Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[kEiThZ]

the main one being that Tremblay Station is in quite an awful location.

How is a train station that is off the major highway for the city and on a major transit line "an awful location"?

Also if they reactivated Union Station, VIA would still be operating from Tremblay because they need the thru-running.

With the O-Train extensions going so deep into the suburbs, there's no real case for commuter rail anymore. Let's not forget that MOOSE first put forward their pitch before Stage 1. We're now at the point where LRT is just outside Kanata and Barrhaven. When those places are covered in Stage 3 or 4, who exactly is left to ride this commuter rail system?

 

[ARG1]

How is a train station that is off the major highway for the city and on a major transit line "an awful location"?

Also if they reactivated Union Station, VIA would still be operating from Tremblay because they need the thru-running.

With the O-Train extensions going so deep into the suburbs, there's no real case for commuter rail anymore. Let's not forget that MOOSE first put forward their pitch before Stage 1. We're now at the point where LRT is just outside Kanata and Barrhaven. When those places are covered in Stage 3 or 4, who exactly is left to ride this commuter rail system?

First, you probably missed the part where I was talking about Union Station in context of making a broader regional rail network using the existing rail corridors, which there are plenty of that aren't in use right now.

Second, what I mean by Tremblay is in a bad location, is I mean there's nothing around there. It's in about as prime of a location as an airport. Imagine if the GO train network was setup in a way where instead of the main rail hub being union, the main rail hub was instead at North Toronto station, and everyone had to transfer to the subway at Summerhill to reach downtown.

Let's create a hypothetical example. Say Ottawa decides they want to create a new train service to Arnprior using the existing tracks (which they fully own btw), which looks like this, marked in Red:

(Crimson is Line 1, Green is Line 2, Yellow is Line 3). Assuming we don't build the tracks to Union Station, the options a passenger on this theoretical line might have are marked in x, either transfer to Line 3 at some new interchange station, Line 1 at Knoxdale Station, Line 2 at Mooney's Bay (which will require another transfer at Bayview to get downtown), and both Line 1/3 at Tremblay. None of these options are really ideal, and whilst forcing everyone to transfer at Tremblay can work for a little while, at some point we're going to reach an issue where we're forcing everyone to funnel onto the existing LRT system possibly overloading the capacity - especially if we choose to add more lines to the system instead of just Arnprior (remember, the LRT is a system that really didn't think the capacity issue through.). In this case, if we add some sort of direct connection off the mainline directly into Union Station through a new tunnel, it would allow us to directly funnel people from these rail lines directly to downtown, saving a transfer, and reducing the amount of pressure we put onto the LRT system.

 

[kalis0490]

@kEiThZ Did you know that a cn beachburg DMU line was projected to have higher ridership than the original o train pilot (line2) in the same document that ended up proposing the otrain line 2. I believe that there were over 15K riders /day proposed, and this was in 2000! Now that lines 1,2,3, and 4 are built, there will be a networking effect producing much higher ridership than expected. What, myself and others propose isn't a moose type rail to rural towns, but is essentially a line 2 type service in the city. Keep in mind suburb-suburb demand is bouncing back much higher than suburb - urban demand

 

[Urban Sky]

Even though @micheal_can was quite wrong about London and BRT, overall he's fine. No need to gaslight people over previous opinions, and we should take every post at face value.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of reactivating Union Station, in fact it has quite a lot of merits, the main one being that Tremblay Station is in quite an awful location. If Ottawa was to start running some diesel trains on old rail ROWs, forcing everyone to transfer to the existing O-Train Lines at Bayview, Mooney's Bay, Fallowfield, or Tremblay just to get downtown will get awkward real fast. As such, ideally at some point would need to build some downtown rail access, and building a cut and cover tunnel under Colonel By Drive that leads to a refurbished Union Station isn't an unreasonable idea. It would be far cheaper than say, building a downtown RER tunnel. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the next 10 years, this is a project Ottawa would tackle 30-40 years from now.

