Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

Here's some more rough math, basically a repeat of what I've put out before.

$200,000,000 in annual operating costs.
50 stations (won't happen in my opinion, there's reasonably only about 35 possible locations, but I'll use MOOSE's figures).
Therefore each station must contribute on average $4M annually to MOOSE (200/50).

Assuming you can get 2000 households on average around each station to contribute to the cost of the train, that means that each household would have to contribute $2K each year.

So, once again I throw in the human nature factor. Can you actually imagine having 100,000 households in this region all voluntarily (or possibly involuntarily if you are a tenant or condo owner) contribute an average of $2000 annually from rent increases, condo fees, or a portion of the sales of a home, for a train that is expected to carry 25,000 people. (once again using MOOSE's numbers, in my opinion they would be lucky to get 10,000 riders on a good day)

I've used MOOSE's numbers, but if the numbers of stations and riders are reduced then of course the costs start to escalate.

So, if there are only 35 stations, then the average cost per station is closer to $6M and the cost per household would become $3000 per year for 70,000 households to support 10,000 people.

Throw in human nature. As the cost goes up fewer and fewer property owners will be willing to contribute thus raising the costs to those who remain.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

So, once again I throw in the human nature factor. Can you actually imagine having 100,000 households in this region all voluntarily contribute an average of $2000 annually for a train that is expected to carry 25,000 people. (once again using MOOSE's numbers, in my opinion they would be lucky to get 10,000 riders on a good day)

I believe the theory is that those houses would each experience an 80k increase in property values and 5% would sell every year and split the property value increase with Moose.

This whole thing is based on the premise that some huge porportion of the region's population (10-20%) will relocate to a Moose village. I don't think that is even remotely possible, but I guess if someone believes that then other numbers start to work.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I believe the theory is that those houses would each experience an 80k increase in property values and 5% would sell every year and split the property value increase with Moose.

That was the original business concept to the best of my knowledge, in this scenario one 20th of all property owners every year would contribute (voluntarily) $40K from the sale of their home (that's essentially how I got to my average of $2K/year ($40k every 20 years) but along a different route). However Joseph Potvin has been emphasizing more and more lately the fact that most of the steady state revenue would come from increased rents and leases since property sales would be inconsistent and could potentially even be negative in a down market.

Does anyone actually expect the value of a single family home in Ottawa to go up by $80K simply because a train bringing in a few thousand people from outside the city boundaries has a stop nearby? Does anyone reasonably expect those property owners to voluntarily hand over $40K to MOOSE?

Additionally, whatever rise in property value that might happen would be a one-time event in my opinion. You might generate some additional sales value the first time around but on a subsequent sale that factor would be irrelevant. That form of revenue generation is not sustainable in the long term, which means it isn't suitable for a transportation network.

[acottawa]

Presumably it wouldn't be voluntary, there would be a restrictive covenant on the deeds in these communities. A homeowners association that owns a private road or common fence can compel homeowners to pay.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Presumably it wouldn't be voluntary, there would be a restrictive covenant on the deeds in these communities. A homeowners association that owns a private road or common fence can compel homeowners to pay.

But the homeowners association has no obligation to pay MOOSE so it would be 'voluntary' in that sense. MOOSE has no ability to compel payments from anyone near a station. And that's assuming that the vast majority of property owners around a station fall under some sort of central ownership or management.

Secondly, while I'm not a lawyer, I see a train network as a much different scenario than paying for the pool in your condo building since it wouldn't actually be located on the grounds of the property and it would be hard to substantiate that it is part of the communal costs. I think it could easily be challenged.

Imagine a condo corporation here in Ottawa buying a time share in Florida and then compelling all the owners within the building to pay a portion of the mortgage and ongoing expenses for the time share because they argue that it could potentially be used by any one of those people and therefore becomes "common property".

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

But the homeowners association has no obligation to pay MOOSE so it would be 'voluntary' in that sense. MOOSE has no ability to compel payments from anyone near a station. And that's assuming that the vast majority of property owners around a station fall under some sort of central ownership or management.

