Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[denfromoakvillemilton]

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!

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

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).

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

Joeseph and Peter, great work!

One question though, will this be a rush hour, or all day service type thing? Thanks in advance!

 

[Joseph Potvin]

1. interlining on the trillium line which already has serious capacity issues?
2. build a new terminus station beside bayview for the Quebec lines if you couldn't run trains down the Trillium line?
3. Does anything in your proposal stand to be jeopardized by the new developments at LeBreton Flats?
4. whether you have considered extending the Bristol line to Pembroke?

Hello,

To reply very briefly to your questions:

1. interlining on the trillium line which already has serious capacity issues?

Nobody should assume that the O-Train service is unchangable from its current arrangements. Moose is a consortium, and when we last met with OC-Transpo execs, Moose invited them to be the operator of the line between La Pêche and Smiths Falls. That is just as reasonable as the O-Train's orginal plan (which I attach here) which was to operate out the the Gatineau Airport.

2. build a new terminus station beside bayview for the Quebec lines if you couldn't run trains down the Trillium line?

Moose will build a transfer station there for transferring passengers with the ORLT in any case, so yes.

3. Does anything in your proposal stand to be jeopardized by the new developments at LeBreton Flats?

If you mean the RendezVous development, no. Quite the other way around. We think it's obvious to anyone with a background in transportation logistics that the type and level of activity being planned for LebBreton Flats absolutely requires an integrated whole-region service as Moose is planning, whether or not it's Moose Consortium. Melnyk's team understands this: Watch the RendezVous video. Between 2:41 and 2:47 you'll notice they animated a train going across the Prince of Wales Bridge. Go figure.

4. whether you have considered extending the Bristol line to Pembroke?

Many additional lines become financially feasible once our core service is operating under the PPR business model which is viable in semi-rural areas. But our teminus for the core services is Bristol.

Thanks for your questions. I hope these replies are useful.

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

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Ontario's Green Party has endorsed the idea of regional passenger rail in the National Capital Region. Link: https://gpo.ca/support-passenger-rail-national-capital-region

Support for Passenger Rail in National Capital Region
Fri, 09/30/2016 - 14:30
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2016

(Ottawa) — The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) and Green Party of Canada (GPC) announced their support today for the concept of bringing regional passenger rail to the National Capital Region.

"We desperately need good transit to reduce gridlock, and help people and goods move around efficiently,” says Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario. "Trying to make better use of existing infrastructure is a good idea.”

The GPO and GPC believe a privately funded mass transit business model, like the one the Moose Consortium is pursuing, has the potential to be a unique way of achieving sustainable mass transit.

This model would run comfortable passenger trains across existing rail lines, taking advantage of the underutilized infrastructure in Eastern Ontario. The idea could potentially deliver a much needed service to residents throughout the entire region.

It would be funded by station owners paying a train stopping fee, with return to the owners coming through value added property development. The cost to riders will be lower than existing transit models.

The GPO and GPC remain committed to publicly funded transit, which compliments private sector models. The Green Party is committed to exploring all options for expanding rail service rapidly to address climate change, move people efficiently and increase public access to transit.

QUOTES

Mike Schreiner, Leader of the Green Party of Ontario:

“We support exploring innovative ideas to rapidly scale up transit options for moving people efficiently and affordably. The Moose concept of bringing passenger rail to the National Capital Region is a unique approach that is worth exploring. If successful, it could revolutionize the way passenger rail is funded, freeing governments to fund additional public services."

Jean-Luc Cooke, Green Party of Canada Critic for Small Business and Entrepreneurship:

"Rarely does an infrastructure project come along that asks for zero dollars from the federal government. All Moose has requested is that existing federal mandates for interprovincial rail regulations be followed. The Green Party of Canada is committed to making our cities more livable and Green MPs will help breakdown barriers to getting projects like this going."

Joseph Potvin, Director General of Moose Consortium Inc.:

“We are delighted to have the provincial and federal Green Parties expressing a common vision for better transit. We look to all parties and sectors to seek innovative solutions for sustainable funding to increase access to transit in the region.”

