Rural Commuter Rail

[Charles5]

If I could just shift topics a bit here and talk about stations and the increase in property value that they would bring.

I can't find the original source, but MOOSE and Joseph Potvin have stated several times in the past that "With a few exceptions, train services will only be offered where the average rent and property values within a 0.8 km radius of each station are expected to increase by at least 25 percent over the base value.
Secondary sources are:
http://mtbarch.com/of-interest/ottawa-life-magazine-featuring-moose/
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/uploads/Fall2016_Ottawa_Life_Moose.pdf

Questions:

-Who here would be willing to pay an additional $100K to buy a home or an extra $300/month to rent just because it had a MOOSE rail station in close proximity to it? (Based on average home prices in Ottawa of approximately $400K, and average rents of about $1200.)

-Do you believe that there is any possible station on the proposed lines where this type of value increase is even possible? If so, where and why?


For my own part, I don't see any situation within the urban/sub-urban portions of the City where having MOOSE running a train versus current OC Transpo options would have any significant increase on property values. That's about a third of the stations right there where no additional property value means no revenue source for MOOSE. As for many of the more rural areas, people tend to move out there for lower property values, and I can't imagine many wanting to pay a 25% premium to live near a train so that they can commute into the City.

Any thoughts/comments/opinions?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

New rail alignment paid by Ottawa taxpayers is compensation to MOOSE whether it is cash or another asset, there is no difference. The city has to consider octranspo riders own needs before worrying about MOOSE, especially since they have not proven they can even start their business. MOOSE wants to operate their business without owning any track which is wishful thinking at best. No business that runs on rail that I know of doesn't own any track. Even VIA rail owns some track although it isn't much. GO in the GTA owns some of its track it operates on as well.

The new rail alignment is only necessary because the city botched it in the first place. Don't try to shift the blame to MOOSE because of that. This is something in which the politicians or whoever approved the dismantlement of those tracks need to be held accountable for their mistakes, if not for re-grading it to non-standard clearances, then for leaving the line dismantled for the last 4-5 years with no plan to repair it.

For about 4 years the City of Ottawa ran a rail service and owned 0% of their tracks. In any case, I don't see how that's important or relevant at all and anyway, MOOSE will have to own some of their tracks if they intend to rebuild the Beachburg Subdivision.

So don't try to make MOOSE look credible when all the facts say what they are planning won't work without huge taxpayer subsidy and that's what i'm thinking Potvin is after.

No one has ever said that it would only work with huge taxpayer subsidies, they're saying it won't work at all. Big difference. If you want to argue that MOOSE's proposal was always just some elaborate scheme to get taxpayer subsidies (despite how much they insist they won't need any) then you can go ahead and join acottawa in the increasing number of non-credible arguments (that should really be put against Occam's razor) against MOOSE. If you want an example of a credible argument, look at anything Charles5 has posted.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Charles5

For my own part, I don't see any situation within the urban/sub-urban portions of the City where having MOOSE running a train versus current OC Transpo options would have any significant increase on property values. That's about a third of the stations right there where no additional property value means no revenue source for MOOSE. As for many of the more rural areas, people tend to move out there for lower property values, and I can't imagine many wanting to pay a 25% premium to live near a train so that they can commute into the City.

Any thoughts/comments/opinions?

That's all exactly why some of us see it as a sprawl scheme. Not much uplift from urban or suburban areas. But put an hourly train service in Smiths Falls or Alexandria and it's quite likely the area around the station would see a 25% uplift. Gotta keep in mind that an 800m radius around a station located in the town centre of a small town would cover a good chunk of the downtown area.

You might not pay $100 000 more for a house in Ottawa. But you might be willing pay to pay $100 000 above today's average for a house in Kinburn, especially if you can get a massive house on a large lot, for cheaper than the average detached in Ottawa, all in. And still commute in an hour (give or take).

[Truenorth00]

If anybody doubts the effects of rail on sprawl, just look at GO in Toronto. Ask yourself how much Barrie or Newmarket or Hamilton would have grown if there weren't 2000 pax GO trains running every 20-30 minutes at peak to them.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-montreals-sprawl-is-shocking-urban-planners/

A rail line works exactly like a highway. Build it and you will increase accessibility which in turn enables people to move further out.

