Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

So, you're not wrong Truenorth00, but you're clearly sub-optimizing from the perspective of the National Capital Region. We acknowledge that's a legitimate perspective to take. We do, however, ask that you (and others in your camp) consider a whole-region perspective as also legitimate.

There is no political entity of National Capital Region and the National Capital Commission has no mandate/funding to provide for regional transportation (and most of the Moose stations are outside the National Capital Region anyway). Lots of things are not optimized for entities that don't exist. You're expecting to disrupt the transit services of people who live, pay taxes and vote in Ottawa to benefit people who do not live, pay taxes or vote in Ottawa. That is not a decision most sensible politicians would make.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

MOOSE would reduce the number of cars per day in downtown Ottawa by about 25,000.

Does that assume existing rural and exurban commuters would relocate to high density moose communities?

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is no political entity of National Capital Region

See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/

Originally Posted by acottawa

and the National Capital Commission has no mandate ...to provide for regional transportation

See:
http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/en/GE...P-AC%2C+ou%3DNCC-CCN%2C+o%3DGC%2C+c%3DCA
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/page-3.html#docCont

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not a decision most sensible politicians would make

Federal, provincial and city politicians are elected locally, true. City staff are employed for the whole city. Provincial staff work for the whole province. Federal staff work for the whole country, and amongst them, NCC personnel work for the entire NCR "for the general advantage of Canada" (i.e. under Section 92(10)(c) of Canada's Constitution. Given that City of Ottawa transit is largely funded from the provincial and federal levels, and that the NCR is, after all, "Canada's Capital", a wider perspective may therefore also be considered "sensible". But oppose it if you wish.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Does that assume existing rural and exurban commuters would relocate to high density moose communities?

No. (e.g. From the general direction of Smiths Falls alone, there's currently 45,000 cars a day commuting to and from downtown Ottawa.)

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

[lrt's friend]

We have to agree that the Trillium Line project is not compatible with the Moose project. How is this to work?

Is Moose going to force the city to not proceed with Trillium Line Phase 2?

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

OC-Transpo execs told us that passengers transferring to their system from MOOSE trains would get the same arrangement as is already provided to riders of the private out-of-town bus services: no charge. The rationale is that such services are benefitting Ottawa by reducing the number of cars filling Ottawa streets and parking lots.

Did they verbally tell you that or do you have it in writing? Is it public?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

OC-Transpo execs told us that passengers transferring to their system from MOOSE trains would get the same arrangement as is already provided to riders of the private out-of-town bus services: no charge. The rationale is that such services are benefitting Ottawa by reducing the number of cars filling Ottawa streets and parking lots.

It's not free for the exurban commuter buses.. the interchange agreement charges an $8 a month addon for those users. And the reason why is because very few of those users actually transfer onto OC buses at all.. most just walk to their work from the downtown drop off points on these bus routes. IIRC, they made the charge $8 in the first place because some years ago they calculated that around 10% of riders will do the transfer and at the time the cost of a monthly OC pass was around $80. They haven't indexed it as the monthly pass has gone up, true, but... the Moose model would expect nearly all passengers to transfer onto OC Transpo services, so the math completely falls apart there.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think their idea is to use the same Bombardier bi-levels used by GO. (Judging by their renders on their website)

Seems like a poor choice to me. The Bombardier bi-levels are good for long (6 or more cars) commuter rail trains in large cities, but for short trains (fewer than 6 cars), DMUs make more sense. Now they could have one (or two) DMUs pull up to two (or four) bi-levels coaches, but unless they have a source of used cars, they could probably bundle un-powered bi-levels from the same manufacturer as the DMU.

DMU's have the following advantages over a conventional train:

• Quieter,
• More Fuel efficent,
• Better acceleration,
• Lower maintenance costs (maintaining a locomotive also maintains a coach)

Having said that, the US Railcar Bi-level DMUs are as ugly as all get-out.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

No. (e.g. From the general direction of Smiths Falls alone, there's currently 45,000 cars a day commuting to and from downtown Ottawa.)

You know that traffic counts on provincial highways are available online, right?

http://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/TrafficVolumes.nsf/tvweb

Highway 15 North of Smiths Falls has 7, 800 cars per day, so there is no possible way 45,000 cars a day could be arriving in downtown Ottawa from the direction of Smiths Falls.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/

See:
http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/en/GE...P-AC%2C+ou%3DNCC-CCN%2C+o%3DGC%2C+c%3DCA
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/page-3.html#docCont

None of those links identify a transportation mandate for the National Capital Commission.

The objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.

I fail to see how trying to encourage people to commute form much longer distances enhances this mandate.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Federal, provincial and city politicians are elected locally, true. City staff are employed for the whole city. Provincial staff work for the whole province. Federal staff work for the whole country, and amongst them, NCC personnel work for the entire NCR "for the general advantage of Canada" (i.e. under Section 92(10)(c) of Canada's Constitution. Given that City of Ottawa transit is largely funded from the provincial and federal levels, and that the NCR is, after all, "Canada's Capital", a wider perspective may therefore also be considered "sensible". But oppose it if you wish.

[QUOTE=Joseph Potvin;7939585]

I don't think I have seen anything in your proposals that a competent public servant would consider "sensible". Your objective is to encourage tens of thousands of people who work in the National Capital Region to relocate outside of the National Capital region for the purposes of increasing property values to fund a train service.

• NCC officials would have difficulty explaining to the board how depopulating the National Capital Region advances any of the NCC's mandates.
• Provincial officials would have a hard time explaining to cabinet why massively increasing sprawl when there is no shortage of develop-able land in the existing urban areas is advantageous to the province.
• City of Ottawa officials would have a hard time explaining to council how sprawl and depopulation are good things for the city of Ottawa.

This proposal is primarily for the benefit of existing rural landowners, who would prefer to be sitting on development land rather than agricultural land. It is a mostly free country and you're free to undertake any legal activities to promote your business, but if your business model depends on public servants determining there is a general public good associated with your business than you might be in trouble.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Highway 15 North of Smiths Falls has 7, 800 cars per day, so there is no possible way 45,000 cars a day could be arriving in downtown Ottawa from the direction of Smiths Falls.

And most of those are travelling to Carleton Place or Kanata not downtown. Few who work downtown would choose to live that far out of town (at least in Ottawa).

I suspect he is including Barrhaven in his numbers as that is in the "same direction" and on the same line, just not as far.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

OC-Transpo execs told us that passengers transferring to their system from MOOSE trains would get the same arrangement as is already provided to riders of the private out-of-town bus services: no charge. The rationale is that such services are benefitting Ottawa by reducing the number of cars filling Ottawa streets and parking lots.

MOOSE would reduce the number of cars per day in downtown Ottawa by about 25,000.

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

The most efficient method to take 25,000 cars off of downtown's streets would be to move 25,000 people downtown.

[lrt's friend]

I expect that the majority of exurban residents destined for downtown Ottawa are already using transit, by using park n ride lots.

It is unlikely 25,000 exurban residents will be the ones that move to downtown Ottawa. Most exurban residents choose to live there for the lifestyle, or because of family or family members having jobs there.

[Allandale25]

I can't recall where Joseph made this comment but it was fairly recently on this board:

---Quote (Originally by Joseph Potvin)---
Not at all. We're just confident that professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa, and the taxpayers of Ottawa (and of Canada), will see a straightforward way to improve overall transit system performance with high-capacity trains on that line.
---End Quote---

The professional transportation planning staff of the City of Ottawa already have a Council-direction to implement Phase 2 of the City's transit plan, including the corridor you want to use. What do you expect to happen between now and the municipal election in October 2018 when in theory, a new Council could direct staff to do something differently? Are you counting on the CTA ruling in your favour, thereby prompting City staff to write a report to Council recommending they change course? Or, if you loose at the CTA, will your group get politically active in the provincial and municipal elections and try to get candidates elected who will support your plan and direct City staff to follow a different course of action than they are now?

I just don't get the part where you are confident that City staff will not follow what Council has told them to follow. Clearly, you may know of a few sympathetic staff members at City staff, but how powerful are they ultimately? Even Jennifer Keesmaat in Toronto couldn't stop the Scarborough Subway either before or after Council voted. What makes you think Ottawa staff will be able to do more to support the Moose Proposal compared to the role of staff in Toronto in its transit debates?

[Joseph Potvin]

It appears that the trajectory of interaction in this discussion thread has narrowed to a few people defending the following uncompromising positions:

1. Against urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is impossible
3. Against novel developments in transit finance

Moose Consortium Inc. and related companies are:
1. For urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is possible
3. Pursuing a novel development in transit finance

Did I miss anything crucial?