 

[william donati]

few months I heard something like track issues with Smiths Falls. Recently MOOSE said that it wants to build the rail without public subsidies and is waiting for the green signal

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Recently MOOSE said that it wants to build the rail without public subsidies

Mr. Donait,

For clarity: MOOSE rail will lease existing railway works, and will arrange commercial financing of improvements (passing tracks, repair of culverts, refurbushment of bridges, etc.). So for the most part, we're not going to "build the rail". That mega-project is already built. We do plan to finance re-installation of track to include the town of Bristol QC, on the existing corridor.

The only subsidy that will be drawn upon is the Grade Crossing Improvement Program since that's a shared road+rail consideration. Also, municipalities, rail corridor owners and other direct and indirect stakeholders could potentially decide to pursue subsidies for their own complementary objectives.

Joseph Potvin
Director General
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Little update from the MOOSE Facebook page:

CURRENT STATUS

As many may know, we met with Justin Trudeau (a privilege for certain) last week in Central Ontario, to field a rather pointed question that affects the Greater National Capital Region and in Moose's case, the access required to include Quebec and Ontario in Moose's interprovincial, regional passenger service.

Recently large portions of rail have not only been illegally removed, but significant building has started on the Ontario side blockading rail thoroughfare from the Prince of Wales Bridge south, east and west into Ontario.

Moose has followed through on a request to forward our materials to the PMO. Mr. Trudeau said that he would follow up with the Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau.

Moose worked diligently to find a work around for the track that was removed and filed engineering specification with the CTA when it again registered its complaint. Further, Moose set about applying for it's Certificate of Fitness which it was told would take 90 days to process. This submission was made July 29, precisely 125 years to the day that the last private-sector company made application in the Country to form a railway. Moose has yet to hear a decision on this application.

If you would like to aid in the development of a regional transportation plan serving the Greater National Capital Region then write to the PMO and to the CTA as an intervenor, speaking of how important access to affordable rail transportation across the NCR means to you.

Canadian Transportation Agency
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9

 

[Joseph Potvin (MOOSE)]

Little update from the MOOSE Facebook page:

Thanks for passing that along, Alexander. For some specifics on this aspect of the story, see this recent article in Ottawa Construction News, and the letter mentioned therein from the Mayor of Smiths Falls. http://ottawaconstructionnews.com/local-news/cta-interprovincial-rail/

Some railway industry interests operating in other parts of Canada have let us know they are watching this case to find out if the federal regulator will or will not execute its statutory mandate in a timely and responsible way, which is what MOOSE expects. A general background document that the company sent last year to all regional MPs is available at this URL: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/MooseRail_Brochure2015Print.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
joseph.potvin@letsgomoose.com
joseph.potvin@onyvamoose.com
Mobile: 819-593-5983

 

[steveintoronto]

Recently large portions of rail have not only been illegally removed, but significant building has started on the Ontario side blockading rail thoroughfare from the Prince of Wales Bridge south, east and west into Ontario.

Without even being a booster of Moose Rail. this defies belief. That RoW must be protected for future use whether it be Moose or any other future transportation scheme.

I'll Google and link what I find later on whatever justification has been published for blocking the RoW.

 

[JohnnyRenton]

Hello all,

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

Hi Joseph,

This will be a bit long but I wanted to start by saying that I think the idea of regional rail in the National Capital region, and towns beyond, is a really interesting one and who’s time seems to be coming soon. I actually lived in Ottawa for 8 years, and spent a another 10 years growing up in Kingston when I was younger so I know that region inside and out, and to this day remain incredibly fond of it (I am hoping I'll get the chance to either return one day or at least be close enough that I can visit much more often). So when I saw the MOOSE consortium proposing regional rail in the area I was immediately intrigued as to what the plan might be and have been following since it started.

I also enjoy that you have joined this forum (I have actually been on this forum since it started, but I am posting on a new username because I was not able to change my old one and wanted something a little more relevant). Even though posting here is in some ways preaching to the choir it is still great to see this kind of active engagement with people who would naturally take an interest in a project like this.

That being said though, during the past month I have been doing a lot of writing and research on the current state of passenger rail in Canada, particularly in the Corridor. Often I found my mind drifting back to this proposal and have come up with quite a few questions about it (I won't drone on and ask every single one of them) that I wanted to put out to you and your group.

