Rural Commuter Rail

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Kitchissippi,

See Alexander's Pattern #2: Distribution of Towns
https://archive.org/stream/APatternLanguage/A_Pattern_Language_djvu.txt

Ahh, yes, snatch this pattern from my hand, Grasshopper.
Wax on, wax off on this beautiful train.
Then drink this purple Koolaid and follow me to Utopia.

This is worse than a Corbusian wet dream. What exactly in that archaic drivel demonstrates anything to "the general Advantage of Canada"?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Considering how far Bristol is by car plus the amount of traffic trying to cross the river during rush hour, I'd say a lot of those people would probably have some interest in a rail alternative.

You'll have to define "a lot" to me. Pontiac County has approximately 900 folks who commute into Ottawa. In my opinion (and yes, it's just an opinion), you might actually convince 200 of those to take a train in a best case scenario. The MOOSE solution is to run trains with a capacity of 600 people on an hourly basis from 5am to midnight, a total seating capacity of 12000 during the day. Yes, you don't want to fill up all those seats on the first stop and there will be additional passengers getting on at subsequent stops, however once you get to the area covered by OC Transpo it becomes redundant and pointless for additional folks to get on.

"A lot" is a relative term. Running empty trains back and forth all day is not an efficient solution to whatever problem might exist. (How many people do you think will hop on the 1pm train out of Bristol.) For the numbers involved in the Pontiac a peak hours commuter bus service might be more appropriate.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Charles5 -- You ought to do the overall arithmetic on that 200 acres. Is the owner really wrong to see advantages in connecting that site?

@Joseph Potvin

That depends on who pays whom in that arrangement. Is MOOSE paying Morrison for the use of the land for their train yard, or is Morrison paying a subscription fee to MOOSE for the benefit of having a station there, or is it a neutral quid pro quo arrangement?

If MOOSE is going to pay Morrison's to lease the land on which the train yard will be situated then of course it's advantageous to Morrison's as they gain a paying customer for land that otherwise wouldn't be generating revenue.

That in itself doesn't make the rail line a viable proposition. I'm curious just how many folks will be out bungee jumping or swimming out at the quarry over the next 5 or 6 months.

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

As for doing a little math. It all depends on the profit per visitor.

Assume that as a station owner Morrison's would pay an equal percentage of the operating costs. Take $200M and divide by 50 stations comes out to $4M per station.
If the profit from each visitor is equal to $20 after all expenses, then to recover the $4M spent they would need to have an additional 200,000 visitors. Assuming that they are open approximately 200 days a year (bungee jumping onto a frozen pond really doesn't work well) that would mean an additional 1000 visitors would need to show up each day.
If they manage to generate $40 per visitor after expenses then you only need 500 additional visitors a day.

Note that these are additional visitors above and beyond what they would get without the rail service. It would not include people who simply change their mode of transportation from car to rail.

Now, I don't know how many people go out to Morrison's Quarry currently, nor do I know the capacity of the site. However, to me, gaining an extra 1000 customers, or even an extra 500 customers is highly improbable. Therefore I would suggest it's wrong to make the arrangement purely on the basis of having the station. As previously mentioned, if MOOSE is paying Morrison's for the use of the land, then it's a different story.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Is anyone on this blog actually suggesting that the overall resource and ecological soundness of the Greater National Capital Region will be worse with an integrated passenger rail system? If so, please make your case.

Absolutely, the overall resource and ecological soundness of the Greater National Capital Region will be worse with the with the type of rail service you are proposing.

1. You are not primarily offering a service for existing rural commuters and there are only a few thousand of those anyway, which is a rounding error in the region's carbon footprint.

2. Your business model is dependent on tens of thousands of people relocating from urban/suburban areas to rural subdivisions and commuting farther and being farther from services and amenities. If you are successful, the footprint of the capital region will go from a radius of about 50km to a radius of about 150km. I have never seen any climate scientist, urban planner, economist or anyone with any expertise suggest that more sprawl was a potential tool in reducing carbon footprints.

