Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is not suburban rail then. It's an express service from Barrhaven to Bayview, if we're only talking 1 stop inside the greenbelt. It also means terrible service for all users inside the greenbelt. Doubt that goes down well.

Most cities layer transit, with different services for different purposes. Ottawa has an aversion to this and demands that there only be one system, no matter how ridiculous it is to build a 40 km tram line.

Why would they use Bayview? That is Mr. Potvin's obsession with the PoW bridge. It would make way more sense to use Tremblay (or better yet Hurdman) for commuter rail.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, we agree. I am not proposing an s-bahn type system, I am proposing a commuter rail type system, which has less frequent stops and is designed for a hub/spoke transit model (which I earlier hypothesized would not work because of Ottawa's transfer-phobia).

The transfer-phobia will pass, once people get used to transferring on to the LRT. Ottawa residents have been spoiled with one seat rides on express buses. Once that ends, they'll adjust. They have no other choice.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Most cities layer transit, with different services for different purposes. Ottawa has an aversion to this and demands that there only be one system, no matter how ridiculous it is to build a 40 km tram line.

Disagree. It's not a line that's 40 km from downtown. It's a line that's 20km on either side of downtown Ottawa. That's perfectly normal length for a metro. And we all know this is not really a tram line. It's a fully segregated, mostly grade separated, exclusive ROW trunk line using light rail vehicles. Ottawa residents will be calling it the subway in no time.

I don't see the need here for commuter rail. The purpose of commuter rail is usually to provide added peak capacity to far flung areas which cannot be economically and effectively serviced by the metro, either due to distance or network capacity constraints. Ottawa isn't even close to maxing out capacity on the Confederation Line. And 20 km from the core is not far away at all, especially when the Confederation Line is averaging > 30 km/h. Once we start maxing out capacity on the Confederation Line and Trillium line, and we extend the line right into Barrhaven, Kanata and Riverside, we may see an argument for suburban rail, as the city suggested in their old TMP a decade ago.

We're easily 15 years away from even discussing suburban or commuter rail. Once the Trillium line is twin tracked, both it and the Confederation Line would be able to handle up 30 000 pphpd just by switching to longer trains and/or metro type rail vehicles. Possibly even more than that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798765

So if we are going to build a commuter or suburban rail system, we need to ask who it will service, what the costs are and if it's worthwhile over LRT extensions? Are we doing it just to provide peak service to the burbs? If so, why spend the money to create and operate and entire system over simply feeding the LRT network? What's the advantage? And are those advantages worth the cost? Is it worthwhile to run an entire commuter rail network to save suburbanites 10-15 mins when there's a light metro running with plenty of capacity?

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why would they use Bayview? That is Mr. Potvin's obsession with the PoW bridge. It would make way more sense to use Tremblay (or better yet Hurdman) for commuter rail.

I thought the argument was that they needed to run across the bridge to get it labeled as an inter-provincial rail system and thus regulated by the feds?

I agree with you. Tremblay as a regional rail hub makes far more sense for any sort of regional/suburban/commuter rail system. But again, Mr. Potvin is in the real estate business, not the transport business.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I thought the argument was that they needed to run across the bridge to get it labeled as an inter-provincial rail system and thus regulated by the feds?

The other bridge by Fitzroy could accomplish that too, so I doubt it.

Inter-provincial transit that stretches far(ish) into both regions isn't a bad thing, at least definitely not when compared to the other issues you've raised.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The other bridge by Fitzroy could accomplish that too, so I doubt it.

Inter-provincial transit that stretches far(ish) into both regions isn't a bad thing, at least definitely not when compared to the other issues you've raised.

Not complaining about inter-provincial transit development at all. It's ridiculous how Ottawa, Gatineau, the provinces and the feds have handled the file. That said, I don't see what Moose brings to the table beyond more complications. We need inter-provincial transit that serves riders, not the whims of developers.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Well, speaking for myself, I'm not complaining about the city's current actions and plans as I am happy in my understanding that the current Trillium line construction is simply a realignment of the track and the capacity continues to exist (and the intent) to subsequently operate a "light rail commuter service" as per the CTA's decision. I also agree with the City's priorities in regard to the planned phases of LRT extension and agree that the cross border portion is a lower priority to the extensions to the East/West and South.

