Rural Commuter Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

point is those populations are too small to support their business model. I pointed it out to potvin that they should start with bank street first since they will get ridership but he wont do it because he would actually have to build rail.

I agree with you that the populations are too small but I am unaware of any interprovincial rail lines along Bank st that Moose could use for little to no cost and the land would be too expensive to buy for the purpose of building a surface rail line, so they would have to tunnel the route, which is also very expensive.

IMHO the idea that in this day and age any company could h make money by digging a tunnel in any city (let alone rinks dink little Ottawa) for a passenger rail service is even more far fetched and nonsensical than Moose’s plan.

[zzptichka]

Why do we ignore the fact that Moose could be moving people between Kanata North, Bells Corners, Merivale, Barrhaven, Mooney's Bay and Tremblay.
Relying on rail levy in small towns right off the bat is silly but service within suburbs could be sustainable and could help maintain and develop outlying stations in the short run.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Any new developments built by MOOSE's partners would be sold with the premium attached, so it is not entirely voluntary in those cases.

You're probably thinking of areas that would "subscribe" to MOOSE's service which would represent a minority of MOOSE's revenue.

It is voluntary to join the freehold condominium corporation, as Mr Potvin described in post 561 of this thread. There are no restrictive covenants, (per Mr. Potvin's post at 586) so it is voluntary to stay in the freehold condominium. People who don't join still get free transit (which seems to be the main appeal to you) and they would also get any property value increase, whether or not they paid anything. So it is purely a donation funding scheme. Crowdfunding works when a large number of people make a small donation. Not sure it works when a small number of people are expected to make a large donation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do we ignore the fact that Moose could be moving people between Kanata North, Bells Corners, Merivale, Barrhaven, Mooney's Bay and Tremblay.
Relying on rail levy in small towns right off the bat is silly but service within suburbs could be sustainable and could help maintain and develop outlying stations in the short run.

Who pays?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree with you that the populations are too small but I am unaware of any interprovincial rail lines along Bank st that Moose could use for little to no cost and the land would be too expensive to buy for the purpose of building a surface rail line, so they would have to tunnel the route, which is also very expensive.

IMHO the idea that in this day and age any company could h make money by digging a tunnel in any city (let alone rinks dink little Ottawa) for a passenger rail service is even more far fetched and nonsensical than Moose’s plan.

Perhaps The Boring Company will change that.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do we ignore the fact that Moose could be moving people between Kanata North, Bells Corners, Merivale, Barrhaven, Mooney's Bay and Tremblay.
Relying on rail levy in small towns right off the bat is silly but service within suburbs could be sustainable and could help maintain and develop outlying stations in the short run.

This. In fact, I brought it up in my 'VIA subsidiary' proposal for interprovincial commuter rail.

Sure, Smith's Falls, Arnprior, Buckingham, and Wakefield may be the termini, but they are by no means the main target.

Sure, Arnprior as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but an Arnprior-March Rd.-Bells Corners-Woodroffe-Colonnade-Mooney's Bay-Carleton-Carling-Bayview line would definitely have justifiable ridership.

Sure, Smith's Falls as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but a Smith's Falls-Richmond-Strandherd-Fallowfield-Colonnade-Billings Bridge-Tremblay line would definitely have justifiable ridership.

Sure, Buckingham, QC as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but a Buckingham-Massons Angers-Angers-Labrosse-Promenades-Galeries de Hull-Montcalm-Bayview line would certainly have justifiable ridership.

The least justifiable line would be a Wakefield-Chelsea-Freeman-Parc de la Montagne-Galeries de Hull-Montcalm-Bayview line, but that could still conceivably work.

[acottawa]

To me the terminal station has to make sense as a destination. If Smith Falls doesn't make sense as a destination then it doesn't make sense to run an empty train for 50 km. GO termini are pretty large cities.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is voluntary to join the freehold condominium corporation, as Mr Potvin described in post 561 of this thread. There are no restrictive covenants, (per Mr. Potvin's post at 586) so it is voluntary to stay in the freehold condominium. People who don't join still get free transit (which seems to be the main appeal to you) and they would also get any property value increase, whether or not they paid anything. So it is purely a donation funding scheme. Crowdfunding works when a large number of people make a small donation. Not sure it works when a small number of people are expected to make a large donation.

I would personally pay a fare if that''s how it ended up.