3. Even if people take the train to work these isolated 200 acre communities are not large enough to support a range of services and people in need of all but the most basic stores and services will need to travel much larger distances than they do now. Someone that lives in Orleans for example has most stores, services, etc. within a few kilometres and can get more specialized services 10km away in central Ottawa. Someone who lives in Maxville will have to drive to Cornwall for pretty much everything and Ottawa or Montreal for more specialized options.

4. Your choice of rolling stock: diesel, bi-level heavy rail is about the most carbon-intensive option available. You have specifically rejected suggestions on this forum that you consider more environmentally friendly options such as DMUs. You have been vague about the frequency you are planning to offer, but there is a good chance these trains will be running close to empty much of the time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Yes the populations that GO Transit serve are higher but they were not as high as they are now when GO Transit first started in 1967.

Its an Apples to Orange comparison you are making. When Go Transit started Toronto had population less than 700,000 people which is less than 900,000 that Ottawa has now. So Let MOOSE take the risk that's all i'm saying.

GO started in 1967. The population of the Toronto CMA during the closest census (1971) was 2.6 million, which is more than a million more than the current Ottawa CMA. Oakville (the Western terminus at that time) had a population of 61,000 (more than all the communities Moose intends to serve combined). Pickering (the Eastern terminus at the time) is only 30 km from downtown Toronto (compared to Moose planning to run service to towns 80km away)

Also, at no point in GO's history was it ever in the rural commuter rail business. It always served established suburbs and satellite cities. Closest to rural rail it ever got was the Stouffville, and GO just took over pre-existing Via service.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

GO started in 1967. The population of the Toronto CMA during the closest census (1971) was 2.6 million, which is more than a million more than the current Ottawa CMA. Oakville (the Western terminus at that time) had a population of 61,000 (more than all the communities Moose intends to serve combined). Pickering (the Eastern terminus at the time) is only 30 km from downtown Toronto (compared to Moose planning to run service to towns 80km away)

Also, at no point in GO's history was it ever in the rural commuter rail business. It always served established suburbs and satellite cities. Closest to rural rail it ever got was the Stouffville, and GO just took over pre-existing Via service.

Well then if MOOSE wants to take that kind of chance, let them. It doesn't matter to me either way

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Well then if MOOSE wants to take that kind of chance, let them. It doesn't matter to me either way

The problem is that whatever MOOSE plans to do, it impacts urban LRT plans as well. There needs to be coordination.

[Joseph Potvin]

Joseph Potvin: "Is anyone on this blog actually suggesting that the overall resource and ecological soundness of the Greater National Capital Region will be worse with an integrated passenger rail system? If so, please make your case."
acottawa: Absolutely, the overall resource and ecological soundness of the Greater National Capital Region will be worse with the with the type of rail service you are proposing.


Q: "Will the overall resource, ecological and financial soundness of the Greater National Capital Region be better or worse with an efficient and effective integrated passenger rail system?" (This is not asking here about MOOSE's plan in particular.)

(a) If you think it would probably be better, what do you think would be the essential characteristics of such a system?

(b) If you think it would probably be worse, please identify the key factors that you think would be degraded.

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

(b) If you think it would probably be worse, please identify the key factors that you think would be degraded.

1. Significant increase in air pollution (from underutilized trains, from people who have to travel much further, from delivery vehicles, etc. having to travel much further).
2. Loss of farmland/natural areas (as 200 acre blocks are are developed to pay for rail stations). For example, Morrison's Quarry is mostly forested at this point.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

(This is not asking here about MOOSE's plan in particular.)

Also no for any plan. Heavy rail is not an efficient way to deliver transportation services to rural areas unless they happen to be en route to a larger population centre. Whatever environmental/social gains may exist would be offset by the lack of efficiency created by operating a system at a tiny fraction of capacity.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

In the 2011 Census it indicates that 920 people in the Pontiac County commuted to work in Ottawa. How many of those do you believe would take an hourly train in lieu of their car.