I hope everyone reads this which proves my point about Potvin. He knew that the tracks were being realigned and he still went ahead and took the city to court.

OCheetos you better stop believing Potvin's BS.

That original post can be found on page 37 dated Oct 21, 2017

Ive been reading all the pages in this subject Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I hope everyone reads this which proves my point about Potvin. He knew that the tracks were being realigned and he still went ahead and took the city to court.

Bayview station used to be located on a spur off the main line. The main line continued to the PoW bridge. The main line was severed in the last track upgrade (2013-2015 range) and then permanently obstructed by construction of the new LRT station. A year prior to the complaint an RFQ for converting the bridge for pedestrian use was also posted. At the time of the original complaint (mid 2016) there was little reason to believe that the city was going to be preserving the bridge for rail use anywhere in the near future, or at least it wasn't clear. (You can view this forum's response to the early RFQ posting here).

Now perhaps Potvin was going off of his own assumptions, but part of the complaint to the CTA involved getting answers from the city about their plans for the bridge.

Charles' comment is based on the city's response, after the Mayor, and other city officials made it clear what their intent was with the bridge.

Also, as a side note: the CTA is not a court.


You haven't answered my question.
"How are taxpayers subsidizing his rail service through the train tracks?"

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Bayview station used to be located on a spur off the main line. The main line continued to the PoW bridge. The main line was severed in the last track upgrade (2013-2015 range) and then permanently obstructed by construction of the new LRT station. A year prior to the complaint an RFQ for converting the bridge for pedestrian use was also posted. At the time of the original complaint (mid 2016) there was little reason to believe that the city was going to be preserving the bridge for rail use anywhere in the near future, or at least it wasn't clear. (You can view this forum's response to the early RFQ posting here).

Now perhaps Potvin was going off of his own assumptions, but part of the complaint to the CTA involved getting answers from the city about their plans for the bridge.

Charles' comment is based on the city's response, after the Mayor, and other city officials made it clear what their intent was with the bridge.

Also, as a side note: the CTA is not a court.


You haven't answered my question.
"How are taxpayers subsidizing his rail service through the train tracks?"

I have answered it numerous times. He expects to kick the city off the Trillium line the we taxpayers paid for and he also wants to use other tracks the we also paid for as well and if his company gets into trouble he will expect us to bail him out. His plans will accelerate un-affordable sprawl which will drain the city of Ottawa's finances which again will cost us taxpayers.

After Potvin knew what the city intentions were he still went ahead with taking the city to CTA and that to me is a hostile act. His real intention is to kill the Trillium line with adding his trains to a line that has no more capacity and that must be stopped there is no other explanation for what he is doing.

A tribunal acts in the same way as a court does even though the CTA just deals with transportation. Charles also makes his statements which are very well thought out from info he got off the MOOSE website and other searches. Go back and re-read every single post in this thread like i did. MOOS plan is not viable plain and simple.

Potvin said we would have commuter rail by 2017, well its may of 2018 and still nothing, no certification of fitness and no 5 million loan from Le Mine after a feasibility study.

All the evidence points that MOOSE is full of hot air. Now im challenging you to go back and re-read every post on this thread.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I have answered it numerous times. He expects to kick the city off the Trillium line the we taxpayers paid for

While dumping millions in upgrades into it as well as paying fees to the city for the use of them?

and he also wants to use other tracks the we also paid for as well

Which ones are those?

and if his company gets into trouble he will expect us to bail him out.

Is that an assumption or a fact?

His plans will accelerate un-affordable sprawl which will drain the city of Ottawa's finances which again will cost us taxpayers.

Well, this one makes some sense. (A lot of MOOSE's proposed stations are within Ottawa's limits though).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

While dumping millions in upgrades into it as well as paying fees to the city for the use of them?

How much has Moose paid the city to date for infrastructure upgrades and where can I find this information?

For that matter, since Moose intends to involve itself in major public works, can we get a copy of its financial prospectus?

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Which ones are those?

In one exchange, Potvin once mentions to me that he'd be happy to take the Confederation Line or parts thereof too.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Is that an assumption or a fact?