In an ideal world this kind of regional rail proposal would come with zone fares, congestion charges and strict rules for TOD in these small towns. In reality, this is Canada. Moose will collect and the communities will be happy to let everyone have acre lots as long as they can collect dev fees and property taxes. And the added cars on the road that Moose brings? Not their problem....

This is the difference between urban and commuter rail. Comparing Atlanta and Barcelona:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/09/03/w...na-and-atlanta-show-the-waste-of-sprawl/

Similar population. Similar length in rail network. Massive difference when you spread out that rail to build commuter rail instead of high frequency transit. We can build Ottawa up to be a European city or an American one. Our choice. The LRT might not make us Barcelona. But it'll bring us closer to a Europeanesque city. Potvin's vision is for the NCR to be like Atlanta. Dunno about you guys, but I don't find Atlanta or LA or other sprawling messes they call cities in the US appealing.

Also, a reminder that there's more to this than just shaving a few minutes off the train ride:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/10/un-climate-report-transportation-choices/572494/

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The new rail alignment is only necessary because the city botched it in the first place. Don't try to shift the blame to MOOSE because of that. This is something in which the politicians or whoever approved the dismantlement of those tracks need to be held accountable for their mistakes, if not for re-grading it to non-standard clearances, then for leaving the line dismantled for the last 4-5 years with no plan to repair it.

For about 4 years the City of Ottawa ran a rail service and owned 0% of their tracks. In any case, I don't see how that's important or relevant at all and anyway, MOOSE will have to own some of their tracks if they intend to rebuild the Beachburg Subdivision.


No one has ever said that it would only work with huge taxpayer subsidies, they're saying it won't work at all. Big difference. If you want to argue that MOOSE's proposal was always just some elaborate scheme to get taxpayer subsidies (despite how much they insist they won't need any) then you can go ahead and join acottawa in the increasing number of non-credible arguments (that should really be put against Occam's razor) against MOOSE. If you want an example of a credible argument, look at anything Charles5 has posted.

The city of Ottawa had every intention of extending line 2 to Gatineau, so the city began discussions with the Gatineau Mayor on how to do this and this will take a long time to get a plan going. MOOSE is trying to rush things because they know if Ottawa and Gatineau start sending their own trains across the river, then no one is going to want to use a MOOSE train since there will be no capacity left on the POW bridge. MOOSE is being dishonest about protecting railways, ask yourself why haven't they bought the Rail that CN Rail is discontinuing if protecting railways is so important to them.

You are going to have to show me proof that the city ran line 2 without owning the tracks.

I do agree with Charles's assessments of MOOSE and how their plans isn't feasible

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Because railways are treated completely differently than any other asset.

(Federally Regulated) Railways must allow other operators, including competitors, access to their tracks (although this typically comes with usage fees and scheduling limitations). Do you see that logic being applied to anything else?
(Unless I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to say).

I get that's what the law says or at least as it is interpreted by Moose. But this again brings in to question whose interests are relevant. The city could well argue that it's not in the public's interest to facilitate sprawl and its attendant (negative) impact on the Ottawa ratepayer.

A lot of those rules were designed to facilitate sharing of lines for the purpose of transporting cargo. I doubt lawmakers intended them as rules to be used by private entities to undermine city planning and regional development goals. So it will be quite interesting to see, not just what the courts say, but what the feds say on it eventually.

Today Trillium Line. What's stopping someone from doing the same with GO or AMT tomorrow? And the political consequences of that kind of chicanery would be massive.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The city of Ottawa had every intention of extending line 2 to Gatineau, so the city began discussions with the Gatineau Mayor on how to do this and this will take a long time to get a plan going. MOOSE is trying to rush things because they know if Ottawa and Gatineau start sending their own trains across the river, then no one is going to want to use a MOOSE train since there will be no capacity left on the POW bridge. MOOSE is being dishonest about protecting railways, ask yourself why haven't they bought the Rail that CN Rail is discontinuing if protecting railways is so important to them.

That's a very condensed and incorrect interpretation of what happened.

I've posted this on this thread already before, but at the time the original complaint was filed the future of the PoW bridge was entirely unclear. Gatineau wasn't interested in trains, and an RFQ(?) on converting the PoW bridge to a pedestrian bridge was accidentally released by the city of Ottawa.

Anyway, I explained why the city's behaviour involving Bayview has been problematic in this post.

They didn't purchase those tracks because they didn't (and still don't) have the money to. MOOSE wasn't the only organization who tried to stop CN from ripping up those tracks, but CN wasn't interested in leaving them behind due to the high value of the CWR used along there.

You are going to have to show me proof that the city ran line 2 without owning the tracks.

The city leased the tracks from CP between 2001 and 2005. In fact, the maintenance facilities still belong to CP and are still being leased.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The city of Ottawa had every intention of extending line 2 to Gatineau, so the city began discussions with the Gatineau Mayor on how to do this and this will take a long time to get a plan going. MOOSE is trying to rush things because they know if Ottawa and Gatineau start sending their own trains across the river, then no one is going to want to use a MOOSE train since there will be no capacity left on the POW bridge. MOOSE is being dishonest about protecting railways, ask yourself why haven't they bought the Rail that CN Rail is discontinuing if protecting railways is so important to them.

You are going to have to show me proof that the city ran line 2 without owning the tracks.

I do agree with Charles's assessments of MOOSE and how their plans isn't feasible

As of now, Moose does not have the funds to do any of what they are saying. And while the City of Ottawa has to play nice on sharing track, they have no obligation to play nice on sharing stations or zoning for new ones. Any investor worth his salt has run the entire scheme by a lawyer. And that's probably why 7 years on, Potvin can't even find the funds for a feasibility study.

What investor wants to get into a scheme that starts with a massive legal fight with core municipality that is to be serviced? Forget rail. If Ottawa loses that fight, they could also respond by slapping on a congestion charge into the city, giving preference to locals in hiring and contracting, offering discounts for locals on city services and programs, etc. In short, there are many ways Ottawa can devalue that investor's rural investment plan. Who wants that risk?

So I am hoping (and foreseeing) that he'll still be substantially hobbled even if track sharing is mandated. And eventually, this all goes away as Gatineau and Ottawa get more serious on the PoW bridge. As soon as construction starts on Stage 2, city planners will probably move on to talking with Gatineau.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I get that's what the law says or at least as it is interpreted by Moose. But this again brings in to question whose interests are relevant. The city could well argue that it's not in the public's interest to facilitate sprawl and its attendant (negative) impact on the Ottawa ratepayer.

A lot of those rules were designed to facilitate sharing of lines for the purpose of transporting cargo. I doubt lawmakers intended them as rules to be used by private entities to undermine city planning and regional development goals. So it will be quite interesting to see, not just what the courts say, but what the feds say on it eventually.

Today Trillium Line. What's stopping someone from doing the same with GO or AMT tomorrow? And the political consequences of that kind of chicanery would be massive.

I can't imagine the regulations were created with an urban transit line in mind either, but anyway

The section of the transportation act that involves joint track usage makes lots of mention of public interest
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-22.html#h-73

GO and exo (AMT) aren't governed by federal regulations.

As of now, Moose does not have the funds to do any of what they are saying. And while the City of Ottawa has to play nice on sharing track, they have no obligation to play nice on sharing stations or zoning for new ones. Any investor worth his salt has run the entire scheme by a lawyer. And that's probably why 7 years on, Potvin can't even find the funds for a feasibility study.

Zoning no, but the same regulations for sharing tracks apply to sharing existing stations.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

For about 4 years the City of Ottawa ran a rail service and owned 0% of their tracks.

And more significantly, VIA Rail rain rail service without any mainline track (only yards and the abandoned former M&O sub for use for future HSR acquired from CP in 1986) for their first 24 years, from when they started operations in 1977 until they purchased a segment of the Smiths Falls Subdivision in 1991 (after CN had received approval to abandon the track, Decision No. 53-R-1991). See Local Railway Items from Area Papers - Smiths Falls subdivision, pg. 20.

In any case, I don't see how that's important or relevant at all and anyway, MOOSE will have to own some of their tracks if they intend to rebuild the Beachburg Subdivision.

True. Could that be a problem for them? Has CN sold off any of the ROW to private land owners?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And more significantly, VIA Rail rain rail service without any mainline track (only yards and the abandoned former M&O sub for use for future HSR acquired from CP in 1986) for their first 24 years, from when they started operations in 1977 until they purchased a segment of the Smiths Falls Subdivision in 1991 (after CN had received approval to abandon the track, Decision No. 53-R-1991). See Local Railway Items from Area Papers -
Smiths Falls subdivision, pg. 20.

