News   Nov 27, 2024
Towers to be Introduced to Longo's Site at 7 and Woodbine in Markham
 802     4 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Masterplanned Community in Markham Would Replace Big Box Centre
 686     1 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Menkes Welcomes First Occupants to Festival at Assembly Park in Vaughan
 1K     1 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

Hello all,

Pleased to come upon your discussion here. I and colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions.

On the forum nobody has yet raised the topic of revenue-generation. All issues of cost need to be framed by where the money would come from to cover those costs.
Here is the short view
Here is the detailed view

Back in 2014 I represented MOOSE rail on a panel at the Fall conference of the Canadian Urban Transit Assoc. Also on the panel were Jack. Collins, Chief Capital Officer, Metrolinx and Greg Percy, Chief Operating Officer, GO Transit. While MOOSE's Property Powered Rail (PPR) Open Market Development Model has only been thought through for a comprehensive metropolitan area, I suggested to them at that time that the PPR logic could potentially work for extensions from a metropolitan system, such as a Kitchener-Waterloo and London service, and a frequent Niagara Falls service.

RE: "I'll believe it when I see it".
  • By the time you see it, there will be nothing left for believing or not believing. (Well, you might indeed stand in the platform in utter disbelief, after all.)
  • Human progress depends on those who set about to make good things happen.
  • Is organizing to profitably put some current-generation trains to run on existing tracks with basic upgrades and maintenance REALLY in the realm of Google[X] moonshot territory? If it is, what's that say about our generation?
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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
Mobile: 819-593-5983
 
Thanks. I don't know much about Ottawa, nor its projected population growth/distribution for its metro area. But starting a commuter network seems like a reasonable thing to do. It's both Canada's fourth largest city and CMA, and they're obviously serious about their rapid transit plans. No doubt a commuter rail network should be part and parcel with that. GO didn't build out overnight, and in its early days it more than likely had its series detractors as well. And numbers aside the most basic of reasons for the public to invest in something like this is that Ottawa is the capital of the country.
 
Joseph Potvin said:
Hello all,

Pleased to come upon your discussion here. I and colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions.

On the forum nobody has yet raised the topic of revenue-generation. All issues of cost need to be framed by where the money would come from to cover those costs.
Here is the short view
Here is the detailed view

Back in 2014 I represented MOOSE rail on a panel at the Fall conference of the Canadian Urban Transit Assoc. Also on the panel were Jack. Collins, Chief Capital Officer, Metrolinx and Greg Percy, Chief Operating Officer, GO Transit. While MOOSE's Property Powered Rail (PPR) Open Market Development Model has only been thought through for a comprehensive metropolitan area, I suggested to them at that time that the PPR logic could potentially work for extensions from a metropolitan system, such as a Kitchener-Waterloo and London service, and a frequent Niagara Falls service.

RE: "I'll believe it when I see it".
  • By the time you see it, there will be nothing left for believing or not believing. (Well, you might indeed stand in the platform in utter disbelief, after all.)
  • Human progress depends on those who set about to make good things happen.
  • Is organizing to profitably put some current-generation trains to run on existing tracks with basic upgrades and maintenance REALLY in the realm of Google[X] moonshot territory? If it is, what's that say about our generation?
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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
Mobile: 819-593-5983
Click to expand...
Welcome! As a former Ottawan, and chair of the Hamilton LRT Citizen Advocacy run by local residents, I've been watching the MOOSE developments. Hopefully you get a powerful stakeholder into your consortium soon to put this project on the fast track. You need some powerful stakeholders onboard!

Regarding funding models, there must be a variety of options depending on what the stakeholders. PPR seems different from TIF (taxpayer increment funding), railroads profitted off the property boom in the early era. I'm not sure how well it would work today but it definitely needs to be packaged in a way that governments like (municipal, provincial, and federal). I'm not sure where Ottawa is at yet, but the Phase 2 LRT is going to probably create a property boom associated with it, which might present an opportunity.

That critical corridor shared with the Trillium LRT is going to be a huge challenge, especially if AODA compliance becomes required (accessibility). Utah FrontRunner manages to pull off level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels, but that's not the same platform height as the Trillium LRT. It's going to need one kick-ass of a reliably working CBTC signalling system, and Transport Canada permission, to run the BiLevels between the LRVs, as you probably already know... to avoid the expensive double/triple tracking and new bridge needed across Rideau River near Carleton University...

