OCCheetos
Active Member
I think you're missing my point which is that MOOSE's current documents are incomplete, therefore you're jumping to conclusions by assuming that they implicate anything for the Trillium Line.
|
|
|
As I've mentioned numerous times before, the hourly frequencies mentioned in their papers refer to the rural sections of their line. They only mention those frequencies since that is the major component of their proposal.Again, the contradiction on the frequency levels between what they have online and what they said in this thread is startling. I remain concerned.
I don't disagree with that. If you, or anyone else wants to make assumptions and form personal opinions and beliefs based on available information, then there's obviously nothing wrong with that. My issue is that those assumptions are now being treated as indisputable facts.
As I've mentioned numerous times before, the hourly frequencies mentioned in their papers refer to the rural sections of their line. They only mention those frequencies since that is the major component of their proposal.
I've read all of the quotes. They were each brought up at least once on the other forum in the past.I really think this post by Charles post helpful and encourage all to read it: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-36#post-1309239
What does Moose consider on their map the "rural" sections? Can you point that out to me? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there is no such labelling by them.
What's in the rural section and what's in the urban section?
Further, take a look at how often they mention this phrase: "hourly service every day, through Ottawa and Gatineau" (emphasis added). What else could they be referring to other than the Trillium Line as the connection to enable "through Ottawa and Gatineau"? Isn't that the entire reason why they want the City to give them the bridge?
MOOSE would work to achieve 5-minute service on the Trillium Line. Of course double-tracking.
In your Letter of Application to CTA of 29 Jun 16 you claim that MOOSE will operate a 400km (para 20) network over 3 lines (Annex F). There will be approximately 50 stations (para 20). You indicate that you will use 6 trains to do that. (Annex J, para 3b) and that you will provide hourly service (page 6 of update 25 Nov 16).
To do that you would need each train to complete its run from end to end of each line in under an hour, give some time to conduct your “pit stop program” at the end of each line (Annex J, para 4.2), and then head out again in the opposite direction.
This is obviously impossible. Some simple math:
Assuming each line is 130km long.
Assume 15 stops per line and each stop reduces travel time by 2 minutes due to deceleration, offloading/onloading passengers, and acceleration. Total time lost at stations = 30 min.
To get from one end of the line to another in an hour would require the train to travel over 300km/hr. (60 min/hr -15x2 min/stop – 5min pitstop)=35min leaving 25min or 0.416 hours for travel. 130km/0.416hr = 312km/hr.
A more likely scenario is about a 3 hr turn around. This would give you a much more comfortable 3 minutes loss per station (45 min total), a 15 minute pit stop at each end, and 2 hours to travel 130km equating to an average of 65km/hr (remember we’re dealing with passing tracks, bridges, etc). In my mind that means you would require at least 18 trains and would probably need another 2 or 3 for ongoing maintenance issues.
So, no passenger operations via the Prince of Wales bridge since 1920?Some interesting points here in the other forum by acottawa:
[1. The Bridge has not appear to have been used for passenger services in 98 years (when Union Station opened downtown). It has not been used for freight services for a long time.]
Little sanity check for whatever you try to read out of these numbers: VIA Rail's Annual Report 2016 shows an annual operating cost of $106.7 million for its Canadian - a service which operates with 3-4 trainsets year-round over a distance of 4466 km with up to 30 cars and a crew staffing multiple sleeping cars and kitchens. $2.5 billion is more than 4 times VIA Rail's total operating budget ($591.9 million) and almost half of what Amtrak's national network costs to operate (US$4322.6 in 2015)...FUN WITH FIGURES:
$2.5 Billion dollars in annual operating costs comes out to approximately $2000 for every person in the NCR. Yet MOOSE proposes to get that funding by extracting it in 'voluntary' payments from the property owners/landlords (thus involuntarily tenants) within an 800m radius of each station.
- Current MOOSE financial estimates: $500 Million to operate 6 trains over a 400km network on an annual basis. That will provide service approximately once every three hours as per our previous discussions.
- To provide hourly service as MOOSE has indicated in their plans (contradicting their financial estimates) will take at least 18 trains. Using a linear extrapolation for three times as many trains brings us to $1.5 BILLION dollars annually.
- To provide hourly service to the rural towns and 5 minute service inside the core Ottawa-Gatineau corridor (can't discriminate against Quebec and only have 5 minute service in Ottawa) we would need approximately 30 trainsets. Once again using a linear extrapolation of costs we get to $2.5 BILLION dollars in annual operating costs.
Is there anyone here who honestly thinks that you can harvest $2.5 Billion dollars a year from property values around stations???
Little sanity check for whatever you try to read out of these numbers:.
Some people in this forum don't seem willing to even try to understand the difference between "can't" and "don't feel compelled to, at least not at this exact time": Just because I'm not willing to share with you my medical records, tax declarations and Social Insurance Number, this does not mean that I don't have this information already available and that I'm unable to share with you in an instant should I ever feel compelled by either the law or by the strength of your arguments that doing so is in the interest of myself and of my personal stakeholders...They put out all sorts of claims but can't back them up.
Some people in this forum don't seem willing to even try to understand the difference between "can't" and "don't feel compelled to, at least not at this exact time":
Yes, but you are now making a completely different argument (one about timelines, rather than costs) than the one I was responding to...Perhaps I should have said that they make claims that they can't (or fail to) live up to.
Regardless of whether they have already the results of any feasibility study or not, it would investigate the economic, financial and technical feasibility, not the political feasibility of any of the claims you listed.Perhaps if they got that feasibility study they keep talking about completed they might be able to make more realistic claims.
If nobody was investing any money into MOOSE, @Joseph Potvin would be looking for a new job and not bother defending his project against you. They clearly don't have the funding to proceed to the construction phase, but they wouldn't be able to spend it anyway at this point, since they are still busy with engineering the political and legal prerequisites for their project...But of course, that means someone needs to invest some money and that is yet to happen.