Rural Commuter Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Yes, for the masses.

You stated that you didn’t understand why people want what they want - and disregard reasoned decisions agonized over for years by overly qualified professionals.

I gave you two easy examples of bad decisions that the masses will hold up as proof of why the system that you are a part of has failed in spectacularly costly ways.

Most people are unable to make rational decisions on their most important and costly things in life: spouse, place of residence, even automobile. Look no further than the divorce rate or used car lot for evidence.

This is how completely unqualified people ascend to high political office - and then stay in office - by obfuscation and pandering to their single-issue bases.

Do you really think that Diefenbaker scrapped the Arrow based on a rational decision? But we bought those dud submarines from the Brits based on a rational decision. “No ‘ellicopter, Chrétien.” Won an election. But cost many lives and billions of dollars.

The knife cuts both ways. And while I’m wholly and completely on your side of the argument, I’ve been out of the game long enough to start to see what the masses see.

1) The Arrow was an aircraft's whose performance was outdated and irrelevant, and whose budget threatened to swallow the entire air force. They were right to cancel it. Canadian mythmaking does not make alternative facts true.

2) Those "dud submarines" were received at no cost, in exchange for giving the British access to Suffield (BATUS) for years. The alternative was no submarines. And a huge reason of why they were in terrible shape, is because Canada let them sit for a long time after they were purchased. Ships tend to rust when you do that.

3) You're right about Chretien and EH-101. The F-35 is giving all of us in the military deja vu.

Thanks for proving my point though. People are just utterly ignorant of facts. And prefer myths to reality. It's particularly galling that this gets extended to multi-billion dollar programs.

In the case at hand, people are taking a company with no experience, no expertise and no investors as seriously as they are OC Transpo. Come on.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

People are just utterly ignorant of facts. And prefer myths to reality.

On this I will disagree with you:

1) The masses prefer the easy answer. The one that they can digest and rationalize the quickest.

2) The masses also prefer the answer that best aligns with their personal beliefs. It is called confirmation bias.

Put together and it’s called populism, and subject to manipulation by people as diverse as Father Coughlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin and Donald Trump. It is what happens when people like you and me in the machinery of government make bad decisions for the people and then walk away with little real accountability and few personal consequences.

As well, in both 1) and 2) above, the answer chosen by the masses can sometimes also be the objective truth.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) The Arrow was an aircraft's whose performance was outdated and irrelevant, and whose budget threatened to swallow the entire air force.

Ironic that you would choose this easily digestible taking point. When it was the RCAF, people just like you, who wrote the performance specifications for that aircraft - and when one couldn’t be procured on the open market, led to the major crown project to develop an aircraft that did meet those RCAF requirements.

So to the masses, and to your talking point, it is the highly informed expert that is the problem as they forced upon the taxpayer a fallacious performance requirement.

In the end Canada’s true actual requirements were met with the COTS equivalent of 56 Bomarcs and 132 Voodoos: Proving the masses right again.

(I don’t necessarily believe this - but it is how the masses see how that piece of Canadian taxpayer history played out.)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Ironic that you would choose this easily digestible taking point. When it was the RCAF, people just like you, who wrote the performance specifications for that aircraft - and when one couldn’t be procured on the open market led to the major crown project to develop an aircraft that did meet those RCAF requirements.

So to the masses, and to your talking point, it is the highly informed expert that is the problem as they forced upon the taxpayer a fallacious performance requirement.

In the end Canada’s true actual requirements were met with the COTS equivalent of 56 Bomarcs and 132 Voodoos. Proving the masses right again.

(I don’t necessarily believe this - but it is how the masses see how that piece of Canadian taxpayer history played out.)

When the situation changes, so must the assessment. It's nonsensical to penalize bureaucrats for changing their judgements to reflect new information or experience. Particularly in a developmental program.

Now, if we're done with the history lesson..... Do you believe that MOOSE should be taken as seriously as OC Transpo when they have no experience, no expertise and no funding?

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Now, if we're done with the history lesson..... Do you believe that MOOSE should be taken as seriously as OC Transpo when they have no experience, no expertise and no funding?

I believe that my posts below; addressed to Joseph Potvin in this thread, and about 50 pages ago, speak to my long-standing assessment of this MOOSE charade:

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I think many of us will look forward to your contributions.

I for one am a big supporter of rail in all its various forms. But so far, and based on the information I've seen to date, the Moose initiative is giving off the vibe of vapourware.

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Fair enough. I accept your challenge. What about the following:


What non-paper-based things have you created to this date?


What other operators? What steps have you already taken to substantiate your statement that discussions are in fact proceeding at this time?


Speaking as someone who was a Director General with enterprise-wide infrastructure responsibilities I find that what you've written reads more like marketing rhetoric than sober facts and figures.

