Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Allandale25 Try answering the question. "At what level of regional population do YOU think regional rail should be put in place here? And by that time, after "x" more years of government-funded destruction of the existing railway connections, how do you imagine that might be accomplished?"

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

The regional population is irrelevant. What matters is the existence satellite cities, which are common in Southern Ontario and non-existent here.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Here's the thing (and I hate that both sides of the argument seem to ignore this)...

Commuter rail absolutely makes sense in the Ottawa/Gatineau region, but not to the extent that some people like to imagine. The following is what our initial regional rail system should look like:



We should use existing rail infrastructure to create commuter lines with a few key stops in Ottawa's three major suburbs, and across the river to Gatineau. You start small, and then build it out as demand sees fit.

Start with a Strandherd to Bayview to Labrosse line. Hell, even give the Feds an excuse for a legacy project and ask them to create a transprovincial VIA subsidiary that functions like the GO Train if you want.

Then build the Kanata North line, and maybe a spur that leads through southern Kanata and Stittsville. You can also start thinking about a crosstown suburban line of sorts at this point (the SE Transitway and unused rail south of Walkley).

Additionally, the lure or promise of a rail line near Navan road would help spur Orleans growth south as opposed to the east, and such a commuter line would eventually make sense in the future. Beyond these lines, future expansion (since this is now at least two decades into the future) can be meaningfully explored into communities like Richmond, Smith's Falls, Arnprior, etc. This would be especially true if it's a VIA subsidiary and VIA is still providing rail service to communities like Alexandria and Smith's Falls.

Commuter rail absolutely makes sense for Ottawa right now, but only to our major suburban communities which themselves are a fair distance from the downtown core on both sides of the river. This should be the immediate focus; places like Arnprior come later after a sensible base line or two have been established to places like Gatineau, Barrhaven, and Kanata North.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Here's the thing (and I hate that both sides of the argument seem to ignore this)...

.

To what does “this” refer? Is there some additional data or information that people have been ignoring?

[Gat-Train]

I definitely agree with Jamaican Phoenix that this is a good system. I would also add a branch that links the airport to the purple line. As I posted in the Trillium Line Extension thread, I would like to see the airport spur connect to the VIA tracks along the SE Transitway.

[Gat-Train]

However, I would rather start with a Strandherd-Navan line, as the Strandherd-Labrosse line requires rebuilding the tracks at Bayview. The lines could act as a VIA-franchisee

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To what does “this” refer? Is there some additional data or information that people have been ignoring?

I find too often that any talk around commuter rail in this city is a zero-sum game for either side. It's always either "we MUST bring commuter rail out to Arnprior, Smith's Falls, Wakefield, Buckingham, and Limoges RIGHT NOW" or "commuter rail makes no sense." It's always all or nothing, when instead it should be "let's use existing rail infrastructure and ROW to create commuter lines that tie some of our biggest suburbs to the urban core and other parts of our transit system, and gradually expand it outward based on demand and growth."

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Allandale25 Try answering the question. "At what level of regional population do YOU think regional rail should be put in place here? And by that time, after "x" more years of government-funded destruction of the existing railway connections, how do you imagine that might be accomplished?"

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

Easy when places like Alexandria have a population of at least 100,000 residents. When go started the exurbs had population numbers that were at least 300,000 people

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Easy when places like Alexandria have a population of at least 100,000 residents. When go started the exurbs had population numbers that were at least 300,000 people

I agree with that. I think the big difference is many of the Toronto exurbs were substantial cities in their own right before they were swallowed by Toronto sprawl. That was never the case in Eastern Ontario or Western Quebec.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I find too often that any talk around commuter rail in this city is a zero-sum game for either side. It's always either "we MUST bring commuter rail out to Arnprior, Smith's Falls, Wakefield, Buckingham, and Limoges RIGHT NOW" or "commuter rail makes no sense." It's always all or nothing, when instead it should be "let's use existing rail infrastructure and ROW to create commuter lines that tie some of our biggest suburbs to the urban core and other parts of our transit system, and gradually expand it outward based on demand and growth."