I believe the "pay what you want" thing was said to be a trial anyway.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me the terminal station has to make sense as a destination. If Smith Falls doesn't make sense as a destination then it doesn't make sense to run an empty train for 50 km. GO termini are pretty large cities.

I said as a standalone. It does make sense as a commuter option and bedroom community. Case in point, most people from SF and Ottawa do interact or commute quite a bit. I know people from Arnprior who commute to Kanata for work. They absolutely make sense as communities on the periphery of Ottawa that are very much a part of Ottawa's economy.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I said as a standalone. It does make sense as a commuter option and bedroom community. Case in point, most people from SF and Ottawa do interact or commute quite a bit. I know people from Arnprior who commute to Kanata for work. They absolutely make sense as communities on the periphery of Ottawa that are very much a part of Ottawa's economy.

but moose has already admitted that their main goal is to get people to move out into those small towns and not to serve dowtown Ottawa


what they propose is spawl on steroids and that is exactly what we dont need

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

but moose has already admitted that their main goal is to get people to move out into those small towns and not to serve dowtown Ottawa

I know people don't consider Bayview to be "downtown", but where exactly do you think Bayview is? Better yet, where do you think the people who move out to those areas will work?

what they propose is spawl on steroids and that is exactly what we dont need

On the other hand, it would densify many of the communities that are located outside of the city and prevent them from entirely disappearing over time. MOOSE's own proposal does not include Kanata-style suburbs.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I know people don't consider Bayview to be "downtown", but where exactly do you think Bayview is? Better yet, where do you think the people who move out to those areas will work?


On the other hand, it would densify many of the communities that are located outside of the city and prevent them from entirely disappearing over time. MOOSE's own proposal does not include Kanata-style suburbs.

Let try to clarify what im saying. MOOSE needs these communities to have impossible growth levels to justify their rail service or else they will lose money and stick taxpayers with the bill just to save them. You cant expect a town with a population with around 1000 people to be able to support an expensive train service without gutting downtown Ottawa's population which actually adds more costs to Ottawa's taxpayers.

Their whole plan is a scam like Truenorth said and im glad no investor has got sucked into it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I said as a standalone. It does make sense as a commuter option and bedroom community. Case in point, most people from SF and Ottawa do interact or commute quite a bit. I know people from Arnprior who commute to Kanata for work. They absolutely make sense as communities on the periphery of Ottawa that are very much a part of Ottawa's economy.

It doesn't make a lot of sense as a bedroom community. I understand there are cities in the world where 80km commutes are necessary, but Ottawa certainly isn't one of them. There are 400 existing SF to Ottawa commuters and 250 the other way (and I suspect most headed to/from Kanata/Stittsville where the train doesn't go). I wouldn't call that "most people."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

This. In fact, I brought it up in my 'VIA subsidiary' proposal for interprovincial commuter rail.

Sure, Smith's Falls, Arnprior, Buckingham, and Wakefield may be the termini, but they are by no means the main target.

Sure, Arnprior as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but an Arnprior-March Rd.-Bells Corners-Woodroffe-Colonnade-Mooney's Bay-Carleton-Carling-Bayview line would definitely have justifiable ridership.

Sure, Smith's Falls as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but a Smith's Falls-Richmond-Strandherd-Fallowfield-Colonnade-Billings Bridge-Tremblay line would definitely have justifiable ridership.

Sure, Buckingham, QC as a standalone stop/destination doesn't make too much sense, but a Buckingham-Massons Angers-Angers-Labrosse-Promenades-Galeries de Hull-Montcalm-Bayview line would certainly have justifiable ridership.

The least justifiable line would be a Wakefield-Chelsea-Freeman-Parc de la Montagne-Galeries de Hull-Montcalm-Bayview line, but that could still conceivably work.

All the populated places along those corridors that are in the suburbs will have service with either LRT stops themselves or be a short bus ride away from an LRT stop.

What Moose is proposing (and you are asking for) is additional investment outside these lines to those low population towns.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I know people don't consider Bayview to be "downtown", but where exactly do you think Bayview is? Better yet, where do you think the people who move out to those areas will work?

You know exactly what was meant here. Moose will not be facilitating mobility inside the Greenbelt or even inside Ottawa's city limits. Their entire goal is to provide commuter service which facilitates massive sprawl in the exurbs.

