The Economic Feasibility of (Re-)Introducing Tram-Trains in Canada: Okanagan Valley Electric Regional Passenger Rail

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that this paper is a logical continuation of the previous paper of the same authors "Technical Feasibility of a Hydrail Tram–Train in NA: Okanagan Valley Electric Regional Passenger Rail (OVER PR)", which was already published in Sustainability and that it is essential to present this important project that is significant for Canada, in which nearly a decade of research has been invested, and which is very interesting for readers.

1. The overall impression of the manuscript is good. It is well-structured and more or less easily readable.
2. Page 1 (Abstract) Add the abbreviation British Columbia (B.C.) which is often used in the paper.

3.      Page 1 (Abstract) Add the abbreviation Return on Investments (IRR) where it is used for the first time.

4.      Page 1 (Abstract) Replace Hwy 97 with Highway 97 (this abbreviation is used only in this place).

5.      Page 3 (line 78) Explain the abbreviation HOV lane (A high-occupancy vehicle lane)

6.      Page 5 (Figure 2a) Delete the title "Daily passenger ridership" from the diagram (unnecessary).

7.      Page 5 (Figure 2b) The names of the axes, as well as the markings of the axes, are not clear (they are not black in color). Why doesn't it say Number of Vehicles on the y-axis. No legend explanation (AADT/SADT).

8.      Page 7 (line 233) “(aka street cars in North America)”  Not clear.

9.      Page 7 (line 245) Explain the abbreviation NA (North America).

10.  Page 19 (Figure 4) Thousands are shown differently in Figures 2b and 5 (K / 000). Choose one display mode.

11.  Page 19 (Figure 5) The axis labels are unclear due to the small font size and the x-axis display mode is very difficult to follow.

12.  References. I think 16. should be replaced with  tramtrain.org/en/index.html

13. Check if there is a reference to references [66] in the text of the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Economic Feasibility of (Re-)Introducing tram-trains in 2 Canada: Okanagan Valley Electric Regional Passenger Rail. 

Review

Abstract:

·                  Consider adding a space between "weather" and "damage" on line 11 for consistency.

·                  On line 12, consider rephrasing "Surveys suggest residents would switch from cars to public transit if service levels and connections were improved" to be more concise, such as "Surveys indicate a willingness among residents to switch from cars to public transit with better service levels and connections."

·                  On line 14, it might be clearer to specify that the analysis was conducted on the feasibility of the Okanagan Valley Electric Regional Passenger Train (OVER PR) rather than simply saying "analyzed."

·                  Consider using consistent punctuation for units of measurement throughout the summary. For example, on line 15, you used "kilometer" but then used "B.C." instead of "BC."

·                  On line 19, consider adding a comma after "NPV" for clarity.

·                  On line 20, consider using "9:1" instead of "9/1" for the benefit-cost ratio.

·                  Consider rephrasing "Pending further stakeholder consultations and final designs" on line 21 for clarity, as "Subject to additional stakeholder consultations and final design reviews."

·                  On line 22, consider specifying the risks they were tested against using Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) and Reference Class Prediction (RCF).

·                  Consider rephrasing the final sentence of Line 23 to improve clarity and fluidity, such as "OVER PR promises an economic transition to clean energy, sustainable transportation, and more livable communities, benefiting all Valley communities through greater transportation equity."

Introduction

·                  In line 30, consider adding a comma after "greenhouse gas" for clarity: "... one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, second only to Canada’s carbon-based energy sector ..."

·                  In line 35, "Figure 1 lays out one such proposal that has been studied" could be rephrased for clarity, such as "Figure 1 illustrates a proposed route that has been studied ..."

·                  In lines 42-44, you mentioned the various sizes of cities in the Okanagan Valley. You could consider restructuring the sentence to make it clearer. For example: "... containing 13 cities ranging in size from a few thousand residents (such as Osoyoos at the US border) to over 150,000 residents in its economic center, Kelowna."

