Rural Commuter Rail

[OTSkyline]

Ottawa just doesn't have sizeable cities around to warrant commuter rail. And if transit-use from suburban residents (Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven) is still low (compared to pre-pandemic) and might never recover to pre-pandemic levels, I don't see how there would be any sizeable users for a commuter-type rail service here.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Ottawa just doesn't have sizeable cities around to warrant commuter rail. And if transit-use from suburban residents (Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven) is still low (compared to pre-pandemic) and might never recover to pre-pandemic levels, I don't see how there would be any sizeable users for a commuter-type rail service here.

With the housing crisis across Canada. Would building up those communities outside of the city be a bad idea? Maybe plan it out for good density.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With the housing crisis across Canada. Would building up those communities outside of the city be a bad idea? Maybe plan it out for good density.

What do you mean by “building up those communities”? Who is supposed to build up the communities? How are they supposed to do that?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What do you mean by “building up those communities”? Who is supposed to build up the communities? How are they supposed to do that?

Have the communities come up with a plan that would see good density and a vibrant community all on its own. Then find ways to encourage landowners to execute the plan.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Have the communities come up with a plan that would see good density and a vibrant community all on its own. Then find ways to encourage landowners to execute the plan.

I don’t think land owners are the obstacle. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a high density rural area. Certainly not in the numbers that would be required to support a high frequency transit system. There are over 100 pages on this topic on this thread.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think land owners are the obstacle. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a high density rural area. Certainly not in the numbers that would be required to support a high frequency transit system. There are over 100 pages on this topic on this thread.

I am not suggesting towers out there. I am suggesting not having miles and miles of McMansion sprawl.

If low rises, townhomes and other types of non SFH were built and were lower than in the city, and the cost of commuting by bus, and eventually rail total was lower than living in the city, that would push people there. That is why places around Toronto grew the way they did.

Lets take Smiths Falls and Carleton Place. They are at about the same population Ajax and Whitby were when GO started up. I would suggest working with those places to avoid the horrible sprawl, but still giving them a way to grow and a way to stay vibrant.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not suggesting towers out there. I am suggesting not having miles and miles of McMansion sprawl.

If low rises, townhomes and other types of non SFH were built and were lower than in the city, and the cost of commuting by bus, and eventually rail total was lower than living in the city, that would push people there. That is why places around Toronto grew the way they did.

Lets take Smiths Falls and Carleton Place. They are at about the same population Ajax and Whitby were when GO started up. I would suggest working with those places to avoid the horrible sprawl, but still giving them a way to grow and a way to stay vibrant.

Ajax and Whitby were stops on the way to Oshawa (which had 100k when GO started). If Perth had 100k people a regular rail service that stopped at Smith Falls would be a no-brainer. I don't think any of the towns on rail lines leading to Ottawa have more than 10k.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ajax and Whitby were stops on the way to Oshawa (which had 100k when GO started). If Perth had 100k people a regular rail service that stopped at Smith Falls would be a no-brainer. I don't think any of the towns on rail lines leading to Ottawa have more than 10k.

So, have commuter rail to Kingston? I don't think that would work.
This is why the suggestion of starting with buses.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not suggesting towers out there. I am suggesting not having miles and miles of McMansion sprawl.

If low rises, townhomes and other types of non SFH were built and were lower than in the city, and the cost of commuting by bus, and eventually rail total was lower than living in the city, that would push people there. That is why places around Toronto grew the way they did.

Lets take Smiths Falls and Carleton Place. They are at about the same population Ajax and Whitby were when GO started up. I would suggest working with those places to avoid the horrible sprawl, but still giving them a way to grow and a way to stay vibrant.

I'm honestly confused as to your post.

"I don't want sprawl, but I want mass transit to small places very far away"

That is literally the definition of encouraging sprawl, except sprawl 2.0, the exurb version.

These little towns ringed around Ottawa aren't some underused Northern towns that dropped 1/3 of their population and are just crying for more people as they continue to decline. They're reasonably stable population-wise. People who move there are done with the city, because one would be hard-pressed to move to such a location otherwise.

I'm speculating you want rural high-density (?), but I'm curious what exactly that looks like. It's not towers, fine, and it's not low-density SFH. So, what's the vision? How does the Ottawa region version of a better Ajax work? More to the point, does Ottawa even need an Ajax-like spillover in the next 50 years? (My answer: It doesn't, because the exponential growth of the GTA over the last 70 years isn't going to happen in Ottawa where the city just broke a million people fairly recently)

And why does that vision work somewhere like Smiths Falls instead of maybe just filling in the Greenbelt of Pointless actually around the city itself? Bonus for that plan: not much transit infrastructure required, because one can lean on existing city transit and services!