I am most curious of this aspect -- How do you plan to solve the Trillium route bottleneck, and the Transport Canada restriction mixing heavy/light rail vehicles?
 
mdrejhon said:
Welcome! As a former Ottawan, and chair of the Hamilton LRT Citizen Advocacy run by local residents, I've been watching the MOOSE developments. Hopefully you get a powerful stakeholder into your consortium soon to put this project on the fast track. You need some powerful stakeholders onboard!
...That critical corridor shared with the Trillium LRT is going to be a huge challenge, especially if AODA compliance becomes required (accessibility). Utah FrontRunner manages to pull off level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels, but that's not the same platform height as the Trillium LRT. It's going to need one kick-ass of a reliably working CBTC signalling system, and Transport Canada permission, to run the BiLevels between the LRVs, as you probably already know... to avoid the expensive double/triple tracking and new bridge needed across Rideau River near Carleton University... I am most curious of this aspect -- How do you plan to solve the Trillium route bottleneck, and the Transport Canada restriction mixing heavy/light rail vehicles?
Click to expand...

RE: "get a powerful stakeholder into your consortium soon to put this project on the fast track. You need some powerful stakeholders onboard!"

If you assume there are not, that would be an incorrect assumption. But at the same time there are other forces in play to obstruct efficient transit with locations outside the City of Ottawa's tax base. Here in Canada's Greater National Capital Region, inter-provincial trade barriers are both tangible and sensitive. Try to imagine how transit (etc.) would work in the GTA if Yonge Street were an inter-provincial boundary and an inter-city boundary and a river. That's what we're solving, albeit on a much smaller scale... no less complex though since politics is a fractal algorithm.

RE: "I am most curious of this aspect -- How do you plan to solve the Trillium route bottleneck, and the Transport Canada restriction mixing heavy/light rail vehicles"

First: collaboration is possible. Forces against inter-provincial trade and transit notwithstanding, Moose's plans are consistent with the 2013 "Inter-Provincial Transit Strategy for Canada's Capital Region" which was jointly authored by the NCC and transit planning professionals of the City of Ottawa (with MMM/WSP) and Ville de Gatineau (with AECOM). You will find this Strategy referenced on page 109 of the current draft Plan for Canada’s Capital: 2017 to 2067.

This sort of dedicated professional work towards the optimization of whole-region mobility can, we think, outweigh the political forces against inter-provincial trade and transit. Once MOOSE's whole-region passenger rail service is sufficiently advanced through the regulatory and business steps, technical matters such as the points you mention are easy to resolve. OC-Transpo, Société de transport de l'Outaouais and other public sector and private sector transit and transportation entities can and would collaborate directly or indirectly. It's not likely that OC-Transpo's transit professionals would object to upgrading their current (new!) LRT-style train sets with higher-capacity full-size bi-level trains. Also, there are active discussions of double-tracking that line.

It should also be taken into account that the O-Train has from the beginning and is still today, authorized under its federal Certificate of Fitness to operate into Quebec (as do OC-Transpo's buses). For reference, I attach the original plan from 16 years ago that had the O-Train's terminus at the Gatineau-Ottawa Executive Airport.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
 

Attachments

  • OTrainToGatineauAIrport_RegionOfOttawaCarleton_14apr2000.pdf
    545.8 KB · Views: 514
I just can't think of an advantage to running heavy rail coaches over LRT in that corridor, serving those stops.
 
Zach6668 said:
I just can't think of an advantage to running heavy rail coaches over LRT in that corridor, serving those stops.
Click to expand...
In theory:

They can be european style lightweight EMUs to merge the Trillium LRT with MOOSE, and shortturn the frequent section (5min service), with hourly service to Wakefield and also south.

Paris does this, their lightweight almost lightrail-like doubledeck RER runs more frequent than Trillium Line. Level subway style boarding. Though I think you could get away with single level trains instead, like a metro.