Assumption. And a reasonable one. Not so much that Moose would get the bailout but that all those residents who have not spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the promise of rail service, will certainly expect the provincial government (at minimum) to intervene if Moose has issues.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, this one makes some sense. (A lot of MOOSE's proposed stations are within Ottawa's limits though).

Now you are making assumptions. Moose is in business to make money. Those city stations will only happen if they offer a reasonable return. If not, they will not happen. And if they do happen, they may not be in the same location. And for that disruption, what will City of Ottawa residents get? Possibly lower frequency on the Trillium Line, no proper integration with feeder bus services, and a major transit line under the control of an entity that prioritizes rural development over the provision of transit to current riders living in current catchment areas.

And, of course, the disastrous American style ex-urban sprawl.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How much has Moose paid the city to date for infrastructure upgrades and where can I find this information?

For that matter, since Moose intends to involve itself in major public works, can we get a copy of its financial prospectus?

Well, MOOSE's plan is outright impossible unless they do. If MOOSE ever gets their feasibility study done, it would be a better question to ask then.

In one exchange, Potvin once mentions to me that he'd be happy to take the Confederation Line or parts thereof too.

(A link would be helpful)

I've personally always felt the best solution would be for the city and MOOSE to share tracks, and for that reason I wouldn't be supportive of MOOSE using the confederation line in any way. (And probably for other reasons too).

Assumption. And a reasonable one. Not so much that Moose would get the bailout but that all those residents who have not spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the promise of rail service, will certainly expect the provincial government (at minimum) to intervene if Moose has issues.

Fair enough. The financial feasibility report (if it is ever done) might shine some more light on how likely that would be.

Now you are making assumptions. Moose is in business to make money. Those city stations will only happen if they offer a reasonable return. If not, they will not happen. And if they do happen, they may not be in the same location. And for that disruption, what will City of Ottawa residents get? Possibly lower frequency on the Trillium Line, no proper integration with feeder bus services, and a major transit line under the control of an entity that prioritizes rural development over the provision of transit to current riders living in current catchment areas.

MOOSE's proposal including many stops in Ottawa is more of a fact than an assumption. As of now they're still proposing them. Tax-wise that money would still go to the city. That may change in the future, and if it does so might my opinion.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, MOOSE's plan is outright impossible

Full stop

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Full stop

MOOSE's plan is extremely far from likely without a doubt, but not "impossible".
Semantics semantics semantics.

If we're gonna debate what is and isn't "like a tax" then this also seems like an important distinction.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

MOOSE's plan is extremely far from likely without a doubt, but not "impossible".
Semantics semantics semantics.

If we're gonna debate what is and isn't "like a tax" then this also seems like an important distinction.

I would say at least 3 of the dictionary definitions apply to Moose.

1 a : incapable of being or of occurring
b : felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled : insuperably difficult an impossible deadline
2 a : extremely undesirable : unacceptable
b : extremely awkward or difficult to deal with the actor was impossible on the set

[AndyMEng]

Can we turn the conversation into constructive points now that Potvin has stopped debating with us all?

IF you could develop a commuter rail line to the outer towns and villages, how would you do it? I know we've discussed before, but I like to dream...

My first (and maybe best researched) choice is to use Bayview (or the new Moodie Station) as a regional hub, and take advantage of the City of Ottawa's short sighted cheap-o master plan of running trains down the 417 (the only transport corridor that already exists...) therefore regional trains can take the existing rail beds from Bell's corners and extend commuter rail service to:
1. Carp/Kinburn/Arnprior/Renfrew
2. Stittsville/Ashton/Carleton Place/Smith's Falls/Port Elmsley/Perth

I don't know much about the eastern/northern directions, but I do know these bike paths (rail beds). And line 2 to Perth would be used on weekends by the downtown hipsters looking for vintage finds.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

See my Kanata example previously for an example that does not start at the station.

True, but the situation would be even worse in Barrhaven.

I gave the example previously of Solandt to Rideau Centre.

Um, not quite sure why you picked Solandt. It is in the heart of the Kanata North Business Park and there aren't any houses within 800m of it. I guess it would be useful for someone who works on Solandt and lives near the Rideau Centre.

Extending LRT into Barrhaven is also very easy. The ROW is already there. And there's reserved space along Woodroffe from Algonquin to Hunt Club. Some of it is grade separated. They could build that stretch, from Baseline all the way to Marketplace within 2 years for about 800m to a billion in today's dollars.

