Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

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

What makes you think that the Confederation line would be any better at handling those same 300 people coming from bus transfers and Park & Rides than it would be at handling transfers at Bayview? How is this situation any different than riders who would commute using OC Transpo routes as well as rural partner routes coming from areas like Richmond, Vars, Navan, an Cumberland?

Also, considering the way O-Train stations are to be laid out, it's certain that MOOSE would need to strike a deal to allow for transfers to be made with essentially no (immediate) cost to the passenger. The positioning of fare gates simply wouldn't allow for that to work.

Would you also say that a 3 stop ride on the confederation line is really too slow to be considered efficient or comfortable enough of a ride for users who need to transfer from one train to another?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

What makes you think that the Confederation line would be any better at handling those same 300 people coming from bus transfers and Park & Rides than it would be at handling transfers at Bayview? How is this situation any different than riders who would commute using OC Transpo routes as well as rural partner routes coming from areas like Richmond, Vars, Navan, an Cumberland?

You obviously don't understand the issue despite my attempt to simplify it. I never said that the Confederation Line couldn't handle the people. What I said was that there would be more inefficiencies or wastage in the system the more overlap there is between the two networks, assuming that one can't get people to its final destination.

The two examples you give are scenarios which relate to the solutions I talk about. First, OC Transpo tries to set their Park and Rides as far out on the routes as possible so that they absorb those riders for the maximum length of the route. The peak period buses, now known as Connexion buses (the 200 series) will only take passengers to the closest stop along the LRT and have them transfer there. These are both examples of solution #2. Secondly, the regional buses all go into the downtown core and the vast majority of the passengers do not transfer to OC Transpo. That is an example of solution #1.

I agree with you regarding transferring along the Trillium Line. That just speaks to the incompatibility of the two networks on the same line. The two different types of trains are incompatible anyway and can't run on the same set of tracks. That's a red herring in this overall discussion anyway.

Regarding the comfort of passengers on a short route vs on a long route. Once again you've missed the point. The inefficiencies I talk about are not related to transfer time or train speed. This is all about duplicate or redundant capacity over different networks. This leads to more unused seats which is less efficient.

I think you're looking at this from the point of view of a passenger rather than as the operator of the transportation system. To the passenger it's irrelevant which train they're on and so the effectiveness is the same regardless of which option there is. However, it's the operator or operators who will incur additional costs.

Try imaging two trains running parallel to one another with the exception that one of the trains doesn't go all the way to everyone's final destination. If both trains initially start off with two cars full of passengers, but all the passengers on the first train have to transfer to the second train, that means that the second train needs to have four cars. The extra two cars on the second train would have been empty for the entire length of track that was duplicated by the two routes. Empty seats are a waste of resources which is inefficient. It would have been better for all passengers to get on the second train right at the beginning, maximizing its capacity, and eliminating the need for the second train to make its run over the entire length where the two trains follow the same path.

Anyway, to give you one more example where you as the passenger actually absorb the costs of the inefficiencies directly. Imagine that you live with your wife in Arnprior. You're friends with another couple who live in Bells Corners. You decide to go out for the evening downtown for a nice dinner, show, and then to the bar for some drinks. Because you all want to have the opportunity for a few drinks you decide to use taxis. A taxi that can hold 3 people costs $3/km. A taxi van that holds 6 people costs $6/km. The taxis from Arnprior will only take you as far as Bayview.

Do you:
A: Take the taxi from Arnprior all the way to Bayview where you will transfer to the Van that your friends have taken from Bell's Corners?
B. Take a taxi from Arnprior to Bells Corners where you transfer to a Van at your friends home?

For simplicity sake. Using 10 km between Arnprior to Bells Corners, 10 km Bells Corners to Bayview, and 10 km Bayview to Downtown.
A: $3x20 + $6x20 = $180
B: $3x10 + $6x20 = $150 (cheapest option which equates to transferring sooner and eliminating the redundant capacity)

Now, if you could have convinced the driver of the Arnprior to take you all the way to Downtown, it would have meant that your friends in Bells Corners could have taken the normal taxi instead of the van. Therefore:
Option C: $3x30 + $3x20 = $150 (once again cheaper than having the surplus capacity created by needing to use the van).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Regarding the comfort of passengers on a short route vs on a long route. Once again you've missed the point. The inefficiencies I talk about are not related to transfer time or train speed. This is all about duplicate or redundant capacity over different networks. This leads to more unused seats which is less efficient.

As you mention here, there is more to an efficient transit system than the number of empty seats due to some kind of overlap. If the number of empty seats left on a transit vehicle were the most important issue of a transit service, then you'd probably expect to see shorter buses than what OC Transpo currently has on some routes (e.g. the 49 never runs anywhere near a full bus, so why use such a large vehicle for it?).