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ajax and Whitby were stops on the way to Oshawa (which had 100k when GO started). If Perth had 100k people a regular rail service that stopped at Smith Falls would be a no-brainer. I don't think any of the towns on rail lines leading to Ottawa have more than 10k.

Carleton Place is one of the fastest growing communities in Ontario and is now at 11,000 people. This growth is due to it's proximity to Ottawa and having Hwy 7 twinned to freeway standards. The only sad thing about this is maybe the same growth could have happened had the CP tracks have been used for commuter service to Ottawa in 1990 or before. The town could have had the same growth and we would have had greener transport options.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Carleton Place is one of the fastest growing communities in Ontario and is now at 11,000 people. This growth is due to it's proximity to Ottawa and having Hwy 7 twinned to freeway standards. The only sad thing about this is maybe the same growth could have happened had the CP tracks have been used for commuter service to Ottawa in 1990 or before. The town could have had the same growth and we would have had greener transport options.

A town that only allows SFH in new development is growing at an incredible rate and we think the best solution is to put a "go rail" type system in it?

A type of commuter rail that heavily relies on park and ride and as such heavily induces sprawl type development.

The people moving out there are either doing so because they can't afford a house in the city or because they don't want to live in a city. The former is fixed by buildings more homes in Ottawa proper, and the latter is going to stop the dev type from being a high enough density to support commuter rail that doesn't rely on park and ride.

Nvm that WFH has killed alot of the reason for commuters to drive into ottawa.

As for commuter rail to Kingston, well if VIA HFR ever goes through Kingston/smith falls to Ottawa will have its hourly trains.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'm honestly confused as to your post.

"I don't want sprawl, but I want mass transit to small places very far away"

That is literally the definition of encouraging sprawl, except sprawl 2.0, the exurb version.

These little towns ringed around Ottawa aren't some underused Northern towns that dropped 1/3 of their population and are just crying for more people as they continue to decline. They're reasonably stable population-wise. People who move there are done with the city, because one would be hard-pressed to move to such a location otherwise.

I'm speculating you want rural high-density (?), but I'm curious what exactly that looks like. It's not towers, fine, and it's not low-density SFH. So, what's the vision? How does the Ottawa region version of a better Ajax work? More to the point, does Ottawa even need an Ajax-like spillover in the next 50 years? (My answer: It doesn't, because the exponential growth of the GTA over the last 70 years isn't going to happen in Ottawa where the city just broke a million people fairly recently)

And why does that vision work somewhere like Smiths Falls instead of maybe just filling in the Greenbelt of Pointless actually around the city itself? Bonus for that plan: not much transit infrastructure required, because one can lean on existing city transit and services!

Think of it this way: We want to build each of those communities into cities that work well for the citizens that live there and not just be a bedroom community. That means that towers may not be the answer, but 10 story and below would be great. It also means that the way subdivisions are currently done is not going to work, but the old style where they are straight and connect to all the streets going the opposite direction meet. It also means building sidewalks.

In other words, learning from what didn't work, and doing what did work.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Carleton Place is one of the fastest growing communities in Ontario and is now at 11,000 people. This growth is due to it's proximity to Ottawa and having Hwy 7 twinned to freeway standards. The only sad thing about this is maybe the same growth could have happened had the CP tracks have been used for commuter service to Ottawa in 1990 or before. The town could have had the same growth and we would have had greener transport options.

That is why starting an express bus service would be the best thing to do right now. Then, putting the old line back in could be explored if enough are using the bus.

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

A town that only allows SFH in new development is growing at an incredible rate and we think the best solution is to put a "go rail" type system in it?

A type of commuter rail that heavily relies on park and ride and as such heavily induces sprawl type development.

The people moving out there are either doing so because they can't afford a house in the city or because they don't want to live in a city. The former is fixed by buildings more homes in Ottawa proper, and the latter is going to stop the dev type from being a high enough density to support commuter rail that doesn't rely on park and ride.

Nvm that WFH has killed alot of the reason for commuters to drive into ottawa.

As for commuter rail to Kingston, well if VIA HFR ever goes through Kingston/smith falls to Ottawa will have its hourly trains.

The best solution right now is express bus service. Then look into a train. The reality is, sprawl will happen whether we like it or not. However, if we learn from the past and change how the sprawl is done, it won't be just a sea of SFH.

[Buggys]

Apparently a new federal department is currently being formed to look into high frequency rail between Toronto & Quebec city. Not sure why Niagara to Toronto is not included.

https://hfr-tgf.ca/

Originally Posted by the capital urbanite

Ontario-Quebec to study rapid rail link

Norma Greenaway
Canwest News Service

Thursday, January 10, 2008

OTTAWA - Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Quebec counterpart Jean Charest have agreed to finance a study on the feasibility of launching a high-speed rail service between Montreal and Windsor, Ont., CanWest News has learned.

The two premiers will formalize the bilateral agreement at a meeting Thursday in advance of a rare meeting Friday night with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their provincial and territorial counterparts.

A rapid train system between Montreal and Windsor has been kicked around in the past, but there has not been a feasibility study about such a project in more than 10 years.

The idea is being resurrected now because of concerns about global warming and the need to reduce green house gases, according to a provincial source. Enhancing the attraction and use of public transit is seen as one way of tackling the problem.

The two premiers were the first to call for a first ministers' meeting to deal with heightened worries about the economy and key industries being whacked by the high-flying dollar and soaring energy prices.

Ottawa Citizen


I guess this previous internal VIA report from August of last year went unheeded....


High-speed rail studied to death, time for decision: Via Rail report
By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — The benefits of high-speed rail service in the Toronto-Montreal corridor have been demonstrated repeatedly and it’s time to stop studying the concept and make some decisions, says a new report for Via Rail.

“The merits of high-speed passenger rail have been clearly established,” says the report, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

“The question is not to ask whether it is worth government support, but rather where it stands with respect to competing mega-projects on the priority list of decision makers. More studies are of no use in this regard.”

The Aug. 14 report was prepared by a consulting engineer for Via Rail’s board of directors as they revisit the issue of a high-speed rail link connecting Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

The document reviews seven major studies since 1984 that examined the feasibility of building the link, at a cost ranging up to $11.1 billion. It also reports on a 2004 study looking at a similar link between Calgary and Edmonton, estimated to cost $3.4 billion.

The analysis, by Andre Gravelle of the firm UMA Engineering Ltd., notes that every Canadian study to date has concluded that significant government investment is required to build the infrastructure for high-speed rail, as has been the case in other such projects in Japan, France and elsewhere.

“These studies have also indicated that, like roads and airports, public investment is required to finance the construction of the required infrastructure.”

But once the link between Montreal and Toronto is built, passenger volumes are forecast to be high enough to turn a profit for any firm operating the service.

Gravelle cites one 1991 study that indicated almost a third of high-speed rail passengers would be snatched from the airlines, and suggests the airline industry helped kill the proposal.

“The results of this study created considerable concern among the airlines, given the huge public investment required to implement high-speed rail.

“It is believed that the ensuing lobby was a major factor in the lack of support for follow-up action on HSR (high-speed rail) proposals.”

The report also generally faults the “Canadian bureaucracy, suspicious of demand and revenue forecasts” for allowing high-speed rail proposals to wither on the vine.

A spokesman for Via Rail said the report was ordered by the board because many of them are new to the job and want to be briefed on issues facing the Crown corporation.

“Via’s board of directors is to a large degree newly constituted and has, quite naturally, been going through the process of familiarizing themselves with Via’s history, current performance and prospects,” said Malcolm Andrews, head of corporate communications.

He cautioned that Gravelle’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of the corporation, and “any opinions expressed therein are his own.”

Last week, the federal government announced it would spend $692 million on Via Rail over five years to help rebuild crumbling infrastructure. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the new money would, among other things, help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by getting people out of their cars.

The corporation receives about $170 million each year to subsidize the travel of its 4.1 million passengers.

The announcement at Toronto’s Union Station last Thursday drew immediate fire from the Canadian Airports Council, which said the rail sector should not be getting subsidies while the airline industry struggles with high costs and taxation.

“Canada’s 100 million air travellers a year will pay nearly $300 million in rent this year while the government pours nearly $700 million to benefit Via Rail’s 4.1 million passengers,” said council president Jim Facette.

“This is a double standard that clearly must end.”

The UMA report on high-speed rail is among the first internal documents released by Via Rail since the Crown corporation became subject to the Access to Information Act on Sept. 1.

[lrt's friend]

I spoke to someone yesterday, a railway enthusiast, who stated that the rail line to Kemptville is to be reactivated. This was supposedly new, not old news. But then he mentioned Moose, and I looked at him with bewilderment. Has anybody heard any new developments? Of course, I believe this is all nonsense but nevertheless, if there are new developments we should know about them, if only ridicule it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I spoke to someone yesterday, a railway enthusiast, who stated that the rail line to Kemptville is to be reactivated. This was supposedly new, not old news. But then he mentioned Moose, and I looked at him with bewilderment. Has anybody heard any new developments? Of course, I believe this is all nonsense but nevertheless, if there are new developments we should know about them, if only ridicule it.

Moose's graphic has recently made a round on some local transit Twitter accounts. Kind of a, "Imagine we had this...." vibe. People who glance at it, might not realize that it's not a real proposal.

And thankfully there are replies to those tweets pointing out how ridiculous it is to build rail transit to Navan before Vanier and what such ideas would do to suburban sprawl.