Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It was on Urban Toronto. I suppose he didn't say MOOSE would finance it, and looking back at it that's an assumption of mine. All the more reason to ask Mr. Potvin for clarification..!

Yeah, I agree that definitely doesn’t state an aspiration to pay for it.

[OtrainUser]

So here is my Question for Joseph Potvin.
Do you have a budget for your entire project and if you do what is it?

What revenues do you expect to get and what are the expenses you expect to incur?

I expect to see some numbers like cost of track, stations and trains along with expected revenues from fares and so on.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

So here is my Question for Joseph Potvin.
Do you have a budget for your entire project and if you do what is it?

What revenues do you expect to get and what are the expenses you expect to incur?

I expect to see some numbers like cost of track, stations and trains along with expected revenues from fares and so on.

*storyteller voice*
"It was at that moment that poor old Joe started to pull his hair out... what was left of it, that is."

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

*storyteller voice*
"It was at that moment that poor old Joe started to pull his hair out... what was left of it, that is."

LOL that was very funny.

[lrt's friend]

Is there really enough potential passengers to pay fares to recover even a $1B capital expenditure let alone ongoing operating costs?


I recall reading that when local commuter trains were eliminated running into Union Station in the 1950s and 1960s, commuter trains were often only carrying one or two passengers. Have things changed that much? Back in those days, trains failed to be speed competitive with cars. Will the trains be faster than they were in the post-war era?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is there really enough potential passengers to pay fares to recover even a $1B capital expenditure let alone ongoing operating costs?


I recall reading that when local commuter trains were eliminated running into Union Station in the 1950s and 1960s, commuter trains were often only carrying one or two passengers. Have things changed that much? Back in those days, trains failed to be speed competitive with cars. Will the trains be faster than they were in the post-war era?

Based on what I calculated no but I still want to see all of Potvins estimates anyway especially all the details.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is there really enough potential passengers to pay fares to recover even a $1B capital expenditure let alone ongoing operating costs?


I recall reading that when local commuter trains were eliminated running into Union Station in the 1950s and 1960s, commuter trains were often only carrying one or two passengers. Have things changed that much? Back in those days, trains failed to be speed competitive with cars. Will the trains be faster than they were in the post-war era?

To be speed competitive with cars, you need a massive modernization of the rail network to allow trains to travel at the kind of speeds that would make it an attractive switch.

And if you look around at a Canadian example down the road, GO Transit, and see what kind of money they are spending on their decades long modernization campaign, you quickly realize that $1 billion does not get you very much.

Once you take out the cost of stations, the trains themselves, and other non-rail infrastructure expenditures, Moose might be left with $600 million for improving rail infrastructure. And if the Trillium line and POW are going to be used, then you have $50 million gone for the POW bridge, and probably $100 million easy to allow for commuter trains and LRT to run together (that's assuming the city has already double tracked the Trillium line, and I would guess that the cost of adapting the line to allow for mixed traffic of that nature would be much, much more). That leaves, best case scenario, $450 million to modernize the rest of the 400km, give or take, of network track. That is nothing. That, at best, brings track up to a "usable" standard, and addresses the most severe capacity bottlenecks that will emerge. Modernizing means advanced signalling systems and switches, sidings, new ties to support higher speed trains, welded rail, improved and safer grade crossings, and possible grade separations and double tracking where volume dictates it. $450 million doesn't even come close to modernizing the system to a level that would actually make it competitive with the car. Even a billion in rail infrastructure investments alone might only get you 3 or 4 properly modernized lines.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is there really enough potential passengers to pay fares to recover even a $1B capital expenditure let alone ongoing operating costs?


I recall reading that when local commuter trains were eliminated running into Union Station in the 1950s and 1960s, commuter trains were often only carrying one or two passengers. Have things changed that much? Back in those days, trains failed to be speed competitive with cars. Will the trains be faster than they were in the post-war era?

I think that’s exactly the problem. Very few passenger train services anywhere break even and there is even less chance for a service serving small rural villages.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that’s exactly the problem. Very few passenger train services anywhere break even and there is even less chance for a service serving small rural villages.

Of course that's based on a conventional fare revenue model.
We're talking about the untested and mysterious Property-Powered Rail® revenue model. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that’s exactly the problem. Very few passenger train services anywhere break even and there is even less chance for a service serving small rural villages.

As soon as passenger rail services have to take on varying degrees of owning and maintaining the rail infrastructure themselves, the chance of them making any profit declines quickly. Of course the flipside is that if you use someone else's rail line (be it CN, CP, VIA, etc) then you are beholden to whatever slots they give you, and second in line when it comes to making up delay time and will struggle to keep passengers when guaranteeing scheduled service becomes nearly impossible.

The only way passenger rail could be profitable (without charging sky high fares), is if there was a publicly owned, operated, and maintained passenger rail network that operators could use, for a fee. And it seems like that is what Moose is ultimately striving for; having a collection of private/public owners be responsible for the rail infrastructure, and bring it up to their standards, so that they don't have to be responsible for that cost. But since we don't know the details of their plan, it is hard to know exactly how much of an expenditure they want to, or are willing to make, into the rail infrastructure themselves.

Rural service is not a money maker. That's why it is always the first to get cut when passenger rail operators start to struggle. You need large population centres along the way to make serving those smaller towns even remotely possible.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Of course that's based on a conventional fare revenue model.
We're talking about the untested and mysterious Property-Powered Rail® revenue model. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think most people would think a voluntary contribution scheme would generate even less revenue than a conventional fare model.

[lrt's friend]

passenger rail cannot break even as long as public roadways are 100% subsidized through our tax money. This is what killed passenger rail in the first place. It is impossible to compete with free roads.

