Rural Commuter Rail

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

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.

So to be clear, you are still trying to pull together the documents and financing to meet the tests of the Certificate of Fitness for the CTA and there's no timeframe you're going to publicly? Given what the CTA wrote in their Chelsea decision, are you going to give up on that portion of your plan? Also, you're still waiting for the CTA's final bridge decision. In summary:

1) Still hoping to get a Certificate of Fitness
2) Concede on the Chelsea
3) Wait for bridge decision

[Allandale25]

I posted in this reply in another forum and thought anywhere here following this thread may also be interested.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin,

@Allandale25,

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.

Sure, let's look at each of the "Analysis and Determinations" points:
So you're going to provide more "new" facts that will convince the CTA to do a review, in reference to "[17]....however, the Agency finds that MOOSE has not established that these new facts warrant a review, rescission or variance of the 1966, 1984 and 1985 Orders."

A rail line between Hull and Wakefield that had a tourist train and no transcontinental or regular local freight service for its entire length (correct me if I'm wrong) was an integral part of CP's "railway network" simply because it connected to CP's tracks to the south. How is this any different to when the CTA let BCRY abandon the Barrie to Collingwood portion of the BCRY or the rumours Huron Central Railway wants to abandon the Sault Sainte Marie to Sudbury line? Both lines connected to the bigger CP/CN network. For this time, the CTA wrote "[18] MOOSE did not provide any evidence to support this claim other than citing the GO Decision.

Per [19], it seems like a pretty cut and dry issue. CP abandoned the line and offered to donate some crews for the tourist train but didn't provide next to any freight service for customers. Sounds pretty abandoned to me. I don't see much difference between the York Durham Heritage Railway having qualified engineers and running a tourist train and what happened here. Why does it matter who provided the crews? That argument seems like you're grasping. Not sure what new info can be provided.

Per [20], what CP "orders" were impacted by CP letting a tourist train to run on a dead ended rail line? Can you elaborate on what the CTA means by "orders"?

Per [21], you're going to do "additional homework" to find "orders" (freight movement orders?) on land titles, transfer or survey records? What would these types of records show that the CTA wouldn't already be aware of?

[22] appears to be irrelevant at this point.
When do you think you'll refile? If the CTA rules against you again per the above, will you remove this portion from your network?

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)."

An agreement was signed. There was bad weather. The municipalities decided they didn't have the money to repair the tracks. The agreement was between CP and the municipalities. Have any of the municipalities or CP amended the agreement to now include MOOSE? It's a nice historical fact but I fail to see how it helps you.

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.

The CTA sent a letter to the City of Ottawa. This summer the City of Ottawa responded. No news since then, right? The CTA hasn't released a decision saying they reject Ottawa's answers and have now ruled Ottawa was wrong and MOOSE gets to use the bridge?

[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 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

I had a further thought on this, given the reality of the situation. Given how long it's taking you to start operating, what's the down side of working with a company like CANDO? Why not just pay them a few to provide the operations, just like municipalities and CP/CN do for certain switching activities? Given the requirements for the Certificate of Fitness, wouldn't it get you up and running faster?

If you've got a deal with a quarry, wouldn't using a contractor who has the approvals already to operation help convince elected officials on the routes you want to use to support you? I'm particularly thinking of Cheaslea. If the local municipal leaders are fine with the line being abandoned that goes to the quarry, wouldn't you have a better chance of convincing them to not abandon the route if you could say that the developer will pay for the tracks to be rebuilt and a company like CANDO will operate it?

If you haven't even met with companies like CANDO, how would you know that it wouldn't fit into your financial model. Can't a company like CANDO provide a quote? Or have you already looked at the Orangeville and Barrie numbers and extrapolated that you couldn't afford their fees (or in your analogy, taxi cab fares)?

[Charles5]

A short anecdote:

The hospital at Canadian Forces Base Borden is located in the North West corner of the Base while the majority of the population lives and works in the central and southern parts, thus making it somewhat inconvenient to access. The reason it is located where it is is because that is where the previous hospital it replaced was located. That earlier hospital was there because it replaced the very first hospital that was constructed back in WW1 when the Base was created.

So, why was the original hospital placed in the NW corner. Well, in WW1 they were still using horses and the stables were located on the northern part of the Base. The prevailing winds came from the NW and so the hospital was located upwind of the stables so that the smells and the flies would be reduced.

What's the purpose of the story? I relate this to rail corridors and people's insistence that we need to keep all existing rail lines. Just because it made sense to have a rail line there 100 years ago or 50 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense now. Each situation needs to be looked at on its own merits and in the light of today's environment and the current situation. In some cases it will make sense to maintain existing corridors, in other cases they should be abandoned, and in some cases we may even want to create new ones.

[acottawa]

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 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.