1 -VIA's recent HFR proposal could see a Toronto-Peterborough-Perth-Smiths Falls-Ottawa service as part of a larger overall Corridor network improvement. With the potential for a dramatic increase in traffic and stops not just on the segment west of Ottawa but also the rail line from Ottawa to Montreal how do you see this impacting your plan? If this VIA proposal happens it really is a game changer and it seems like it could poach many potential customers with its increased frequency, and also brings into question what that would mean for capacity on the line. Do you see this is as a positive development, one in which maybe you can piggyback off VIA or better use resources to further the MOOSE proposal, or does this hurt the viability of the Smiths Falls and Alexandria lines?

2 - Do you really think that using the Trillium line is a realistic assumption? I know that right now the line still essentially exists in the same state that it did when the O-Train pilot project was opened. And even though all of Ottawa’s LRT planning resources and attention are currently going into getting Phase 2 of the Confederation Line moving forward, it won't be long until they return to the Trillium line and put together a proper plan for its future. And from everything I have seen over the years the plan seems to be to turn it into the same modern, electrified, double tracked, LRT that the Confederation Line is. In that scenario it is hard to imagine how sending heavy rail trains down the line is going to be acceptable, from a safety and operations stand point and seems to make the possibility of the Quebec lines highly unlikely, and obviously create a huge barrier to many parts of the MOOSE proposal. It is also hard to see a scenario in which they let the Trillium line remain status quo.

3 - Even if a scenario where the Trillium line could be used did arise, who is going to pay the cost of making the Prince of Wales bridge suitable for rail service? The city itself noted that the cost of returning the bridge to transit use would be between $20 and $40 million (and if I am not mistaken that was just for one track, not even for a second bridge to double track it). Even at the low end that is a huge cost. Is MOOSE assuming that the bridge will already have been brought up to full standards by the city or provinces, or is that a cost they are willing to take on themselves?

Side note: It seems highly unlikely that the City of Ottawa would give up any access to this bridge to anyone but OC Transpo or STO. I know a lot of people seem hell bent on using it for transit service of some kind simply because it is there. And it seems that this bridge is given more value than it deserves simply because it is already there. But byy using that bridge any service, be it MOOSE or LRT by one of the transit agencies, you also miss directly serving the central part of Gatineau. And yes there is a lot of cross river commuting, but a sizeable number of Quebec commuters don't cross the river. That existing routing is one major flaw that no one ever seems to really address, in part because most of the plans don't seem to even care about providing improved access to central Gatineau and just assume everyone is going across the river.

4 - With the two lines I haven't yet mentioned, the ones to Bristol, QC and Arnprior, ON, do you think that if a situation arose where, because of VIA HFR, and not being able to get access to the Trillium line tracks, these ended up being the only two lines that could be implemented, that the MOOSE concept and business model would still allow for them to happen? Also keep in mind that in this scenario both of the trains would have to terminate at Tremblay instead of being able to get closer to downtown and drop passengers off at Bayview which could affect the attractiveness of the service.

5 - And last but not least, who is the current MOOSE proposal/pitch currently aimed at? I know that having real estate developers involved is central to this project working and I am wondering if all those people are already on board and this is being pitched to the public at large, or is this simply about getting developers on board in the first place?

I know it might initially seem like I am dumping on the idea with all those questions. But I also know that Ottawa and Gatineau have a rail network where once you get into the urban heart of these cities it completely breaks down. There is no downtown station on either side. There is no active rail route across the river and using existing right of ways really doesn’t result in what I would consider a really effective network. For the region to really create a proper regional rail network would take considerable investment to create the proper links, something which is not yet a priority in the region.

If the MOOSE proposal was more ambitious, and just as a hypothetical, also included a plan to fund a new tunnel under the Ottawa river so that it could link up Ontario and Quebec by rail without having to utilize any right of ways that are currently key corridors for Ottaw’s LRT plan, then it might be a much easier sell (and probably impossible to fund privately too). But with Ottawa having to forfeit partial use of the Trillium Line, and Prince of Wales bridge, and VIA potentially cannabalizing some of the customer base on the Smiths Falls and Alexandria lines with dramatic service increases, it is hard to see how this current proposal is going to gain any kind of traction.

