Rural Commuter Rail

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Charles5

acottawa,

Afraid I will have to disagree with you using your own numbers. You're considering your 'profit' as half the difference between the value of the property with or without rail at the time of sale, not looking at the initial purchase price vs sale price in each scenario.

Owner #1 is better off by $5. Agree there because the property was owned before the rail came in and the increase is due to the introduction of rail.
Owner #2 without rail would have bought for $100 and sold for $120, an increase of $20. However he buys for $110, sells for $132, an increase of $22, but pays out $6 to the rail company, reducing his gain to $16. He is $4 shorter than if rail had not existed.
Owner #3 without rail would have bought for $120 and sold For $144, an increase of $24. Rather he buys for $132 and sells for $158.40, an increase of $26.40, but he owes $7.20, thus reducing his gain to $19.20. He is $4.80 shorter than if rail had not existed

To me the PPR model closely resembles another way of saying property tax which is what it really is in its privatized form. I know you think Government should handle all the transit needs but you should let MOOSE take the risk. Sure they will lose money early on but long term its actually feasible.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

To me the PPR model closely resembles another way of saying property tax which is what it really is in its privatized form.

Of course it's a tax. MOOSE just tries to convince you that you might actually gain something out of it as well.

Now, would you voluntarily pay a tax for a system that costs $8,000 per rider per year. See my earlier calculations.

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?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a pretty good analogy.

As time goes by, the MOOSE dream is getting less and less realistic with rail lines being ripped out and replaced with recreational paths all around the region and light rail being built or considered on may of the proposed routes within Ottawa and Gatineau.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So 2/3 of their plan is based on the assumption that OC Transpo/The City of Ottawa will abandon the Trillium Line north of Greenboro to let Moose run its trains on it instead.

Not correct. Rather MOOSE expects the regionally-defined public interest to eventually overcome the suboptimization associated with each of the more than a dozen municipalities trying to out-maneuver their neighbours. Whether it's MOOSE or some other regional operator, the Greater National Capital Region requires an integrated passenger rail system. MOOSE has always seen OC-Transpo as a key partner for any regional operator.

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 Charles5

Of course it's a tax. MOOSE just tries to convince you that you might actually gain something out of it as well.

Now, would you voluntarily pay a tax for a system that costs $8,000 per rider per year. See my earlier calculations.

People pay property tax to governments so that point is moot.


I have already said they will lose money in the short term but will be profitable long term once they are better established.

99% of the time property values go up especially those near transit stations so they would go up regardless. You shouldn't be so hostile to a plan that is simply taking advantage of City inspired sprawl. It was only a matter of time before guys like MOOSE would show up thanks to poor city planning by the city of Ottawa.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The Constitution is being quoted but I still fail to see how servicing a few thousand rural residents is to "the general Advantage of Canada", especially if it undermines the city's smart growth planning and creates more sprawl. It's a rather thin interpretation of the Act. These expanded exurbs will undoubtedly not be solely dependent on the train, so more roads will have to be built with vehicles travelling longer distances for destinations not convenient by train.

@Kitchissippi,

See Alexander's Pattern #2: Distribution of Towns
https://archive.org/stream/APatternLanguage/A_Pattern_Language_djvu.txt

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 OtrainUser

It was only a matter of time before guys like MOOSE would show up thanks to poor city planning by the city of Ottawa.

What poor city planning problem does Moose address?

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Now, the new owner has paid $550K for a property which has a value of $550K including the rail service. The rail company now approaches the individual and requests a subscription again. The cost of the subscription still equals ½ of the difference in value of the property with rail service compared to without rail service. These two figures remain $550K with and $500K without. So, the new owner now has the choice to agree to pay $25K on the sale of his home, thus being out of pocket $25K or he can refuse to pay the subscription at which point in time the rail company now longer provides service, the value of the property drops back down to the original value without rail service ($500K), and the owner will be out $50K upon sale. This second owner will lose one way or another, either $25K or $50K.

@Charles5,

Two parts to my reply on this.

1. What does the $25K represent? It represents value that all the parties acknowledge is market value attributable to the supply of train service. So when the 2nd owner bought, their market reason for buying within the Linked Locality perimeter included an easy walk to the station. When the 2nd owner sells, they are selling their $525 value, and the are in effect the sales agent for the other $25K. Why keep up with this? Well if this 2nd owner and a significant proportion of the other owners decide to opt out, the train service will no longer be supplied, and the property they bought for $550,000 will then only be marketable for $500,000. Terrible you might say. But why is it terrible to create a self-sustaining incentive structure that causes train service to keep being funded? That's the point of the PPR.

2. You have (as happens continually amongst participants on this blog for reasons I don't understand) entirely neglected the monthly income component from rents. For example owner rents out a room via AirBnB or whatever. The PPR is optimized actually when 100% of the properties are leased/rented, since both income and asset values show up in the revenue stream.

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

Even taking into account other variables and inflation such as you've done above you still lose out. You sell that million dollar house and pay out $50K to MOOSE.

@Charles5,

You're not taking into account what that $50K represents. If your premise is that the real value of rail connectivity to the regain is not really $50K, then all we can conclude is that you disagree with what the market 'consensus' is (in your example). That's fine. You'd not be a buyer within the perimeter. Your best option then, if you do nevertheless want to benefit from train access, is to buy outside the Linked Locality perimeter, and just walk further to the station.

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 acottawa

What poor city planning problem does Moose address?

Im not saying they are addressing it, im saying they will be making money because sprawl will eventually go in places where MOOSE will set up.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Of course it's a tax.

@Charles5,

Do you also consider it a "tax" if the members of a condominium decide to increase their own condo fees in order to have a swimming pool?