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

It appears that the trajectory of interaction in this discussion thread has narrowed to a few people defending the following uncompromising positions:

1. Against urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is impossible
3. Against novel developments in transit finance

Moose Consortium Inc. and related companies are:
1. For urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is possible
3. Pursuing a novel development in transit finance

Did I miss anything crucial?

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

You might add

4. Doubtful high density rural living is going to attract the tens of thousands of people necessary for the finance scheme to work.

I would also change 3. to "doubtful of the viability of the proposed financing scheme, particularly in a region with relatively low housing prices and few geographic constraints"(i.e. it ain't Hong Kong). And for 1. I would add "to the detriment of existing residents and transit users"

But otherwise I think it is a good summary.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

1. Against urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone is against inter-provincial transit integration. What they are against is accelerating urban sprawl.

If Moose's plan was to improve service for everyone, it wouldn't be so bad. But it isn't. By your own addition, it will not provide good service for any existing residences, only new developments that partner with Moose and the only way to find enough new land to support a station is to accelerate sprawl.

2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is impossible

Impossible? No. The question is why would the City of Ottawa change a plan that is beneficial for its residents (voters) for one that is detrimental to its current residents (voters) and only beneficial for new residents (voters) and residents of other municipalities (non voters)?

To look at it another way. If a company wanted to open up a private hospital without any pubic money, it would be hard to object to (though some no doubt would). But if they said, we want to take over the Ottawa Hospital and tell everyone we will provide the same service but, the driveway and parking is only for our special private members and if you aren't one of them, you must park 2 miles away and walk from there, that would not go over so well.

3. Against novel developments in transit finance

Against? No. Skeptical of its viability? Yes.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

It appears that the trajectory of interaction in this discussion thread has narrowed to a few people defending the following uncompromising positions:

1. Against urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is impossible
3. Against novel developments in transit finance

Moose Consortium Inc. and related companies are:
1. For urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR
2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is possible
3. Pursuing a novel development in transit finance

Did I miss anything crucial?

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

You have an amazing ability to mischaracterize other people's posts. So I'll break it down one by one.

"1. Against urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR"

Not against. In favour of a realistic plan and specific details.

"2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty [sic] of Ottawa's current plans is impossible"

Statement meant to distract. Will a member of City Council bring forward the Moose Proposal to be debated on by Council? Will there be public meetings and deputations? A City staff report? You know, the usual process for how any other decision is made? If the democratically-elected City Council decides to alter their own approved plans, as has been the case in other municipalities, they have that ability. Have they made any moves to do that yet? As best I can tell, no, they haven't. Does anyone here predict they will before the next municipal election? Is someone anticipating a swell of municipal candidates to replace the current Council members who will be in favour of the Moose proposal?

"3. Against novel developments in transit finance"

Novel? How did Mayor Tory's novel idea to fund Smart Track from the private sector work out? Transit in North America requires a public subsidy for operations. Ontario, through Infrastructure Ontario, already uses Alternative Procurement Financing (AFP), where the private sector takes on some financial risk and in some cases is the operator. The operations still require a subsidy because none of the transit lines make money, and why should they? It's a public service.

If the novel approach was really going to work, why hasn't it already been implemented in other jurisdictions? Why hasn't a single member of Ottawa City Council had the courage or will to move a motion to support the novel approach? Why haven't the provincial or federal governments agreed to it? Instead, they've agreed to fund what the City wants and through a model they've used for other Ontario and Canadian cities.

Go ahead. Be my guest. Have all the novel approaches you want. At the end of the day it still requires some level of political support or vote, and that hasn't been the case yet. But maybe this will become a 2018 municipal issue and Moose will registered as a third party to try and influence voters to support their idea.

"Moose Consortium Inc. and related companies are:
1. For urban-rural and interprovincial transit integration in the GNCR"

The private sector lobbies for things all the time. This is no different than any other industry, industry lobby group, or group of businesses that want something. It's not new or surprising.

"2. Regional transit system design that would require alteration in the CIty of Ottawa's current plans is possible"

Of course it's possible to change a transit plan. Brampton, Hamilton, Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa itself. They've all done it. No one is saying it can't legally or procedurally be done. The question is, should it be done? Is the alternative better? How do voters and transit riders get a say?

"3. Pursuing a novel development in transit finance"

Go for it. Lots of people pursue lots of great ideas. The key question is what the public sector, public dollars, public assets are being asked to do in return for this "novel development". That is still not clear.

