News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.5K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 424     0 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

I remain very skeptical. Apart from a connection across the Ottawa River on the Prince of Wales Bridge (which should have been figured out a long time ago) there's nothing that Moose is offering that buses can or already do. Many of the best commuting areas outside of Ottawa are not well served by any existing rail corridor; and without direct downtown access, what's the point?
Bear in mind:
Ottawa 4th most congested city in Canada according to study
Joanne Schnurr, CTV Ottawa
Published Monday, February 20, 2017 5:09PM EST

If you're travelling in from Orleans or Kanata in rush hour traffic, it will come as no surprise to hear that Ottawa has rated fourth in the country in terms of congested traffic, behind Montreal and Toronto. But it may be a surprise who came in third: St. John's Newfoundland.

On Family Day, the Byward Market area is as busy as it gets in downtown Ottawa; almost gridlock as people tryto find a parking spot to have some fun.

“I find it pretty easy for a big city like this,” says one driver who recently moved to Ottawa from B.C.

But the folks stuck on the Queensway in the daily traffic grind might not use the word "easy". In fact, a recent study by the transportation analytics firm Inrix puts Ottawa fourth in terms of congested roads in the country, with drivers stuck in gridlock for 31.5 hours a year behind the wheel. Montrealers will spend 52 hours a year stuck in traffic. Toronto comes in 2nd at 45.6 and St. John's, oddly enough, beats Ottawa by just a bit at 31.8.

So why does all this matter? Take Montreal for instance, the country's most congested city according to this study. Every year, drivers waste 7 million litres of fuel, idling in traffic, which is costly for the environment and costly for drivers, too.

“It makes me crazy,” says driver Shamar Phillips, “Nobody likes traffic, right? Everybody hates waiting a half hour for a 10 minute drive, you know?”

“It means I’m probably in the car a good hour and a half or two hours a day,” says Chris Nikidis, who lives in Barrhaven and commutes to downtown Ottawa for work.

But it's all about perspective, right? [...]
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-4th-most-congested-city-in-canada-according-to-study-1.3293659

"without direct downtown access, what's the point?" That's what Toronto's suburban councillors stated when building the Bloor-Danforth line. And some still say today for Union or Summerhill trains stations.

Let private enterprise finance it, as is exactly the Moose plan, and what has the taxpayer to lose? Competition?
 
So your assumption is that your fare revenue would match your expenses? Does the Moose plan contain further details on how this would be achieved? How would you avoid the UP Express experience (which is also diesel)?
Potvin, myself and others have posted reams on the Moose business plan. It is no way comparable to UPX, which private enterprise walked away from. Point made.
 
Let private enterprise finance it, as is exactly the Moose plan, and what has the taxpayer to lose? Competition?

Existing transit riders have the risk of the Moose proposal disrupting or delaying the City Council approved transit plan, including Phase 2. Even if you believe the Moose plan is better and/or could work somehow with the Phase 2 LRT plan, given what's happened in Brampton, Hamilton, and Toronto with their transit plans, are you even willing to acknowledge the risk of delays impacting Ottawa residents who want better transit service?
 
Allan,

I urge you to read the business model outline on the www.letsgomoose.ca site. Fares do not match expenses at all. Fares have nothing to do with railway operations. These “pay-what-you-want” fares are directed solely for value-added programs. Revenues for railway operations come from the different “linked localities” which are derived from real property-value uplift experienced in those locations. It is more of a real-estate than it is transportation. Simplified, the more people that stop and interact at a “linked-locality” the more value is realized by property and business owners. An increase in commerce impacts the value of property. A small percentage of that increase is used to operate rail service. Reviewing the business model will help considerably.

Cheers,

Peter Gabany of Limelight Advertising & Design is a founding member of the Moose Consortium
 
Potvin, myself and others have posted reams on the Moose business plan. It is no way comparable to UPX, which private enterprise walked away from. Point made.

Just quickly, the business plan listed on Moose's website doesn't have a lot of figures (IE operational details) included. From what I recall, even former MP Dean Deal Mastro's plan to bring VIA Rail service to Peterborough had more detailed information.
 
There has been a buzz about high-speed rail. One rail executive has addressed this with Moose. If we invest and work at getting High Speed from London, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City or Windsor to Ottawa in rapid time, people are NOT going to want to take an inordinate amount of time to get to points outside of the Nation's Capital.
The rest of your post is very well presented and makes excellent points, no need for me to quote them, but this is interesting!

It's premature to ask for more details in this string, or even any public domain at this point, but it buttresses what I've been made aware of. Suffice for me to repeat what I posted prior: "This is more than just about Moose".
 