You talk about empty seats as though they would cripple transit in the NCR. You know what would would cripple transit? More people in cars. (Someone mentioned the environmental impacts of heavy rail trains. So, what's worse for the environment, one train? or one train's worth of people driving cars the same distance?) You could make the same argument about overlaps in the GO train system. Some of their routes overlap the subway once they reach inner Toronto. Sure, the MOOSE system may result in emptier seats, but again empty seats don't really kill a system. (Especially when it's two separate systems). With that being said, I don't think the fact that MOOSE would only be able to get as close to the downtown core as Bayview being a particularly big issue.

I brought up passenger comfort because in the end, that's likely what would make or break this system as being the preferred mode of transport for anyone who ends up paying the "subscription fee" for the service. From a transportation efficiency point of view, maybe it doesn't look like the ideal system, but I think most people would agree that that's already the case anyway.

It's pretty obvious that feeder systems make some of the most efficient transportation systems out there, but if you asked any resident of Ottawa whether they would prefer a feeder system, they'd likely say no. To be frank, they'd kind of have a point. With the way it currently is, Ottawa is not particularly well built for a full feeder system yet and won't be for at least 10 years (for most residents at least). (e.g. someone in Kanata would have to bus to a transitway station then bus to an LRT station to take a train downtown). People don't like transferring in Ottawa because the schedules are simply too infrequent to make transferring "efficient" enough.

From a passenger perspective, I don't think your taxi analogy makes much sense because they would be paying a flat rate. For OC Transpo and MOOSE however, I would suppose MOOSE could be seen as spending unnecessary operating costs by bringing passengers closer to the downtown core, but for all but two sections of their lines that makes perfect sense since no other form of rapid transit exists to bring passengers closer to downtown.

I mentioned the transfers between MOOSE and OC Transpo not because of their "obivous" incompatibilities, but because if a deal were potentially made between the two, you could have seamless transfers between the two services, much like how you can transfer between OC Transpo and the STO without any extra charge.

In the end, my question to you is this. Would you be more supportive of MOOSE if they changed their plan to act more as a feeder system for OC Transpo, or are you just saying that everyone should continue driving in to park in a park & ride lot since that seems to be working okay as it is?

That would also raise the question, if given the choice between driving on the wonderfully traffic free 417 just to park and take a bus and then a train, and taking train, then a train, which would you pick?

[Charles5]

@OCCheetos

You're obviously having a hard time grasping the concept I was trying to present. I don't want to turn this forum into a pointless debate between the two of us so I won't respond to all of your particular questions. Just one final point however. Since you make it sound as if I oppose all public transit systems in general, let me put it on the record. I support an efficient and effective integrated regional transportation system. In some cases that may be rail, in some cases buses, and ultimately in some cases cars. It all depends on the different scenarios regarding the number of people to be moved, over what distances, and where they are going. I encourage the use of public transit wherever possible, and where it isn't a good option I support other options such as carpooling, bicycling, etc.

[Joseph Potvin]

Permit me to share the answer MOOSE received in response to our question during a meeting about what MOOSE passengers would need to pay to transfer to OC-Transpo:

$0.00

"Why?" we asked.

It's the same arrangement OC-Transpo already has with the private regional bus companies, on the rationale that they're reducing the number of cars coming into the core, so there's a net benefit to Ottawa.

Is the offer in writing to MOOSE? No. Would that answer remain the same in the event MOOSE does become operational? We have no idea. Does MOOSE have friendly "Plan B" in that eventuality? Yes, but I'd rather explore it within the planned financial modeling.

***

On a separate element in the most recent interesting entries, @Charles would you please elaborate on your definition of "efficiency" in the transit operator's perspective?

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

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

Regarding the transfer of passengers from private bus carriers to OC Transpo. I would ask if that came from an official OC Transpo representative or someone else since that's not quite how I understand it. True, the passengers don't pay separately when they transfer onto OC Transpo. However, the bus companies apparently do pay a fee to OC Transpo. That fee used to be approximately 10% of what they were charging their customers. This was based on the premise that since they were delivering the passengers for the most part to their final destination, only about 10% of the passengers actually transferred to OC Transpo. That initial rate has never been increased and so today I understand that it is less than the 10%. But OC Transpo still gets a cut to the best of my knowledge even if the passengers aren't involved in the transaction.

In negotiations with OC Transpo, you would be in a different position as the vast majority of your passengers would have to transfer.

Regarding efficiency. I look at it as consuming the fewest resources (time, energy, money, etc) to complete the task required. This has to be balanced with effectiveness of course and done in a reasonable manner. From a transit operators perspective, that can deal with such things as matching capacity to demand, optimization of routes, choice of vehicles, etc.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You talk about empty seats as though they would cripple transit in the NCR. You know what would would cripple transit? More people in cars. (Someone mentioned the environmental impacts of heavy rail trains. So, what's worse for the environment, one train? or one train's worth of people driving cars the same distance?)

