Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I quoted Moodie to Bayview because that is the figure I had from the Stage 2 team. The line does continue to Tremblay and it will take an extra 10-15 minutes for that. Similarly, to continue on to Kanata (either by bus or a Stage 3 extension) will be 5 minutes or less (regardless of the route, few will be within walking distance of a Kanata station, so a transfer will likely be necessary). So that works out to 40-45 minutes for the crosstown route.

Considering the UP Express 25 minutes is for a shorter route with fewer stops, it isn't achievable. Add a few kilometres and a few more stops and we have a best case scenario of 30 minutes assuming major track upgrades to match the upgrades done in Toronto. Without those, we are looking at an even longer travel time.

At the opposite extreme, the Trillium line takes 16 minutes to travel 8 km, so if we matched that speed, it would take 50 minutes to travel the 25 km from Kanata to Tremblay. In reality we will likely end up with something between the two extremes, but if we split the difference, we are saving little to no time.

On top of that, how much demand will there be for a crosstown route that doesn't serve downtown? With little demand, how often will it run? Every 30 minutes? How much time will you actually save if you have to wait longer for it?

To me the principle advantage of such a service is it takes pressure of downtown stations, overcrowded park and ride lots and facilitates trips between suburbs. It also serves the large employers in North Kanata. Maybe you’re right and there is no demand for such a service, but to me it makes little sense to force everyone to route their trips through downtown.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

The "Compact City" idea was first formally expressed by George Dantzig in 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_city#Origins
https://archive.org/details/compactcityplanf00dant
(...who also, of interest to the technically-inclined here, designed the very clever Simplex Algorithm. When I first learned it in algebra class in the early 1980s my reaction was: "Cool, who thought this up?" When I learned about Dantzig, my next reaction was: "I wonder what he did next". As it turned out, his next step was to consider the optimal configuration of cities: how high+dense, vs how spread+spacious?)

Here is a 1996 review of the concept:
https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/...bn=9781135816995&format=googlePreviewPdf

Empirical studies show mixed results:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X04270466

In this study from Sweden, the "compact city" and regional rail linkage with towns is considered complementary:
http://www.un.org/ga/Istanbul+5/7-Sweden.doc

"A further spread of the urban sprawl is not positive from a point of view of sustainability. On the other hand a network of fast regional and commuting trains make it possible to develop a multi-core network region of smaller and bigger towns and cities around the Mälar Valley, which is the larger region of Stockholm, comprising three or four counties. Developing a multi-core region served by a train system like this could make it possible to avoid further development of edge cities served by cars. This train network is under development. The first part, the Svealandsbanan, which knits together towns like Eskilstuna, Strängnäs and Södertälje with Stockholm, is a great success. The railway makes it convenient to travel daily the110 kilometres from Eskilstuna to Stockholm. The passenger figures are widely over the prognoses. And, the car traffic on the motorway parallell with the railroad is decreasing."

FWIW here is a recent study on rural multi-modal transit:
http://www.vtpi.org/rmp.pdf

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

None of that is relevant to the Moose project. Compact cities are an urban planning principle which require thoughtful design and execution. They require politicians and a culture that value well planned towns and cities. They require a collaboration between transportation agencies that might bring rail or road service to the area, and local planning authorities.

Moose is about making exurban real estate more valuable and popular through the offering of a commuter rail service. In fact, it needs real estate prices to rise in order to even have a chance to work. Moose has no town, municipal, or city partners who are proposing compact cities. No one is planning for that, in conjunction with the rail service. Maybe if someone was, the Moose project would be seen in a different light.

Instead, all Moose is going to do is push up housing prices in exurban areas with its rail service. And drive a lot of people who move to the exurbs, because they can afford the housing that far out from the city, away from Moose linked ones, and to cheaper, less connected towns/areas down the road.

Saying that rail-based commuter towns are actually a way to combat sprawl only works as an argument if that is the intent of the project. And its clear that the compact city is not the intended outcome of Moose.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me the principle advantage of such a service is it takes pressure of downtown stations, overcrowded park and ride lots and facilitates trips between suburbs. It also serves the large employers in North Kanata. Maybe you’re right and there is no demand for such a service, but to me it makes little sense to force everyone to route their trips through downtown.

