Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If the city were to actually abandon the PoW bridge, I'd expect MOOSE would scramble to obtain the funding necessary to buy the bridge. Whether they'd be able to do that, I don't know, but I can't see why they wouldn't try.

Basically, it forces the city to either keep it (and acknowledge that they are keeping it) or risk losing control of the bridge.

From a legal perspective, it would set a precedent. If the city is allowed to actually discontinue a federal railway just by "screwing up" some paperwork, then that would basically make Division V of the Canadian Transportation act useless.



The Canadian Transportation Act doesn't care how long it's been. The city only owns the track up to where it reaches the Quebec shoreline which means that anything beyond is no longer a "federal railway".
As you said earlier, do you expect the city to operate a 400m long railway that isn't connected to anything meaningful?

Moose hasn't been able to raise any money in 6 years. You expect them to be able to raise tens of millions to buy the bridge, fix it up and then operate a 100m railway? Moose is basically a blog.

Whether "abandon" and "discontinue" are the same thing is the subject of Moose's most recent complaints. That will be decided at some point.

They don't really risk losing it because nobody with an actual railway wants to use it. The next step is it is offered to the municipality which is also the city.

What remedy do you want? Should the city spend millions to build track to nowhere that nobody wants to use that will get overgrown again?

[Charles5]

The ever shifting feasibility study:

Prior to Oct 2015: "The feasibility study phase is expected to begin in 2016"
http://www.discoversmithsfalls.ca/commuter-train-track-2017-operation/

20 June 2016: “Phase 1(b): (Winter 2015/Winter 2016) ... Expanded research, feasibility and planning...Class C estimates...[UNDERWAY]”
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/AnnexB_Moose-Project125-Summary_V7_2016-06-20_PDF.pdf

25 November 2016: "Phase 1(b): (Underway as of July 2016) ...Expanded research, feasibility and planning. Class C estimates."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

24 July 2017: The formal peer-reviewed feasibility study should be done by end of October.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7873955&highlight=feasibility#post7873955

27 November 2017: "We're in discussions to finance the feasibility study, and that will be undertaken with several major industry players. Until their work is completed, all we've provided is a rough sketch."
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7999438&highlight=feasibility#post7999438

[acottawa]

Maybe it will be something different in the future, but it seems like for now Moose is a guy that likes to file complaints with government agencies and blog about it.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe it will be something different in the future, but it seems like for now Moose is a guy that likes to file complaints with government agencies and blog about it.

zing!



Personally, I get the nostalgia of having rural trains, but the scope of the Moose plan just doesn't seem realistic and sustainable.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The ever shifting feasibility study:

Prior to Oct 2015: "The feasibility study phase is expected to begin in 2016"
http://www.discoversmithsfalls.ca/commuter-train-track-2017-operation/

20 June 2016: “Phase 1(b): (Winter 2015/Winter 2016) ... Expanded research, feasibility and planning...Class C estimates...[UNDERWAY]”
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/AnnexB_Moose-Project125-Summary_V7_2016-06-20_PDF.pdf

25 November 2016: "Phase 1(b): (Underway as of July 2016) ...Expanded research, feasibility and planning. Class C estimates."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

24 July 2017: The formal peer-reviewed feasibility study should be done by end of October.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7873955&highlight=feasibility#post7873955

27 November 2017: "We're in discussions to finance the feasibility study, and that will be undertaken with several major industry players. Until their work is completed, all we've provided is a rough sketch."
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7999438&highlight=feasibility#post7999438

The ever shifting anything.
You can say the same thing about when they expect the first trains to start rolling.


But to be fair, the city isn't much better.
Remember when we were supposed to get a light rail system years before the Confederation line? Remember when the city apparently said it was going to do some repairs to the PoW bridge soon? (Which it apparently isn't going to anymore)

It's kind of just the nature of big projects like this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The ever shifting anything.
You can say the same thing about when they expect the first trains to start rolling.

Absolutely, and one of these days I'll compile a post about all of their shifting start dates.

I think it speaks primarily about the two-faced nature of this corporation. When they try to self promote or in the course of litigation, they are always just one step away from implementation. However, when they are challenged in any way about the validity of their plans then they are only at the very initial stages. You can't have it both ways.

As an example: In their submission to CTA on 15 Aug 2016 they indicate that immediate action is required " in time to accommodate normal railway operations by 30 June 2017", just ten months down the road. However, now when recently challenged they state that " all we've provided is a rough sketch."

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The ever shifting anything.
You can say the same thing about when they expect the first trains to start rolling.


But to be fair, the city isn't much better.
Remember when we were supposed to get a light rail system years before the Confederation line? Remember when the city apparently said it was going to do some repairs to the PoW bridge soon? (Which it apparently isn't going to anymore)

It's kind of just the nature of big projects like this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, but usually there is a chain of events an observer can follow. For example the city had a plan to build an LRT to Barrhaven, the mayor that championed that plan lost an election and the new mayor cancelled that and came up with a new plan.

With Moose, as Charles documented, Mr. Potvin has changed his story as to the status of the feasibility study numerous times. Either it was not underway when he said it was or it was underway and and was cancelled/delayed (and Mr. Potvin never disclosed that fact). It seems the most likely case is that there was never a study underway and no study has ever been commenced.

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin
I haven’t seen you online for a while, and there were a number of questions that had previously been raised that remain outstanding. I just want to repeat them here so that they don’t become buried too far in the past.

Issue:
By your own admission, your “current financial estimates are based on an assumption that we will start operations with 6 trainsets” ...and… “the current Class D financial estimates are for the fully developed system”. You further indicated that these were ballpark estimates and they could not be improved further “Until rather sophisticated system modeling is completed”.

I was however, using basic math and some simple assumptions, able to demonstrate that it would be impossible to operate the ‘fully developed system’ as you’ve described (3 lines, 400km, hourly service, 35-50 stations) with only 6 trains, even in a start-up mode. In fact, a ballpark estimate to operate the system would likely require in the order of three times as many trains.

Three questions:
1: Do you acknowledge any obligation to inform current or potential investors of any new information that may substantially change your financial estimates?
2. Have you demonstrated your due diligence and reviewed the information and arguments that I provided?
3. Did you find any mathematical errors, or flaws in my logic, that would substantially affect the conclusions that I made?

Original discussion and calculations.

Originally Posted by Charles5

...

Your responses where above quotes came from.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

...

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

...

I will be offline for a few days but I look forward to your responses upon my return.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Absolutely, and one of these days I'll compile a post about all of their shifting start dates.

I think it's important to remember that MOOSE is a private corporation that hasn't received any public money for the work that they've done. They can change dates all they want. I think we all agree that getting MOOSE up and running is far from being easy for a long long list of reasons and that the amount of effort it would take to secure funding would reflect that.

Again, none of what MOOSE is proposing is impossible, just very very difficult.

(Obviously, the more time passes, the harder it will get with Stage 2 in the works and all).

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think it's important to remember that MOOSE is a private corporation that hasn't received any public money for the work that they've done. They can change dates all they want. I think we all agree that getting MOOSE up and running is far from being easy for a long long list of reasons and that the amount of effort it would take to secure funding would reflect that.

Again, none of what MOOSE is proposing is impossible, just very very difficult.

(Obviously, the more time passes, the harder it will get with Stage 2 in the works and all).

A private company that keeps shifting it's start dates lack credibility.

Even large investors won't give him the chance which is why this endeavor won't even start.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think it's important to remember that MOOSE is a private corporation that hasn't received any public money for the work that they've done. They can change dates all they want. [/I].

(Obviously, the more time passes, the harder it will get with Stage 2 in the works and all).

If they would leave governments alone then I would share that view. But they want local governments to maintain unused infrastructure indefinitely while they sort out plans and continue to tie up local governments with pointless, vexatious complaints.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

A private company that keeps shifting it's start dates lack credibility.

Even large investors won't give him the chance which is why this endeavor won't even start.

Based in what MOOSE has said to the media, they've essentially said "once we secure the funding, operations will start around a year after that". They haven't changed their estimate of a year, they're just not sure when they'll secure the funding, which again, I don't think anyone is surprised about.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If they would leave governments alone then I would share that view. But they want local governments to maintain unused infrastructure indefinitely while they sort out plans and continue to tie up local governments with pointless, vexatious complaints.

What infrastructure are you talking about? Neither the city of Ottawa, Gatineau, or Chelsea are spending any money to maintain their respective infrastructures.

The PoW bridge has been left unmaintained for over a decade, the Rapibus corridor was only modified because of the construction of the Rapibus system, and the Chelsea track has been unmaintained since 2011.


You also still seem fixated on arguing that MOOSE is being "vexatious" in what it's doing or that it is tying up governments with their CTA cases.
I'll restate why I don't believe this to be the case if I have to, but for now I'll leave you with this thought:
Transport Canada ordered the city to put up thousands of dollars worth of fencing to block of the PoW bridge, but I guess in your opinion MOOSE is still solely responsible for tying up and wasting city resources (with regards to the PoW bridge).

I'm not sure how you expected MOOSE to proceed in the "right direction" with its project without going to the CTA at all. After all, 3 of the CTA cases were primarily focused on clarifications (of jurisdiction and status).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Based in what MOOSE has said to the media, they've essentially said "once we secure the funding, operations will start around a year after that". They haven't changed their estimate of a year, they're just not sure when they'll secure the funding, which again, I don't think anyone is surprised about.