Not sure if you actually don't see this or are being wilfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

On the other hand, it would densify many of the communities that are located outside of the city and prevent them from entirely disappearing over time. MOOSE's own proposal does not include Kanata-style suburbs.

Why should we care if those communities disappear? Serious question. Having massive dispersion is not good for the environment, carries a high cost base for infrastructure and provides reduced opportunity for those living there.

As if that weren't bad enough, Moose is basically insisting that publicly owned utilities be forced to share their assets on terms advantageous to Moose to facilitate the above.

Also, there is exactly zero evidence that those towns would densify. Sheer logic defies this assertion. Who moves to the country to live in a condo? Moose is counting on developers turning those towns into exurbs with acre lots, with the businesses all locating in the core that Moose can "tax" (umm extract "voluntary payments" from). Thankfully, this is not the US. Or this harebrained scheme might have actually come to fruition.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do we ignore the fact that Moose could be moving people between Kanata North, Bells Corners, Merivale, Barrhaven, Mooney's Bay and Tremblay.
Relying on rail levy in small towns right off the bat is silly but service within suburbs could be sustainable and could help maintain and develop outlying stations in the short run.

We aren’t. Earlier in the thread Joseph admitted the the suburban stations would intentionally be built in a location inconvenient for existing residents but convenient for residents of the new sponsor developments. For example, Moose would not stop at Fallowfield station but instead build a new station west (yes west) of Strandherd drive, making it difficult for the existing 80,000 residents in Barrhaven to take the train. This is considered a feature not a bug by Moose. They would do something similar at the other stations.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You know exactly what was meant here. Moose will not be facilitating mobility inside the Greenbelt or even inside Ottawa's city limits. Their entire goal is to provide commuter service which facilitates massive sprawl in the exurbs.

Not sure if you actually don't see this or are being wilfully ignorant.



Why should we care if those communities disappear? Serious question. Having massive dispersion is not good for the environment, carries a high cost base for infrastructure and provides reduced opportunity for those living there.

As if that weren't bad enough, Moose is basically insisting that publicly owned utilities be forced to share their assets on terms advantageous to Moose to facilitate the above.

Also, there is exactly zero evidence that those towns would densify. Sheer logic defies this assertion. Who moves to the country to live in a condo? Moose is counting on developers turning those towns into exurbs with acre lots, with the businesses all locating in the core that Moose can "tax" (umm extract "voluntary payments" from). Thankfully, this is not the US. Or this harebrained scheme might have actually come to fruition.

From reading the vitriol you're posting about MOOSE, it begs the question of what kind of commuter system you'd "allow"? Getting into Ottawa is a pathetic mess that always embarrasses me when I show the city to visitors, particularly from Europe and Australia, where I have family. They cannot believe that a city the size of Ottawa wouldn't have a decent suburban train system. I agree with them. I hate having to drive everywhere in the region, or take multiple herky-jerky buses to get anywhere.

I think you may only see the downsides of suburban rail, but I think most in your position would change their tune if suburban rail came to the region.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

From reading the vitriol you're posting about MOOSE, it begs the question of what kind of commuter system you'd "allow"?

Depends on what you define as a commuter system. I have said above that I would support hourly regional bus service to all these towns from the Confederation and Trillium Line stations close to the major highways. What I don't support is rail investment, particularly one that includes plans to either displace current services or hamper them in anyway (as Moose suggest for the Trillium Line).

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Getting into Ottawa is a pathetic mess that always embarrasses me when I show the city to visitors, particularly from Europe and Australia, where I have family.

Europeans don't build commuter rail services to towns of 1000 residents, 60 km away either. Especially not as a terminus. And where they do have such services, they are heavily subsidized by their regional authorities (would be the province here). They aren't engaging private companies to get in bed with developers to build rail on the back of massive sprawl.

They certainly would never tolerate sprawl the way we do. If this was Europe, Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven would be villages of a few a thousand and 90% of Ottawa's population would be inside the greenbelt. People love to complain about how bad public transport is in Canada without ever wanting to talk about what makes public transport feasible in Europe and Asia: density.

If you have any doubts of the above, just compare the areas of cities of similar sizes in Europe of Asia.

Originally Posted by gunnar777

They cannot believe that a city the size of Ottawa wouldn't have a decent suburban train system. I agree with them. I hate having to drive everywhere in the region, or take multiple herky-jerky buses to get anywhere.