I'll go back to the Baseline BRT. With a quick look at the schedule, it seems to currently takes between 29 and 43 minutes (travel time) for the 88 to travel from Hurdman and the QCH. From there to Bayshore on the 97 is 6 minutes (travel time). So with transit priority measures and a direct route, I would expect Hurdman to Bayshore should be doable in 35-40 minutes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

None of that is relevant to the Moose project. Compact cities are an urban planning principle which require thoughtful design and execution. They require politicians and a culture that value well planned towns and cities. They require a collaboration between transportation agencies that might bring rail or road service to the area, and local planning authorities.

Moose is about making exurban real estate more valuable and popular through the offering of a commuter rail service. In fact, it needs real estate prices to rise in order to even have a chance to work. Moose has no town, municipal, or city partners who are proposing compact cities. No one is planning for that, in conjunction with the rail service. Maybe if someone was, the Moose project would be seen in a different light.

Instead, all Moose is going to do is push up housing prices in exurban areas with its rail service. And drive a lot of people who move to the exurbs, because they can afford the housing that far out from the city, away from Moose linked ones, and to cheaper, less connected towns/areas down the road.

Saying that rail-based commuter towns are actually a way to combat sprawl only works as an argument if that is the intent of the project. And its clear that the compact city is not the intended outcome of Moose.

Especially in the United States, streetcars were used as loss leaders for real estate developers. We saw that once the real estate was developed, the private streetcar operators could not afford to maintain service. In the long run, this was arguably the most important reason for the widespread shutdown of streetcar networks. In many cases, the streetcar networks were not economically viable from day one.

I have done quite a bit of reading about the Los Angeles red car network. Despite the nostalgia concerning the extent of the network, none of it was economically viable. The most viable line, the Long Beach line, was the last red line to shutdown and the first to be brought back as modern LRT.

What I have been saying is that rail needs to be a solution for congestion, when it arises. Under those circumstances, it is other things that created the sprrawl. However, if rail is to be part of a real estate scheme, then it will create sprawl on its own. What we need to be concerned about is whether rail as part of a real estate scheme will produce the same results as streetcars 100 years ago. Once the real estate is developed, will rail be viable? This may also explain the necessity of having an extensive network all at once, so that there will be sufficient locations for real estate dealings so that the project has a longer-term future. Rail to one location may sell out real estate in a relatively short time period and then what?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'll go back to the Baseline BRT. With a quick look at the schedule, it seems to currently takes between 29 and 43 minutes (travel time) for the 88 to travel from Hurdman and the QCH. From there to Bayshore on the 97 is 6 minutes (travel time). So with transit priority measures and a direct route, I would expect Hurdman to Bayshore should be doable in 35-40 minutes.

But when will Baseline BRT be completed between Hurdman and Bayshore? 2050 or later? Didn't I read that Phase 1 will only run as far west as Clyde Avenue?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Especially in the United States, streetcars were used as loss leaders for real estate developers. We saw that once the real estate was developed, the private streetcar operators could not afford to maintain service. In the long run, this was arguably the most important reason for the widespread shutdown of streetcar networks. In many cases, the streetcar networks were not economically viable from day one.

I have done quite a bit of reading about the Los Angeles red car network. Despite the nostalgia concerning the extent of the network, none of it was economically viable. The most viable line, the Long Beach line, was the last red line to shutdown and the first to be brought back as modern LRT.

What I have been saying is that rail needs to be a solution for congestion, when it arises. Under those circumstances, it is other things that created the sprrawl. However, if rail is to be part of a real estate scheme, then it will create sprawl on its own. What we need to be concerned about is whether rail as part of a real estate scheme will not produce the same results as streetcars 100 years ago. Once the real estate is developed, will rail be viable? This may also explain the necessity of having an extensive network all at once, so that there will be sufficient locations for real estate dealings so that project has a longer-term future. Rail to one location may sell out real estate in a relatively short time period and then what?

And to add to your questions, what happens if property values never increase? Or what if they increase for a while, and then plateau? Or even decline?