But they are nowhere near being able to stand up operations within a year of getting funding.

They still have not done a feasibility study (these things usually take about a year).
They have not done any engineering work (this is usually a multi-year process)
They have not done any environmental assessments (usually long process)
They do not have any details on the business or operations side (which is why Mr. Potvin was unable to answer Charles' questions).
They have not undertaken any construction (usually a multi-year process)
They have only identified one developer interested in partnering with them (49 more to go).
None of the developers have any planning approval for any Moose community (usually a multi-year process).
Said developers have not sold any houses (usually a multi-year process).
They do not have any rolling stock (procuring rolling stock usually takes several years, especially since they say they want to deal with Bombardier).
They have not convinced any existing railway owners to let Moose use their track, nor is any of the necessary federal legislation in place (this is required to even apply to the CTA to get an order to force other railways to let them on the track).
There would also be many years of court challenges, OMB appeals, etc.

With the Confederation Line (a much less complicated project), from the conceptual stage (which is where Moose is now) in 2007 to opening day (hopefully next year) took 11 years.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

What infrastructure are you talking about? Neither the city of Ottawa, Gatineau, or Chelsea are spending any money to maintain their respective infrastructures.

Yes, because they keep losing their court/CTA cases. As long as they keep losing it is mildly annoying to city officials (just wasted legal costs). If they ever win any of these cases the municipality will have significant costs.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But they are nowhere near being able to stand up operations within a year of getting funding.

They still have not done a feasibility study (these things usually take about a year).
They have not done any engineering work (this is usually a multi-year process)
They have not done any environmental assessments (usually long process)
They do not have any details on the business or operations side (which is why Mr. Potvin was unable to answer Charles' questions).
They have not undertaken any construction (usually a multi-year process)
They have only identified one developer interested in partnering with them (49 more to go).
None of the developers have any planning approval for any Moose community (usually a multi-year process).
Said developers have not sold any houses (usually a multi-year process).
They do not have any rolling stock (procuring rolling stock usually takes several years, especially since they say they want to deal with Bombardier).
They have not convinced any existing railway owners to let Moose use their track, nor is any of the necessary federal legislation in place (this is required to even apply to the CTA to get an order to force other railways to let them on the track).
There would also be many years of court challenges, OMB appeals, etc.

With the Confederation Line (a much less complicated project), from the conceptual stage (which is where Moose is now) in 2007 to opening day (hopefully next year) took 11 years.

I think a single year is a bit optimistic for MOOSE, but you should choose a more similar project to compare MOOSE to. The Trillium line took only two years from approval to opening since it used existing rails. They also managed to obtain three new European trains from Bombardier in that time too.
They seem to have had some engineering done on their proposal for the PoW bridge, but that's the only thing that's public.

With the Confederation Line (a much less complicated project),

Hahahaha, good one.

Yes, because they keep losing their court/CTA cases. As long as they keep losing it is mildly annoying to city officials (just wasted legal costs). If they ever win any of these cases the municipality will have significant costs.

Again, most of them for clarification. The details they needed clarification for were clarified, and that's that.
In which of the 4 cases would municipalities have had significant costs if they had lost that wouldn't already exist? (E.g. if the city lost the most recent CTA case, they would have had to reconnect the PoW bridge... Which they were going to do anyway..)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think a single year is a bit optimistic for MOOSE, but you should choose a more similar project to compare MOOSE to. The Trillium line took only two years from approval to opening since it used existing rails. They also managed to obtain three new European trains from Bombardier in that time too.

The Trillium line was a)owned by the city b) funded by the city and c) still an extant railway. There were no requests to the federal government to use obscure constitutional powers, no complicated and unproven property-based funding schemes, no discontinued track that needed to be re-built, no requirement for 10s of thousand of people to relocate to high density rural communities.

There are no projects similar to Moose, it is one of the most complicated schemes I have ever heard of.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Again, most of them for clarification. The details they needed clarification for were clarified, and that's that.
In which of the 4 cases would municipalities have had significant costs if they had lost that wouldn't already exist? (E.g. if the city lost the most recent CTA case, they would have had to reconnect the PoW bridge... Which they were going to do anyway..)

It would be easier to have a conversation with you if you would read the documents. Moose's 2012 request to the CTA was "[2] MOOSE requests the Agency to order the City to restore the Bridge."

That is not seeking clarity on jurisdiction, that is asking the CTA to require the city to spend millions of dollars to restore the Bridge.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Trillium line was a)owned by the city b) funded by the city and c) still an extant railway. There were no requests to the federal government to use obscure constitutional powers, no complicated and unproven property-based funding schemes, no discontinued track that needed to be re-built, no requirement for 10s of thousand of people to relocate to high density rural communities.

