Rural Commuter Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As Mr. Potvin keeps staying, there designs are at the Class D and Class E (conceptual) stages,

They are at Class D and Class E when it is convenient for him, yet whenever we suggest improvements, the details of the plan can't be changed.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This site gives LINT's height at 4.34 metres.
https://trainspo.com/model/1444/

Wikipedia gives the Bombardier multilevel coach at 4.42m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_MultiLevel_Coach

But again, the severing doesn't really matter for Moose's operations. If Moose is ever able to stand up operations there would need to be a reconfiguration of the Bayview station. As Mr. Potvin keeps staying, there designs are at the Class D and Class E (conceptual) stages, so even if the city wanted to accommodate Moose's plans (which they don't) they have no detailed blueprints to work from.

Thanks for the source!


I believe MOOSE's concern was that they were going to abandon the tracks on the bridge and do something else to it (e.g. turn it into a multi use path) without going through the proper abandonment procedures to do so. The line wasn't just severed because of construction, it's been disconnected since the last major O-Train upgrade, and the city has had documents already prepared to look for a contractor to convert the bridge, so I think their concern was warranted.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I believe MOOSE's concern was that they were going to abandon the tracks on the bridge and do something else to it (e.g. turn it into a multi use path) without going through the proper abandonment procedures to do so. The line wasn't just severed because of construction, it's been disconnected since the last major O-Train upgrade, and the city has had documents already prepared to look for a contractor to convert the bridge, so I think their concern was warranted.

Yes, that was Moose's 2012 complaint to the CTA.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/210-r-2012

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

By your own admission, the current financial estimates that MOOSE is using are based on the utilization of six train sets, based on your current "ballpark" Class D/E estimates. My own "ballpark" estimates came up with 18 train sets (not including spares), which is a threefold difference.

Three times as many trains means three times as many crews, three times as much fuel, three times as much maintenance, three times as much parking space, etc, etc. This would make a significant difference in both capital acquisition costs as well as annual operating costs.

Now that this issue has been highlighted to you, I would expect that MOOSE would demonstrate due diligence in this matter and take a few moments to review your current estimates. It shouldn't take long to have someone crunch the numbers in the same fashion that I have. Unless you can find a fatal flaw in my calculations, I would suggest that the larger number of trains is a more realistic figure if you wish to operate the network that you propose at the frequency you desire. While a threefold increase in trainsets may not necessarily lead to a threefold increase in costs due to economies of scale, etc, it will still be a very significant difference.

I would also expect that MOOSE has at the minimum a moral obligation if not a legal one to advise any and all potential investors of your updated financial estimates.

[Charles5]

Just on a sidenote. Crew shift schedules need to be aligned with the train schedules. It would be expected that a crew ends their shift at the same location that they started their shift. If it takes 3 hours to get a train from end to end of the line and turn it around, then it's approximately 6 hours to get back to its original location.
In that scenario, shifts would logically have to be in multiples of 6. A 12 hour shift combined with a 6 hour shift would fit a typical 18 hour operational day.
If the end to end time is only 2.5 hours, then shifts would have to be in multiples of 5 hours, and so on.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Now that this issue has been highlighted to you, I would expect that MOOSE would demonstrate due diligence in this matter and take a few moments to review your current estimates. It shouldn't take long to have someone crunch the numbers in the same fashion that I have. Unless you can find a fatal flaw in my calculations, I would suggest that the larger number of trains is a more realistic figure if you wish to operate the network that you propose at the frequency you desire. While a threefold increase in trainsets may not necessarily lead to a threefold increase in costs due to economies of scale, etc, it will still be a very significant difference.

They don't seem to have done much in the way of analysis in the last 6 years.
This is unusual because even the best conceived projects usually get modified as they develop, new information becomes available, they receive feedback, etc. Moose 2017 basically looks the same as mOOse 2011 (they even use the same graphic). It seems a little puzzling to me. One would think that even if they didn't have the money for expensive things like computer models and geotechnical studies they would be pouring over datasets that are available to the public, talking to real estate agents, running the type of preliminary calculations you have been doing, etc.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

One would think that even if they didn't have the money for expensive things like computer models and geotechnical studies they would be pouring over datasets that are available to the public

On that note, in the past hour StatsCan released the 2016 census data for "Journey to Work".