5min in core section, with shortturning to make it hourly to endpoints on routes, ala Paris RER style. Toronto is going to do this with Barrie RER. Electrified 15min doubletrack to Aurora, and hourly single track to Barrie -- short-turning 3 out of 4 trains according to RER Business Case PDFs.

The electrification would be the biggie expensive part.

FRA now has a new Alternative Compliance category to introduce minor-modified lightweight European trains on heavy rail corridors. That is how Caltrain is going to use Stadler KISS. Metrolinx is looking into lighter weight Euro style trains during GO RER electrification.

If you cam get OC Transpo on board, then anything's possible. Incredile boom with OC Transpo rail lately! But if run as separate train technologies, and separate services, there is going to be engineering/regulatory/logistical challenges. Not impossible but...
 
Last edited:
Joseph Potvin said:
Hello all,

Pleased to come upon your discussion here. I and colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions.

On the forum nobody has yet raised the topic of revenue-generation. All issues of cost need to be framed by where the money would come from to cover those costs.
Here is the short view
Here is the detailed view

Back in 2014 I represented MOOSE rail on a panel at the Fall conference of the Canadian Urban Transit Assoc. Also on the panel were Jack. Collins, Chief Capital Officer, Metrolinx and Greg Percy, Chief Operating Officer, GO Transit. While MOOSE's Property Powered Rail (PPR) Open Market Development Model has only been thought through for a comprehensive metropolitan area, I suggested to them at that time that the PPR logic could potentially work for extensions from a metropolitan system, such as a Kitchener-Waterloo and London service, and a frequent Niagara Falls service.

RE: "I'll believe it when I see it".
  • By the time you see it, there will be nothing left for believing or not believing. (Well, you might indeed stand in the platform in utter disbelief, after all.)
  • Human progress depends on those who set about to make good things happen.
  • Is organizing to profitably put some current-generation trains to run on existing tracks with basic upgrades and maintenance REALLY in the realm of Google[X] moonshot territory? If it is, what's that say about our generation?
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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
Mobile: 819-593-5983
Click to expand...
I support this completly. I think we need a better system in NE Ontario via the 416 and 417. Plus it gives people in Smiths Falls and Cantley access to Downtown Ottawa they would not have usually. I'm in.
 
A few questions for Joseph:

1) Was there any consideration given to re-activating the rail corridor (now a rail trail) from Bells Corners to Stittsville, and potentially on to Carleton Place? That west-southwest quadrant seems to be the only part of the NCR that isn't being served by either Moose, the O-Train, or Rapibus. I acknowledge that by and large Moose is using active rail corridors (or at least corridors where the rail is still in place), but it would be a worthwhile addition, if the right political conditions were in place.

2) Are there any plans for a future infill station at Woodroffe along the red/green interlined route? That location would make for a pretty decent transit hub if the Confederation Line is ever extended one (or two, depending on spacing) stations further south. You'd have 2 Moose lines, LRT, and BRT at that location.

3) Curious as to why Dunrobin wasn't included as a station.

4) Based on the map on your website, it doesn't look like the Green line goes to Bayview. Does it?

I'm also going to take a shot at creating a map of Moose overlaid on top of OC Transpo & STO rapid transit, because I think showing how Moose "fills in the gaps" could be pretty interesting to see.

And also, glad to see that Moose is reaching out on forums like this to answer questions!
 
gweed123 said:
A few questions for Joseph:
Click to expand...

Thanks for your questions.

Q1) Was there any consideration given to re-activating the rail corridor (now a rail trail) from Bells Corners to Stittsville, and potentially on to Carleton Place? That west-southwest quadrant seems to be the only part of the NCR that isn't being served by either Moose, the O-Train, or Rapibus. I acknowledge that by and large Moose is using active rail corridors (or at least corridors where the rail is still in place), but it would be a worthwhile addition, if the right political conditions were in place.

A1) Moose Consortium must focus first on getting the core 400 km system operational. Many additional lines become financially viable under the PPR model once the core system is assured. Some of those would be Moose Consortium operations, but they could also be autonomous complementary services, whether private regional bus services, VirtuCar, a boutique stream train service for tourists, etc. Another two examples of a short line that become finacially viable once we've got the main line running are the lines to Buckingham, QC, and Aylmer QC.