He literally called his own suggestion a "crazy idea", which is an unprecedented level of self-reflection this user has shown so far. But indeed, once you generously ignore the bits where he calls for the construction of a tunnel where there is no reason to not build a (dramatically cheaper) bridge, where said tunnel is to be used by intercity trains which have absolutely no reason to cross onto the North shore of the Ottawa River and would therefore require another (again very expensive to construct) piece of infrastructure to cross back onto the correct side of the river and where we find highways, parks and dense residential areas in the way of the path of such intercity train transiting through the Quebec side for no apparent reason, his suggestion starts sounding like a plausible and serious suggestion...

 

[kalis0490]

I know @Urban Sky doesn't like close station spacing, but a Mooney's bay Via Station could have merit by allowing an easier transfer to line 2 , airport and many other destinations.

 

[kEiThZ]

@kEiThZ Did you know that a cn beachburg DMU line was projected to have higher ridership than the original o train pilot (line2) in the same document that ended up proposing the otrain line 2. I believe that there were over 15K riders /day proposed, and this was in 2000! Now that lines 1,2,3, and 4 are built, there will be a networking effect producing much higher ridership than expected. What, myself and others propose isn't a moose type rail to rural towns, but is essentially a line 2 type service in the city. Keep in mind suburb-suburb demand is bouncing back much higher than suburb - urban demand

Would love to read the study if you have a link. But 15k riders a day is really not that much. There's busy bus routes that carry that many people. It's valid to ask if the cost involved is worthwhile.

What, myself and others propose isn't a moose type rail to rural towns, but is essentially a line 2 type service in the city. Keep in mind suburb-suburb demand is bouncing back much higher than suburb - urban demand

This is a better pitch. But why exactly does a suburb to suburb service need a downtown station?

 

[DirectionNorth]

@kEiThZ Did you know that a cn beachburg DMU line was projected to have higher ridership than the original o train pilot (line2) in the same document that ended up proposing the otrain line 2. I believe that there were over 15K riders /day proposed, and this was in 2000! Now that lines 1,2,3, and 4 are built, there will be a networking effect producing much higher ridership than expected. What, myself and others propose isn't a moose type rail to rural towns, but is essentially a line 2 type service in the city. Keep in mind suburb-suburb demand is bouncing back much higher than suburb - urban demand

Would love to read the study if you have a link. But 15k riders a day is really not that much. There's busy bus routes that carry that many people. It's valid to ask if the cost involved is worthwhile.

This is a better pitch. But why exactly does a suburb to suburb service need a downtown station?

I have the link here (it's a Google file, I don't have the original link). https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n20YCmdUoH9uytQQmhRAAEYmWNSo9Crp/view

A line using the Beechburg Sub is a good idea - the line would, in a full state, connect Kanata to Nepean and southern Ottawa. It seems that CN wants to get rid of the line, and freight operations are limited to three times (?) a week. The city could pick up the line and do a pilot service.

Though, a tunneled downtown would be useless and overexpensive.

 

[kalis0490]

@kEiThZ the link: https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/archives/rmoc/Regional_Council/09Sep98/Light.pdf .

This is a better pitch. But why exactly does a suburb to suburb service need a downtown station?

It doesn't? I was not responding to ARG's comment for a downtown station but the implication that "With the O-Train extensions going so deep into the suburbs, there's no real case for commuter rail"

 

[kEiThZ]

I have the link here (it's a Google file, I don't have the original link). https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n20YCmdUoH9uytQQmhRAAEYmWNSo9Crp/view

Will have a look. Thanks!

A line using the Beechburg Sub is a good idea - the line would, in a full state, connect Kanata to Nepean and southern Ottawa. It seems that CN wants to get rid of the line, and freight operations are limited to three times (?) a week. The city could pick up the line and do a pilot service.

Though, a tunneled downtown would be useless and overexpensive.

It's not a bad idea if it can be built cheaply, like the original O-Train pilot. But there's no point if it ends up costing billions. Which is what a tunnel and rehabilitation of Union Station would make the cost.