Last edited:
Allan,

I urge you to read the business model outline on the www.letsgomoose.ca site. Fares do not match expenses at all. Fares have nothing to do with railway operations.

So the operating cost ratio, something GO Transit, UP Express, VIA Rail, the TTC and other local transit agencies produce has nothing to do with their operations? I respectfully disagree. You are claiming that Moose can operate without the need of any financial assistance from the taxpayer but aren't providing anything to demonstrate that. You are asking for access to key public transportation corridors but aren't providing the public with enough information in my view, to support the claim a subsidy in the future wouldn't be needed.
 
Last edited:
So your assumption is that your fare revenue would match your expenses? Does the Moose plan contain further details on how this would be achieved? How would you avoid the UP Express experience (which is also diesel)?
From the Globe article:
Toronto’s LeMine Investment Group – which has developed condos in Toronto and Ajax – has agreed to spend $5-million on a 120-day study of the merits of a proposed 400-kilometre regional rail network that would connect several small communities outside Ottawa and Gatineau to the downtown core.

So the operating cost ratio, something GO Transit, UP Express, VIA Rail, the TTC and other local transit agencies produce has nothing to do with their operations? I respectfully disagree.
They all run at a loss. GO has the highest "farebox return" in North Am, the TTC second. That misleading ratio is one of the reasons that both systems, but especially the TTC is bereft of investment.

The finest regarded transit systems in the world (Vienna et al) have a *much lower* farebox return. Which makes the point! It's savings from avoiding building roads, etc, that makes it an excellent investment,
 
Last edited:
As an Ottawa native, I'm rooting for inexpensive commuter rail in Ottawa if the numbers can be made to work.
So the operating cost ratio, something GO Transit, UP Express, VIA Rail, the TTC and other local transit agencies produce has nothing to do with their operations? I respectfully disagree. You are claiming that Moose can operate without the need of any financial assistance from the taxpayer but aren't providing anything to demonstrate that. You are asking for access to key public transportation corridors but aren't providing the public with enough information in my view, to support the claim a subsidy in the future wouldn't be needed.
In principle, I don't mind a little taxpayer subsidy for sensible transportation options. Hell, it might be necessary to adjust to include that as a backup / backstop. Stakeholders might be afraid to invest if there's no Plan B or Plan C. There's a (small? big?) Canadian housing market correction under way, which may affect the business model.

Or it might be layered as 2 separate organizations -- one that does, indeed, take subsidies but insofar as maintenance and upgrade of tracks, etc (which is already what Moose is relying on -- e.g. capital might come from taxpayer sources, and the corridor might be shared with other services such as nighttime freight). Things might be formed in a way (slightly different from proposal) where the owner/operator of the tracks accepts some subsidy (to "generally" support all rail traffic, not just Moose, like a CTC which usually taxpayer funded, like air traffic control towers, ATC, or a central highway traffic operations centre, emergency centre, etc).

The structure might end up being slightly different from what Moose intends, even if supplemental organizations (that actually operate the corridor for all rail traffic, including Moose) might accept tax subsidy, even if they work very closely to Moose.

Hell, there are investors would even invest in Moose anyway just to bring commuter service to Ottawa, even if some investors might demand a Plan B/C, or specific operating structures that deviate slightly from the business plans, or be interpreted slightly differently even if Moose has no taxpayer subsidy.

Over time, the $5M study hopefully will help determine what operating structures might be feasible, but it's wholly possible a separate structure (other than Moose) needs to be involved, taxpayer supported. in certain corridor operational elements (e.g. CTC, signalling, capital buildout costs, supporting general rail traffic not just Moose, bridge rehabilitation, other elements, etc).

Some general elements it will most certainly be taxpayer funded (to an entity other than Moose), helping Moose. Of elements that make commuter rail possible -- what extent is handled by this structure, versus what extent is done by Moose itself. Some of this appears to already be in the business plan, but a study will most certainly make this much clearer.
 
Last edited:
As an Ottawa native, I'm rooting for inexpensive commuter rail in Ottawa if the numbers can be made to work.

Helpful insight Mark. Appreciate the thoughts. Given your experience now in Hamilton with the LRT project, any comment on the Ottawa LRT plan and how the Moose proposal could cause delays or other challenges to the Ottawa-Council endorsed and funded plan? Other people commenting here don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that risks exist and seem only to want to talk highly of their own plan. As someone from outside of Ottawa (but who enjoys visiting), I find context is helpful in this discussion.
 
Moose has an excellent point about railroad corridor preservation, and should rightfully fight mayor Watson, on this important bridge issue -- regardless of whether Moose ultimates operates or not.