Startups make deals with incumbents all the time. Microsoft's success largely stemmed from making a deal with IBM. Google's success started by getting a search engine deal with yahoo. Your niche is apparently that you have a genius marketing strategy to convince tens of thousands of people to relocate to rural areas. Why not focus on that and outsource the railway operations end of the business?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Just because it made sense to have a rail line there 100 years ago or 50 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense now. Each situation needs to be looked at on its own merits and in the light of today's environment and the current situation. In some cases it will make sense to maintain existing corridors, in other cases they should be abandoned, and in some cases we may even want to create new ones.

While I do agree with you, it is much more expensive to build a new rail corridor than it is to maintain an existing one. Once a corridor is lost, it becomes difficult to get it back.

There are times when the advantages outweigh the costs, but there are others where while a new corridor would be better, there isn't enough of a benefit to make it cost effective.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Startups make deals with incumbents all the time. Microsoft's success largely stemmed from making a deal with IBM. Google's success started by getting a search engine deal with yahoo. Your niche is apparently that you have a genius marketing strategy to convince tens of thousands of people to relocate to rural areas. Why not focus on that and outsource the railway operations end of the business?

I think the issue is, without a railway license Moose becomes nothing more than a middle man between the railway and the developers, skimming money off of the top. In time people could question why they need Moose and instead work directly with the railway.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think the issue is, without a railway license Moose becomes nothing more than a middle man between the railway and the developers, skimming money off of the top. In time people could question why they need Moose and instead work directly with the railway.

Lots of companies are essentially middlemen, particularly in the transportation and property development sectors.

Even under the current business model there would be few barriers to new entrants undertaking the same approach.

[Charles5]

I've been thinking how Joseph Potvin reminds me of some of the entrepreneurs who appear on the show Dragon's Den. They've spent many years developing what they think is the next greatest kitchen appliance, board game, or new sporting device. They've spent their life's savings, mortgaged the house, and borrowed from friends. Then they come to the Dragons looking for an investment. They have had zero sales but give their company a crazy valuation based purely on potential sales.
Of course all the Dragons turn them down. Arlene sheds a few tears and begs them to stop, Kevin tells them they're stupid and they should give it up, etc. At the end, the people leave the room and in their final statement you hear them declaring how they won't give up, that they know that they've got a great product and it will just take a little more time or a little more money to make it work.

That's how I see Joseph and MOOSE. They've invested so much of their time and energy into this idea that they just can't see the reality of the situation.

Now, perhaps Joseph Potvin should apply to appear on the show, that's an episode I might want to watch.

[Charles5]

Joseph,

In your complaint to the CTA dated 31 Jul7 2017 you indicate that you were drafting terms of reference for "one of “the big four accounting firms” to coordinate the financial feasibility study. (The selected accounting firm has committed to undertake the work, but it will not be publicly identified until later in August 2017...)"

August 2017 has come and gone. Did that announcement take place? Can you please identify which accounting firm has committed to undertake your financial feasibility study and if possible, give a time frame as to when you expect that to be completed.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up...n_Ref-Case-No16-02997__2016-07-31PDF.pdf

[OtrainUser]

Come on guys you should just let up on MOOSE. If they want to proceed whether or not if its feasible then that's their choice. Potvin is under no obligation to tell us anything until it looks like their project will actually happen. If anyone thought Potvin is going to tell us the fine details on whats happening is in dreamland.

Yes the project is ambitious and the only way I see it can be killed is that both Ottawa and Gatineau expand LRT into the areas that MOOSE want to go to thus beating MOOSE to the punch.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Yes the project is ambitious and the only way I see it can be killed is that both Ottawa and Gatineau expand LRT into the areas that MOOSE want to go to thus beating MOOSE to the punch.

It can't be killed if it never comes to life in the first place. No serious investor is going to put any money into this, and without the up front capital this can't happen.

LRT won't be expanding out to those areas outside of the urban boundary for the same reason that MOOSE won't succeed. The routes outside of the urban core do not provide sufficient ridership to make a train a viable option.

You are right that Potvin has no obligation to tell us anything. However, he's very good at putting out press releases with ambitious claims. The fact that those claims never actually come to fruition are never mentioned and all of a sudden it's a big secret. I'm just trying to hold him to account for those things he has said will happen but don't.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

It can't be killed if it never comes to life in the first place. No serious investor is going to put any money into this, and without the up front capital this can't happen.

LRT won't be expanding out to those areas outside of the urban boundary for the same reason that MOOSE won't succeed. The routes outside of the urban core do not provide sufficient ridership to make a train a viable option.

You are right that Potvin has no obligation to tell us anything. However, he's very good at putting out press releases with ambitious claims. The fact that those claims never actually come to fruition are never mentioned and all of a sudden it's a big secret. I'm just trying to hold him to account for those things he has said that will happen but don't.

We cant predict investor behavior so to say no serious investor will put money into this is just a guess.