Guess what? I hate having to drive everywhere too. You know what would make more transit feasible? Not having ridiculous plans that see all growth directed to towns that are 60km from the downtown core.

I would go so far as to argue that the LRT should have never left the greenbelt, so that people would have an incentive to stay in the core. As it stands, Ottawa has only a handful of corridors with the density to support higher order transit. Why? Because people like yourself think nothing of arguing for continued or even expanded sprawl.

If we are going to send the LRT out of the greenbelt, let's not double down on that by adding commuter rail to smaller towns even further away. If you're in a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I think you may only see the downsides of suburban rail, but I think most in your position would change their tune if suburban rail came to the region.

Sorry. But there's no upside to spending hundreds of millions or even billions on a suburban rail system to enable hundreds of thousands of residents to take up acre lots in exurbs. That's a surefire way to turn Ottawa in a mediocre American city.

And no my thinking won't change. There's an opportunity cost to every tax dollar. And I'd rather see the rapid transit network in Ottawa (and particularly inside the Greenbelt) expanded. Let's reward people who actually live an urban lifestyle and actually use transit. Instead of subsidizing people who want to live on acre lots and drive pickup trucks and SUVs for to the Moose station where they only use transit for their commute exclusively.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Depends on what you define as a commuter system. I have said above that I would support hourly regional bus service to all these towns from the Confederation and Trillium Line stations close to the major highways. What I don't support is rail investment, particularly one that includes plans to either displace current services or hamper them in anyway (as Moose suggest for the Trillium Line).



Europeans don't build commuter rail services to towns of 1000 residents, 60 km away either. Especially not as a terminus. And where they do have such services, they are heavily subsidized by their regional authorities (would be the province here). They aren't engaging private companies to get in bed with developers to build rail on the back of massive sprawl.

They certainly would never tolerate sprawl the way we do. If this was Europe, Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven would be villages of a few a thousand and 90% of Ottawa's population would be inside the greenbelt. People love to complain about how bad public transport is in Canada without ever wanting to talk about what makes public transport feasible in Europe and Asia: density.

If you have any doubts of the above, just compare the areas of cities of similar sizes in Europe of Asia.



Guess what? I hate having to drive everywhere too. You know what would make more transit feasible? Not having ridiculous plans that see all growth directed to towns that are 60km from the downtown core.

I would go so far as to argue that the LRT should have never left the greenbelt, so that people would have an incentive to stay in the core. As it stands, Ottawa has only a handful of corridors with the density to support higher order transit. Why? Because people like yourself think nothing of arguing for continued or even expanded sprawl.

If we are going to send the LRT out of the greenbelt, let's not double down on that by adding commuter rail to smaller towns even further away. If you're in a hole, the first step is to stop digging.



Sorry. But there's no upside to spending hundreds of millions or even billions on a suburban rail system to enable hundreds of thousands of residents to take up acre lots in exurbs. That's a surefire way to turn Ottawa in a mediocre American city.

And no my thinking won't change. There's an opportunity cost to every tax dollar. And I'd rather see the rapid transit network in Ottawa (and particularly inside the Greenbelt) expanded. Let's reward people who actually live an urban lifestyle and actually use transit. Instead of subsidizing people who want to live on acre lots and drive pickup trucks and SUVs for to the Moose station where they only use transit for their commute exclusively.

Just to further your point when you brought up Eurpean cities about population density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density

Ottawa-Gatineau Metro has a minuscule population density of 196.6 people per km squared. I agree that is way to small a number to justify commuter rail.

BTW thanks for understanding what I was trying to get across to OCheetos

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

From reading the vitriol you're posting about MOOSE, it begs the question of what kind of commuter system you'd "allow"? Getting into Ottawa is a pathetic mess that always embarrasses me when I show the city to visitors, particularly from Europe and Australia, where I have family. They cannot believe that a city the size of Ottawa wouldn't have a decent suburban train system. I agree with them. I hate having to drive everywhere in the region, or take multiple herky-jerky buses to get anywhere.

I think you may only see the downsides of suburban rail, but I think most in your position would change their tune if suburban rail came to the region.

I tend to think commuter rail is a better solution for the Western suburbs. But Ottawans are transfer-phobic in a way your friends from Europe or Australia probably are not. This is why outer suburbs are clamouring for painfully slow LRT extensions.

Most of the schemes on this thread are not aimed at suburbs, but rural areas.