This stuff concerns me quite a bit:

upload_2017-7-17_17-5-46.png



upload_2017-7-17_17-6-5.png


upload_2017-7-17_17-6-43.png


upload_2017-7-17_17-7-15.png



As much as I support the Ottawa LRT, permanently blocking the 1889 railroad bridge with an LRT station, may very well be shooting ourselves in the foot, and is a bird brained move.

Although, I wonder if, instead, the Bayview LRT track might become the new Chaudiere extension, the current plan for the LRT station appears to obstruct through traffic to the nearby Ontario-Quebec bridge (except, potentially, for themselves).

The door to a variety of possible plans for the valuable pre-existing rail bridge should be protected-for, even if it doesn't happen for 20 years, and regardless of by Moose or another railway user.

I feel we need parties such as Moose to exist, even if their current business plans, may --ahem-- be "refined" one way or another (as a result of the $5M study). They are fighting a battle that might be more important than we think, to Ottawa, in 20 years from now, and probably much sooner than that. As disused the railway bridge is, it is rehabilitatable and is a great potential extra commuter connection between Quebec-Ontario, whether the rail transit on the bridge is operated by STO, OCTranspo, Moose, Ottawa, other party, or multiple parties.

A solution is needed to keep the door open to multiple potential transit-based railway users. There should be a way for other operators to be allowed to use the bridge, even if Trillium terminates at Bayview. One condition for OTrain Trillium Line's existence is nighttime freight running rights (south of Bayview) so Trillium Line isn't for the exclusive use for the LRT, even if the bridge part is currently disused (and now, cut off).
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-7-17_17-5-46.png
    upload_2017-7-17_17-5-46.png
    302.1 KB · Views: 396
  • upload_2017-7-17_17-6-5.png
    upload_2017-7-17_17-6-5.png
    360.4 KB · Views: 407
  • upload_2017-7-17_17-6-43.png
    upload_2017-7-17_17-6-43.png
    954.7 KB · Views: 376
  • upload_2017-7-17_17-7-15.png
    upload_2017-7-17_17-7-15.png
    266.2 KB · Views: 381
Last edited:
Helpful insight Mark. Appreciate the thoughts. Given your experience now in Hamilton with the LRT project, any comment on the Ottawa LRT plan and how the Moose proposal could cause delays or other challenges to the Ottawa-Council endorsed and funded plan? Other people commenting here don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that risks exist and seem only to want to talk highly of their own plan. As someone from outside of Ottawa (but who enjoys visiting), I find context is helpful in this discussion.
As many do -- and even as I root for them to succeed -- I have skepticisms of the Moose plan, but I'm keeping an open mind. Stranger railway plans have succeeded elsewhere in the world. Even domestically, the outlandish crazy idea of a privately-operated "luxury land cruise" tourist train in the Rockies actually succeeded into one of the world's most profitable and a Top10 railway excursion (Rocky Mountaineer now shows up in the same bucket lists as Oriential Express and other famous trains).

The Hamilton/Ottawa LRT plans and the Moose plan have sufficient differences that I'm ill-equipped to compare all three. Right now, a significant part of this is a railroad corridor preservation/rights situation and I think this is where the battle currently is.

Even if at the end, that the Trillium line ends up not sharable, a concession might be a general railway terminus at Bayview (as an upgraded "Wakefield train reborn and extended" Moose route), or some other solution or compromise. So any train operators (likely Moose, but not necessarily) can still use the bridge and terminate at Bayview.
 
Last edited:
As much as I support the Ottawa LRT, permanently blocking the 1889 railroad bridge with an LRT station, may very well be shooting ourselves in the foot, and is a bird brained move.

Although, I wonder if, instead, the Bayview LRT track might become the new Chaudiere extension, the current plan for the LRT station appears to obstruct through traffic to the nearby Ontario-Quebec bridge (except, potentially, for themselves).

The door to a variety of possible plans for the valuable pre-existing rail bridge should be protected-for, even if it doesn't happen for 20 years, and regardless of by Moose or another railway user.

I feel we need parties such as Moose to exist, even if their current business plans, will --ahem-- be "refined" (as a result of the $5M study). They are fighting a battle that might be more important to us in 20 years from now, and probably much sooner than that. As disused the railway bridge is, it is a great potential extra commuter connection between Quebec-Ontario, whether the transit is operated by STO, OCTranspo, Moose, Ottawa, other party, or multiple parties.

So the track plan for the Confederation Line has probably been around for a few years, then there was a RFP, and then construction started. Why is the CTA only sending letters now on this subject? I think I recall from earlier posts here they were indeed asked to do something but never bothered to respond? It just amazes me that a LRT plan can have a track plan, get Council support, get fed/prov funding, go through the RFP phase, see construction started and an issue like this isn't dealt with one way or the other.