You are forgetting that Moose doesn't want any of those 920 people to take their train and will make it difficult for them to do so (unless they buy a house from one of their developer partners, or they convince their neighbours to sign and agreement with Moose to support a station). Their plan is to have thousands of people move to new developments in these rural regions, where the developer has partnered with Moose.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Q: "Will the overall resource, ecological and financial soundness of the Greater National Capital Region be better or worse with an efficient and effective integrated passenger rail system?" |

Joseph,

Unfortunately your questions starts off being biased by stating the assumption that any integrated passenger rail system within the NCR would be "efficient and effective". This is the area in which most people on this forum would disagree.

I think everyone here is for "efficient and effective" transportation networks. We all want a well integrated transportation network that is efficient, viable, and sustainable. However, given the population densities within the region, the commuting patterns, and the alternate transportation methods, a regional rail network would simply not be "efficient and effective" and therefore is not the solution.

The least efficient means of transportation is the one which does not get used.

The ultimate solution would likely be a mix of various transportation means. LRT and BRT within the urban cores as a hub or backbone of a transportation network, a good bus network from the suburbs to feed the rapid transit lines, commuter buses from the rural communities, shuttle services, and even cars where the situation dictates that that is the most efficient means.

There is a lot we could do to make transportation of people more efficient within the region, but I think the greatest value would be to try and better integrate the systems that we already have thus improving it's effectiveness. In addition, we can increase efficiency by trying to maximize the utilization of existing capacity, by putting bums into empty seats. This can range from everything from incentivizing and facilitating carpooling and ridesharing (I think the average people per car is 1.2), promoting public transit and working to optimize routes, maybe even greater use of the VIA trains running into Ottawa. These are all just ideas, but what I'm trying to get at is that there is no single simple solution, we have to look at the situation as a whole and find ways to improve it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

diesel, bi-level heavy rail is about the most carbon-intensive option available. You have specifically rejected suggestions on this forum that you consider more environmentally friendly options such as DMUs.

Agreed. Heavy bi-level commuter rail cars are great for large cities like Toronto where they run 12 coach trains with a total seated capacity of 1,944 people per train. Even for Vancouver's West Coast Express where the trains have between 5 and 10 coaches, they are a good solution.

From what I gather, the transition point where traditional diesel commuter trains start to become more effective than DMUs is around 5 or 6 cars. Here in Ottawa, the 70m platforms (after stage 2) on the Trillium line will limit them to 3 25m coaches (capacity of 486 seated and probably that much again standing), and I don't see the need to make them any longer any time soon.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Unfortunately your questions starts off being biased by stating the assumption that any integrated passenger rail system within the NCR would be "efficient and effective". This is the area in which most people on this forum would disagree."

Interesting. Okay, let me try a slightly revised approach to the questions.

Q1: "Is an efficient and effective integrated regional urban-rural passenger rail system within the realm of reasonable possibility in certain scenarios globally?"

N: Explain.
Y: Q2

Q2: "Might the Greater NCR be one of those scenarios between 2018 and 2028?

N: Explain.
Y: Q3

Q3 ... Well, there are many interesting questions to pursue at this juncture. But if I understand correctly, several on this blog say no at either Q1 or Q2. So I wonder who here gets to Q3? If the answer is nobody, then at least we all know not to bother with any discussion in this thread of anything beyond Q1 and Q2.

May I suggest that if anyone here gets to Q3, that you suggest the next question? And I'd ask that anyone who's a Q1-N or Q2-N, please tag your Q3+comments accordingly for the purpose only of clarity?

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

[Buggys]

With Moose, there may be a last mile problem. Due to the distances & time involved in the Moose network, people may be more willing to ride it if they can take their own car with them on the Moose train, especially when going from the city to rural areas. Not sure if this is feasible from a cost standpoint.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Interesting. Okay, let me try a slightly revised approach to the questions.