·                  In lines 51-52, you mentioned the high number of crash locations on Highway 97. Consider adding some context or explanation as to why these crash locations are significant, such as their impact on transportation or safety concerns.

·                  In lines 58-59, you could specify what traditional auto-oriented solutions were considered and why they were deemed ineffective and cost-prohibitive. This would provide more context for the recommendation of high-capacity, high-quality transit improvements.

·                  In line 64, consider adding a comma after "safety" for clarity: "... significantly enhance transport equity, safety, and congestion, while also providing ..."

·                  In lines 87-88, consider rephrasing for clarity, such as: "This analysis is being conducted at a strategic level before any approved budgets for more detailed planning and design studies ..."

·                  In lines 96-98, consider breaking down the bullet points into a clearer format for easier readability.

·                  Overall, your text effectively presents the proposal and its potential benefits, but these suggestions aim to enhance clarity and readability further.

1Ridership Analysis

Your text is well-written and provides detailed information on the target markets and ridership forecast methods for the proposed Okanagan Valley Electric Regional Passenger Rail (OVER PR) project. Here are some suggestions for refinement:

·        In line 110, consider restructuring the sentence for clarity: "The largest OVER PR target markets involve tourists and commuters."

·        In lines 114-115, consider rephrasing for clarity: "As observed in other leading tourism regions, many visitors prefer rail transit due to its affordability, convenience, and reliability."

·        In lines 124-125, consider clarifying the reference to destinations north and south of Kelowna: "... half of all YLW travelers come from or are destined for destinations such as Big White Ski Resort, Penticton, Vernon, and Kamloops ..."

·        In lines 128-129, consider breaking down the information into smaller, clearer sentences for easier readability.

·        In lines 134-135, consider providing a brief explanation of what a "spine-and-rib transit service model" entails for readers who may not be familiar with the term.

·        In lines 144-145, consider breaking down the information into smaller, clearer sentences for easier readability.

·        In lines 154-155, consider rephrasing for clarity: "Another potential market for ridership involves community resilience, particularly in emergency evacuations and re-housing during natural disasters such as wildfires and floods."

·        In lines 166-167, consider clarifying how OVER PR might improve equity and access to health services for seniors, youth, and those in remote communities.

·        In lines 172-173, consider clarifying the reference to the federal Truth & Reconciliation Commission 94 Calls to Action for readers who may not be familiar with it.

·        Consider adding subheadings for clarity and organization, such as "2.1 Target Markets" and "2.1.1 Tourism & Commuting Context."

1.2   Ridership Estimation

The section on ridership estimation lacks clarity and thorough explanation. The author fails to adequately justify their approach and assumptions, leaving readers questioning the validity and reliability of the forecasted ridership figures.

Firstly, the author presents ridership forecasts from Boozarjomehri without sufficiently explaining the methodology behind these forecasts. The reliance on these forecasts is not adequately justified, and there is a lack of transparency regarding the data sources and modeling techniques used by Boozarjomehri. This lack of detail undermines the credibility of the ridership estimates.

Additionally, the author mentions the creation of a passenger demand origin-destination table without providing sufficient information on how this table was developed or validated. The lack of clarity regarding the input data and modeling techniques used to create this table raises doubts about the accuracy of the forecasts derived from it.

Furthermore, the discussion on latent demand and mode shift is vague and lacks specificity. The author mentions resident surveys calling for improved transit and latent demand for transit without providing concrete evidence or data from these surveys. This lack of empirical support weakens the argument for potential mode shifts and undermines the credibility of the ridership forecasts.

Overall, the section on ridership estimation requires significant improvement in terms of clarity, transparency, and justification of assumptions. Without these enhancements, the reliability and validity of the ridership forecasts remain questionable, casting doubt on the feasibility and viability of the proposed project.