In terms of the bridge, what's wrong with having a transfer point at Bayview between heavy rail to/from Hull (and beyond) and Ottawa's LRT network? There could be a transfer at Greensboro and at Bayview for the LRT, and the rest of the Moose network could continue. As best I can tell, the rest of the Smiths Falls-Wakefield/Alexandria-Bristol/Arnprior-Montebello lines don't seem to conflict with the Phase 2 corridors. It's just that portion between Greensboro and Bayview on the red and purple lines.

HXhxEiZ.png
 
Moose has an excellent point about railroad corridor preservation, and should rightfully fight mayor Watson, on this important bridge issue -- regardless of whether Moose ultimates operates or not.

This stuff concerns me quite a bit:

Quick side note. I assume those images are from Moose's submission to the CTA? Do you have a link?
 
Would the same naysayers be against Greyhound running a non-profit service along Hwy 407 (transponder costs) to destinations beyond what GO Transit buses serve? Greyhound wouldn't have a cause d'etre financially, but many transit providers in the past have, especially railways:
Metro-land development


The cover of the Metro-Land guide published in 1921
Unlike other railway companies, which were required to dispose of surplus land, the Met was in a privileged position with clauses in its acts allowing it to retain such land that it believed was necessary for future railway use.[note 31] Initially, the surplus land was managed by the Land Committee, made up of Met directors.[174] In the 1880s, at the same time as the railway was extending beyond Swiss Cottage and building the workers' estate at Neasden,[110] roads and sewers were built at Willesden Park Estate and the land was sold to builders. Similar developments followed at Cecil Park, near Pinner and, after the failure of the tower at Wembley, plots were sold at Wembley Park.[175][note 32]

In 1912, Selbie, then General Manager, thought that some professionalism was needed and suggested a company be formed to take over from the Surplus Lands Committee to develop estates near the railway.[178] World War I delayed these plans and it was 1919, with expectation of a housing boom,[179] before Metropolitan Railway Country Estates Limited (MRCE) was formed. Concerned that Parliament might reconsider the unique position the Met held, the railway company sought legal advice, which was that although the Met had authority to hold land, it had none to develop it. An independent company was created, although all but one of its directors were also directors of the Met.[180] MRCE developed estates at Kingsbury Garden Village near Neasden, Wembley Park, Cecil Park and Grange Estate at Pinner, and the Cedars Estate at Rickmansworth, and created places such as Harrow Garden Village.[179][180]

The term Metro-land was coined by the Met's marketing department in 1915 when the Guide to the Extension Line became the Metro-land guide, priced at 1d. This promoted the land served by the Met for the walker, visitor and later the house-hunter.[178] Published annually until 1932, the last full year of independence, the guide extolled the benefits of "The good air of the Chilterns", using language such as "Each lover of Metroland may well have his own favourite wood beech and coppice — all tremulous green loveliness in Spring and russet and gold in October".[181] The dream promoted was of a modern home in beautiful countryside with a fast railway service to central London.[182]

From about 1914 the company promoted itself as "The Met", but after 1920 the commercial manager, John Wardle, ensured that timetables and other publicity material used "Metro" instead.[1][note 33] Land development also occurred in central London when in 1929 Chiltern court, a large, luxurious block of apartments, opened at Baker Street,[182][note 34] designed by the Met's architect Charles Walter Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[163]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Metro-land_development

Other examples exist in Chicago, New York and elsewhere.

Edit to Add: IIRC, the Northern Railway of Canada did same for the land immediately north of the Mount Royal tunnel, and in doing so, offered 'northern Montrealers' a fast, direct ride to downtown.
[...]
CNR took over the Mount Royal Tunnel at the time of its completion, along with the virtually empty lands which CNoR's owners, Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann, had envisioned would become a signature real estate development. CNR developed this area sporadically from the 1930s to the 1960s, interrupted by the Great Depression and the Second World War.

A new terminal, begun in 1931, opened as Central Station on July 14, 1943, resulting in the closure of the "temporary" CNoR-era Tunnel Terminal near the same location. Central Station consolidated CNR's passenger terminals in the city and also replaced Bonaventure Station which CNR had inherited from GTR. In the late 1950s, the remainder of the CNoR lands acquired in downtown Montreal during the Mount Royal Tunnel project were developed by CNR. The signature Queen Elizabeth Hotel opened in 1958, followed by the CN (name/acronym change in 1960) headquarters building in 1961 and Place Ville-Marie in 1962.
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Royal_Tunnel
 
Last edited:

Back
Top