All the tables can be found at the following link. I haven't had any opportunity to do any analysis yet, but will try to compile some data later today.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...ral=2017&THEME=125&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=


Ongoing edits:

Just as an example. In Ottawa approximately 354 thousand people commute (not including bikers or walkers). Of those only about 86 thousand used public transit. That's less than 1 in 4 in a metropolitan area that has a half decent transit system. For the most part, people can walk to a bus station, in peak periods the bus shows up every 15-20 minutes, and in off-peak hours it's about every 30 minutes.

Now imagine what the uptake of a train would be from a rural area where service is provided only every hour. If we can only get 1 in 4 to take public transit in Ottawa, then I would suggest that 1 in 8 or even 1 in 10 is a more likely scenario. However, to give the benefit of the doubt we could use a figure like 1 in 5.

Smith Falls: 440 people in Smith Falls indicated that they commute to Ottawa daily. Using the 1 in 5 figure, that would mean that a best case scenario would be 88 people using the train.

From the Pontiac (eg: Bristol): 925 people indicated that they work in Ottawa (I haven't included the ones who work in Gatineau because it doesn't make sense to take a train to Ontario, through Ottawa, only to go back to Gatineau. Using the 1 in 5 figure we would get 185 passengers.

From North Glengarry (Alexandria leg): 325 people work in Ottawa. Using 1 in 5 we would get 65 passengers.

From Arnprior: 1370 total commuters to Ottawa and Gatineau. Under the current assumptions that would equate to 274 passengers.


I would welcome any of your input as to what figure is most realistic in your opinion. Given an hourly service from these communities, would you expect 1 in 5, 1 in 8, 1 in 10, etc to actually use the train.

Note that I'm not including anyone who commutes internally within Ottawa or Gatineau as I see no net benefit of simply taking someone off the O-train or Rapibus and putting them on the MOOSE train.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I would welcome any of your input as to what figure is most realistic in your opinion. Given an hourly service from these communities, would you expect 1 in 5, 1 in 8, 1 in 10, etc to actually use the train.

Note that I'm not including anyone who commutes internally within Ottawa or Gatineau as I see no net benefit of simply taking someone off the O-train or Rapibus and putting them on the MOOSE train.

I think the theory (which has many problems in my view) is that large number of people will move to high density rural subdivisions (i.e. the target market is not existing residents).

Moose has not really explained what will lure people to these high density rural communities. People ride the GO train from places like Acton because a detached house in Acton is 500k cheaper than the 416 suburbs (and at least a million cheaper than central parts of Toronto) and highways are badly congested. Moose has not really explained why someone would want to give up their 30 minute commute from Orleans, where houses are already cheaper than Acton and amenities are close , in order to get a 90 minute commute from Maxville.

I have noticed that Mr. Potvin has generally avoided this subject in his posts. I think the more likely scenario is that they have projected demand based on the service they want to supply, rather than any actual analysis of the potential demand.

[OCCheetos]

There's a big difference between commuting using OC Transpo (or a commuter bus) and a commuter train. (Especially when it's "free"). You'd probably see a lot of people interested in taking a free commuter train that can bypass traffic.


@acottawa why do you think anyone lives in Maxville in the first place?

[Kitchissippi]

The station tax fee would also tend to negate any cost savings and turn off any potential locals who don't commute because they work in the rural community.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

There's a big difference between commuting using OC Transpo (or a commuter bus) and a commuter train. (Especially when it's "free"). You'd probably see a lot of people interested in taking a free commuter train that can bypass traffic.

Nothing in life is "free". That $200M in annual operating costs needs to come from somewhere, trains don't run on rainbows and unicorns. Have you missed the point where MOOSE wants to collect subscription fees. Those fees are a percentage of rents, leases, and sales in proximity to the station.

Are you willing to see your rent increased 25% just because there's a train station nearby? Are you willing to give MOOSE 10% of the sale price on your home when you move? If you would actually do some research into how MOOSE plans on funding this scheme of theirs you might actually realize that this isn't being done out of the goodness of their hearts.

As for being more convenient. I can walk out my door and be at a bus stop in 2 minutes. After picking people up in my neighbourhood it travels along a dedicated transitway all the way to my final destination downtown. I admit that once LRT arrives there will be a transfer. However, if MOOSE arrives I will need to either drive or take OC Transpo simply to get to the station, then take the MOOSE train along a longer route, then transfer back to OC Transpo at the end. Why in the world would I, or most people who live in Ottawa, want to do that. I realize that OC Transpo is far from perfect, but MOOSE will be far worse. Oh, and don't forget that the MOOSE train will only run every hour.