--

On a separate note, still no CTA ruling yet it looks like. Yet planning, design, and the timing of when the RFP will be issued for Phase 2 continues on.

[1overcosc]

The model has been used in other places, but it requires jurisdictions with very high land costs in order to work.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The model has been used in other places, but it requires jurisdictions with very high land costs in order to work.

It's also a model often used by state owned entities or those highly tied to government. They all received significant land ownerships as state entities and then privatized after. This would be like giving OC Transpo significant ownership of land around the LRT stations. And then privatizing it after the LRT is finished. At that point, I suspect the privatized entity would do really well.

Maybe Mr. Potvin can provide an example of PPR that's:

1) In a location where urban and regional densities are on par with Ottawa.
2) Was never state owned or supported.
3) Actually built a transit system from scratch.

I can't think of one. But maybe Mr. Potvin has an example in his research.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Did I miss anything crucial?

The entire purpose of public transit....

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The entire purpose of public transit....

Let's pick that up for discussion.

The design intent of the PPR is to get public interest benefits, and revenue generation, pointed in the same direction. The conventional model for financing transit, using taxation and passenger fares, always has the tax-paying/fare-paying public pulling in the opposite direction from need to generate revenue for public transit operations. The result is that public transit is typically under-funded in the conventional model.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the PPR white paper, with the target segments in bold:

For transit stakeholders, PPR describes a self-financing development strategy for metropolitan-scale passenger railway systems and extensions, with zero dependence upon public debt or taxes. Public interest benefits, including low fares, excellent service, and environmental advantages are positive externalities relative to the business of optimizing real property value. In this context, PPR describes a functional incentive structure for private-sector financing of metropolitan rail systems under one or more of the following circumstances:

• Persistent fiscal constraints impeding public-sector development of essential services;
• Economic culture favouring open competitive commercial development of essential services;
• Fragmentation of a metropolitan region into numerous jurisdictions and layers of authority.

...
2.2 Public Interest as External Emergent Effects
2.2.1 Private Interest and Public Interest
Any plan for private commercial development of essential services brings forward to public discussion the inevitable tension between private- interest optimization and public-interest optimization. Many stakeholders take a principled stance against “important transportation assets being operated primarily to boost private profit rather than best advance public needs”. And also on strategic grounds, many parties prioritizing the general public interest will understandably take steps to prevent “the ability of private-sector actors to hold projects hostage and demand increased subsidies or other concessions from government”

In this framework, complex public-interest outcomes that derive from the PPR are emergent positive externalities relative to the simple business purpose of increasing property earnings through attractive privately-owned public spaces. In the whole-region scenario of a PPR development, the cumulative set of narrow purposes directed to enhancing the income and asset values of the properties adjacent to each autonomous station resolve into a bottom-up approach to applied regional transportation economics
...
Its method of revenue collection is innovative but relatively straightforward: marginal increases to property value are captured through an algorithm in the voluntary consortium agreement managed by the station investors themselves. Public interest protection is inherent within the business systems architecture itself, and is not merely dependent upon brittle contractual and political promises.
This PPR remains to be validated in a tangible metropolitan railway project. Nevertheless, it's essential logic is straightforward.

The point here is that Truenorth00's comment is correct, but we don't inadvertently neglect the purpose of public transit. Rather the PPR represents a deliberate turning of the purpose of public transit on its head. The PPR is designed as the rationale for a real property value optimization project, and the method to achieve this purpose is to run excellent and affordable public transit amongst about 50 localities. Anyone who ignores the part about the positive external effects makes the same mistake as those who ignore negative externalities in their views of development. Pollution and resource waste are important. Affordable and safe transit are important.

In the PPR approach, the owners/developers involved in stations never have a reason to underfund the rail system, since it is precisely what generates the increment over base value which they share in.

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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

In the PPR approach, the owners/developers involved in stations never have a reason to underfund the rail system, since it is precisely what generates the increment over base value which they share in.

Except that their funding is completely dependent on whatever the house purchase contract provides for (you had earlier mentioned 50% of the property value increase payable when the property is sold and and a share of rent attributable to the Moose service) plus maybe some ancillary revenue. That is a fixed amount, unlike a government that at least in theory has the option of raising taxes, reallocating or borrowing to pay for additional services. And if property value increases are less than expected there may not be enough revenue for any type of regular service at all.