Line 221-338 3.0 Costs 220-3.2 Operating Costs (OPEX)

The section on project costs lacks depth and fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial implications of the OVER PR project. The analysis presented here lacks thoroughness and detailed explanation, which undermines its credibility and usefulness in evaluating the feasibility of the project.

Firstly, the estimation of costs for various project components lacks clarity regarding the methodology used and the rationale behind the chosen values. While it is mentioned that input values were based on peer-reviewed sources and vetted by industry experts, the specific sources and the process of vetting are not transparently presented. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the reliability of the cost estimates.

Moreover, the discussion on track infrastructure costs relies heavily on European tram-train track installation estimates without adequately justifying why these estimates apply to the North American context. The assumption that costs would be similar across different regions without proper justification undermines the validity of the cost estimation process.

Furthermore, the section on operating costs briefly summarizes OPEX without providing detailed explanations or breakdowns of the various cost components. This lack of granularity makes it difficult to assess the accuracy and completeness of the OPEX estimates.

Overall, the section on project costs lacks the necessary depth and clarity to provide a robust analysis of the financial aspects of the OVER PR project. Without a more thorough explanation of the methodology, sources, and assumptions underlying the cost estimates, it is challenging to determine the reliability and validity of the financial projections presented.

4.1.2 Station Area Redevelopment – net revenues from housing sales:

·        Instead of "Conservatively, assuming a 10% (min 5% / max 15%) return on capital investments," it could be clearer to state that a conservative 10% return on capital investments is assumed, with a minimum range of 5% and a maximum of 15%.

·        "this analysis suggested home sale revenues in the range of 1.10 (min 1.05 / max 1.15) times their construction cost" could be rewritten for clarity, for example: "this analysis suggests that home sale revenues could range from 1.05 to 1.15 times their construction cost, with an expected value of 1.10."

4.2.1        Fares:

It would be helpful to add a brief explanation of how the value of $0.20/pass-km was reached, for example, by mentioning if any market analysis was conducted or if similar transportation fares were compared.

·        4.2.2 Concession, Couriers & Advertising Revenues:

It could be beneficial to explain briefly how the 5% was determined as a percentage of fare revenues, to provide more context to the reader.

4.3.1 Station Office Rentals:

   - It would be useful to clarify if the 75% occupancy rate is based on historical data or future projections, for greater transparency.

4.3.2 Carbon Tax Savings:

   - It would be helpful to briefly explain how the carbon tax savings were calculated and provide a justification for the value used of $CDN 50/tCO2e.

4.3.3 Safety:

   - Adding a brief explanation of how the expected value of $645 million annually for safety benefits was calculated would be beneficial, for example, mentioning if the costs associated with traffic accidents were considered.

4.3.4 Tourism:

   - It would be useful to provide more details on how the expected 15% increase in tourism economic output due to OVER PR was estimated, for example, if comparisons were made with similar transit services in other regions.

The "Results & Discussion" section presents a detailed economic feasibility analysis of the OVER PR project. While the analysis appears comprehensive, there are several critical points worth addressing:

·        Lack of Transparency and Detailed Explanation:

The section lacks transparency and detailed explanation in certain areas, particularly regarding how some key figures and estimates were derived. For instance, the process of arriving at the construction cost estimate of $3 billion and the operating costs of $164 million annually needs to be elucidated further. Without clear justification and methodology, readers may find it challenging to trust the validity of these figures.

·        Overreliance on Assumptions:

The analysis heavily relies on assumptions, such as future ridership projections, revenue streams from fares, concessions, and advertising, and the proportion of direct, indirect, and external benefits. However, it fails to adequately justify these assumptions or provide evidence supporting their validity. Overreliance on assumptions without robust empirical evidence undermines the credibility of the analysis.

·        Risk Assessment and Mitigation:

While the risk analysis is commendable, it appears somewhat superficial. The discussion of strategic, operational, implementation, and market risks lacks depth and specificity. Moreover, while mitigation strategies are mentioned, they are not thoroughly elaborated upon, leaving readers questioning the project's readiness to address potential challenges.