 

[micheal_can]

Even though @micheal_can was quite wrong about London and BRT, overall he's fine. No need to gaslight people over previous opinions, and we should take every post at face value.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of reactivating Union Station, in fact it has quite a lot of merits, the main one being that Tremblay Station is in quite an awful location. If Ottawa was to start running some diesel trains on old rail ROWs, forcing everyone to transfer to the existing O-Train Lines at Bayview, Mooney's Bay, Fallowfield, or Tremblay just to get downtown will get awkward real fast. As such, ideally at some point would need to build some downtown rail access, and building a cut and cover tunnel under Colonel By Drive that leads to a refurbished Union Station isn't an unreasonable idea. It would be far cheaper than say, building a downtown RER tunnel. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the next 10 years, this is a project Ottawa would tackle 30-40 years from now.

I have blocked him on all platforms. I have found that he seems to gaslight himself by posting and saying conflicting information. He has lost all credibility.

I feel if this project were ever to be proposed, it would end up being after Stage 4 of the LRT build out. Basically, it would come at a time where the "Central Transitway/LRT" is at gridlock.

How is a train station that is off the major highway for the city and on a major transit line "an awful location"?

The fact that it itself is not downtown works against it. Look at our 3 existing commuter rail. All of them have some sort of downtown station. Go outside of Canada and most, if not all commuter rail stations have a downtown station.

Also if they reactivated Union Station, VIA would still be operating from Tremblay because they need the thru-running.

The new trains the got can work in a push/pull set up. That means they could go to the downtown station and then back out of it and keep going. I would expect the existing Via stations to remain.

With the O-Train extensions going so deep into the suburbs, there's no real case for commuter rail anymore. Let's not forget that MOOSE first put forward their pitch before Stage 1. We're now at the point where LRT is just outside Kanata and Barrhaven. When those places are covered in Stage 3 or 4, who exactly is left to ride this commuter rail system?

They all have 1 line through downtown. One day, that line will become so busy more options will be needed. Will that be10 years of 50 years, that is the question.

I have the link here (it's a Google file, I don't have the original link). https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n20YCmdUoH9uytQQmhRAAEYmWNSo9Crp/view

A line using the Beechburg Sub is a good idea - the line would, in a full state, connect Kanata to Nepean and southern Ottawa. It seems that CN wants to get rid of the line, and freight operations are limited to three times (?) a week. The city could pick up the line and do a pilot service.

Though, a tunneled downtown would be useless and overexpensive.

How would those commuters get to the downtown core?Show me a commuter system that does not go downtown, but instead relies on other transit to get downtown.

 

[ARG1]

He literally called his own suggestion a "crazy idea", which is an unprecedented level of self-reflection this user has shown so far. But indeed, once you generously ignore the bits where he calls for the construction of a tunnel where there is no reason to not build a (dramatically cheaper) bridge, where said tunnel is to be used by intercity trains which have absolutely no reason to cross onto the North shore of the Ottawa River and would therefore require another (again very expensive to construct) piece of infrastructure to cross back onto the correct side of the river and where we find highways, parks and dense residential areas in the way of the path of such intercity train transiting through the Quebec side for no apparent reason, his suggestion starts sounding like a plausible and serious suggestion...

When he said tunnel I assumed the approach from the south. The track alignment that used to approach Union Station is now taken over by Colonel By Drive, and unless you want to rip that up (good luck with that), the only option is to tunnel. Also the areas on both sides of the river are way too built up for a bridge, so a deep tunnel would be necessary, but I doubt that's a route we'd want to take, just stick with the Ottawa side. Just remember that Ad Hominem attacks are useful to nobody, and responding to ideas no matter how crazy with "Guy is an idiot, please ignore" won't win you any points.

Though, a tunneled downtown would be useless and overexpensive.