PS: If you've been following my other posts, that $200M annual operating budget should go up substantially once they account for the fact that you can't run a 400km network with only 6 trains.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

@acottawa why do you think anyone lives in Maxville in the first place?

This is just speculation, but I would think a combination of:
A) Because they work in Maxville or surrounding communities
B) Because they do not need to commute (they are retired, self-employed, etc)
C) Because they like the rural lifestyle Maxville offers.
D) Because they have some attachment to Maxville (family, etc).

A Moose-like service does not help Group A or Group B and living in a high-density community surrounding a train station would not offer the rural lifestyle Group C wants. A Moose-like service might help Group D, but I imagine numbers are quite small.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Nothing in life is "free". That $200M in annual operating costs needs to come from somewhere, trains don't run on rainbows and unicorns. Have you missed the point where MOOSE wants to collect subscription fees. Those fees are a percentage of rents, leases, and sales in proximity to the station.

The people you mentioned in your previous post would all be receiving transit for what (to them) would be considered "free" since a station would already built and funded by the people who bought new houses that have subscription fee attached to them.

As for being more convenient. I can walk out my door and be at a bus stop in 2 minutes. After picking people up in my neighbourhood it travels along a dedicated transitway all the way to my final destination downtown. I admit that once LRT arrives there will be a transfer. However, if MOOSE arrives I will need to either drive or take OC Transpo simply to get to the station, then take the MOOSE train along a longer route, then transfer back to OC Transpo at the end. Why in the world would I, or most people who live in Ottawa, want to do that. I realize that OC Transpo is far from perfect, but MOOSE will be far worse. Oh, and don't forget that the MOOSE train will only run every hour.

In what world would MOOSE replace regular OC Transpo bus service?
Where in the city would you live where this kind of scenario would ever take place? Are you suggesting the existence of MOOSE is going to displace regular bus service?

As far as a "longer route", I measured the total travel distance for someone who might be trying to get to the Rideau Centre from South West Barrhaven (near Tartan Road / Stranherd, around where the MOOSE station will be built).
Following the path of bus routes and the transitway and rails, etc, the MOOSE path measured out to be 25km with 1 transfer, and by Bus/LRT it was 26km with 2 transfers (from one bus to another in Barrhaven, and finally to LRT)

In this particular case, I'd say MOOSE would be the better option, aside from the hourly frequency. More generally, it would really depend on where in the city you are, and what kind of OC Transpo service you get vs what kind of MOOSE service you'd get.



I'll be honest, I don't know nearly enough about business or finance to be able to really comment a lot on the financial portion of MOOSE's proposal. That being said, a lot of the criticisms against MOOSE as of now still talk a lot about how the transit service itself would be bad, and that's something I feel I can comment more on.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The people you mentioned in your previous post would all be receiving transit for what (to them) would be considered "free" since a station would already built and funded by the people who bought new houses that have subscription fee attached to them.
...
I'll be honest, I don't know nearly enough about business or finance to be able to really comment a lot on the financial portion of MOOSE's proposal. That being said, a lot of the criticisms against MOOSE as of now still talk a lot about how the transit service itself would be bad, and that's something I feel I can comment more on.

I have to agree when you say you don't know nearly enough about business or finance. Just because the station is built, doesn't make the transportation free or funded. That's $200 MILLION dollars each year, every year (and likely much more). It's not a one time thing. Additionally, how happy do you think those people paying subscription fees will be if everyone who actually rides the train aren't the ones paying subscription fees.

As for whether anyone is willing to pay subscription fees in the first place. I'll go back to my original question.
-If you are a renter, would you be willing to pay an additional 25% in your rent just to have a train station nearby. That's what MOOSE is calculating on in their estimates.
-If you own a house and want to sell it. Would you be willing to give 10% of the total sales amount to MOOSE. Once again, that's what MOOSE is including in their estimates.
-OR, do you want to ride the train for free, and expect everyone else to pay those subscription fees for you.

PS: Try a Connexion bus (the 200 series, the 273 from Strandherd and Tartan). Every 15-20 minutes in peak periods, no need to transfer at Fallowfield station, don't stop for much of the route, and currently take you all the way to downtown.

PPS: How about measuring distance on some other routes. Please don't tell me it's a shorter distance from Bells Corners to swing down South through Greenboro and then back up to Bayview. That would affect both of the lines from the North-West.