·        Lack of Stakeholder Engagement:

The analysis does not sufficiently address the importance of stakeholder engagement in the project. Comprehensive stakeholder involvement, including local communities, government agencies, and regulatory bodies, is critical for the success of large-scale infrastructure projects. The absence of a detailed stakeholder engagement plan raises concerns about the project's social and political acceptability.

·        Clarity and Presentation:

The section could benefit from improved clarity and organization. Some paragraphs contain dense technical information that may be challenging for readers to digest. Breaking down complex concepts into more digestible segments and providing clear transitions between topics would enhance readability and comprehension.

·        In summary, while the "Results & Discussion" section provides valuable insights into the economic feasibility of the OVER PR project, it suffers from issues related to transparency, reliance on assumptions, superficial risk assessment, lack of stakeholder engagement, and clarity of presentation. Addressing these shortcomings is crucial to strengthen the credibility and persuasiveness of the analysis.

6.1 Summary 765-849

Clarity and Conciseness: Consider breaking down some of the longer sentences into shorter, more concise ones for better readability. This will help the reader grasp the information more easily.

·        Consistency in Terminology: Ensure consistency in terminology throughout the document. For example, you've referred to the project as "OVER PR" in some places and "OVER PR proposal" in others. Choose one term and stick with it for clarity.

·        Precision in Data Presentation: Provide more context or explanation for certain figures and data points, especially when presenting results. For instance, when discussing the NPV, BCR, IRR, and payback period, briefly explain what each metric represents for readers who may not be familiar with financial terminology.

·        Logical Flow: Review the organization of the information to ensure a logical flow from one point to the next. Each subsection should smoothly transition to the next, guiding the reader through the analysis and recommendations.

·        Visual Aids: Consider incorporating visual aids such as charts, graphs, or tables to illustrate key points and make complex data more accessible to the reader. Visual elements can enhance understanding and retention of the information presented.

·        Language Precision: Ensure precision in language usage, especially when discussing technical concepts or methodologies. Avoid ambiguity or vague language that could lead to misinterpretation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Instead of "This paper provides an overview," you could say "This paper presents an overview," which is a bit more concise.

2. Instead of "placing strain on Highway 97," you might consider "exerting pressure on Highway 97," which adds a different nuance to the sentence.

3. "Improving public transit and regional connections" could be rephrased as "enhancing public transit and regional connectivity" for a slightly more formal tone.

4. Instead of "paralleling Highway 97," you could say "running parallel to Highway 97," which is a clearer expression.

5. "This proposal is inspired by the successful Karlsruhe model in rural Germany and the EU" could be revised to "This proposal draws inspiration from the successful Karlsruhe model in rural Germany and the EU," which is a smoother transition.

6. "Integration with other transportation modes at station hubs would improve connections and boost local bus services" could be changed to "Integrating with other transportation modes at station hubs would enhance connectivity and bolster local bus services" for a more dynamic phrasing.

7. Instead of "Previous research has confirmed the technical feasibility of the hydrail passenger tram-trains," you could say "Prior studies have validated the technical feasibility of the hydrail passenger tram-trains" for a slightly different wording.

8. Instead of "The analysis, vetted by industry experts, suggests significant economic feasibility for OVER PR," you might say "The analysis, reviewed by industry experts, indicates substantial economic viability for OVER PR," which adds a bit more certainty to the statement.

9. "Results indicate significant economic feasibility for OVER PR" could be revised to "Results suggest significant economic feasibility for OVER PR" for a more cautious tone.

10. Finally, instead of "The proportional breakdown of capital and operating costs over the project's 30-year lifecycle is provided in Figure 6," you could say "Figure 6 provides the proportional breakdown of capital and operating costs over the project's 30-year lifecycle," which is a clearer structure.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf