Rural Commuter Rail

[Allandale25]

^ In addition to the above, I think I read comments earlier this summer that expected a CTA ruling. I could be wrong but I think there's a quote suggesting it was going to come this fall. It's almost the middle of November. Meanwhile, I assume the Ottawa City council endorsed Phase 2 plan continues it's timeline in terms of procurement, etc.

[Charles5]

I'm interested to see what the CTA ruling will be on licensing MOOSE as a railroad company. While I have to agree with Joseph Potvin that it is unrealistic to expect a someone to be a railroad company prior to issuing the certification, on the other hand I don't know how CTA can authorize an entity to be a railroad company based purely on intent. MOOSE owns no rolling stock, controls no rail lines, has no agreements in place with those who do control the lines, has no financing to procure assets, etc.
Despite MOOSE having a fairly detailed plan (unrealistic in my mind), if CTA grants a license to MOOSE at this point in time then it opens the door to almost any one of us to become a railroad company simply by indicating our desire and intent to do so.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I'm interested to see what the CTA ruling will be on licensing MOOSE as a railroad company. While I have to agree with Joseph Potvin that it is unrealistic to expect a someone to be a railroad company prior to issuing the certification, on the other hand I don't know how CTA can authorize an entity to be a railroad company based purely on intent. MOOSE owns no rolling stock, controls no rail lines, has no agreements in place with those who do control the lines, has no financing to procure assets, etc.
Despite MOOSE having a fairly detailed plan (unrealistic in my mind), if CTA grants a license to MOOSE at this point in time then it opens the door to almost any one of us to become a railroad company simply by indicating our desire and intent to do so.

It comes down to funding. If Moose gets the funding required to pay for the components they are missing, then the CTA should grant them a conditional license (based on the requirement to acquire the things they are missing) so that they can proceed (it would be unreasonable to require them to purchase everything in hopes they can get a license). Without funding it is vaporware.

[Allandale25]

I get that Moose wants to be a railroad. But why wouldn't they go to an existing short line or yard operator, like CANDO Rail Services, who I assume has a certificate of fitness, and ask them to be the operator for a fee? Moose would then take care of all the financials. CANDO operates OBRY and BCRY in Ontario on behalf of the Town of Orangeville and the City of Barrie. Barrie and Orangeville don't need to have certificates. That's what they rely on CANDO to have.

Or, maybe Moose has and ever short line operator has turned them down because of the lack of financial certainty to back up their claims.

Originally Posted by Charles5

I'm interested to see what the CTA ruling will be on licensing MOOSE as a railroad company. While I have to agree with Joseph Potvin that it is unrealistic to expect a someone to be a railroad company prior to issuing the certification, on the other hand I don't know how CTA can authorize an entity to be a railroad company based purely on intent. MOOSE owns no rolling stock, controls no rail lines, has no agreements in place with those who do control the lines, has no financing to procure assets, etc.
Despite MOOSE having a fairly detailed plan (unrealistic in my mind), if CTA grants a license to MOOSE at this point in time then it opens the door to almost any one of us to become a railroad company simply by indicating our desire and intent to do so.

[acottawa]

The CTA dismissed the Chelsea application a few weeks ago.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

I get that Moose wants to be a railroad. But why wouldn't they go to an existing short line or yard operator, like CANDO Rail Services, who I assume has a certificate of fitness, and ask them to be the operator for a fee? Moose would then take care of all the financials. CANDO operates OBRY and BCRY in Ontario on behalf of the Town of Orangeville and the City of Barrie. Barrie and Orangeville don't need to have certificates. That's what they rely on CANDO to have.

Or, maybe Moose has and ever short line operator has turned them down because of the lack of financial certainty to back up their claims.

The Moose plan hinges on providing interprovincial service to avail of federal rules, that's why all their lines have to use the PoW bridge.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It comes down to funding. If Moose gets the funding required to pay for the components they are missing, then the CTA should grant them a conditional license (based on the requirement to acquire the things they are missing) so that they can proceed (it would be unreasonable to require them to purchase everything in hopes they can get a license). Without funding it is vaporware.

Joseph Potvin

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The CTA dismissed the Chelsea application a few weeks ago.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017

Sorry for cross-posting but here's our view on this matter.

The Agency's decision ( https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017 ) dismisses the request to reverse the discontinuance order due to insufficient information. Look at each of the points in their "Analysis and Determinations" section. Basically, they told us exactly what information they're going to require before such an unusual step as a review, rescission or variance of the 1966, 1984 and 1985 Orders. It should be no surprise that, yes of course, we're doing the required additional homework and will next go back to the Agency with all those elements addressed.

What we're delighted with in the decision is that they acknowledged as valid the key historical finding that we unearthed and tabled: "On July 2, 1986, CP signed a letter of agreement (agreement) with the City of Hull (now the City of Gatineau), the Municipal Corporation of the Township of Hull, West Part (now the Municipality of Chelsea) and the Municipality of La Pêche (which now includes the village of Wakefield)."

Property investors along the line to La Pêche understand that re-building the railway is feasible.
http://ottawaconstructionnews.com/f...orrisons-quarry-between-la-peche-and-chelsea/

FWIW, everyone also thought Moose "lost" the 2012 decision relating to the Prince of Wales Bridge. And yet the Agency's current enforcement action against the City of Ottawa is based on it.

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]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

I get that Moose wants to be a railroad. But why wouldn't they go to an existing short line or yard operator ... Or, maybe Moose has and ever short line operator has turned them down because of the lack of financial certainty to back up their claims.

Moose rejects the notion of a market in which any start-up is required to find an incumbent business to shepherd their entry. That idea's like the old failing taxi medallion system. We have approached no incumbent operators for (in effect) 'permission' to develop our business.

We'll locate investors, stick-handle authorizations, and we'll stand up a railway.

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]

Originally Posted by Charles5

if CTA grants a license to MOOSE at this point in time then it opens the door to almost any one of us to become a railroad company simply by indicating our desire and intent to do so.

Paying attention to the precise wording of the Act, a Certificate of Fitness is bestows authorization to develop a railway. Case law led to the additional requirement for a large amount of up-front investment to instantiate a "bona fide railway company" before you can apply to become a railway company under the Act. More recently the Certificate of Operation provides authorization to operate a railway -- a separate matter.

The Agency is just seeking to pre-empt frivolous holding of a Certificate of Fitness, and we're fine with that. Their communications to Moose have made it clear exactly what they're looking from out side, and we're in the process of developing and delivering on all that.

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

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Joseph Potvin

So, can we expect an announcement anytime soon about the results of the LeMine due diligence review. Is there an intent to go forward with the funding for a feasibility study?

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...tiaNA-MooseConsortium_2017-07-01bPDF.pdf

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

So, can we expect an announcement anytime soon about the results of the LeMine due diligence review. Is there an intent to go forward with the funding for a feasibility study?

I can confirm that there is much that I can neither confirm nor deny at this moment.

Joseph

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

I can confirm that there is much that I can neither confirm nor deny at this moment.

Joseph

I'll take that as a no, which I further take as a negative result of the review and an unwillingness to put forward any real money. Just my opinion, but I'll wait to be proven wrong.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

So, can we expect... I'll take that as a no, which I further take as a negative result of the review and an unwillingness to put forward any real money. Just my opinion, but I'll wait to be proven wrong.

Perhaps for greater clarification then: What you can expect is that we and investors are working to our own schedule and requirements, and not to the expectations of an anonymous observer on a blog. If you conclude something from that beyond what has been communicated by us in various fora, we respect your opinion. But what you may or may not expect is hardly something that could be proven right or wrong in any case.

Assume the worst, to optimize your chances of a pleasant surprise.

Joseph

[Charles5]

Joseph,

The following articles and website, including the MOOSE facebook page, all seem to indicate that LeMine has already committed $5M towards a feasibility study which would occur over three months. However, the press release of 1 July 2017 gives the impression that the funding for the feasibility study is dependent on the results of the due dilgence review, which is what the 120 day period is being used for.

Can you confirm if the following statements are factually correct, and if not, what action have you or MOOSE taken to set the record straight?

Globe and Mail:
"Toronto's LeMine Investment Group – ...– has agreed to spend $5-million on a 120-day study of the merits of a proposed 400-kilometre regional rail network"

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...736/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Ottawa Metro:
"A recently announced $5-million study, which will be returned in approximately three months and which is being funded by LeMine Investment Group, is the first step towards the development of the network."

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017...-to-examine-private-transit-network.html

Press Digest:
"Toronto's LeMine Investment Group has agreed to spend C$5-million on a 120-day study of the merits of a proposed 400-kilometre regional rail "

http://www.reuters.com/article/press-digest-canada/press-digest-canada-july-17-idUSL3N1K83YC

Facebook:
"Toronto's LeMine Investment Group has agreed to spend $5-million"

https://en-gb.facebook.com/MooseRail/

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The following articles and website, including the MOOSE facebook page, all seem to indicate that LeMine has already committed $5M towards a feasibility study which would occur over three months. However, the press release of 1 July 2017 gives the impression that the funding for the feasibility study is dependent on the results of the due dilgence review, which is what the 120 day period is being used for. Can you confirm if the following statements are factually correct, and if not, what action have you or MOOSE taken to set the record straight?

@Charles5,

The prepared media release does not give an impression, it gives the facts. It says: "LeMine Investment Group and Consortia N.A. Ltd. (Lemine-Consortia N.A.) and MOOSE Consortium Inc. exchanged letters of intent today, the 1st of July 2017, on Canada's 150th Anniversary, to create a fully private-sector 400 km. ... Liu also said that Lemine-Consortia N.A. will employ Opus International Consultants Limited (Opus) and REMISZ Consulting Engineers Limited to undertake a due-diligence review of the MOOSE business and technical concept in the next 120 days."

When the G&M article came out, while we were plreased to have the coverage, we were also surprised with the way some elements of the arrangement were portrayed. It is true that we're talking about a $5M figure, this came from our estimated budget for Phase 1(b) -- the amount required for the full design, feasibility and revenue/cost set of studies. But "due diligence" beforehand is not the same thing. We communicated the clarification to the journalist, along with our thoughts about some other aspects of the article, such as its underplaying of the role of the local companies, the lack of mention of the role of companies linked to India, New Zealand and elsewhere, not only China. Nevertheless, having worked as a journalist myself several decades ago, I can appreciate that getting all the nuanced details of a story packaged for permanent publication in a daily paper is a tall order. For some reason, these days media typically don't print corrections or clarifications, which is unfortunate since it would be very easy online.

Once we saw that journalists were conflating the 120 day "due diligence" review of an investment syndicator with the whole Phase 1(b) set of studies that investors would underwrite, I and colleagues clarified the impression in subsequent interviews. But you would surely agree that it would have been rather awkward if we were to issue a follow-up media release to say, essentially, that people ought to read the first media release to learn what actually transpired.

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

[Charles5]

Joseph,

I appreciate the challenges trying to undo an incorrect news article. However, noting that one of the sources I cited was a Moose Rail Facebook page, I'm wondering if anything has been done to correct that? Is it also possible that these various articles used your Facebook page as a secondary source of information and that's why the facts were incorrect. (Or was the Facebook page referring back to the news article in question?)

Facebook:
"Toronto's LeMine Investment Group has agreed to spend $5-million"

https://en-gb.facebook.com/MooseRail/


Note: Quote above comes from a Google search for the following. "Toronto's LeMine Investment Group has agreed to spend "$5 million" site:https://en-gb.facebook.com/MooseRail"

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Note: Quote above comes from a Google search for the following. "Toronto's LeMine Investment Group has agreed to spend "$5 million"

@Charles5,

Please see the second paragraph of the G&M article.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...736/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

The Facebook post points to the article, and it's the journalist's wording that's picked up in your search. It is not the Moose team's wording that you're quoting.

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

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

It is not the Moose team's wording that you're quoting.

It is always important to know who you are quoting. Errors usually aren't deliberate (as a certain political leader to our south may claim) but instead, the pressure of meeting publication deadlines mean that journalists aren't able to double check their facts and confirm that what they are saying is accurate.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Moose rejects the notion of a market in which any start-up is required to find an incumbent business to shepherd their entry.

That's nice. But at the end of the day, you can reject notions all you want. It's the CTA that decides.