At least with MOOSE, what they are proposing is "all or nothing" so it's hard to really discuss the idea of anything in between

and then when you do try to pitch the idea of something in between it gets shot down because "LRT extension is better" or "it wouldn't bring you into the CBD". They're* both valid points so you can kind of see why there hasn't been much discussion on commuter rail just out to our suburbs.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I find too often that any talk around commuter rail in this city is a zero-sum game for either side. It's always either "we MUST bring commuter rail out to Arnprior, Smith's Falls, Wakefield, Buckingham, and Limoges RIGHT NOW" or "commuter rail makes no sense." It's always all or nothing, when instead it should be "let's use existing rail infrastructure and ROW to create commuter lines that tie some of our biggest suburbs to the urban core and other parts of our transit system, and gradually expand it outward based on demand and growth."

You're right, we should discuss something to those hamlets at some point. But why should they be prioritized over the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who actually fund OC Transpo and are waiting for higher order transit to them. Just cause the corridors exist, does not mean this is a cheap proposition. Tracks have to be rehabilitated. Stations have to be built. Crossings have to be fixed up. Etc. Easily hundreds of millions for the line you just proposed.

So maybe after Stage 4 or 5, sure, we can talk about commuter rail which fills in the gaps.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Easy when places like Alexandria have a population of at least 100,000 residents. When go started the exurbs had population numbers that were at least 300,000 people

Heck, I'd settle for Alexandria hitting 10 000 compared to the 4000 today.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're right, we should discuss something to those hamlets at some point. But why should they be prioritized over the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who actually fund OC Transpo and are waiting for higher order transit to them. Just cause the corridors exist, does not mean this is a cheap proposition. Tracks have to be rehabilitated. Stations have to be built. Crossings have to be fixed up. Etc. Easily hundreds of millions for the line you just proposed.

So maybe after Stage 4 or 5, sure, we can talk about commuter rail which fills in the gaps.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying we should seriously plan for and build commuter lines now, but only out to Labrosse in Gatineau and to Strandherd and Kanata/Stittsville in Ottawa. Things like Arnprior and Smith's Falls can come 20-30 years from now.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying we should seriously plan for and build commuter lines now, but only out to Labrosse in Gatineau and to Strandherd and Kanata/Stittsville in Ottawa. Things like Arnprior and Smith's Falls can come 20-30 years from now.

You are absolutely correct. There is no reason to build a express/commuter rail system to its full build out. This can be built out in phases over many years. The portion you suggested would be more than adequate for a long period of time and would not cost 100's of millions of dollars as suggested by Truenorth00. The track exists, most grade separations on the Kanata to the Via Station section are already built to handle double track. What is required is ballast and tie replacement, possible rail replacement and all signalling only from Federal junction to Kanata. You would probably have to double track from the Via Station to Federal junction in order not to interfere with Via trains. This is a no brainer which many city politicians have consistently ignored many years. Why not use existing infrastructure?

Confederation Line only needs to be extended south from Baseline Station approx 1.5 km on Woodroffe Ave to have a connection to the CN right of way and provide a transfers from express/commuter service to the LRT service.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I decided to make some maps to show how I envision the slow progression and expansion of commuter rail in Ottawa, starting somewhere around 2030 and the final map ending around 2050 or 2060 depending.

Stage 1


Stage 2


Stage 3


Stage 4

[Truenorth00]

How many times have we been over this? The time savings from the suburbs over LRT, while traveling to downtown is minimal, with the transfer at Bayview. Would not justify the several hundred million to build this and the tens of millions it would take annually to run this.

Have to keep in mind, money does not grow on trees and there's an opportunity to cost spending on low ridership plans. Your suburban train could mean worse bus service for someone else.

[lrt's friend]

Many times, it has been suggested that we use existing rail, in a manner similar to how we started the O-Train. It does not have to be expensive project just as the original O-Train was not. No fancy million dollar stations, just some shelters.