What is your basis for thinking the train would be full? Even if a train service picked up a significant number of existing commuters, that is only a few thousand commuters for the entire region. The bi-level commuter trains Moose is talking about using is are efficient if they are carrying hundreds or thousands of commuters on each train. They're not efficient if they're mostly empty. Every man, woman and child in a village like Maxville could fit on a single train.

Moose's business model is to encourage tens thousands of people to relocate outside of the urban area into rural areas. I'm not sure how this reduces overall car use even if some of these people take the train to work.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I would ask if that came from an official OC Transpo representative or someone else

@Charles5,

From two senior OC-Transpo executives. The purpose of the meeting was not to discuss or negotiate details, rather it was an exploratory discussion. We have a mutually respectful and mutually accommodating relationship with professional transportation personnel at the City of Ottawa. The difficulties don't originate with them.

Originally Posted by Charles5

Regarding efficiency. I look at it as consuming the fewest resources (time, energy, money, etc) to complete the task required. This has to be balanced with effectiveness of course and done in a reasonable manner. From a transit operators perspective, that can deal with such things as matching capacity to demand, optimization of routes, choice of vehicles, etc.

Can I ask that you get more tangible -- I wasn't asking for a textbook definition. What actual data would you use to measure and monitor efficiency? My reason for asking you to be specific is because I have a hunch you have factors in mind that may be relevant to a business model that is different from the business model we've designed. Before I can say that, however, I'd need to know what you think should be measured.

Would you take a stab a putting your efficiency concept into a simple formula relating the most important factors?

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

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Charles5,

Would you take a stab a putting your efficiency concept into a simple formula relating the most important factors?

Here’s my first attempt at a ‘simple’ formula. As I’m sure you are aware, there are multiple variables that need to take into account, but I’ve tried to boil this down to the most basic components.

((#seats X total distance travelled) / (# passengers X distance per passenger)) X (total operating costs)

Once again, efficiency needs to be balanced against effectiveness and the ‘reasonable’ factor. Using the formula above may result in the most efficient model taking a very long time to get passengers to where they want to be which would be ineffective (eg: give everyone a bicycle). Or, you could get very efficient by cramming a whole bunch of standing passengers onto a bus to the point that you can barely breath, that would be unreasonable. It also doesn't take into account some external costs such as costs to the environment (eg: diesel may be cheaper than electric propulsion).

This formula could probably be adapted to various networks that are integrated into an overall system. Making one network a little less efficient in order to make another network much more efficient may be a good overall solution in the end.

I think the formula could be better if instead of using distance travelled per passenger we used the shortest distance between passengers origin and destination. This would help to account for efficiency in regards to time but that would be a factor that would be very hard to measure on large numbers of people.

Edit: Had another formula here for a bit where I tried to add in the shortest route factor but after modelling it in a basic scenario it didn't work the way I expected.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

empty seats don't really kill a system.

Perhaps we can learn from the airline industry.

"Airline Breakeven Load Factor".

"Airlines typically operate very close to their break-even load factors. The sale of just one or two more seats on each flight can determine the difference between a profit and a loss for an airline."

http://www.opshots.net/2015/02/4936/

Every mode of transportation will have its own breakeven point.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What is your basis for thinking the train would be full? Even if a train service picked up a significant number of existing commuters, that is only a few thousand commuters for the entire region. The bi-level commuter trains Moose is talking about using is are efficient if they are carrying hundreds or thousands of commuters on each train. They're not efficient if they're mostly empty. Every man, woman and child in a village like Maxville could fit on a single train.

Moose's business model is to encourage tens thousands of people to relocate outside of the urban area into rural areas. I'm not sure how this reduces overall car use even if some of these people take the train to work.

I'd have to say that I also don't really understand MOOSE's persistence on using bi-level trains when others could be better suited. That being said, in the end MOOSE's business would depend on the type of vehicle they used, so I'd hope they'd do their homework before purchasing them.

The point of offering train service would be for people to not use their cars. I don't think that anyone would completely abandon their cars for a train service, but it could stop them from taking their cars during rush hour which is where cars have a huge impact on things like traffic.

Originally Posted by Charles5

Perhaps we can learn from the airline industry.

"Airline Breakeven Load Factor".

"Airlines typically operate very close to their break-even load factors. The sale of just one or two more seats on each flight can determine the difference between a profit and a loss for an airline."

http://www.opshots.net/2015/02/4936/

Every mode of transportation will have its own breakeven point.