Obviously those questions are rhetorical. It is clear what happens. Once new building stops, or property value increases stop, the service shut downs as that is the only way it will ever bring in enough revenue to stay afloat. It's just a gimmicky way to sell the same old real estate, no different than free upgrades, or other limited time offers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Especially in the United States, streetcars were used as loss leaders for real estate developers. We saw that once the real estate was developed, the private streetcar operators could not afford to maintain service. In the long run, this was arguably the most important reason for the widespread shutdown of streetcar networks. In many cases, the streetcar networks were not economically viable from day one.

I have done quite a bit of reading about the Los Angeles red car network. Despite the nostalgia concerning the extent of the network, none of it was economically viable. The most viable line, the Long Beach line, was the last red line to shutdown and the first to be brought back as modern LRT.

What I have been saying is that rail needs to be a solution for congestion, when it arises. Under those circumstances, it is other things that created the sprrawl. However, if rail is to be part of a real estate scheme, then it will create sprawl on its own. What we need to be concerned about is whether rail as part of a real estate scheme will produce the same results as streetcars 100 years ago. Once the real estate is developed, will rail be viable? This may also explain the necessity of having an extensive network all at once, so that there will be sufficient locations for real estate dealings so that the project has a longer-term future. Rail to one location may sell out real estate in a relatively short time period and then what?

The big thing that concerns me is that similar to the street car lines in the USA, what happens if we expand all these remote communities under the assumption that there is rail service to Ottawa and then, for whatever reason, Moose's financial model fails and the railway ends up going bankrupt? Will all the people who were taking the train start driving? Will a layer of government end up taking over the service (and if so, which one)?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But when will Baseline BRT be completed between Hurdman and Bayshore? 2050 or later? Didn't I read that Phase 1 will only run as far west as Clyde Avenue?

AFAIK, Stage 1 is from Baseline Station to Heron Station and Stage 2 would be from Bayshore Station to Baseline Station. I don't know when it will be complete, but I doubt if will be as late as 2050.

Besides, this was in response to acottawa's suggestion that we will eventually need something to take pressure off of downtown stations. In the short term, the cheapest solution to that problem is to buy more (and longer) trains for the Confederation Line. Once we start getting close to its ultimate capacity, Baseline BRT should be complete and will be diverting much of the crosstown traffic from the Confederation Line (assuming crosstown traffic actually becomes significant source of congestion for the downtown stations in the first place).

[Gat-Train]

We ought to restore those cross-town tracks to decent condition in the event VIA rail wants to start servicing Arnprior and Pembroke and beyond, or if we want to restore freight rail service through the Ottawa Valley

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'll go back to the Baseline BRT. With a quick look at the schedule, it seems to currently takes between 29 and 43 minutes (travel time) for the 88 to travel from Hurdman and the QCH. From there to Bayshore on the 97 is 6 minutes (travel time). So with transit priority measures and a direct route, I would expect Hurdman to Bayshore should be doable in 35-40 minutes.

That doesn’t seem like a particularity appealing crosstown route. Certainly it doesn’t provide an incentive to bypass downtown.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

None of that is relevant to the Moose project. Compact cities are an urban planning principle which require thoughtful design and execution. They require politicians and a culture that value well planned towns and cities. They require a collaboration between transportation agencies that might bring rail or road service to the area, and local planning authorities.

Moose is about making exurban real estate more valuable and popular through the offering of a commuter rail service. In fact, it needs real estate prices to rise in order to even have a chance to work. Moose has no town, municipal, or city partners who are proposing compact cities. No one is planning for that, in conjunction with the rail service. Maybe if someone was, the Moose project would be seen in a different light.

Instead, all Moose is going to do is push up housing prices in exurban areas with its rail service. And drive a lot of people who move to the exurbs, because they can afford the housing that far out from the city, away from Moose linked ones, and to cheaper, less connected towns/areas down the road.

Saying that rail-based commuter towns are actually a way to combat sprawl only works as an argument if that is the intent of the project. And its clear that the compact city is not the intended outcome of Moose.