The O-Train did not serve downtown or the downtown market. That is for the Confederation Line in the near future. But, this city has decentralized and continues to decentralize and the Confederation Line does not serve that well.

So, we start small just like we did with the original O-Train. Provide those connections, that existing transit does not do well. Provide service like we did with the original O-Train, every 15 minutes. Enough, that many people will find it convenient, but without the need of full double tracking. Keep it relatively bare bones, so costs don't escalate out of control.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Here's the thing (and I hate that both sides of the argument seem to ignore this)... places like [the rural towns] come later after a sensible base line or two have been established to places like Gatineau, Barrhaven, and Kanata North.

I'm not sure why you think geographical phasing has not been considered by MOOSE. Of course it has. We have several reasons for designing our investment concept for the existing lines out to the GNCR as a whole, including the rural areas. You've not heard us criticize any plans with a smaller catchment area. As explained elsewhere, ours is a 100 square km property value optimization project (50 stations X 2 sq km area of interest each), and the method is the train.

What business model do you associate with your phased maps concept? And most critically, why on Earth aren't Ottawa+Gatineau+NCC doing exactly what you've described? We've designed our plan precisely because for the past half century Ottawa+Gatineau politics have opposed and actively derailed every plan of the sort you describe, and because the NCC Board and staff decline to fulfill the mandate provided them in Section 13 of the National Capital Act.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

I'm not sure why you think geographical phasing has not been considered by MOOSE. Of course it has. We have several reasons for designing our investment concept for the existing lines out to the GNCR as a whole, including the rural areas. You've not heard us criticize any plans with a smaller catchment area. As explained elsewhere, ours is a 100 square km property value optimization project (50 stations X 2 sq km area of interest each), and the method is the train.

What business model do you associate with your phased maps concept? And most critically, why on Earth aren't Ottawa+Gatineau+NCC doing exactly what you've described? We've designed our plan precisely because for the past half century Ottawa+Gatineau politics have opposed and actively derailed every plan of the sort you describe, and because the NCC Board and staff decline to fulfill the mandate provided them in Section 13 of the National Capital Act.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

You have misinterpreted section 13. It says they may not must construct or lease a railway and that's a big difference. Right now as i had already stated not one of your targeted cities meets the 100,000 population threshold for commuter rail service. The populations you want to serve are far too small too serve which is why you have no business case for it.

Another thing to factor in is it wont be cheap either like Truenorth stated. Ever since the city bought the the tracks to line 2 they had to shutdown the line many times so they can do upgrades. So using existing track wont be cheap if signals have to be replaced, tracks upgraded and so forth.

So based on what has already happened on tracks currently in use, you are seriously not being truthful about the costs you expect to incur.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

You have misinterpreted section 13. It says they may not must construct or lease a railway and that's a big difference. Right now as i had already stated not one of your targeted cities meets the 100,000 population threshold for commuter rail service. The populations you want to serve are far too small too serve which is why you have no business case for it.

That's based on a conventional business case, not MOOSE's. If you want to criticize MOOSE then at least criticize their actual business plan.

Another thing to factor in is it wont be cheap either like Truenorth stated. Ever since the city bought the the tracks to line 2 they had to shutdown the line 50% of the time so they can do upgrades. So using existing track wont be cheap if signals have to be replaced, tracks upgraded and so forth.

The cost of upgrading signals and tracks is accounted for in MOOSE's estimates. How often the city closes the Trillium Line is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if/when MOOSE decides to upgrade their tracks beyond their initial upgrades, and even then there are far fewer constraints for MOOSE to need to work around meaning that closures may not even be necessary in a lot of cases.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

You have misinterpreted section 13. It says they may not must construct or lease a railway and that's a big difference. Right now as i had already stated not one of your targeted cities meets the 100,000 population threshold for commuter rail service. The populations you want to serve are far too small too serve which is why you have no business case for it.

.

It also gives them the power to build “places of amusement”, which would be way more useful than running empty trains all over the countryside.