Of course, but the number of empty seats on a plane would differ greatly from the number of empty seats on a train before it would no longer be break even.
A commuter system will naturally have emptier seats in the middle of the day compared to during rush hour, but that's also the case for existing systems everywhere.
Even the Trillium is like this. From taking it every day, I can tell you that pretty much all but 3 trains in a single day won't be anywhere near, or at capacity, and they're planning on doubling the length of each train for Stage 2.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Charles5,

From two senior OC-Transpo executives. The purpose of the meeting was not to discuss or negotiate details, rather it was an exploratory discussion. We have a mutually respectful and mutually accommodating relationship with professional transportation personnel at the City of Ottawa. The difficulties don't originate with them.

Who are the difficulties with then? The Mayor and Council? The Provincial government? The Federal government? In other words, all the elected leaders who have committed funding and authorized the approvals process which is happening right now for Stage 2 and the rest of the region's plans, and who have as best I can tell shown zero interest in allowing any publicly owned rail corridor being used by a private business that still doesn't have any mandatory approval from the CTA?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The point of offering train service would be for people to not use their cars. I don't think that anyone would completely abandon their cars for a train service, but it could stop them from taking their cars during rush hour which is where cars have a huge impact on things like traffic.

I don't see how you can have a huge impact without taking huge numbers of cars off the road. Most of these communities are small and have small numbers numbers of Ottawa-bound commuters.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

the number of empty seats on a plane would differ greatly from the number of empty seats on a train before it would no longer be break even.

Well, considering almost all regional rail networks have to be subsidised, I'd be curious how you know that rail companies can have lots of empty seats and still break even. I think I've read that most commuter passenger rail networks only recover about 1/3 to 1/2 of their operating costs from their passengers, and usually none of the capital costs.

As well, I say again. "Every mode of transportation will have its own breakeven point."

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Charles5

@Joseph Potvin

Regarding the transfer of passengers from private bus carriers to OC Transpo. I would ask if that came from an official OC Transpo representative or someone else since that's not quite how I understand it. True, the passengers don't pay separately when they transfer onto OC Transpo. However, the bus companies apparently do pay a fee to OC Transpo. That fee used to be approximately 10% of what they were charging their customers. This was based on the premise that since they were delivering the passengers for the most part to their final destination, only about 10% of the passengers actually transferred to OC Transpo. That initial rate has never been increased and so today I understand that it is less than the 10%. But OC Transpo still gets a cut to the best of my knowledge even if the passengers aren't involved in the transaction.

Yep, that's exactly it.

Rural bus operators pay a fee of $8 per month per customer to OC Transpo in exchange for having fare integration, and it was calculated on the basis of a $80 monthly pass and 10% of passengers using the OC Transpo connection option, back when bus passes were about $80.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yep, that's exactly it.

Rural bus operators pay a fee of $8 per month per customer to OC Transpo in exchange for having fare integration, and it was calculated on the basis of a $80 monthly pass and 10% of passengers using the OC Transpo connection option, back when bus passes were about $80.

Moose would need pretty much 100% use of OC Transpo, so I am not clear why there would be a discount.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moose would need pretty much 100% use of OC Transpo, so I am not clear why there would be a discount.

No one claimed that there would be a discount for MOOSE, and no one claimed that MOOSE wouldn't pay OC Transpo a fee either.

Mr. Potvin was referring to how much a MOOSE passenger would pay while transferring. He also said that MOOSE and OC Transpo could have an integrated fare system, but he never specifically said how that would end up being implemented.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

No one claimed that there would be a discount for MOOSE, and no one claimed that MOOSE wouldn't pay OC Transpo a fee either.

Mr. Potvin was referring to how much a MOOSE passenger would pay while transferring. He also said that MOOSE and OC Transpo could have an integrated fare system, but he never specifically said how that would end up being implemented.

Mr.Potvin said he was told by an OC Transpo official the cost of using OCTranspo for Moose passengers would be "0.00". It was only a few posts ago on this thread.

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

I notice that the small inset map, bottom right of the network map on your website, has the Confederation Line LRT included on it, but for some reason the Trillium Line has been omitted. Is there a reason why you would choose to show one line and not the other?

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/Moose_Map-Postercs7.pdf

As well, since LRT Phase 2 is approved, funded and will commence construction relatively shortly, perhaps including Phase 2 might give a more realistic representation of the two networks relative to one another.

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lrt_stage2_alignment_en-1.png

[OCCheetos]

I've updated my map of the MOOSE system (on a Google map) and added some more details.

Now it has the Confederation Line and Trillium Line (as well as their extensions), the rough locations of where each MOOSE station would be, as well as some other extra info (other abandoned railway corridors, as well as a visual representation of what the Pembroke commuter line would have looked like).

Some things I noticed after looking closely at the map:
Navan isn't situated along the rail corridor, and Quyon is nowhere near the rail corridor. I'm also a bit surprised that Carp and Dunrobin don't have stops planned.