Not quite as easy as you think. As discussed before, there is a 500m gap in the ROW between Knoxdale and Hunt Club. They would have to either:

1. Run at grade along Woodroffe with at grade crossings,
2. Dig a tunnel under Woodroffe,
3. Expropriate a bunch of homes that back onto Woodroffe.

Option 2 is complicated by the fact that there is a major water main under Woodroffe which they would have to work around.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bro...water-traffic-in-ottawa-s-south-1.693485

I agree it should be done anyway, but this is why the city is hesitating. Certainly rather than grade separating the transitway from VIA's tracks, they should build an LRT bridge (which wouldn't need to be as wide), and use the money saved from doing that towards the cost of converting to LRT.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Can we turn the conversation into constructive points now that Potvin has stopped debating with us all?

IF you could develop a commuter rail line to the outer towns and villages, how would you do it? I know we've discussed before, but I like to dream...

My first (and maybe best researched) choice is to use Bayview (or the new Moodie Station) as a regional hub, and take advantage of the City of Ottawa's short sighted cheap-o master plan of running trains down the 417 (the only transport corridor that already exists...) therefore regional trains can take the existing rail beds from Bell's corners and extend commuter rail service to:
1. Carp/Kinburn/Arnprior/Renfrew
2. Stittsville/Ashton/Carleton Place/Smith's Falls/Port Elmsley/Perth

I don't know much about the eastern/northern directions, but I do know these bike paths (rail beds). And line 2 to Perth would be used on weekends by the downtown hipsters looking for vintage finds.

The populations don't justify commuter Rail. At best I would go is hourly bus service. If the Rural Partner routes who are private businesses don't consider using rail then neither should we.

Anyway it's not like we haven't been constructive, guys like myself and Truenorth are just being realistic and know whats affordable and what isn't. I would say in 70+ years Commuter Rail should be an option but not now.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Most cities layer transit, with different services for different purposes. Ottawa has an aversion to this and demands that there only be one system, no matter how ridiculous it is to build a 40 km tram line.

Name a city the size of Ottawa/Gatineau (in terms of CMA population) that use commuter rail in addition to buses and some type of LRT/light metro. In most parts of the world, a city our size would be much more compact making commuter rail pointless. Only if there was a separate large town/small city nearby (which Ottawa doesn't have) would there be any point to having some type of regional rail service, but that would be on the verge of being intercity rail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Can we turn the conversation into constructive points now that Potvin has stopped debating with us all?

IF you could develop a commuter rail line to the outer towns and villages, how would you do it? I know we've discussed before, but I like to dream...

My first (and maybe best researched) choice is to use Bayview (or the new Moodie Station) as a regional hub, and take advantage of the City of Ottawa's short sighted cheap-o master plan of running trains down the 417 (the only transport corridor that already exists...) therefore regional trains can take the existing rail beds from Bell's corners and extend commuter rail service to:
1. Carp/Kinburn/Arnprior/Renfrew
2. Stittsville/Ashton/Carleton Place/Smith's Falls/Port Elmsley/Perth

I don't know much about the eastern/northern directions, but I do know these bike paths (rail beds). And line 2 to Perth would be used on weekends by the downtown hipsters looking for vintage finds.

Here is the thing. Forcing a transfer from Commuter rail to LRT at Moodie would create a worst of both worlds situation for passengers to/from Kanata/Stittsville (the vast majority of the line's potential users) and the long, roundabout route to get close to downtown via remaining rail corridors (thanks to the NCC) makes using existing routes for committer rail pointless (as demonstrated by Truenorth00).

For Kanata/Sttitsville, with a station at Moodie, extending to Kanata makes sense as the stretch through the Greenbelt is long enough that the trains can get cruise at their top speed of 100km/h.

While I don't disagree with you about building along the 417, you have to realize that suburban LRT or commuter rail will require transfers from bus or car for the vast majority, and there isn't much you can do about that (the further you are from the city, the less TOD makes sense, especially when there are still so many TOD opportunities closer to town). The advantage of extending to Terry Fox is you get the biggest bang for your buck with it as it serves 2/3 to 3/4 of Kanata/Stittsville with only one line (only Bridalwood wouldn't benefit). Extending along one of the two northern routes would benefit only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the region's population (only South March area and a bit of Beaverbrook, plus the Kanata North Technology Park). The southern route would probably be a bit better, but it wold still only benefit less than half of the region (basically those south of Hazeldean).