[Horus]

Why the insistence for MOOSE to open their books and business model? It's a private enterprise that will not be using public funds. If they want to pay to run trains all over the NCR, that's their business.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Horus

Why the insistence for MOOSE to open their books and business model? It's a private enterprise that will not be using public funds. If they want to pay to run trains all over the NCR, that's their business.

Even if no public funds are actually used (more on that in a moment), this project has huge public implications. If they want access to the Trillium Line it will, as has been discussed a lot here, have a big impact on OC Transpos ability to offer LRT service. Even if there is a way to seamlessly mix traffic, that means planning needs to begin now in order to allow this to happen when they under take expansion of service on the line. And if Moose is allowed to use the line, who is to say that wont peak VIAs interest as well (if that hasn't already happened).

For any city, municipality or township who might consider getting in bed with Moose, they need to know just how viable the project actually is. Do they think its worth while to levy a new tax on existing citizens to support the service? Do they avoid levying a tax on existing citizens, but allow Moose linked developments to go ahead on the fringes of towns? These towns, and their citizens, have a right to know the details of the project so they can decide if its right for them or not.

And the idea that no public funds will be spent is also misleading. Ottawa alone presents a perfect example of that. With more trains running on existing VIA lines this might mean public spending on grade separations has to be sped up. It might mean OC Transpo has to spend more money to "accommodate" some needs and aspects of this system.

Moose does not exist in isolation. It will impact the public in a large enough way that people should be allowed to know if it is actually viable, or vapourware.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

For any city, municipality or township who might consider getting in bed with Moose, they need to know just how viable the project actually is. Do they think its worth while to levy a new tax on existing citizens to support the service? Do they avoid levying a tax on existing citizens, but allow Moose linked developments to go ahead on the fringes of towns? These towns, and their citizens, have a right to know the details of the project so they can decide if its right for them or not.

If they thought it was right for them, they would have probably gotten together and had serious discussions with MOOSE and/or the provincial government. Obviously, the governments representing these towns aren't that interested in commuter rail to Ottawa.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

If they thought it was right for them, they would have probably gotten together and had serious discussions with MOOSE and/or the provincial government. Obviously, the governments representing these towns aren't that interested in commuter rail to Ottawa.

There are definitely a number of towns who are/were interested in commuter rail.
Smiths Falls is a big one (both mayoral candidates in the last election were big on it), Wakefield was on board with the MOOSE idea for a while, Pembroke and Pontiac County stirred up a fuss when CN ripped up the Beachburg Sub over wanting to use it for commuter rail (and industry), etc.

All they can really do though is sit and wait for MOOSE (or the government) to actually put something together.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

If they thought it was right for them, they would have probably gotten together and had serious discussions with MOOSE and/or the provincial government. Obviously, the governments representing these towns aren't that interested in commuter rail to Ottawa.

Your bang on with that point. The proposal has been around for about 7 years and no local governments have jumped on board with the plan. That is a bit of a red flag to me. I don't know if they have seen more details that beyond what is available to the public. But clearly they are not buying it. That is all the more reason for the public at large to be skeptical and want to know the financial and legal details of Moose to make sure that if their local councils do a 180 and support it, they are not getting involved in something dodgy.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

There are definitely a number of towns who are/were interested in commuter rail.
Smiths Falls is a big one (both mayoral candidates in the last election were big on it), Wakefield was on board with the MOOSE idea for a while, Pembroke and Pontiac County stirred up a fuss when CN ripped up the Beachburg Sub over wanting to use it for commuter rail (and industry), etc.

All they can really do though is sit and wait for MOOSE (or the government) to actually put something together.

But it isn't a plan that simply involves towns and cities waiting for someone to plop down a station and start operating a service. Moose needs to make deals with these councils for the plan to go forward. Without a guarantee that they can create Moose linked developments, they aren't getting anything. And that is the commitment that none of these places seem willing to give.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And for the final point, comparing Ottawa to Toronto of the 1960s when GO first came into existence, that point is well off. As Allandale said, Ottawa today and the GTA in 1967 isn’t really a great comparison. To start with, in 1961 the population of the City of Toronto alone was 1.82 million, and the Toronto CMA was 1.91 million. By 1971, 4 years after GO opened, the city itself had 2.09 million people, and the Toronto CMA was at 2.62 million. In 1986, 19 years after GO opened, the city had only edged ahead to 2.14 million, but the CMA was at 3.42 million (and what is defined as the GTA was actually 3.73 million people).

A couple other factors to consider:

• GO Transit wasn't the first to offer commuter rail service in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). They took over service that was being offered by CN. There was pressure to expand the service, but CN lacked the capital to do this, so the provincial government took over. ref Here in Ottawa we don't have that large customer base to build off of.
• Toronto's massive growth in the 70's was influenced by the FLQ crisis in Quebec. Montral was Canada's largest city and its financial centre. The FLQ crisis in October 1970 spooked many companies and institutions and they decided to move to Canada's second largest city, Toronto. As a result Montreal's growth stagnated for decades and Toronto's growth soared. It is unlikely that Ottawa will benefit from a similar event.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

But it isn't a plan that simply involves towns and cities waiting for someone to plop down a station and start operating a service. Moose needs to make deals with these councils for the plan to go forward. Without a guarantee that they can create Moose linked developments, they aren't getting anything. And that is the commitment that none of these places seem willing to give.

Well, that kind of thing would probably happen (at the earliest) during the feasibility study stage, and we all know where MOOSE is at with that.

That being said though, MOOSE has the written support of the Mayor of Smiths Falls (at least in regards to the PoW bridge, or more generally, regional rail). Potvin has also said that he's received interest from other towns/areas, but I don't recall him going into much more detail on those.