Thank you for this info!

True. Could that be a problem for them? Has CN sold off any of the ROW to private land owners?

MOOSE seems to be accounting for the fact that they'll need to relay track, but I think their claim that they wouldn't own any of their tracks was just to reinforce the point of reusing existing tracks.

Looking at GeoOttawa, the entire beachburg ROW is intact except for this one section

But without historical data it's hard to say whether this is because the section of the ROW was sold or if it was simply always like this.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The section of the transportation act that involves joint track usage makes lots of mention of public interest
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-22.html#h-73

Will be interesting to see how the courts define public interest. To me overruling the intent of an elected city council, for a project that has negative outcomes for the city, would not seem to count as being in the public interest.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

GO and exo (AMT) aren't governed by federal regulations.

Forgot that this was just federal rules. I wonder if there are similar rules provincially that trolls could exploit similarly.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Zoning no, but the same regulations for sharing tracks apply to sharing existing stations.

They have to share the platform. Nothing says the City has can't charge $30 per day for parking at the stations to Moose patrons or provide them an unloading zone that is exactly 1 car length long with a parking officer standing right there. That bit about "good faith" only applies to sharing the track and providing basic rail infrastructure necessary for your business. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And you know any investor has his/her lawyer brainstorming ways they'd get screwed over.

Thankfully, we're a long way from that escalation when Moose doesn't even have a feasibility study yet. I guess we gotta put up with this thread for another decade till the Gatineau LRT opens? Hopefully, we can actually get around to discussing how best to serve these communities. And move past this ridiculous sideshow.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The CTA doesn't have that authority and that isn't quite what they said. They did say they'd invoke declaratory power which would give them the power to kick the city of its tracks, but that requires parliamentary approval, which requires a credible plan, and I don't think I need to tell you why that wouldn't work.


So you're telling me that in 20111 when MOOSE was first put together and they decided on using bi-level coaches it was all part of an elaborate scheme so that 5 years down the road they could use it as extra leverage in their litigation? Perhaps you should take Occam's razor to this and see what kind of simpler explanation you get. I think it fits in with what Truenorth00 said in that Potvin is dead fixed on not just rail service, but rail service with bi-level trains for no other reason than probably because that's what most people associate with commuter rail (i.e. GO).


The explanation Potvin has given in the past is that unless they launch the entire system at once then the increased property values (for which their revenue depends on) won't be increased enough to make them their money, or as much money... or something along those lines.

The declaratory power doesn’t give anyone power to kick anyone off its tracks, it gives the federal government the power to claim jurisdiction over a work or undertaking that would not otherwise be under its jurisdiction. As you say it requires legislation specifically invoking it, and the power hasn’t been used in a long time.

Moose’s business model from day one has been that the CTA would order railway owners (including the city of Ottawa) the access it wants (which would preclude other services such as the Trillium line). Or as Mr. Potvin put it, in his favoured consultant lingo: “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.” Such a decision would be very valuable to moose.

And since Moose began its litigation spree in 2012 I think litigation has always been its core business - they even have a legal tab on their website. It isn’t just the CTA, they have been in court and at the competition bureau.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

...Moose’s business model from day one has been that the CTA would order railway owners (including the city of Ottawa) the access it wants (which would preclude other services such as the Trillium line)...

In the final sentence of the MOOSE brochure it states "Meanwhile, once these tracks become operational, any other new railway services (e.g. freight companies that may want to operate outside the hours of Moose Consortium passenger service) would pay lease fees. (link)

I find it amusing/ironic that MOOSE believes that they can force their way onto someone else's railway line regardless of the interference it might cause to present operators, yet when it comes to other operators who may want to use the lines, those would only be permitted at times that wouldn't interfere with MOOSE.

[Truenorth00]

Has Moose actually sought a declaratory judgement on access or has their fight to date only been over the discontinuance of track at the bridge?

I'm most curious at what point this goes away. It's incredible to me that a party with that is not a credible rail operator can abuse the regulatory process like this.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Has Moose actually sought a declaratory judgement on access or has their fight to date only been over the discontinuance of track at the bridge?