Secondly, while I'm not a lawyer, I see a train network as a much different scenario than paying for the pool in your condo building since it wouldn't actually be located on the grounds of the property and it would be hard to substantiate that it is part of the communal costs. I think it could easily be challenged.

Imagine a condo corporation here in Ottawa buying a time share in Florida and then compelling all the owners within the building to pay a portion of the mortgage and ongoing expenses for the time share because they argue that it could potentially be used by any one of those people and therefore becomes "common property".

The homeowners association would presumably have a contract with Moose and a refusal to pay would get them in court (just as if they refused to pay any other business).

No idea whether a transit service would be a legal amenity, I don't see any particular reason why it wouldn't be. Also, if someone bought a condo where transit was an amenity, why would they go to the time and expense fighting it? Why not just buy a different condo somewhere else?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The homeowners association would presumably have a contract with Moose and a refusal to pay would get them in court (just as if they refused to pay any other business).

Still, entering into a contract is a choice, not an obligation. MOOSE can't compel anyone or any organization to agree to these types of payments.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Also, if someone bought a condo where transit was an amenity, why would they go to the time and expense fighting it? Why not just buy a different condo somewhere else?

Remember the assumption of only 5% turnover of property in a given year. That means the vast majority of people living near the proposed railroad station already live there and plan on staying there.
If you were an existing condo owner and someone decided to plunk a train station next door, would you be willing to have an increase in fees as a result.
Think about someone living close to a station along the O-train line. They already have access to a rapid transit network. Then a train carrying people to and from outside the city starts to utilize that stop. Would you be willing to have an increase to your condo fees? What added value to you receive? Are you going to move away?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Still, entering into a contract is a choice, not an obligation. MOOSE can't compel anyone or any organization to agree to these types of payments.



Remember the assumption of only 5% turnover of property in a given year. That means the vast majority of people living near the proposed railroad station already live there and plan on staying there.
If you were an existing condo owner and someone decided to plunk a train station next door, would you be willing to have an increase in fees as a result.
Think about someone living close to a station along the O-train line. They already have access to a rapid transit network. Then a train carrying people to and from outside the city starts to utilize that stop. Would you be willing to have an increase to your condo fees? What added value to you receive? Are you going to move away?

The primary target here seems to be greenfield development. A developer would make a deal with Moose and set up a homeowner association with the necessary clauses. People would buy houses fully aware that certain payments would be required.

Either way, it is a moot discussion. Moose has yet to identify any reason why hundreds of thousands of people would want to leave urban and suburban areas of the city to live in high density rural communities, nor have they identified any potential source of funds for the billion dollars or so of upfront funding required.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Either way, it is a moot discussion. Moose has yet to identify any reason why hundreds of thousands of people would want to leave urban and suburban areas of the city to live in high density rural communities, nor have they identified any potential source of funds for the billion dollars or so of upfront funding required.

Agree there. But that's why I take issue with MOOSE in regards to their litigation and various challenges with the CTA, courts, etc. MOOSE always seems to make the argument that they are prepared to stand up this rail network in a very short time frame and therefore the municipalities shouldn't continue with their existing plans but rather cater to MOOSE. All it does is waste time, effort, and energy of folks who could be better serving the public interest.

As for greenfield development. How many years (decades??) would that take to happen, and does MOOSE honestly think that these developers will happily fork out millions of dollars every year until such time as they can actually build and populate these new developments?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

As for greenfield development. How many years (decades??) would that take to happen, and does MOOSE honestly think that these developers will happily fork out millions of dollars every year until such time as they can actually build and populate these new developments?

This is why it is an interesting concept for a business model which makes no sense in a region with relatively slow growth, relatively low congestion, and relatively low housing prices.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

I've been thinking how Joseph Potvin reminds me of...

@Charles5, Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary to make your case.

Originally Posted by Charles5

They've spent their life's savings, mortgaged the house, and borrowed from friends.

In point of fact, no we haven't. If you'd take the time to go through the information assembled online from our 2016 application for a certificate of fitness, you would know 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

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

... I take issue with MOOSE in regards to their litigation and various challenges with the CTA

@Charles5, Would you please make the case here why you believe it was an excellent use of taxpayer money for the City of Ottawa's to dismantle the existing federally regulated railway connection between the Trillium Line and the Prince of Wales Bridge?