Q1: "Is an efficient and effective integrated regional urban-rural passenger rail system within the realm of reasonable possibility in certain scenarios globally?"

N: Explain.

I have traveled fairly extensively and spent extended periods of time in several European countries with deeply-ingrained train cultures and I have never seen anything analogous to the type of service you are proposing.

Most rural trains in the U.K. were shut down in the 1960s (or converted to some sort of tourist train).
Even in the Netherlands, which is one of the most rail intensive countries in the world, secondary services usually serve fairly large towns at their terminus. Emmen, for example, has 100k people. Smaller centres are served by bus.
Some of the DB Regio trains in Germany bear some resemblance to the type of service you are proposing, but they use much smaller trains (DMUs) and basically operate empty for much of the day (i.e. they are being heavily subsidized) and often do not run to the larger urban areas (so they are not terribly effective for commuting).

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Interesting. Okay, let me try a slightly revised approach to the questions.

Q1: "Is an efficient and effective integrated regional urban-rural passenger rail system within the realm of reasonable possibility in certain scenarios globally?"

N: Explain.
Y: Q2

Q2: "Might the Greater NCR be one of those scenarios between 2018 and 2028?

N: Explain.

Q1: Y. I think some European networks would come close to this meeting the description of being a regional rail network that is both efficient and effective. The German S-Bahn comes to mind.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Karte_der_S-Bahn_M%C3%BCnchen.png

Q2: N
First of all, I want to point out the difference between regional rail and commuter rail. Commuter rail focuses on scheduled departures during peak periods that tries to match the demand from folks going to and from their place of work/school, etc. Sometimes the service only runs in one direction with trains deadheading back for the next run. Regional rail operates at fixed intervals throughout the day to move people between towns and villages and to the nearby city. MOOSE’s proposal is a regional system with service hourly from about 5am to midnight.

Why would the Greater NCR not be a candidate for regional rail in the next 10 years.

-The first mile: the population density around stations in the rural towns is currently low. The rail service would be dependent upon a large catchment area to generate passengers. To get to the station people would need to use their cars and once they have to use their cars they tend to stay in the cars for the whole route if that is not too much of a challenge. Population densities around stations will not increase enough in the next 10 years in my opinion even if a regional rail network is available.

-Passenger traffic in this region is primarily commuters who would not be a good match with the proposed service. Hourly service would not be convenient enough for most folks, making it ineffective, and much of the day (mid-day, late evenings to midnight) there would be minimal passengers, thus making it inefficient. The tendency towards commuter traffic is not going to change in the next 10 years. Trying to adapt the rail service for commuters by increasing frequency during the peak periods and decreasing or ceasing at other times of day would make it more effective, but less efficient as more rolling stock would be needed but most would sit idle for much of the day.

-population density is insufficient to meet the capacity of the proposed trains. Even during peak periods it would not be possible to fill most of the seats on the train. Empty seats and empty trains are inefficient. Trying to reduce frequency to get more people per train would simply make it less effective. That population density will not increase sufficiently over the next 10 years to make it viable.

-the last mile: There is no train station/stops in Central Ottawa/downtown, that ship has sailed and there is no way that will be corrected in the next 10 years if at all. Consequently, the vast majority of passengers cannot reach their final destination on regional rail and will have to transfer to OC Transpo. If people cannot reach their destination and are compelled to transfer to OC Transpo both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the network drops and having to pay the full fare just for the last few stops will also discourage people. I think that the fact that people have to transfer to OC Transpo at some point in time will cause many to decide to drive to Park and Rides on the outskirts of Ottawa and take BRT/LRT for as far as they can. That maximizes the value of the OC Transpo fare/pass and minimizes the cost to get to the transfer point. It also helps to ensure they get a seat which may be unlikely in the last few stops.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Q1: Y. I think some European networks would come close to this meeting the description of being a regional rail network that is both efficient and effective. The German S-Bahn comes to mind.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Karte_der_S-Bahn_M%C3%BCnchen.png

S-bahns mostly serve urban/suburban areas, maybe slightly outside that (a Manotick type community). Very few go more than 40km from the city centre, and none travel a Smiths Falls or Alexandria type of distance.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

S-bahns mostly serve urban/suburban areas, maybe slightly outside that (a Manotick type community). Very few go more than 40km from the city centre, and none travel a Smiths Falls or Alexandria type of distance.