Ottawa-Gatineau just have to cover the LRT route inside the urban boundary which would cover most of what MOOSE wants which would make MOOSE's plans pointless but that will take decades to happen given both city priorities.

All you have done is put down his idea not which is not being objective. I dont care about these plans to be honest because the urban core needs LRT more than people living on the city limits.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

We cant predict investor behavior so to say no serious investor will put money into this is just a guess.

Ottawa-Gatineau just have to cover the LRT route inside the urban boundary which would cover most of what MOOSE wants which would make MOOSE's plans pointless but that will take decades to happen given both city priorities.

All you have done is put down his idea not which is not being objective. I dont care about these plans to be honest because the urban core needs LRT more than people living on the city limits.

Well, it's not as though he's asking you to invest. If an investor wants to invest, that's their deal.

There have been a number of valid problems brought up in this thread, but I wouldn't consider low ridership to be one of those. MOOSE's plan involves using old rails, so it's not as though they're trying to spend huge amounts of money to build those routes in the first place. A lot of those regions are already served by buses and some have even had pilot commuter rail projects done in the past. For an investor, as long as the ridership could be there, that could be enough for them. It doesn't matter if it's not enough for you.

In the end, it's still a private venture. It's not as though the government is investing resources into planning a rural commuter service, so I can assure you that the urban core is going to get what it needs.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, it's not as though he's asking you to invest. If an investor wants to invest, that's their deal.

There have been a number of valid problems brought up in this thread, but I wouldn't consider low ridership to be one of those. MOOSE's plan involves using old rails, so it's not as though they're trying to spend huge amounts of money to build those routes in the first place. A lot of those regions are already served by buses and some have even had pilot commuter rail projects done in the past. For an investor, as long as the ridership could be there, that could be enough for them. It doesn't matter if it's not enough for you.

In the end, it's still a private venture. It's not as though the government is investing resources into planning a rural commuter service, so I can assure you that the urban core is going to get what it needs.

That was part of my point part but the problem with MOOSE' plans is that everyone is confused that the plan is about ridership when its real plan is to encourage more sprawl to places beyond city limits.

Potvin has already admitted that his plan is not about serving core residents and thats the only problem i have with it. If MOOSE were to say lets build rail under Bank street and also serve the Rideau - Montreal Rd corridor which is served badly by OC Transpo then he could get more support in here.

There are areas inside the Greenbelt that are undeserved and MOOSE should step in to fill the gap since the city of Ottawa refuses to do it and they could still make a profit using their idea to make money off of increasing property values which is where they make most of the money from anyway while a small portion come from fares.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well, it's not as though he's asking you to invest. If an investor wants to invest, that's their deal.

Actually the whole MOOSE concept is based on having many of us invest. Joseph expects anyone living within 2 square kilometres of a station to pay for the service through increased rents, increased condo fees, and a portion of property sale value.

For some reason many people seem to think that as soon as something is a private venture that there is no risk. How would you feel if you if you were a tenant and the building owner decided to invest in this scheme and subsequently used that to justify raising your rent significantly.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

All you have done is put down his idea not which is not being objective.

I am expressing my opinion which is by its very nature subjective. However, I base that opinion on my experiences, my understanding of human nature, and some investigation of the facts.

[Charles5]

I've used some rough math before to try and explain why this won't make sense. Here's another example using MOOSE's own figures.

$200 Million dollars annual operating costs
25,000 riders daily (won't ever happen, but let's use this just for the sake of it).

Cost per rider = $200,000,000 / 25,000 = $8,000 dollars per rider per year to maintain this network.

Does it sound reasonable? Would you invest in this? How would you expect to get your money back?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I've used some rough math before to try and explain why this won't make sense. Here's another example using MOOSE's own figures.

$200 Million dollars annual operating costs
25,000 riders daily (won't ever happen, but let's use this just for the sake of it).

Cost per rider = $200,000,000 / 25,000 = $8,000 dollars per rider per year to maintain this network.

Does it sound reasonable? Would you invest in this? How would you expect to get your money back?

That's why most of the money comes from the increase in property values to make up the difference because we all know fares alone wont cover the cost

Potvin is going to have to do a rethink and actually serve people who live and work inside the greenbelt. Since the city of Ottawa chooses to ignore that part, there will still be an opportunity for MOOSE to make money by actually serving people but that would involve in actually building 2 more lines and I suspect he doesn't want to do that even though it would be highly profitable with all the heavy traffic it would have.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

That's why most of the money comes from the increase in property values...

Increases in property values, assuming they do actually materialize, would be primarily a one-time event in my opinion. How would you propose covering the ongoing annual operating costs.

And that's not even taking into account that it would have to be from voluntary payments from individual property owners. Even if property values were to rise, human nature in itself would mean that most folks wouldn't be prepared to hand it over to MOOSE (once again, just my opinion).