Also please let us know on what legal grounds you think it was permissible for the City to dismantle that track?

The other cases we have initiated have been to seek clarification of jurisdiction (federal or provincial). Please let us know why you think it's so awful to ask who's jurisdiction applies to a section of 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 acottawa

The homeowners association would presumably have a contract with Moose and a refusal to pay would get them in court (just as if they refused to pay any other business).

Not at all. If a significant proportion of property owners within the relevant perimeter of a station declined to apportion the agreed part of the increment attributable to the train service, the worst that happens is that the train would not longer stop at that station. And the worst that happens is property values there revert more or less to what they'd have been without the train.

Can you explain why you think it's wrong for a company to terminate service when a subscriber (the station corporation, co-owned by property owners by some conventional not-for-profit or commercial or public sector model) stops paying the subscription fee?

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

[Truenorth00]

Better safe than sorry. I don't want our governments to give an inch on sprawl. Sure, it's a pie in the sky idea. But why risk it? I hope the proposal gets crushed by regulatory burden and I hope the investors sink the plan.

I have no issues with rail to rural communities. After they all agree to build nice dense little villages near the station.

The great thing here is that time is not on Mr. Potvin's side. I hope he spends all his time posting here, while the city works on delivering Stage 2 Trillium.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Not at all. If a significant proportion of property owners within the relevant perimeter of a station declined to apportion the agreed part of the increment attributable to the train service, the worst that happens is that the train would not longer stop at that station. And the worst that happens is property values there revert more or less to what they'd have been without the train.

Can you explain why you think it's wrong for a company to terminate service when a subscriber (the station corporation, co)-owned by property owners by some conventional not-for-profit or commercial or public sector model) stops paying the subscription fee?

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

Now I have a question for you. There are parts of the city inside the greenbelt that would be in need for a rail link but would also mean a tunnel would have to be built. These areas have been neglected by the City of Ottawa (Bank St, Rideau Montreal Corridor) Im pretty sure you can use your business model with those areas and make money since train usage would be high. Why don't you start with those areas first and then move into the other areas you want?

My suggestion to you is start with serving downtown and people inside the greenbelt that have been badly neglected by the City of Ottawa and then you may have an easier time selling your idea.

When Ottawa had its streetcars run privately they mostly served downtown and for good reason too.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I hope he spends all his time posting here, while the city works on delivering Stage 2 Trillium.

@Truenorth00, We don't see challenges posted on a public blog as a sort of DOS-attack, though you're entitled to pursue that objective

Nor do I or my colleagues see the tiny bit of time that I commit to addressing comments from you or others as taking anything away from our overall business development work. A number of people have contacted me separately to say thanks for being patient online in these discussions.

The only unfortunate aspect of these discussions is that you and others don't attempt to answer any of the questions that I pose to you. But fine, I'll be the goalie in the net. Fire away. But really, you and the others will need to come up with some better shots. None of you has even attempted to deconstruct the PPR model itself, on its own internal rationale.

Regarding the OLRT, it's complementary to any whole-region passenger rail system, MOOSE or any other. The PPR is enhanced by, not defeated by co-existence with an excellent public sector transit service.

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

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Truenorth00, We don't see challenges posted on a public blog as a sort of DOS-attack, though you're entitled to pursue that objective

Nor do I or my colleagues see the tiny bit of time that I commit to addressing comments from you or others as taking anything away from our overall business development work. A number of people have contacted me separately to say thanks for being patient online in these discussions.

The only unfortunate aspect of these discussions is that you and others don't attempt to answer any of the questions that I pose to you. But fine, I'll be the goalie in the net. Fire away. But really, you and the others will need to come up with some better shots. None of you has even attempted to deconstruct the PPR model itself, on its own internal rationale.

Regarding the OLRT, it's complementary to any whole-region passenger rail system, MOOSE or any other. The PPR is enhanced by, not defeated by co-existence with an excellent public sector transit service.