PPPS: Not suggesting that MOOSE would replace OC Transpo buses. Perhaps could have worded it better. What I'm suggesting is that the bus is better once you are within the main urban boundaries and I wouldn't chose MOOSE instead of it, nor would most folks in my opinion.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

-OR, do you want to ride the train for free, and expect everyone else to pay those subscription fees for you.

That seems to be the basis of support of this initiative. People don't want to pay a large premium to move to a high-density rural community or pay more in rent, but free trains are good, and Mr. Potvin knows a lot of management consulting buzzwords, so surely it will work out.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I have to agree when you say you don't know nearly enough about business or finance. Just because the station is built, doesn't make the transportation free or funded. That's $200 MILLION dollars each year, every year (and likely much more). It's not a one time thing. Additionally, how happy do you think those people paying subscription fees will be if everyone who actually rides the train aren't the ones paying subscription fees.

My original point was that there's quite the incentive for more than just 88 people who are already living in Smiths Falls to take MOOSE, so your 1 in 5 figure is most likely inaccurate. That's also without mentioning that you're basing it off of public transit usage in Ottawa which is far different than what a commuter rail system out to and of these regions would be like.

PS: Try a Connexion bus (the 200 series, the 273 from Strandherd and Tartan). Every 15-20 minutes in peak periods, no need to transfer at Fallowfield station, don't stop for much of the route, and currently take you all the way to downtown.

Other than frequency, the two are fairly comparable. The distance is more or less the same, but a train could travel at much higher speeds for part of its journey. Once the LRT opens, transfers will be about the same.

PPS: How about measuring distance on some other routes. Please don't tell me it's a shorter distance from Bells Corners to swing down South through Greenboro and then back up to Bayview. That would affect both of the lines from the North-West.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

More generally, it would really depend on where in the city you are, and what kind of OC Transpo service you get vs what kind of MOOSE service you'd get.

Bells Corners is served remarkably well by OC Transpo. Considering how little development space is left in Bells Corners (without going into the greenbelt) I wonder if this station is more for people who work around Bells Corners, rather than live around it. (After all, if anyone were to use MOOSE or any other similar service, it'd be ideal if they could get off as close as possible to their work place). So, specifically Bells Corners: No it would not be better to take MOOSE to get downtown (especially once Stage 2 of the Confederation line opens).

As for the rest of the North-West, you have a similar situation to Barrhaven.
By Bus/LRT (using the 63): 32.5km
By MOOSE: 33km
(Both measured between Applecross / Marconi in Kanata and the Rideau Centre)

That's also without mentioning that the station at Terry Fox would be extremely useful for anyone who works in any of the tech businesses situated in that area (Whether they live West of Ottawa, or even inside of Ottawa.)

Edit: A little anecdotal type thing:
Say you're trying to get from Herongate to Carleton. Which way would you suppose is faster (during morning rushhour)?

A. Take the 44 or 112 to Billings, and then the 111 or 104 to Carleton
or
B. Take the 44 to Walkley, then the 97 or 96 to Greenboro, then the Trillium Line to Carleton

You might say that A is the better choice because there'd be less doubling back, and that going to Billings is more direct. But, the total distance traveled for both options is the same (~6km) and the time you spend travelling is also about the same (I know this because I've done both before). In fact, I'd argue that option B could be quicker during rush hour since you're dealing with less road traffic (specifically on Bronson).
I hope you understand how this relates to Kanata / Barrhaven under the MOOSE system?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

My original point was that there's quite the incentive for more than just 88 people who are already living in Smiths Falls to take MOOSE, so your 1 in 5 figure is most likely inaccurate. That's also without mentioning that you're basing it off of public transit usage in Ottawa which is far different than what a commuter rail system out to and of these regions would be like.

A significant number of Smiths Falls commuters work in Kanata. Pretty much 0% of those people would want to spend at least an hour getting to central Ottawa, a 30 minute average wait time, a 30 minute train to Kanata, and then one or multiple OC Transpo rides to get to work.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Bells Corners is served remarkably well by OC Transpo. Considering how little development space is left in Bells Corners (without going into the greenbelt) I wonder if this station is more for people who work around Bells Corners, rather than live around it. (After all, if anyone were to use MOOSE or any other similar service, it'd be ideal if they could get off as close as possible to their work place). So, specifically Bells Corners: No it would not be better to take MOOSE to get downtown (especially once Stage 2 of the Confederation line opens).

