Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

...they won't be unduly inconvenienced (assuming frequencies and travel times along the central line remain close to the same). Even those travelling between Bayview and Greensboro to the other won't be inconvenienced.

The MOOSE plan is to run trains once every hour along each leg (pg 6 of link below). Since two legs of the network will run up the O-train line, the best they could do is 30 minute service if they schedule them to offset one another. I would suggest that that would be an inconvenience compared to the current 12 minute frequency. That's assuming that the feeder rail lines such as VIA's from Smith Falls even have the capacity to add an extra train per hour in each direction.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

Joseph Potvin has made it quite clear that they can't and won't run the MOOSE trains on the same tracks as the O-Train. Therefore it's either one or the other and not both (unless they try to run a completely separate parallel track).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What moose is calling Greensboro and what we know as Greensboro cannot be the same place. The intersection of the lines from Smiths Falls and Arnprior is just south of the Home Deput, well north of the existing Greensboro station (and the park and ride, bus station and south keys shopping centre).

This has been discussed before. My guess is that since there isn't a branch from Federal eastbound to the Trillium line, they will have to back the train onto the line. To save moving the engineer to the other end of the train in the middle of the route, they will likely back into Greensboro station and then travel forward again. South/west bound they will do the reverse and drive into Greensboro and then back onto Federal.

Originally Posted by Charles5

The MOOSE plan is to run trains once every hour along each leg (pg 6 of link below). Since two legs of the network will run up the O-train line, the best they could do is 30 minute service if they schedule them to offset one another. I would suggest that that would be an inconvenience compared to the current 12 minute frequency. That's assuming that the feeder rail lines such as VIA's from Smith Falls even have the capacity to add an extra train per hour in each direction.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

Interesting. That is the first I have seen anything definitive about frequency of service. Now the city could make a condition that Moose provide at least 15 minute service (or 12 minute service) between Bayview and Greensboro. This could be done by having a couple extra trains shuttle back and forth.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

This has been discussed before. My guess is that since there isn't a branch from Federal eastbound to the Trillium line, they will have to back the train onto the line. To save moving the engineer to the other end of the train in the middle of the route, they will likely back into Greensboro station and then travel forward again. South/west bound they will do the reverse and drive into Greensboro and then back onto Federal.

That would be a considerable delay. And it would further constrain what is left of the trillium line (having to end it at South Keys instead of Greenboro).

[lrt's friend]

Wouldn't all the Moose routes actually bypass Greenboro switching to the Trillium Line at the Ellwood Diamond near Heron Road? How does this address the city's need to provide service to the airport and south of the airport, let alone maintain service to Greenboro? I cannot see existing Trillium Line trains being able to operate on the same track with heavy rail Moose trains that need to coexist with VIA Rail trains.

This whole project just keeps on leaving me puzzled on how it could be implemented.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As you have also said, that is what you say, it is not what moose says.

Perhaps MOOSE hasn't directly said that, but it's the most likely outcome. I'm not sure why you'd think OC Transpo would allow this to happen without some kind of arrangement between them.

Originally Posted by acottawa

And as I noted earlier, such a scheme is of little value to a moose passenger (if they're paying $40 indirectly through moose and $70 through the fare box they would be better off just buying a pass and have unlimited travel whether they pay moose or not).

That depends on the passenger. If they only ever take OC Transpo to get back to a MOOSE station, then that deal is optimal for them.
If they were someone who would take the bus more often than that, then it certainly could me more reasonable to get a bus pass.

If you're going to say that MOOSE would then be wasting money by paying for someone who isn't even going to be taking advantage of the "$40" that MOOSE is paying for, that's why I never said that MOOSE would pay $40 per MOOSE passenger. When technicalities like this arise, you can't exactly rely on absolutes like that. It's up to the city and MOOSE to negotiate a deal that they both see as optimal for covering all of these little technicalities.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That would be a considerable delay.

True, but its faster than waiting for the engineer to walk to the other end of the train.

And it would further constrain what is left of the trillium line (having to end it at South Keys instead of Greenboro).

They could have tracks on both sides of the platform, one for Moose and one for the Trillium line. That way people just walk across the platform to change trains. Better than have them walk to a station on the other side of the Walkley Diamond.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Joseph Potvin has made it quite clear that they can't and won't run the MOOSE trains on the same tracks as the O-Train. Therefore it's either one or the other and not both (unless they try to run a completely separate parallel track).