Yeah, it is the complete opposite of a compact city, it is a bunch of disjointed subdivisions, most of which are far from any services or amenities.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That doesn’t seem like a particularity appealing crosstown route. Certainly it doesn’t provide an incentive to bypass downtown.

Maybe, but it is no worse than the proposed crosstown rail route would likely end up being. At lest the Baseline BRT also has some local benefits.

By limiting the number of stops along the rail line, to keep it fast, you would limit the usefulness of the line. Adding more stops, to make it more useful, will slow down the train. I just don't see a case where it would be used enough to make it worth building.

I'm not opposed to trains, it is just that there is limited funding and funding this project means something else won't get funded.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe, but it is no worse than the proposed crosstown rail route would likely end up being. At lest the Baseline BRT also has some local benefits.

By limiting the number of stops along the rail line, to keep it fast, you would limit the usefulness of the line. Adding more stops, to make it more useful, will slow down the train. I just don't see a case where it would be used enough to make it worth building.

I'm not opposed to trains, it is just that there is limited funding and funding this project means something else won't get funded.

The rail line is fully grade separated (the BRT is a rebranded bus lane) and would make a lot less stops, so if the track is upgraded to a reasonable level it should be a lot faster and comfortable . I disagree that fewer stops makes the line less useful. Ottawa has a weird obsession with milk runs that is not shared by transportation planners around the world.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The rail line is fully grade separated (the BRT is a rebranded bus lane) and would make a lot less stops, so if the track is upgraded to a reasonable level it should be a lot faster and comfortable . I disagree that fewer stops makes the line less useful. Ottawa has a weird obsession with milk runs that is not shared by transportation planners around the world.

I agree. I would envision the line as being a semi-express. From Kanata to Federal there would be little or no other train interference. If stations and sidings were built at Greenbank, Woodroffe, Merivale and Prince of Wales there would be few delays related to dwell time or the intervening travel time since they are spaced almost equal distantly on the route. The problem is on the Via section of the track since there is more traffic. I think you would probably have to double track large sections from Wassa to Tremblay. This would require expanding rail overpasses at Walkley, Airport Parkway, Heron Rd and Bank Street. These overpasses would be much less expensive than building one from scratch and would not all have to be built at the same time.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The rail line is fully grade separated (the BRT is a rebranded bus lane) and would make a lot less stops, so if the track is upgraded to a reasonable level it should be a lot faster and comfortable . I disagree that fewer stops makes the line less useful. Ottawa has a weird obsession with milk runs that is not shared by transportation planners around the world.

While it is true that is is mostly grade separated (there are a few level crossings), the problem is it is a longer route.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree. I would envision the line as being a semi-express. From Kanata to Federal there would be little or no other train interference. If stations and sidings were built at Greenbank, Woodroffe, Merivale and Prince of Wales there would be few delays related to dwell time or the intervening travel time since they are spaced almost equal distantly on the route. The problem is on the Via section of the track since there is more traffic. I think you would probably have to double track large sections from Wassa to Tremblay. This would require expanding rail overpasses at Walkley, Airport Parkway, Heron Rd and Bank Street. These overpasses would be much less expensive than building one from scratch and would not all have to be built at the same time.

As I said, the UP Express takes 25 minutes for a shorter route with only 2 intermediary stations. I am skeptical that we would be able to achieve that travel time.

For commuter rail, the rule of thumb is to add 2 minutes for each additional station (time to slow down, speed up and dwell time). You have listed 4 stations, plus I would expect one would be wanted at either Bells Corners or Corkstown Rd (for a connection to the Confederation Line) plus one would be wanted somewhere near Billings Bridge or Mooney's Bay Station. That would be 6 intermediary stations (4 more than the UP Express). If we add 2 minutes for each additional station and 2 minutes for the longer track length, we are talking 35 minutes, best case. Without dedicated, double track along the entire route, I doubt if that would be even achievable.

The other thing no one seems to answer is how many people would actually use a crosstown route?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree. I would envision the line as being a semi-express. From Kanata to Federal there would be little or no other train interference. If stations and sidings were built at Greenbank, Woodroffe, Merivale and Prince of Wales there would be few delays related to dwell time or the intervening travel time since they are spaced almost equal distantly on the route. The problem is on the Via section of the track since there is more traffic. I think you would probably have to double track large sections from Wassa to Tremblay. This would require expanding rail overpasses at Walkley, Airport Parkway, Heron Rd and Bank Street. These overpasses would be much less expensive than building one from scratch and would not all have to be built at the same time.

