Rural Commuter Rail

[OtrainUser]

The part I find that makes me mad about this whole MOOSE idea is while the claim they will take 25,000 cars off the road, the sprawl they will cause will probably add at least another 50,000 cars which will make traffic congestion worse not better. It will definitely be worse for the environment if MOOSE is allowed to go ahead with their far fetched idea.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Where is the 500 pax per train coming from that both you and Charles are using?

My reference to 500 comes from the MOOSE submission to CTA for a Certificate of Fitness. I rounded up from 480 to make the math easier.

Page 6 of link states "(b) Expected passenger loads: Each train will consist of three bi-level coaches, for a total seated capacity of 480 per train. It is expected that the entire system will carry more than 30,000 passengers per day."

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

But will the Smiths Falls train have a smoking car?

More specifically a toking car. And also a box car for the bales of weed coming into the city.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

My reference to 500 comes from the MOOSE submission to CTA for a Certificate of Fitness. I rounded up from 480 to make the math easier.

Page 6 of link states "(b) Expected passenger loads: Each train will consist of three bi-level coaches, for a total seated capacity of 480 per train. It is expected that the entire system will carry more than 30,000 passengers per day."

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

Ahh seated capacity. At 3 cars, that's 160 per car (the link I provided says seated capacity ranges from 136 to 162). So the total capacity would be over 1000 people per train.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ahh seated capacity. At 3 cars, that's 160 per car (the link I provided says seated capacity ranges from 136 to 162). So the total capacity would be over 1000 people per train.

Each train having the capacity to empty entire villages in rural Ottawa.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I suspect nothing has actually changed and thus it isn't an issue of bad math, but an issue of the marketing folks trying to make things sound more impressive than they are without understanding the facts behind the numbers.

That's been the problem with MOOSE all along. It is all marketing and no facts. They can make wild claims and then when they are challenged they fall back on the fact that they have yet to complete their feasibility study.

In the meantime, members on this site are able to use readily available information such as Stats Can census data, traffic pattern studies, etc. to make simple and logical deductions that refute many of the MOOSE claims.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ahh seated capacity. At 3 cars, that's 160 per car (the link I provided says seated capacity ranges from 136 to 162). So the total capacity would be over 1000 people per train.

I don't disagree with you there. However, cramming another 500 standing passengers on each train goes against MOOSE's stated goal that:

"passenger time on the train is useful time (i.e.with reliable Internet, cafe service, etc.), and therefore does not require high speed despite the distances planned on this network."

Lower down on same page (pg 6) of document quoted earlier:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

Edit 31 Oct 2018: Each train is supposed to be "three double decker (bi-level) coaches, each with a café on the second level. Every coach will have a different atmosphere for passengers: a quiet coach, a place to be social, and even a coach with scheduled live musicians. (link) As well as "bicycles will be accommodated in a specified section of every one of its trains. (link)

Between the bands, the bistros and the bike racks, I'm not sure where the passengers are actually going to go. (/s)

[Truenorth00]

Standing for 1.5 hrs isn't fun.

[lrt's friend]

Longer distance commuter trains should not be standing room. Beyond the ability to make it useful time, there is also the comfort level to make it appealing over car travel. Why would I choose the train if I have to stand the whole way from Smiths Falls? This will not be a successful business model.

[roger1818]

Inbound at least, those travelling furthest get a seat. Only those getting on within city limits might have to stand. I can't imagine more than 480 people boarding a train at the rural villages. In fact, Barrhaven is likely the only stop that has any hope of filling up all the seats, and if Stage 3 happens first, it will be a better option for most.

Outbound it doesn't work that way, but if there is standing room only, you would soon get a seat.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I can't imagine more than 480 people boarding a train at the rural villages. In fact, Barrhaven is likely the only stop that has any hope of filling up all the seats, and if Stage 3 happens first, it will be a better option for most.

I think that supports what I was trying to get across. Joseph Potvin and MOOSE make these outlandish claims that aren't supported by facts. The 30,000 passengers can't all come from the rural villages. The only way he gets to those numbers is if he poaches the majority from OC Transpo on stops within the City (primarily along the Trillium Line). If that is the case, there is no gained environmental benefit as you are simply moving people from one train (or bus) onto a different train, rather than taking any cars off the road. There is also no purpose anymore as we are simply duplicating/overlapping/replacing existing transit coverage.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A couple factors that could explain that.

First of all Potvin is under the belief that all of the route must be inter-provincial for them to be federally regulated, so a Maxville to Tremblay (or even Smiths Falls) wouldn't be permitted. As a result the line to Maxville (Alexandria in his plan) must extend along the abandoned rail line to Bristol, QC.

.

The line from Maxville to Tremblay is already federally regulated, it is owned by a Federal Crown Corporation.

Also, it has never really been made clear why there is any particular advantage to Federal regulation (other than providing a venue for litigation).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The line from Maxville to Tremblay is already federally regulated, it is owned by a Federal Crown Corporation.

Also, it has never really been made clear why there is any particular advantage to Federal regulation (other than providing a venue for litigation).