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Precisely why this reads as vapourware:



More correctly MOOSE proposes to create, or seeks to create. But it does not appear to have created anything beyond such intents.

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I'll ask you a second time to identify them.

Surely a person of your office understands that continued obfuscation simply adds another layer of doubt to this initiative's viability.

This is not a venue to present a marketing prospectus to potential investors. Rather we are stakeholders and willing supporters of a rail initiative with a reasonable chance of success based in reality.

To treat us otherwise would be a miscalculation.

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Who are you? Donald Trump?

If you make a statement in a public fora it is you who had better be prepared to back it up with fact. Not alternate fact.

With every response you've simply continue to reinforce the impression that this is vapourware.

I truly wish the MOOSE initiative well and hope that it can find the right people to make its proposals a reality.

[Charles5]

The City of Ottawa has indicated that it intends to appeal the recent CTA decision. An article can be found at the following link as well as a copy of a letter from the Mayor to the Minister of Transport.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-rail-bridge-appeal-review-1.4563928

[Allandale25]

While we wait for the Minister to respond to the City of Ottawa's request in its March 6, 2018 letter here and other developments, just wanted to note that in its infrastructure announcement today the government again noted their financial support for the "Ottawa Light Rail Transit Stage 2 project". Background document with reference here.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

While we wait for the Minister to respond to the City of Ottawa's request in its March 6, 2018 letter here and other developments, just wanted to note that in its infrastructure announcement today the government again noted their financial support for the "Ottawa Light Rail Transit Stage 2 project". Background document with reference here.

$872.2 million? I thought it was supposed to be over $1 billion. That's only 24.2% of the project.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

$872.2 million? I thought it was supposed to be over $1 billion. That's only 24.2% of the project.

That might just be the federal allocation. It probably doesn't include the provincial contribution to Stage 2.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

That might just be the federal allocation. It probably doesn't include the provincial contribution to Stage 2.

When Trudeau was campaigning back in 2015, he promised 50% funding for all rapid transit projects. He then toned it down to 40% after a year in office. So why are we only getting 24.2% from the Feds?

Province is providing "over" $1 billion, or "over" 27%.

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/#demoTab3

So the City is on the hook for about $1.73 billion, or 48.8%? WTF!?

Neither of the three levels of government were clear about the actual detailed breakdown of the cost distributions.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

When Trudeau was campaigning back in 2015, he promised 50% funding for all rapid transit projects. He then toned it down to 40% after a year in office. So why are we only getting 24.2% from the Feds?

Province is providing "over" $1 billion, or "over" 27%.

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/#demoTab3

So the City is on the hook for about $1.73 billion, or 48.8%? WTF!?

Neither of the three levels of government were clear about the actual detailed breakdown of the cost distributions.

I was following the federal election pretty closely and the promises of all parties. I don't recall, but am happy to be proven wrong, if the Liberals made a specific commitment in their platform to 50%. Do you have a specific reference or quote from a media article with a reference to 50%?

The platform is here: https://www.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

I did a CTRL+F for "50" and no references come up. Page 12 has the transit portion and there no reference to 50%.

The only media reference I could find is from this March 22, 2016 article that says the federal government is opening the door and "increasing" it's share. I don't see a connection to a specific pledge in the platform.

[Charles5]

I don't have a complete answer yet, but here's what I've found so far:

"As laid out in the 2017 federal budget, the federal government will give the city more than $1.15 billion to help offset the costs of expanding the LRT network." (CTV News)

A link to the 2017 budget is here, but I haven't found a specific dollar amount in it yet. The infrastructure spending for LRT is in Chapter 2, page 120 (pg 122 of the pdf file).

Additionally, I found this on the PM's website:
"The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced up to $1.09 billion in funding for the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Stage 2 Project" (link)

If you read the facts at the bottom of the page you will see that there are various times where funding has been input already adding up to $66M. That's what creates the difference between the $1.15B and $1.09B.

I suspect this is all a matter of what the various sources of money are and when they are allocated. (edit: see my next post)

[Charles5]

Found it. Look in the backgrounder again, in the "Green Infrastructure" row:

* This amount includes $218.9 million for the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Stage 2 project, (link)

You add this to the amount allocated for "Public Transit" of $872M and we get the complete amount we talk about above.

$218M + $872M = $1.09B, add in the $66M already provided and we get our $1.15B

[Charles5]

"For public transit in provinces, the Government will provide up to 50 per cent of eligible costs for rehabilitation projects (with funding for rehabilitation projects capped at 15 per cent of total public transit funding), while funding for new public transit construction and expansion projects will be cost-shared at up to 40 per cent federal funding.