I'm most curious at what point this goes away. It's incredible to me that a party with that is not a credible rail operator can abuse the regulatory process like this.

They need their feasibility study done before they could even consider going for parliamentary approval. You also can't apply to use a railway if you yourself aren't a railway.

I don't get the part about abusing the system though. It's ultimately the CTA who (in their view) determined the complaint to be valid and has gone after the city. This is blame shifting as I had mentioned previously. All previous cases to the CTA ruled against MOOSE.

Now I know you might say that it's ridiculous that MOOSE would need to be a regulated railway to apply for access, but not to complain about the state of infrastructure but that's exactly like how you as a private citizen don't need to be a federally regulated railway to make a safety complaint to the CTA.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Now I know you might say that it's ridiculous that MOOSE would need to be a regulated railway to apply for access, but not to complain about the state of infrastructure but that's exactly like how you as a private citizen don't need to be a federally regulated railway to make a safety complaint to the CTA.

Or another example, lets say you are a business that receives goods delivered to you by a railway, but are not a railway yourself. If the railway didn't follow proper discontinuance protocol and decided one day to tear up the tracks, you have the right to complain to the CTA.

Railways received their ROWs at a special price (or sometimes free) and in return have an obligation to maintain that ROW and follow a specific protocol for discontinuance.

For some reason, the city has chosen not to discontinue the POW bridge despite the fact that they aren't using it. Had they done so, they could have kept the bridge for future use (for a rail line or for anything else) and not had the responsibility to maintain it as an active rail line. AFAIK, the only risk of doing so is someone (like MOOSE) could come along and offer to buy the bridge, to use as an active rail line, for a fair price (the CTA can decide the price if the parties can't come to an agreement) and the city would have to decide if they wanted to sell it or keep it and make it active again. The only thing I can think of, is there could be something in the contract with the CPR, that if they decide to discontinue it, they have to sell it back to the CPR at a fixed, low price (if they want it).

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They have to share the platform. Nothing says the City has can't charge $30 per day for parking at the stations to Moose patrons or provide them an unloading zone that is exactly 1 car length long with a parking officer standing right there. That bit about "good faith" only applies to sharing the track and providing basic rail infrastructure necessary for your business. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And you know any investor has his/her lawyer brainstorming ways they'd get screwed over.

I've been thinking along the same lines. As an example, The Transportation Act states that a railway company can "use" another company's infrastructure. It doesn't make any mention that they would be allowed to modify, upgrade, or change it in any way (my opinion only, I'm not a legal expert) or compel the owner to do so.

So, using the Renfrew Spur out to Arnprior as an example, this is currently all Class 1 track with speed limits of 10mph for most of its length. Even if MOOSE could obtain running rights on that track, I think the City would be well within its rights to maintain in its current state of the track, even should MOOSE indicate a desire/willingness/capability to upgrade the track. MOOSE could use the track, but it would result in a two hour journey from Arnprior just to get to Moodie Drive.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

So, using the Renfrew Spur out to Arnprior as an example, this is currently all Class 1 track with speed limits of 10mph for most of its length. Even if MOOSE could obtain running rights on that track, I think the City would be well within its rights to maintain in its current state of the track, even should MOOSE indicate a desire/willingness/capability to upgrade the track. MOOSE could use the track, but it would result in a two hour journey from Arnprior just to get to Moodie Drive.

As far as that specific example goes, the City only owns the corridor, and the track is owned by Nylene Canada who I don't believe would have any problem in having their tracks upgraded.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I don't get the part about abusing the system though. It's ultimately the CTA who (in their view) determined the complaint to be valid and has gone after the city. This is blame shifting as I had mentioned previously. All previous cases to the CTA ruled against MOOSE.

Now I know you might say that it's ridiculous that MOOSE would need to be a regulated railway to apply for access, but not to complain about the state of infrastructure but that's exactly like how you as a private citizen don't need to be a federally regulated railway to make a safety complaint to the CTA.

Someone who has no direct or indirect interest in a situation and files repeated complaints with government agencies is generally considered a nuisance. If I go to your neighbourhood with a measuring tape and file complaints about any flower beds that encroach on the city side of the property line, my actions would be considered by most people to be a nuisance, even if technically the encroachment breaks some rule.