And one last aside. I think that if VIA’s current interest in meaningful expansion does actually play out as they are proposing, then it is also highly likely that they will be taking a very strong interest in the rail network on the Gatineau side of the National Capital Region. The Gatineau CMA has roughly 280,000 people in it and has zero rail service on that side of the river. (A theoretical Gatineau-Mirabel-Montreal-Granby-Sherbrooke line with some smaller centres in between served as well would bring new, or radically better and more efficient rail travel to around 500,000 people so there is good reason for VIA to be just as interested in it as MOOSE). And it isn’t to say that commuter rail shouldn’t play a role in that region, but if VIA becomes a player there, that is going to add some big challenges for MOOSE.

 

[steveintoronto]

I know it might initially seem like I am dumping on the idea with all those questions.

Not at all! Excellent post, btw.

These questions must be asked if a sensible plan is to be supported and survive. You also ask for a number of us, since this *appears* to be a bold and ambitious project with merit, and although in my case, I'm unfamiliar with Ottawa and environs, it's an exciting concept...and really up against great odds at succeeding. You're right about VIA's HFR probably usurping some of the potential traffic, but that should *add* to the viability of the plan, not reduce it. I'm sure VIA will be looking to find any operators who act co-operatively. It raises everyone's boat in the water.

 

[JohnnyRenton]

You're right about VIA's HFR probably usurping some of the potential traffic, but that should *add* to the viability of the plan, not reduce it. I'm sure VIA will be looking to find any operators who act co-operatively. It raises everyone's boat in the water.

And that is why that question was first on my list. It is a huge question mark in terms of what exactly this means for VIA's future ambitions. Who is to say that VIA, since they are already going to be upgrading these lines, might look at places like Richmond to the west of Ottawa and Vars to east, to name two examples off the top of my head, and decide to add in a very basic stop so that on even just a few of the trains running through those towns could see rail service.

VIA could very well decide it would rather someone else take care of these small stops. In that case MOOSE could potentially have a new ally, but VIA may also balk at that in favour of working with governments, like the City of Ottawa, local municipalities, and the Government of Ontario. Whatever the case VIA has in some ways reset any discussion on regional rail on the National Capital Region.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Just wanted to post a rendering of a station I found on the MOOSE site. Very simple design, but I like it. It is functional but not overboard.

Also a quick question for @Joseph Potvin (MOOSE): What is your consortium considering for rolling stock? The renderings I've seen show bi-level cars like GO uses, but I'm assuming that this is just a placeholder?

 

[steveintoronto]

Who is to say that VIA, since they are already going to be upgrading these lines, might look at places like Richmond to the west of Ottawa and Vars to east, to name two examples off the top of my head, and decide to add in a very basic stop so that on even just a few of the trains running through those towns could see rail service.

Without stating VIA's mandate, and cause d'etre, that's highly unlikely. It hasn't happened in the past, if anything, alliances with local providers has proven mutually beneficial. Keep in mind also that HFR is not going to run on its own RoW! That is to be privately financed, and almost inevitably electrified.

VIA could very well decide it would rather someone else take care of these small stops. In that case MOOSE could potentially have a new ally, but VIA may also balk at that in favour of working with governments, like the City of Ottawa, local municipalities, and the Government of Ontario.

With a privately financed RoW, VIA can avoid the often unsavoury situation of having to sleep with a partner in an 'arranged marriage'. That will be the role of the owner of the RoW, and that will include freight provision as well as passenger, albeit VIA won't sign-on unless passenger gets to choose and control usage, at least during daylight hours.

I can't see anything but a win for both VIA and Moose, or whomever provides local service. In the case of Halifax, for instance, VIA was *invited* to bid. It is the only case I know of where VIA has (or will) provided a local transit service.

Edit to Clarify: In Ottawa, HFR will use the existing VIA owned trackage, so things will not change from what is already extant as per HFR since the object of HFR is to be *fast*, but not high-speed, so no more stops than is necessary to pick-up from local providers like Moose will be the rule.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just wanted to post a rendering of a station I found on the MOOSE site. Very simple design, but I like it. It is functional but not overboard.

Now that is a template for what should be considered for Toronto's six SmartTrack stations!

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Now that is a template for what should be considered for Toronto's six SmartTrack stations!

It even looks like they have included fare gates in the rendering. Would be very convenient of PRESTO was chosen as a method of payment.