There are no projects similar to Moose, it is one of the most complicated schemes I have ever heard of.

a) The city did not own the Trillium Line corridor. It was originally leased from CP. (The city purchased it in 2005)
b) The funding of the plan is irrelevant to how long it took to construct it.
c) MOOSE's plan has always been to use existing railways and railway corridors.

MOOSE has yet to use "obscure constitutional powers".
Again, their funding plan has little to do with the time it would take to construct the system. (Once they get the funding, that is).

The Trillium line track was upgraded prior to its initial launch. You can see pictures of a freight train carrying ballast that was used during the upgrades on this page. They were later upgraded to welded rails in 2004.

MOOSE's financial plan behind their idea is certainly unique, however the concept of a rail system being built from existing railways is far from new...

It would be easier to have a conversation with you if you would read the documents. Moose's 2012 request to the CTA was "[2] MOOSE requests the Agency to order the City to restore the Bridge."

That is not seeking clarity on jurisdiction, that is asking the CTA to require the city to spend millions of dollars to restore the Bridge.

The wording in the CTA ruling is significantly different than the wording MOOSE used in their original request.
The relevant paragraph is 17.4

Moose Inc. requests that the Agency order the City of Ottawa to immediately implement a normal railway maintenance, inspection and testing regimen across the Prince of Wales Bridge from the Ellwood Subdivision through to the Lachute Subdivision, unless and until the City obtains specific exemptions from these procedures from the Rail Safety Branch of Transport
Canada.

HOWEVER
This is after multiple paragraphs regarding clarification of the status of the bridge. (See paragraph 9).

Your response also doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

In which of the 4 cases would municipalities have had significant costs if they had lost that wouldn't already exist?

If the city chooses (on its own) to restore the bridge sometime in the future (past 2018 according to the latest budget), it'd still be a significant cost to the city. Repairing it in 2012 wouldn't have made it any less of a significant cost.

As a side note, "normal railway maintenance, inspection and testing regimen across the Prince of Wales Bridge" could just mean "making sure the bridge doesn't fall apart more than it has".

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

a) The city did not own the Trillium Line corridor. It was originally leased from CP. (The city purchased it in 2005)

Ok, but the city had an agreement with the owner of the railway to use it. Moose does not have any such agreements.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

b) The funding of the plan is irrelevant to how long it took to construct it.
c) MOOSE's plan has always been to use existing railways and railway corridors.

MOOSE has yet to use "obscure constitutional powers".
Again, their funding plan has little to do with the time it would take to construct the system. (Once they get the funding, that is).

Yes, all of these things have to do with how long the construction would take. Even if a bank gave Moose a $1,000,000,000.00 letter of credit tomorrow:

Moose cannot even get access to the tracks/land in question unless the federal government passes legislation invoking the declaratory power, the CTA orders the various owners of the railways/lands to give Moose access to their tracks/land on terms favourable to Moose, and all of the court challenges work their way through the system. That is probably 4-5 years, assuming the federal government is positively disposed to follow that strategy (and we have had ZERO indication the federal government wants any part of this scheme).

Under Moose's proposed business plan, Moose does not own any station. So before shovels can go into the ground, Moose has to find 50 station owners willing to pay Moose a regular fee for trains to stop at their station. Those station owners have to get the various municipal approvals, build the necessary infrastructure and start trying to sell houses to homeowners willing to pay a massive premium for such houses.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

HOWEVER
This is after multiple paragraphs regarding clarification of the status of the bridge. (See paragraph 9).

Yes, in addition to asking the CTA to order major expenditures, there were also jurisdictional questions. So what?

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Your response also doesn't answer my question.

Ok, but you could also find the answers yourself if you would just read the documents.
Two of the 3 requests to the CTA for which decisions have been reached requested the CTA to order the municipalities to undertake upgrades
"[2] MOOSE requests the Agency to order the City to restore the Bridge."

"An order that all tracks and related infrastructure be rebuilt or refurbished to federal railway standards."

This would have had major costs to municipalities, and no gain since no existing railway company wanted to use the track.

Another CTA order and a court case pertained to Chelsea trying to pull up the tracks. I do not know the exact cost to the municipality that the Moose request would have involved, but the tracks are probably worth something on the scrap market and there are probably insurance costs related to the track.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If the city chooses (on its own) to restore the bridge sometime in the future (past 2018 according to the latest budget), it'd still be a significant cost to the city. Repairing it in 2012 wouldn't have made it any less of a significant cost.

I don't believe the City has ever planned to restore the bridge "on its own." The plan would be to get all 5 governments to split the costs (Federal, Quebec Provincial, Ontario Provincial, City of Gatineau and City of Ottawa). Doing it on their own (either voluntarily or by order) would almost guarantee that the other governments wouldn't contribute. That alone could end up making Moose very expensive to Ottawa taxpayers. Joseph doesn't care because I gather he lives in Quebec.