Won't: That's definitely something I disagree with MOOSE on. I think the best possible outcome is that they double track the entire line and find a way to share it,

Can't: Any time this gets brought up it's just shot down because "the vehicles aren't compatible" but, I'd wonder how absolute the CTA would be on that. (After all, the Trillium line is allowed to operate). Seeing as the city likely won't allow MOOSE to replace the Trillium Line, I'd imagine sooner or later, MOOSE will need to give more consideration to this possibility (either through some exemption from the CTA or with a different type of vehicle). In my mind, for the time being it's less "can't" and more "probably not".

Originally Posted by acottawa

That would be a considerable delay. And it would further constrain what is left of the trillium line (having to end it at South Keys instead of Greenboro).

Kinda like how the city still isn't going to double track the entire line?

A new platform could easily be built at Greenboro and the two could connect there.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't all the Moose routes actually bypass Greenboro switching to the Trillium Line at the Ellwood Diamond near Heron Road? How does this address the city's need to provide service to the airport and south of the airport, let alone maintain service to Greenboro? I cannot see existing Trillium Line trains being able to operate on the same track with heavy rail Moose trains that need to coexist with VIA Rail trains.

There's very limited space for a connecting track there. The city is also planning on grade separating the crossover, so a connecting track would likely be too steep.

An airport spur could run normally since it's supposedly going to start from South Key's station, and the southern portion could presumably do the same.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't all the Moose routes actually bypass Greenboro switching to the Trillium Line at the Ellwood Diamond near Heron Road?

I agree that would be a more direct route, but Moose's map clearly shows a Greensboro station and this is the only route that would get them to Greensboro (unless they are calling Confederation/Mooney's Bay Greensboro).

How does this address the city's need to provide service to the airport and south of the airport, let alone maintain service to Greenboro?

It doesn't. They city would have to come up with a solution for that (maybe convert the southern transitway to rail?).

I cannot see existing Trillium Line trains being able to operate on the same track with heavy rail Moose trains that need to coexist with VIA Rail trains.

As said many times before, Joseph admits they can't and is hoping the city will decide to abandon the Trillium line from Greensboro to Bayview in favour of Moose.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Perhaps MOOSE hasn't directly said that, but it's the most likely outcome. I'm not sure why you'd think OC Transpo would allow this to happen without some kind of arrangement between them.

I don't see why OC transpo would see the need for an arrangement at all. They don't have an arrangement with Via, or Air Canada or Greyhound or the tour bus companies. If a Moose customer wants to take OC Transpo then they can pay their $3.35 or get a pass. If they don't want to take OC transpo then that's up to them.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If you're going to say that MOOSE would then be wasting money by paying for someone who isn't even going to be taking advantage of the "$40" that MOOSE is paying for, that's why I never said that MOOSE would pay $40 per MOOSE passenger. When technicalities like this arise, you can't exactly rely on absolutes like that. It's up to the city and MOOSE to negotiate a deal that they both see as optimal for covering all of these little technicalities.

No, I'm saying that under your proposed arrangement a passenger is paying about what a pass would cost (less directly because some of the payment would be have moose as a middleman). If they're paying that much anyway, they would be better off getting a pass, which would allow them to still use OC transpo if they don't take moose (say by driving to a park and ride or if they run an errand by transit at lunch).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that would be a more direct route, but Moose's map clearly shows a Greensboro station and this is the only route that would get them to Greensboro (unless they are calling Confederation/Mooney's Bay Greensboro).

Or they could put a station beside the LCBO and call it Greenboro.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't see why OC transpo would see the need for an arrangement at all. They don't have an arrangement with Via, or Air Canada or Greyhound or the tour bus companies. If a Moose customer wants to take OC Transpo then they can pay their $3.35 or get a pass. If they don't want to take OC transpo then that's up to them.

Via, Air Canada, and Greyhound aren't particularly big in the "commuter" scene. I'm sure there are some people who use them for commuting, but that isn't a very good comparison. It also contradicts what executives at OC Transpo have apparently said (according to Mr. Potvin).

No, I'm saying that under your proposed arrangement a passenger is paying about what a pass would cost (less directly because some of the payment would be have moose as a middleman). If they're paying that much anyway, they would be better off getting a pass, which would allow them to still use OC transpo if they don't take moose (say by driving to a park and ride or if they run an errand by transit at lunch).