The point I was trying to make was that the idea isn't really that crazy and does merit thought. However it's absolutely something that would make sense decades from now when the population of the city significantly grows, and the demand to downtown grows to the point where the LRT system will struggle to keep up. Perhaps if we introduce a line on the Beachburg sub, or even a line paralleling VIA it could make sense as development continues and we see more suburban developments around Arnprior or Carleton Place. A pilot line that goes from Kanata North to Tremblay is extremely doable and will likely be very useful even without a downtown spur.

I have blocked him on all platforms. I have found that he seems to gaslight himself by posting and saying conflicting information. He has lost all credibility.

I will defend you against Urban Sky's bullying, but blocking people because they're mean or you think they're an idiot is also kinda cringe, don't do that.

How would those commuters get to the downtown core?Show me a commuter system that does not go downtown, but instead relies on other transit to get downtown.

I'd say WES Commuter Rail in Portland, but that's not really a good example of commuter rail.

The implication here is that all relevant jobs are downtown, which isn't necessarily the case. What's being proposed here is something more akin to an orbital route, we have the existing O-Train network which transports people downtown, so now the obvious next step is introduce a system that allows people to travel quickly in an orbit around the city, and it can easily work without many issues. In fact I'd argue that doing some form of capacity upgrades such as refurbishing the lines to be high floor would probably be a higher priority than a downtown tunnel. A downtown tunnel for these regional services is something that should happen a long time from now after we've exhausted all the possibilities with the existing network, and once we introduce more frequent service to outlying towns like Carleton Place and Arnprior, however introducing a new rail line on the Beachburg sub that serves Nepean and Kanata is something that can be easily built tomorrow for cheap if we really felt like it.

 

[kEiThZ]

The fact that it itself is not downtown works against it. Look at our 3 existing commuter rail. All of them have some sort of downtown station. Go outside of Canada and most, if not all commuter rail stations have a downtown station.

Have you been outside Canada? Major stations, especially for intercity travel, just outside the downtown core, are not uncommon. For example, Paris Gare du Nord and London Euston are just outside the city centres of their cities. I don't think anybody would say rail travel to those cities is poor.

In Ottawa's case the connection at Tremblay is so good that I can't see a hypothetical Union station making it easier, without spending a ton of money (especially given the geology of the area and the sinkhole).

And when you get to Union station in Ottawa? It's not actually in the CBD. That's still 1-2 stops away on the LRT.

 

[kEiThZ]

How would those commuters get to the downtown core?

One of the biggest problems with transit planning in Canada is the fixation on travel to downtown.. This is largely driven by a suburban mindset of people who use transit almost exclusively for commuting. Doesn't help that Toronto is the model that most Canadian cities look up to. Complete with the giant single point of failure that is Union station.

Cities that have decent systems usually have multiple lines and multiple nodes. Ottawa has this. It's a feature. Not a bug. A rail line can be useful, even if it doesn't go downtown.

 

[micheal_can]

When he said tunnel I assumed the approach from the south. The track alignment that used to approach Union Station is now taken over by Colonel By Drive, and unless you want to rip that up (good luck with that), the only option is to tunnel. Also the areas on both sides of the river are way too built up. Just remember that Ad Hominem attacks are useful to nobody, and responding to ideas no matter how crazy with "Guy is an idiot, please ignore" won't win you any points.

Yes, the old approach from the south would be the best way as it is the closest to the existing rail lines. Besides, I doubt there is any desire to give up the Alexandra Bridge.to connect to Gatineau. That is how trains crossed the river north of the city.

The point I was trying to make was that the idea isn't really that crazy and does merit thought. However it's absolutely something that would make sense decades from now when the population of the city significantly grows, and the demand to downtown grows to the point where the LRT system will struggle to keep up. Perhaps if we introduce a line on the Beachburg sub, or even a line paralleling VIA it could make sense as development continues and we see more suburban developments around Arnprior or Carleton Place. A pilot line that goes from Kanata North to Tremblay is extremely doable and will likely be very useful even without a downtown spur.