Q2) Are there any plans for a future infill station at Woodroffe along the red/green interlined route? That location would make for a pretty decent transit hub if the Confederation Line is ever extended one (or two, depending on spacing) stations further south. You'd have 2 Moose lines, LRT, and BRT at that location.

A2) You're correct -- but let me explain how such a consideration fits into our business concept. For the most part Moose Consortium won't be unilaterally determining exactly where the stations will go. Ours is an "open market development model" for "Linked Localities". That will be an open and, we expect, a highly competitive market. But as you note, there are some logical locations where our entire system would benefit by making pro-active arrangements for a station. Such stations can be justified in the PPR because their existence would raise the financial value of all the other stations by at least as much as could have hypothetically been raised on the 0.8 km radius model. We've not yet gone through that process, but we have, for example, asked the NCC to let us know where they would ideally want a station for Gatineau Park. Also, it's obvious we'd want a station at the UQO campus on Taché Blvd at the north end of the Prince of Wales Bridge.


Q3) Curious as to why Dunrobin wasn't included as a station.

A3) Essentially all locations along the existing corridors could have "Linked Localities" -- those labels on the map are for general geographical orientation only. Other than the exceptions mentioned above, the only stations to get train service from Moose Consortim at those that pay the formula-base train-stopping fee. And in the Greater National Capital Region, we won't go beyond about 50 stations. Too many stations slows down the service. Please see the full PPR whitepaper: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...sePropertyPoweredRailModel_2016-06-28_PDF.pdf


Q4) Based on the map on your website, it doesn't look like the Green line goes to Bayview. Does it?

A4) Correct, but there will be more than one station at which to transfer, and we will ensure scheduling that makes the timing of priority transfers efficient for passengers.


Q5) I'm also going to take a shot at creating a map of Moose overlaid on top of OC Transpo & STO rapid transit, because I think showing how Moose "fills in the gaps" could be pretty interesting to see.

A5) That will be useful, thanks. But keep in mind that whereas tracks don't move easily, bus route do. We'll be doing our detailed modeling with MATSim http://matsim.org/ Recently I was in Vancouver and noticed that the SkyTrain's lines, "outstretched fingers" like MOOSE's plan on existing rail, could do with some better webbing between those fingers. Once MOOSE rail is operational, municipal bus services can be expected to logically adapt, because the existing fleet and crew of drivers would get a lot more use filling in the areas of those triangles than running long-haul that's being served by train. From the business point of view, Moose Consortium is structured to have all sorts of alliances with ancillary services, public and private sector.


RE: And also, glad to see that Moose is reaching out on forums like this to answer questions!

"Thanks and a tip'o the hat" to the participants on this forum.

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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
 
Last edited:
Thanks Joseph! Very glad to see that there was indeed a rationale behind the decisions, as opposed to being oversights. It's nice to see transit planning that is based in evidence-based decision-making, instead of decision-based evidence-making :).

And with regards to the map, I was only going to include BRT services that had fixed infrastructure (i.e. a Transitway) associated with them. I agree that including local bus routes would be rather difficult to pin down, not to mention be visually distracting.

I'll be looking forward to seeing more details on how the central segment of the Trillium Line will work with all of those services overlapping on it, and what type of upgrades will be necessary to support it (beyond what is being done in Phase II of the TMP).
 
gweed123 said:
with regards to the map, I was only going to include BRT services that had fixed infrastructure (i.e. a Transitway) associated with them
Click to expand...

Great. You'll notice that Moose Consortium documents are under CC-by 4.0 licensing. If you do the same others can readily adapt the work.

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@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
 
Hi Joseph! I've been following this for a while now and hadn't heard anything about it for a while until recently.

I guess the sort of questions I have are mostly similar to the others, namely how to deal with interlining on the trillium line which already has serious capacity issues (at least in my my opinion), and whether you'd have to build a new terminus station beside bayview for the Quebec lines if you couldn't run trains down the Trillium line. Does anything in your proposal stand to be jeopardized by the new developments at LeBreton Flats?

Also, I'm not necessarily pushing for it, but I was rather wondering whether you have considered extending the Bristol line to Pembroke? I know that the Ontario portion of the line has no tracks, and the county is trying to buy it, but I was curious to know if it was on your radar at all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top