A pass is $40 more than what they would likely pay using cash fares alone. If they know that they're going to use OC Transpo more, then for sure, they should get a pass. But otherwise, those $40 are better spent... well, not spent.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This whole project just keeps on leaving me puzzled on how it could be implemented.

It can't. The chances of this happening are about one in a million. I don't know why we spend so much time on this forum discussing how this would work (backing trains into stations, how the revenue sharing will take place, etc) when it's never going to happen.

See acottawas post on the previous page as to why this won't happen, it's a good summary:

Originally Posted by acottawa

So it seems to me all of the following steps are necessary for a Moose service to work the way Mr. Potvin describes it...

I personally like to focus on trying to explain why this isn't viable and hopefully someone out there sees some common sense and we stop wasting all this time and resources with organizations like the CTA, Competition Bureau, the City of Ottawa, etc having to respond to the pointless submissions from MOOSE.

[OCCheetos]

On the topic of light rail and heavy rail vehicles sharing the same track, here's an article from Montreal where VIA is currently dealing with this same issue involving Montreal's REM plan.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-...nt-les-impacts-sur-les-autres-trains.php

A very interesting quote from the article: "La société fédérale a toutefois soutenu que « la coexistence des trains dits lourds comme ceux de l'AMT et de VIA Rail avec des trains dits légers, comme ceux du REM, est tout à fait possible »"

(In English: "The Federal Company [VIA] argues that 'The coexistence of heavy rail trains such as those on the RMT and on VIA and light rail vehicles such as those on REM, is entirely possible'")

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The chances of this happening are about one in a million. I don't know why we spend so much time on this forum discussing how this would work (backing trains into stations, how the revenue sharing will take place, etc) when it's never going to happen.

Overall I do agree. While there are many holes in Moose's plan, some people seem to want to make holes that don't exist. You get more respect if you focus on the real holes than the imaginary ones (If half your argument gets torn apart, the other half is no longer credible).

Earlier today I provided a link (though it was a bit hidden) that seems to describe Moose pretty well:

3 signs that startups are drinking their own Kool-Aid

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Or they could put a station beside the LCBO and call it Greenboro.

I'm not sure how that would help. The train would still have to back into the station but now the train would have to travel backwards for the rest of the route, meaning the engineer would have to walk to the other end of the train, delaying the trip. Also, the moose station would be about a kilometre walk from the LRT station, making transfers much less convenient

[McC]

Don’t GO trains run backwards and forwards? I’m pretty sure I’ve ridden the Lakeshore West line on a train that was being pushed by a rear-facing locomotive.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by McC

Don’t GO trains run backwards and forwards? I’m pretty sure I’ve ridden the Lakeshore West line on a train that was being pushed by a rear-facing locomotive.

I think the question is more rather "do other trains do the train equivalent of a 3-point turn in the middle of their route?"

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As said many times before, Joseph admits they can't and is hoping the city will decide to abandon the Trillium line from Greensboro to Bayview in favour of Moose.

@roger1818,

Quite the contrary, we have said we seek OC-Transpo's participation in a consortium approach to whole-region transit integration.

What they'd be abandoning is an Ottawa-only perspective, in favour of a seeing that Ottawa is the nucleus of Canada's Capital.

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

1. The federal government has to pass legislation implementing the Declaratory Power for the first time since 1961 to declare all of the track Moose wants to use and all land Moose wants to use to be for the "general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Three or more of the Provinces" and therefore under federal jurisdiction. The federal government has to be willing to provoke a constitutional crisis (provinces and municipalities would be furious) and survive a Supreme Court challenge (which would have a very good chance of winning).

Not at all. All the existing legislation is in place, and has been for a very long time. As soon as an interprovincial railway is approved, it's covered by default under Section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by acottawa

2. The Canadian Transportation Agency would have to order all of the railways and landowners now under its jurisdiction to let Moose use its track/land and to give Moose priority over other services (such as the Trillium line). This is the complete opposite of how railways have worked in Canada for the last 150 years (where the owner of the railway has priority). This action would have to survive a cabinet challenge, a court challenge, and possibly a NAFTA challenge (if NAFTA still exists).

This is also done by default under section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act. The Agency only needs to step in when a railway company fails to abide by 138.

Originally Posted by acottawa

3. Moose would be required to find an investor or lender willing to put up at least a billion for capital and early operating expenditures, despite the fact that Moose has no assets and no collateral. Said investor/lender would also have to cover any capital costs that exceed estimates.

