.93
$358.32 $394.15 $17.92 $376.23 $17.92
$429.98 $472.98 $21.50 $451.48 $21.50

[Charles5]

acottawa,

Afraid I will have to disagree with you using your own numbers. You're considering your 'profit' as half the difference between the value of the property with or without rail at the time of sale, not looking at the initial purchase price vs sale price in each scenario.

Owner #1 is better off by $5. Agree there because the property was owned before the rail came in and the increase is due to the introduction of rail.
Owner #2 without rail would have bought for $100 and sold for $120, an increase of $20. However he buys for $110, sells for $132, an increase of $22, but pays out $6 to the rail company, reducing his gain to $16. He is $4 shorter than if rail had not existed.
Owner #3 without rail would have bought for $120 and sold For $144, an increase of $24. Rather he buys for $132 and sells for $158.40, an increase of $26.40, but he owes $7.20, thus reducing his gain to $19.20. He is $4.80 shorter than if rail had not existed