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

Now can you address my question?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Now I have a question for you. There are parts of the city inside the greenbelt that would be in need for a rail link but would also mean a tunnel would have to be built. These areas have been neglected by the City of Ottawa (Bank St, Rideau Montreal Corridor) Im pretty sure you can use your business model with those areas and make money since train usage would be high. Why don't you start with those areas first and then move into the other areas you want?

My suggestion to you is start with serving downtown and people inside the greenbelt that have been badly neglected by the City of Ottawa and then you may have an easier time selling your idea.

When Ottawa had its streetcars run privately they mostly served downtown and for good reason too.

It's the same basic problem, you would need tens of thousands of people to relocate to condos in Montreal road and there is no basis to project that sort of demand (or the necessary zoning in place). When streetcars were private they mostly relied on the farebox, which didn't work after cars became widespread.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Now I have a question for you. There are parts of the city inside the greenbelt that would be in need for a rail link but would also mean a tunnel would have to be built. These areas have been neglected by the City of Ottawa (Bank St, Rideau Montreal Corridor)

@OtrainUser,

In the past year MOOSE has been increasingly contacted by major property interests seeking to discuss how their locality not currently adjacent to the existing main corridors could be connected to our network. The only specific site that's public is the Morrison Quarry announcement adjacent to the now missing track through Chelsea. (They and we made an exception because we both thought it was important for the public and other investors to see that in our assessment, the northern terminus would indeed be significant enough to justify our rebuilding the track that Chelsea dismantled.)

I sure wish I could talk about the others, but I cannot yet.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I'm pretty sure you can use your business model with those areas and make money since train usage would be high. Why don't you start with those areas first and then move into the other areas you want?

It's an issue of network scale. The succession model you're describing is feasible with public sector funding because a government can run the financing through the tax system. The PPR has to generate cash flow early on, and if this is going to be based on property value increments, all the empirical studies show that this requires a metropolitan catchment area. However, once the Greater National Capital Region network main lines are assured, all sorts of short line connections in the areas you speak of become easy and lucrative to finance under the PPR.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

My suggestion to you is start with serving downtown and people inside the greenbelt that have been badly neglected by the City of Ottawa and then you may have an easier time selling your idea.

Well, to be honest we're not attempting to "sell" our idea to naysayers. We do think it's our responsibility to clarify matters, and answer questions, and correct statements that we consider erroneous. I'm pleased to say that we're not having any problem at all in communicating our approach and business opportunity to transit professionals, property investors, financial companies, railway engineering companies, or social service professionals. And there are quite a few City of Ottawa and City of Gatineau staff, at all levels, who have told us they like our plan a lot, but that beggar-thy-neighbour thinking is rather persistent at the political level, so they have to keep quiet about it.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

When Ottawa had its streetcars run privately they mostly served downtown and for good reason too.

The streetcars in both Ottawa and Hull ran profitably until taken over by the City, followed by the dedicated destruction of the system under the NCC's consultant Jacques Gréber. A section of the Gréber Plan entitled "Railway Problem Fundamental Element of the Plan" stated:

"The remodeling of railroad facilities has therefore become the framework of the Master Plan. It consists of a series of gradual and co-ordinated operations, aimed at the elimination of all railroad interference in the present life and in the future development of the central part of the urban area of the Capital Region"

That reflects why trains declined also more generally in Canada and the US. They didn't fail. They were pushed down and out, and it's still underway (and clearly in evidence by some comments on this blog).

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

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Better safe than sorry. I don't want our governments to give an inch on sprawl. Sure, it's a pie in the sky idea. But why risk it? I hope the proposal gets crushed by regulatory burden and I hope the investors sink the plan.

I have no issues with rail to rural communities. After they all agree to build nice dense little villages near the station.

The great thing here is that time is not on Mr. Potvin's side. I hope he spends all his time posting here, while the city works on delivering Stage 2 Trillium.

Urban sprawl isn't going to stop just because a proposed rail system doesn't go through. The existence and projected growth of areas like Kanata, Stittsville, Barrhaven, and Manotick are evidence of that. The proposal for Stage 2 of the Trillium line even mentions it.

Sure, areas like Bristol, or Vars may not have the same level of growth as the ones mentioned above, but they're still going to grow regardless.