Agreed, and that's why it is a regional network that is both effective and efficient, because of its relatively small but more densely populated area. The question wasn't to find an equivalent to an NCR regional railway but to identify an effective and efficient regional railroad.

Regardless, the only real purpose to my answering the first question was to get to the second question.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Charles5

-the last mile: There is no train station/stops in Central Ottawa/downtown, that ship has sailed and there is no way that will be corrected in the next 10 years if at all. Consequently, the vast majority of passengers cannot reach their final destination on regional rail and will have to transfer to OC Transpo. If people cannot reach their destination and are compelled to transfer to OC Transpo both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the network drops and having to pay the full fare just for the last few stops will also discourage people. I think that the fact that people have to transfer to OC Transpo at some point in time will cause many to decide to drive to Park and Rides on the outskirts of Ottawa and take BRT/LRT for as far as they can. That maximizes the value of the OC Transpo fare/pass and minimizes the cost to get to the transfer point. It also helps to ensure they get a seat which may be unlikely in the last few stops.

I want to elaborate a bit further on the ‘last mile’ problem that exists for regional rail within Ottawa. A regional network can be successful if it delivers its passengers to their final destination for the most part. However, if it cannot reach the end destination but the passengers are compelled to transfer to the municipal network, then it becomes a feeder line in essence. A feeder line that overlaps the line that is receiving the passengers creates a surplus capacity since the receiving network needs to have sufficient seats to accept the passengers from the feeder. This creates inefficiencies in the overall system.

I’ll try to illustrate the point with an example:

100 passengers need to travel from Arnprior to Downtown (A to D).
Another 100 passengers need to travel from Bells Corners to Downtown (B to D).
Regional Rail can only take passengers from Arnprior to Bayview (A to C) and passes by Bells Corners (B).
Municipal Rail can only take passengers from Bells Corners to Downtown (B to D).

Regional Rail needs to have capacity of 100 seats for the entire length of its run.
Municipal Rail would need capacity of 200 seats for the entire length of its run in order to accept the passengers that would transfer from Regional Rail either at B or C.
As a result, for that overlapping stretch from B to C, there would be surplus capacity of 100 seats.

There are two possible solutions to eliminate the surplus capacity.
1. Regional Rail extends to its final destination (D) thus allowing the Municipal network to reduce its capacity by 100 seats over its entire length. This is not possible in the Ottawa scenario as there are no rail lines leading into the Downtown core; or
2. Regional Rail stops at the earliest opportunity (B), the passengers travel the remainder of the way on the municipal network. This eliminates the duplication along the portion of the line from B to C.

Problem:

Passengers:
A--------------------------------100-------------------------------------------  D
.............................B--------------------------100--------------------------  D
Capacity:
A--------------------------------100 seats--------------------  C
.............................B-------------------200 seats--------------------------  D
Result:
A--100 seats/100 passengers--B--300 seats/200 passengers (inefficienct)--C--200 seats/200 passengers--D

Solutions:
1. Extend regional line to D (NOT POSSIBLE IN OTTAWA) and reduce capacity on municipal line.
A-----------------------100 seats/100 passengers----------------------- D
........................ B---------------100 seats/100 passengers-------------- D
2. Regional line feeds into the municipal line at the earliest opportunity.
A--100 seats/100 passengers-- B--200 seats/200 passengers--D