I believe this is where folks are getting the 50% and 40% numbers from. This is a quote out of the 2017 Federal Budget, page 145 (pdf file page 147) (link)

Edit: The 2016 Federal Budget had a similar statement regarding public transit. "To get projects moving quickly, the Government will fund up to 50 per cent of eligible costs for projects" (link - page 92, 94 of pdf file)

Note the "up to" for each statement.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Charles5

"For public transit in provinces, the Government will provide up to 50 per cent of eligible costs for rehabilitation projects (with funding for rehabilitation projects capped at 15 per cent of total public transit funding), while funding for new public transit construction and expansion projects will be cost-shared at up to 40 per cent federal funding.

I believe this is where folks are getting the 50% and 40% numbers from. This is a quote out of the 2017 Federal Budget, page 145 (pdf file page 147) (link)

Edit: The 2016 Federal Budget had a similar statement regarding public transit. "To get projects moving quickly, the Government will fund up to 50 per cent of eligible costs for projects" (link - page 92, 94 of pdf file)

Note the "up to" for each statement.

Thanks for the clarification Charles. Good to have the clarification on "up to 50 percent".

[J.OT13]

Thanks for finding the breakdown. The $1.15 Billion figure represents 32%.

Only place I could find 50% without the "up to" is here;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...2016-transit-funding-questions-1.3503356

If we get a little less than a third, who's are the lucky ones getting 50%?

[OCCheetos]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/wakefield-train-thurso-singer-lumber-1.4589931?cmp=rss

Well, it's too bad there are no tracks running through Chelsea now, but this is something at least.

That culvert seems like it could pose a problem for MOOSE later on.

[1overcosc]

Russell Township is planning to reconfigure their commuter bus service to terminate at the Confederation Line east of downtown with transfers to and from the LRT (St. Laurent, Tremblay, and Hurdman are all being considered for this role) and is also considering the idea of introducing off-peak bus services between Embrun/Russell and Ottawa.

http://russell.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Serv...ansit%20Study%20PIC%20Boards%20final.pdf

For fare integration, the City of Ottawa is apparently allowing the existing arrangement--where Russell Township pays the City of Ottawa $8 per transit rider in exchange for Russell's riders being given free transfers to OC Transpo--to stand even once all Russell Transit riders are transferring to the LRT. When that $8 fee was originally negotiated, an OC Transpo monthly pass cost $80, and they calculated that 10% of Russell Transit users would want to transfer, so an $8 fee was revenue-neutral for OC Transpo. With nearly every rider transferring the math falls apart and Ottawa will basically be subsidizing heavily discounted Confederation Line access for Russell's residents. IMO the fair method would be to have the provincial government compensate OC for this, much like how the province currently provides financial compensation to the TTC in exchange for making them give discounted fares for 905ers transferring from GO.

[OCCheetos]

I can imagine a lot of riders of Russel Transit would either buy a monthly pass, or just continue to pay for return trips (which would eventually add up to the cost of a monthly pass anyway).

If that holds true for the majority of Russel Transit users, it seems like the $8 per month per rider would be in favour of OC Transpo, not Russel Transit.

This is all of course unless those riders get "free" access to OC Transpo on their return trip as well...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Russell Township is planning to reconfigure their commuter bus service to terminate at the Confederation Line east of downtown with transfers to and from the LRT (St. Laurent, Tremblay, and Hurdman are all being considered for this role) and is also considering the idea of introducing off-peak bus services between Embrun/Russell and Ottawa.

http://russell.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Serv...ansit%20Study%20PIC%20Boards%20final.pdf

For fare integration, the City of Ottawa is apparently allowing the existing arrangement--where Russell Township pays the City of Ottawa $8 per transit rider in exchange for Russell's riders being given free transfers to OC Transpo--to stand even once all Russell Transit riders are transferring to the LRT. When that $8 fee was originally negotiated, an OC Transpo monthly pass cost $80, and they calculated that 10% of Russell Transit users would want to transfer, so an $8 fee was revenue-neutral for OC Transpo. With nearly every rider transferring the math falls apart and Ottawa will basically be subsidizing heavily discounted Confederation Line access for Russell's residents. IMO the fair method would be to have the provincial government compensate OC for this, much like how the province currently provides financial compensation to the TTC in exchange for making them give discounted fares for 905ers transferring from GO.

It should be noted that the TTC gave no substantial discounts to GO riders until the province ponied up:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transpo...sers-to-get-half-price-fares-on-ttc.html

This is going to get particularly absurd when Stage 2 opens in Orleans and Rockland transit practically sets up a hub in Orleans, if they don't do one at Blair. If you're an Ottawa resident, you'll be paying more in taxes to give these guys seats while you stand.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier with transit enabling sprawl. You can no live cheaply in Russell or Rockland and benefit from low cost transit while making an urban wage in Ottawa.

Right now, 46 000 riders annually from Prescott/Russell is not a huge deal. But what happens if they grow as more people decide to take advantage of cheap property and cheap transit?