The only way you could start adding additional service (outside of VIA) is if you double track the line. There is no way around that. VIA is struggling with their own service as it is. And that is going to be a very expensive project. Until HFR comes about, any discussion about additional, more local service on that line is dead in the water.

And even then, the line still wouldn't serve downtown with a direct connection. So I still think a more local service is still dead in the water in a double tracked scenario since it doesn't actually serve any major employment or population nodes directly.

Edit: If you look at Toronto and their decades long attempts at rapid crosstown service, it is only just starting to happen now. But even then, I would argue that it is more about the growth of Pearson, and the airport employment area, and the Union Station West proposal, than anything else. Eglinton Crosstown might cut across several subway and GO Train lines, but it will also feed directly into a massive employment area at its western terminus, Nothing like that exists along the VIA line, and that's a huge problem when there isn't any large draw on the line itself.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While it is true that is is mostly grade separated (there are a few level crossings), the problem is it is a longer route.

As I said, the UP Express takes 25 minutes for a shorter route with only 2 intermediary stations. I am skeptical that we would be able to achieve that travel time.

For commuter rail, the rule of thumb is to add 2 minutes for each additional station (time to slow down, speed up and dwell time). You have listed 4 stations, plus I would expect one would be wanted at either Bells Corners or Corkstown Rd (for a connection to the Confederation Line) plus one would be wanted somewhere near Billings Bridge or Mooney's Bay Station. That would be 6 intermediary stations (4 more than the UP Express). If we add 2 minutes for each additional station and 2 minutes for the longer track length, we are talking 35 minutes, best case. Without dedicated, double track along the entire route, I doubt if that would be even achievable.

The other thing no one seems to answer is how many people would actually use a crosstown route?

When doing the RER planning, it was noted that stations generally add 3 minutes to the schedule for push-pull locomotives (like GO), 1.5 minutes for DMUs (like UP Express) and 1.0 minutes for EMUs (what RER will be).

[Joseph Potvin]

The Latest Legal Submissions RE: PoWB & Bayview Track.

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

[Joseph Potvin]

Comments by Wojciech Remisz, M.Sc., P.Eng., FCSCE, President of REMISZ Consulting Engineers on the City of Ottawa (the City) Submission (15 November 2018) in Response to Moose Consortium Inc.’s Petition Under Section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act Requesting that the Governor in Council Vary Determination No. R-2018-23 of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA).
Statement
Supporting Documents

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

[Truenorth00]

LOL @ Joseph Potvin arguing that MOOSE is an agent for good urban planning, after his sycophants just finished arguing that we need to give people options for moving to the suburbs and ex-urbs because "that's just how things are".

I've said before that I'd love for there to be small, charming European style towns. But the reality is that Canada isn't Europe. And here, whenever people leave the central city it's for more space at a lower cost. And that by definition means, MOOSE will never bring compact cities to these towns. It will bring lots of ranch homes on acre lots. There's no need to facilitate such sprawl.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've said before

@Truenorth00, can you point to any empirical research as a foundation to what you say? Maybe you'd like to comment on the "Compact City" framework I mentioned earlier, which at least would provide your stance some sort of foundation. Kudos to @JonnyRenton who at least expressed some thoughts on the substance of it, although it would be better if he'd cite some references for his viewpoint. Personal inclination is fine, but I'm sure we can have a higher quality conversation here than just a clash of unsubstantiated opinions.

Maybe somebody would care to comment on the substance of the legal case(s). Incessantly repeating the SprawlParody seems increasingly like a tactic by some participants to avoid talking about the illegal dismantlement and obstruction of the only railway connection between the Ontario and Quebec sides of the National Capital Region. As if that's not important! And revealing.

@Truenorth00, regarding your quoted phrase "that's just how things are". Who exactly are you quoting there? If you're going to paraphrase for effect, it's best not to use quotes.

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