Is it a "tax" if a bunch of businesses and households in a neighbourhood get together this winter to fund the local outdoor hockey rink?

Why is it a tax if MOOSE offers train service on a subscription basis?

Ontario's Planning Act, Section 37, does apply an increased tax for municipal transit for properties near the city's stations. It's mandatory. Do you complain about that?

In MOOSE's PPR model, that proportion is not at all mandatory. Then again, delivery of train service to the station is dependent upon the negotiated proportion of income and asset increment going to run the train.

All your comments imply that the train service is an imposition on the owners inside the Linked Localities. But MOOSE and the PPR are designed so that the train service operates under the requirements of the property owners -- at their pleasure so to speak.

PPR stands many of your assumptions on their heads. It's how a railway service gets funded when the greatest value beneficiaries are in charge.

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 OtrainUser

Im not saying they are addressing it, im saying they will be making money because sprawl will eventually go in places where MOOSE will set up.

Maybe over decades or centuries. People in Toronto don't commute those kinds of distance.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

As time goes by, the MOOSE dream is getting less and less realistic with rail lines being ripped out and replaced with recreational paths all around the region and light rail being built or considered on may of the proposed routes within Ottawa and Gatineau.

You're correct.

You could make an analogous comment at multiple scales, as highlighted in yesterday's declaration:
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregon...s/Warning_article_with_supp_11-13-17.pdf

Is anyone on this blog actually suggesting that the overall resource and ecological soundness of the Greater National Capital Region will be worse with an integrated passenger rail system? If so, please make your case.

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 acottawa

Maybe over decades or centuries. People in Toronto don't commute those kinds of distance.

Are you sure about that?

GO Transit in the GTA has an annual ridership over 70 million people per year

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's a pretty good analogy.

As time goes by, the MOOSE dream is getting less and less realistic with rail lines being ripped out and replaced with recreational paths all around the region and light rail being built or considered on may of the proposed routes within Ottawa and Gatineau.

It should be noted that one of the longest stretches of rail that was torn up (the Beachburg sub) was torn up after no one was able to finance and put into place a commuter rail line at the time. Now people in the thread can argue all they want about whether MOOSE could theoretically afford any of this, but based on what's described in this article, Pontiac County would like a commuter rail system. So, the demand is there.

https://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news...es-being-uprooted-through-west-carleton/

Edit:

To add to this post from earlier:

Bristol leg:
The track has been abandoned and the rail lines removed. It no longer forms part of the overall federal rail network and is not covered under the Constitution Act. The current landowners have no obligation to grant a right of way to anyone.
http://www.capitalgems.ca/morris-isl...idge-ruin.html
My conclusion: NOT VIABLE

In terms of who owns that land, (after some more research) I am pretty sure that CN still owns the entire corridor including the railway bridge. Capital Gems doesn't own the bridge, they're just telling people how cool it is.
If you watch the youtube video on that page, it clearly shows a no tresspassing sign in front of the bridge.
CN would probably be overjoyed if someone bought the corridor off of them.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

based on what's described in this article, Pontiac County would like a commuter rail system. So, the demand is there.

https://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news...es-being-uprooted-through-west-carleton/

Just because some folks would like a commuter rail line doesn't necessarily mean that there is 'sufficient' demand.

In the 2011 Census it indicates that 920 people in the Pontiac County commuted to work in Ottawa. How many of those do you believe would take an hourly train in lieu of their car.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...oral=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Are you sure about that?

GO Transit in the GTA has an annual ridership over 70 million people per year

Most GO stations/riders are in established suburbs, and most of those are closer than the rural areas Moose wants to serve. Smiths Falls is almost an hour away. That is awfully far for a city the size of Ottawa.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Just because some folks would like a commuter rail line doesn't necessarily mean that there is 'sufficient' demand.

In the 2011 Census it indicates that 920 people in the Pontiac County commuted to work in Ottawa. How many of those do you believe would take an hourly train in lieu of their car.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...oral=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

"Some folks"

That fall, Pontiac County, arguing the line is needed for industry and tourist reasons, prevented CNR from removing the tracks with a temporary, then a full injunction until the matter was resolved by the courts.

Considering how far Bristol is by car plus the amount of traffic trying to cross the river during rush hour, I'd say a lot of those people would probably have some interest in a rail alternative.

Not to mention that it's not as though the Ottawa Central Railway decided to pull a pilot commuter rail system out of thin air for no good reason. I'd say that more likely than not, the demand is there along this corridor.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Most GO stations/riders are in established suburbs, and most of those are closer than the rural areas Moose wants to serve. Smiths Falls is almost an hour away. That is awfully far for a city the size of Ottawa.

Yes the populations that GO Transit serve are higher but they were not as high as they are now when GO Transit first started in 1967.

Its an Apples to Orange comparison you are making. When Go Transit started Toronto had population less than 700,000 people which is less than 900,000 that Ottawa has now. So Let MOOSE take the risk that's all i'm saying.

[Joseph Potvin]

Few of those commenting here have considered the PPR model on its own terms.

This is a 100 square km property development project, in which the only density that matters is within the perimeters of the Linked Localities.

Semi-rural Linked Localities can be just as lucrative as urban ones -- case in point, the 200-acre Morrison Quarry prospect which is on the line that everyone else was writing off. Will Chelsea and La Pêche really hold out against receiving all that additional tax revenue?

Is it "sprawl" to turn that already foreseen development from 100% car-dependent, to a locality well-served by a regional train?

@Charles5 -- You ought to do the overall arithmetic on that 200 acres. Is the owner really wrong to see advantages in connecting that site?

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