I don't know what part of interprovincial transit you don't consider to be an advantage, but ok.

MOOSE technically doesn't need to run any lines across the border to apply or receive federal regulation. The intention to is enough (as shown by the fact that Capital Railway is federally regulated). So this isn't an explanation for why they want to launch an entire system at once.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I don't know what part of interprovincial transit you don't consider to be an advantage, but ok.

MOOSE technically doesn't need to run any lines across the border to apply or receive federal regulation. The intention to is enough (as shown by the fact that Capital Railway is federally regulated). So this isn't an explanation for why they want to launch an entire system at once.

Except the Capital Railway owns a line that (on paper) crosses a provincial boundary, so where they operate their trains doesn't end up mattering.

Moose OTOH, doesn't (and never plans to) own any tracks, so (in Potvin's view), they need to run trains across a provincial boarder to gain the federal rights to force the owner of the track to let Moose use them.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Except the Capital Railway owns a line that (on paper) crosses a provincial boundary, so where they operate their trains doesn't end up mattering.

Moose OTOH, doesn't (and never plans to) own any tracks, so (in Potvin's view), they need to run trains across a provincial boarder to gain the federal rights to force the owner of the track to let Moose use them.

Capital Railway received federal regulation before they purchased the line (back when it was still just a pilot).

It's mentioned in a report somewhere that they could have applied to be a provincially regulated railway, but went for federal for a potential future extension to Gatineau.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Except the Capital Railway owns a line that (on paper) crosses a provincial boundary, so where they operate their trains doesn't end up mattering.

Moose OTOH, doesn't (and never plans to) own any tracks, so (in Potvin's view), they need to run trains across a provincial boarder to gain the federal rights to force the owner of the track to let Moose use them.

I am curious how this plays out. Legislating that a company must maintain an asset in a certain state of serviceability so that another operator (potentially a competitor) could compel usage through regulatory means, has some major implications. I can see that reaching the Supreme Court. There's public good and public interest. But this kind of judgement is well past that.

And arguably, it it's okay for railways, why not others?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am curious how this plays out. Legislating that a company must maintain an asset in a certain state of serviceability so that another operator (potentially a competitor) could compel usage through regulatory means, has some major implications. I can see that reaching the Supreme Court. There's public good and public interest. But this kind of judgement is well past that.

And arguably, it it's okay for railways, why not others?

Because railways are treated completely differently than any other asset.

(Federally Regulated) Railways must allow other operators, including competitors, access to their tracks (although this typically comes with usage fees and scheduling limitations). Do you see that logic being applied to anything else?
(Unless I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to say).

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Because railways are treated completely differently than any other asset.

(Federally Regulated) Railways must allow other operators, including competitors, access to their tracks (although this typically comes with usage fees and scheduling limitations). Do you see that logic being applied to anything else?
(Unless I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to say).

Still this would open a can of worms if the CTA rules against the city which would allow MOOSE to be compensated by the city taxpayers for ripping up a rail alignment that needed to be changed.

I can easily see MOOSE demanding the city that they allow them to use line 1 tracks as well as line 2 if they get their way with the POW bridge and that would screw the entire system just so MOOSE can make a profit.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Still this would open a can of worms if the CTA rules against the city which would allow MOOSE to be compensated by the city taxpayers for ripping up a rail alignment that needed to be changed.

I can easily see MOOSE demanding the city that they allow them to use line 1 tracks as well as line 2 if they get their way with the POW bridge and that would screw the entire system just so MOOSE can make a profit.

No it doesn't. The only compensation MOOSE can get from this is a new rail alignment (don't go giving acottawa any ideas). The city should have known that their new alignment would be problematic and they should have, at the very least, had a plan to restore the link to the bridge, which they didn't.
Whether the CTA can enforce maintenance requirements is what's at question here. There's no question that the city is at fault for dismantling and obstructing the rail line.

They can ask, but since the Confederation Line isn't federally regulated the city has no legal obligation to allow them to.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

No it doesn't. The only compensation MOOSE can get from this is a new rail alignment (don't go giving acottawa any ideas). The city should have known that their new alignment would be problematic and they should have, at the very least, had a plan to restore the link to the bridge, which they didn't.
Whether the CTA can enforce maintenance requirements is what's at question here. There's no question that the city is at fault for dismantling and obstructing the rail line.

They can ask, but since the Confederation Line isn't federally regulated the city has no legal obligation to allow them to.

New rail alignment paid by Ottawa taxpayers is compensation to MOOSE whether it is cash or another asset, there is no difference. The city has to consider octranspo riders own needs before worrying about MOOSE, especially since they have not proven they can even start their business. MOOSE wants to operate their business without owning any track which is wishful thinking at best. No business that runs on rail that I know of doesn't own any track. Even VIA rail owns some track although it isn't much. GO in the GTA owns some of its track it operates on as well.

So don't try to make MOOSE look credible when all the facts say what they are planning won't work without huge taxpayer subsidy and that's what i'm thinking Potvin is after.