The problem is we can't afford to build any of the proposed route any time soon, let alone two different routes. If we can't do both at the same time, which one do you do first? And then where does Barrhaven fit into the priorities?

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The populations don't justify commuter Rail. At best I would go is hourly bus service. If the Rural Partner routes who are private businesses don't consider using rail then neither should we.

To be fair, private buses have an unfair competitive advantage in that they can use the roads for basically free, but for the same company to use a rail line, it has to negotiate access and then pay for running rights. For that reason it is easier to just run a bus.

Having said that, buses make the most sense for most of the rural towns in question. Smiths Falls/Richmond/Barrhaven/Tremblay (not Moose's proposal) is about the only route that might make any sense in the short term, given that the rail route is more direct than the roadways. It would need to be coordinated with VIA Rail and the line would need more double track though.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Here is the thing. Forcing a transfer from Commuter rail to LRT at Moodie would create a worst of both worlds situation for passengers to/from Kanata/Stittsville (the vast majority of the line's potential users) and the long, roundabout route to get close to downtown via remaining rail corridors (thanks to the NCC) makes using existing routes for committer rail pointless (as demonstrated by Truenorth00).

For Kanata/Sttitsville, with a station at Moodie, extending to Kanata makes sense as the stretch through the Greenbelt is long enough that the trains can get cruise at their top speed of 100km/h.

While I don't disagree with you about building along the 417, you have to realize that suburban LRT or commuter rail will require transfers from bus or car for the vast majority, and there isn't much you can do about that (the further you are from the city, the less TOD makes sense, especially when there are still so many TOD opportunities closer to town). The advantage of extending to Terry Fox is you get the biggest bang for your buck with it as it serves 2/3 to 3/4 of Kanata/Stittsville with only one line (only Bridalwood wouldn't benefit). Extending along one of the two northern routes would benefit only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the region's population (only South March area and a bit of Beaverbrook, plus the Kanata North Technology Park). The southern route would probably be a bit better, but it wold still only benefit less than half of the region (basically those south of Hazeldean).

The problem is we can't afford to build any of the proposed route any time soon, let alone two different routes. If we can't do both at the same time, which one do you do first? And then where does Barrhaven fit into the priorities?



To be fair, private buses have an unfair competitive advantage in that they can use the roads for basically free, but for the same company to use a rail line, it has to negotiate access and then pay for running rights. For that reason it is easier to just run a bus.

Having said that, buses make the most sense for most of the rural towns in question. Smiths Falls/Richmond/Barrhaven/Tremblay (not Moose's proposal) is about the only route that might make any sense in the short term, given that the rail route is more direct than the roadways. It would need to be coordinated with VIA Rail and the line would need more double track though.

Evrn though that makes sense MOOSE already stated that wouldn't be enough. Its either they can do their whole plan or nothing. Well I guess its nothing for a long time.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Sure, of course they'd want LRT. But, going back to what you said earlier about the rest of the city having a say in how we spend money to improve transit, I don't really get how the rest of the city is supposed to support spending significantly more money on an LRT extension if a commuter rail system can accomplish the same task for far less. Especially if that commuter system might be doable years before LRT is even considered. By the time the city begins looking at Stage 4 Barrhaven may have grown to be able to support both.

I'd also like an LRT stop down the street from where I live, but I'm not going to get it because it obviously has no benefit over the existing transit in this area.

Bravo! This is the crux of the whole idea of using existing rail infrastructure. Here we have a right of way on the Beachburg sub that is basically fully grade separated to double track standards from Kanata to Tremblay. The Smiths Falls sub will also be basically grade separated once the overpasses are built between the Jct of the Beachburg sub and the Smiths Falls sub. These overpasses will be built regardless of whether Moose or any other entity runs commuter trains due to the volume of automobile traffic and existing train traffic.

Both of these routes would provide faster service from Barrhaven and Kanata than LRT depending upon where you are going.