Other than the existing stations destination stations (Bayview, Carleton and Greenboro) which are already built, I think Moose wants to have a developer sponsor all of the stations. My theory on Bells Corners someone wants to redevelop the Bellwood Estates trailer park (and the land behind it) into something medium or high density. That developer might be willing to sponsor a station within walking distance.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

My original point was that there's quite the incentive for more than just 88 people who are already living in Smiths Falls to take MOOSE, so your 1 in 5 figure is most likely inaccurate.

I don't see the "incentive" that you're referring to, once again, this ISN'T FREE. Since you've indicated that you don't understand the business plan here, let me try to summarize what the MOOSE overall plan is.

A. Borrow a $1 BILLION or so dollars from developers to upgrade/restore the rail network over 400km and purchase trains (note my earlier posts where they've only budgeted for 6 trains which isn't enough).
B. Have some major property developers build high density developments at at least 35 locations spread out over this network.
C. Achieve 25% higher value for those properties since they are located close to a railway station with regional connectivity.
D. Pay for the ongoing $200 MILLION a year that it costs to run this network (likely much more) by harvesting revenue from the property through increased rent and taking a portion of any sales.

So: Here's what it would mean for anyone who lives in these new developments.

For home buyers. The property developers would try and sell the property for a 25% higher price due to its proximity to a railway station. So, as an example, a $200K property would be sold for $250K. Then the developer and MOOSE would split that extra amount, let's say half-half, with the developer taking $25K and MOOSE taking $25K. But then in addition, you would be asked to sign a contract that when you sell the house you would also split the difference with MOOSE. So, in a number of years you go to sell the house. The house has increased in value by 50%. So, you sell it for $375K, but MOOSE will argue that without the railway it would only be valued at $300K. Therefore you would be required to pay MOOSE $37.5K.
So, for this particular example, to buy a property near the railway station you would have to spend $50K more up front, likely with a bigger mortgage and all the subsequent interest payments, and then you would have to pay out $37.5K when you sell the house.
Now, I've used a half-half split, but if MOOSE is running low on funds there is nothing in their plan that says they can't take a greater percentage, as long as it stays above the base value. So, instead of giving them $37.5K I see the potential for anything up to $75K on this property when sold since it's base value is $300K.

For renters. Developers would build rental units. A unit that elsewhere would cost $800 per month they would now try to rent out for $1000 since it is near the station. That extra $200 would be split between the developer/owner of the building and MOOSE.


Anyway, that's the theory. Problems with this are (not counting the fact that they can't gain access to the tracks):

1. No one's been willing to date to give MOOSE $1Billion dollars.
2. There's no way that 35 major property developments can occur in rural areas over a reasonably short period of time. Until they are developed the railway would be running a deficit. The time frame we are talking about here is potentially decades.
3. I don't see many people paying a 25% premium to live near a train station in a rural community whether that be in home purchase price or rent.
4. I can't imagine many people agreeing to give up what turns out to be likely 10% (or more) of the sale price of their home, just because they live near a station.
5. The 'incentive' that you refer to is the 'free travel'. It's only free if you're not paying the subscription fees, and the more people like that there are, the less likely that people who are in the subscription fee zone will chose to pay out the fee, or even chose to live there in the first place.

I'm sure there are plenty more.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Other than the existing stations destination stations (Bayview, Carleton and Greenboro) which are already built, I think Moose wants to have a developer sponsor all of the stations.

I think MOOSE is also expecting developers to sponsor those stations as well. For example Bayview:

"Bayview: The lands immediately adjacent to this station are already set to undergo extensive redevelopment with high-rise and mixed-use projects such as the redeveloped LeBreton Flats and 900 Albert Street. The Bayview Station Secondary Plan aims to develop a high-density urban district with active retail frontages and building heights of up to 30 storeys (although four 55-storey towers are currently under consideration) with a heavy emphasis on transit and pedestrians.

Together with the City Centre and Innovation Centre developments near Bayview, this will be an ideal location for a MOOSE Station and a harmonized cross-over to the LRT line at or near the planned Bayview LRT Station" (link)

While there is significant development potential around Bayview, I can not see why any property owners would pay MOOSE. MOOSE needs the station more than the property developers need MOOSE. People who will be buying these properties already have access to the LRT and Trillium lines, and they're not buying there because they want to travel out to Smiths Falls or Arnprior on a regular basis. As for businesses in the area, this is just a connection point, it's not like significant numbers of people will get off and shop or generate increased foot traffic at any commercial business in the area.

As I said, MOOSE needs the station more than the property owners around the station need MOOSE. In fact, I can see the City charging MOOSE to use their station, resulting in that station location being a loss rather than a gain in regards to revenue.