Yes, but not quite the way you present it. There will be multiple investors, and many risk-managed steps. This is true of most large privately funded projects.

Originally Posted by acottawa

4. Moose would have to find 40-something developers willing to build communities that meet their funding requirements and or existing communities willing to band together to form homeowners associations for the purpose of paying moose.

Yes, and when the incentive is more fully resolved through the next round of studies, we expect them to come forward. Morrisons Quarry is the only current contact that wanted to go public at this stage.

Originally Posted by acottawa

5. Moose's partners have to receive municipal (and in some cases provincial or federal) planning approval to build these communities. In many cases sewer and water systems will need to be built or upgraded as many of these communities are currently on wells and septic systems.

Yes, and the increase property values near stations also cause increased property tax revenue for the municipalities.

Originally Posted by acottawa

6. Demand for high density rural living (which hasn't existed in the western world since the middle ages) has to go from zero to enormous. The demand has to be so high that tens of thousands of urban and suburban residents of Ottawa and Gatineau will abandon the city in favour of high density rural living, despite much longer commutes, fewer amenities, etc.

Hmm, you've not travelled enough perhaps.

Actually, the PPR approach combines nicely with strong protection of agricultural lands, forests and wetland outside the 0.8 km perimeter. This is intentional.

More generally you and some others in this blog discussion conflate #inhabitants with $value in property, as if those two directly correlate. They don't.

Originally Posted by acottawa

7. Transit-related property value increases have to be much higher than anywhere else in the world, in order to generate billions in total property-value increases to fund both Moose's operating cost and repayment of loans/investments made to fund initial operations. This extraordinarily high demand has to be sustainable over time and future buyers have to take significant loses.

No, we're basing our estimates on the conservatively higher side of convention empirical studies in NAmerica and globally, as documented in the PPR white paper.

Originally Posted by acottawa

8. Despite the fact that (6.) will pretty much bankrupt Ottawa and Gatineau (by causing a precipitous population decline), Ottawa and Gatineau will provide free transit to all of these rural commuters.

Run for the hills! A new MOOSE motto, you suggest? Nah, we'll pass on that one.

Originally Posted by acottawa

While the probability of all of these things is pretty low, the probably of all of them happening is astronomically low. I think the basic problem here is that Moose is good at summarizing academic studies, but struggle with applying these concepts to existing political, economic, or real estate contexts.

Your premise here is that academic studies are divorced from existing political, economic and real estate contexts.

Since all the participating companies in MOOSE are business people, many with past managerial experience in the public sector, and who all are willing to associate our names and businesses with this plan, it's hard to see a basis for your conclusion that we're out-of-touch with reality just because you disagree with us.

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

Not at all. All the existing legislation is in place, and has been for a very long time. As soon as an interprovincial railway is approved, it's covered by default under Section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution.

Moose doesn't have an interprovincial railway, it has some office space and a website. Moose is not planning to build an interprovincial railway, Moose is planning to run its rolling stock on other companies' railways and land that was once used for railways (a bus company that runs an inter-provincial service is federally regulated, the roads on which the buses drive are not). The federal government does not have jurisdiction over those railways and lands. The CTA has already decided that. They only way you're getting those under federal jurisdiction is to purchase the rights of way or use of the declaratory power.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

This is also done by default under section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act. The Agency only needs to step in when a railway company fails to abide by 138.

And when was the last time the CTA used this power to disrupt a going concern? The existence of some power in some piece of legislation doesn't mean it is going to be used. Otherwise Canada would be a dictatorship run by the Governor General.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Hmm, you've not traveled enough perhaps.

Ok, I will bite, where is high-density rural living a thing in a post-medieval community?

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Your premise here is that academic studies are divorced from existing political, economic and real estate contexts.

Since all the participating companies in MOOSE are business people, many with past managerial experience in the public sector, and who all are willing to associate our names and businesses with this plan, it's hard to see a basis for your conclusion that we're out-of-touch with reality just because you disagree with us.

No, my premise is that you have taken a dog's breakfast of academic studies from various localities with little in common with rural eastern Ontario and rural western Quebec and mashed them up without further analytical work on whether they are applicable to different geographic, economic, political and property market conditions.

I can disagree with something that is well-planned and still recognize that it is well-planned. However, in Moose's case, you are predicting things that lack a political and/or economic basis pertinent to the national capital region and rural surrounding areas.