I could see using existing tracks sooner than later to build it out to downtown when it overloads the LRT lines.

I will defend you against Urban Sky's bullying, but blocking people because they're mean or you think they're an idiot is also kinda cringe, don't do that.

No need to be defended. I don't think he is an idiot, butI do have a problem who talk out both sides of their mouth.

I'd say WES Commuter Rail in Portland, but that's not really a good example of commuter rail.

That is a great example. Doesn't seem to be that successful, but it is a great example of a commuter rail that does not go into downtown. However, just like what I would envision happening first, the commuter rail connects to something to go downtown.

The implication here is that all relevant jobs are downtown, which isn't necessarily the case. What's being proposed here is something more akin to an orbital route, we have the existing O-Train network which transports people downtown, so now the obvious next step is introduce a system that allows people to travel quickly in an orbit around the city, and it can easily work without many issues. In fact I'd argue that doing some form of capacity upgrades such as refurbishing the lines to be high floor would probably be a higher priority than a downtown tunnel. A downtown tunnel for these regional services is something that should happen a long time from now after we've exhausted all the possibilities with the existing network, and once we introduce more frequent service to outlying towns like Carleton Place and Arnprior, however introducing a new rail line on the Beachburg sub that serves Nepean and Kanata is something that can be easily built tomorrow for cheap if we really felt like it.

Those are good ideas that would work, and it would eventually show whether there is a need to build something to downtown.

Have you been outside Canada? Major stations, especially for intercity travel, just outside the downtown core, are not uncommon. For example, Paris Gare du Nord and London Euston are just outside the city centres of their cities. I don't think anybody would say rail travel to those cities is poor.

In Ottawa's case the connection at Tremblay is so good that I can't see a hypothetical Union station making it easier, without spending a ton of money (especially given the geology of the area and the sinkhole).

And when you get to Union station in Ottawa? It's not actually in the CBD. That's still 1-2 stops away on the LRT.

I have not been to Europe, but I have been to many large cities in the USA.

Where is the CBD?

One of the biggest problems with transit planning in Canada is the fixation on travel to downtown.. This is largely driven by a suburban mindset of people who use transit almost exclusively for commuting. Doesn't help that Toronto is the model that most Canadian cities look up to. Complete with the giant single point of failure that is Union station.

Cities that have decent systems usually have multiple lines and multiple nodes. Ottawa has this. It's a feature. Not a bug. A rail line can be useful, even if it doesn't go downtown.

What would you say would be the top 5 largest nodes in Ottawa?

 

[ARG1]

Have you been outside Canada? Major stations, especially for intercity travel, just outside the downtown core, are not uncommon. For example, Paris Gare du Nord and London Euston are just outside the city centres of their cities. I don't think anybody would say rail travel to those cities is poor.

You have a weird definition of outside of the downtown core. Sure Euston isn't located at Bank station, but it's current location is CBD enough and there are a ton of jobs and important destinations around it, same with other orbital rail termini like Gare du Nord and Moscow's many railway termini. None of them are even remotely comparable to Tremblay which is quite literally in the middle of nowhere.

In Ottawa's case the connection at Tremblay is so good that I can't see a hypothetical Union station making it easier, without spending a ton of money (especially given the geology of the area and the sinkhole).

Don't oversell it. It's passable, but I wouldn't call it "good". It also doesn't change the fact that Tremblay is quite the detour if you're coming from the west, to the point where I'd wager that if you had a station at Billing's Bridge, it'd be way faster to change there and getting on the Bank bus instead of going all the way to Tremblay (granted, a similar argument might be made for a theoretical Union Station connection, but it would at the very least be far more competitive).

And when you get to Union station in Ottawa? It's not actually in the CBD. That's still 1-2 stops away on the LRT.

uh, you're effectively in the CBD. In fact if anything, Ottawa Union Station is probably in a location that's more comparable with your examples of Euston and Gare du Nord, but I'd argue it's more comparable to Blackfriars, or possibly Cannon Street.