HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2181  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2019, 11:40 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
@OtrainUser, I have seen the very extensive technical engineer's report on the culverts along that entire track. The large majority of those culverts were then and still are about 1/2 to 3/4 blocked by sediment and/or are in need of structural maintenance. When municipal officials say the track washed out due to a very heavy rain, well, uh, ya, that's true. It's also true that neither the municipality nor the 3-municipality's CCFO have ever budgeted for proactive culvert maintenance along that line. Real railway companies are required to do so.
For others: I haven't personally read through them but there are studies and other documents relating to the rail/trail here (mostly in french only).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2182  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2019, 11:42 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles5 View Post
An interesting quote:

"A railway is not 'discontinued' merely because the owner neglects core maintenance obligations. Discontinuance of a railway requires the owner to first openly offer to sell the corridor to other railway companies."
Joseph Potvin, Low Down, March 16-22, 2016

This is the argument that Joseph Potvin used to try and bring the line through Chelsea back under Federal jurisdiction, arguing that it had 'not' been discontinued, despite not being used or maintained. It is completely opposite the argument that MOOSE has been making in regards to the POW Bridge in which they argue that the City has effectively discontinued the line by not maintaining it over the years. It appears that Mr. Potvin is willing to interpret the law any way he wants as long as it suits his purposes.

(For comparison purposes, here's a reference for the POW Bridge scenario (para 35). "MOOSE claims that because the City did not repair the railway line, it has fallen into a state of disrepair. MOOSE therefore maintains that the railway line has been discontinued without the City having gone through the discontinuance process.")

@Charles5,

1. You're confusing the legal and colloquial meaning of "discontinuance".
2. Our case on the PoWB stated (and in Feb 2018 the Agency agreed) that Ottawa had "effectively discontinued" the PoWB without following the Division V discontinuance process.
3. The line through Chelsea was indeed formally discontinued under the federal process, but MOOSE argued that this authorization was only acted upon for the part north of Wakefield (it was dismantled), whereas south of Wakefield the line was in fact put back into service including for an undertaking by federal organizations.
4. We also hold the position that the dismantlement by Chelsea is a straightforward violation of Quebec Loi 244 which mandated the CCFO to develop it.

Before you start tossing around ad hominem attacks such as "It appears that Mr. Potvin is willing to interpret the law any way he wants as long as it suits his purposes." you might do as others on this forum have done: point out an apparent contradiction, and ask for clarification.

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2183  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 12:26 AM
Charles5 Charles5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 238
@Joseph Potvin

Well you didn't really answer my earlier question on the line through Chelsea, but I get the sense now that there is no real plan other than hope. (I was always taught that " 'hope' is not a course of action".)

So, now that it appears that you intend to continue your vision for a regional rail network without the Maniwaki subdivision, perhaps you could enlighten us on one of the other legs, specifically the Beachburg subdivision. Could you please indicate what you see as your course of action in regard to this leg of the network.

As some background, I understand that much of the line has already been discontinued (from about mile 14 onwards I think). Much of that track was removed in 2014.
Pontiac Councel tried to get an injunction against the removal of the rails but that was denied.
There is a desire in certain communities to have parts of it converted to trails.
Both CP and CN have indicated in their 3 year plans that they intend to discontinue other portions of the line from roughly mile 0.3-14.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how you envisage bringing this line back from the dead?

Last edited by Charles5; Jan 6, 2019 at 1:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2184  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 1:04 AM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles5 View Post
@Joseph Potvin

Well you didn't really answer my earlier question on the line through Chelsea, but I get the sense now that there is no real plan other than hope. (I was always taught that " 'hope' is not a course of action".)

So, now that it appears that you intend to continue your vision for a regional rail network without the Maniwaki subdivision, perhaps you could enlighten us on one of the other legs, specifically the Beachburg subdivision. Could you please indicate what you see as your course of action in regard to this leg of the network.

As some background, I understand that much of the line has already been discontinued (from about mile 14 onwards I think). Much of that track was removed in 2014.
Pontiac Councel tried to get an injunction against the removal of the rails but that was denied.
Parts of it have been converted to trails.
Both CP and CN have indicated in their 3 year plans that they intend to discontinue other portions of the line from roughly mile 0.3-14.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how you envisage bringing this line back from the dead?
The Beachburg Sub has been discussed fairly thoroughly on this thread already, but what MOOSE would need to do is either purchase or lease the corridor from CN and rebuild the track. It's probably the most straightforward part of the system to implement (in terms of negotiations/complexity, not necessarily in cost).

As far as I know (and can tell) no part of the corridor has been converted to any kind of trail. capitalgems.ca is not a website that contains any sort of official listings. Walking on that bridge is as safe and legal as walking on the Prince of Wales bridge (I have no idea why they would call it "family friendly"). I've never heard of any serious discussion on turning the full thing into a bike trail like the Carleton Place sub either. On geoOttawa 99% of the corridor is still intact (i.e. not absorbed into neighbouring lots) with the exception of a single intersection, but as I think I mentioned in a previous post it's not possible to tell if that's something that changed after the tracks were torn up or not. The corridor as it is now has gravel piled up in the corridor where crossings used to be to discourage trespassing (I'm assuming) and those piles are visible from aerial imagery (and even in some of those pictures on capitalgems).

It's interesting that those subdivisions are listed on CP's three-year plan, however they were entered in 2000, the same year CN originally listed the Beachburg Sub for discontinuance (not including the more recent listings) although I guess it does indicate that the track is jointly owned.

As roger1818 and I kind of(?) figured out (in that post and some of the preceding ones), the most likely outcome of the remaining portion of the Beachburg sub is that it will be purchased by the ANR (aka Nylene) for continued rail access to the plant in Arnprior. Rail service would continue to be contracted out to another railway (possibly CN) as it is now.

Beachburg is kind of the most non-issue part of MOOSE's proposal, at least as long as no one else tries to do anything non-rail with it (which is unlikely so far).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2185  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 2:34 AM
Charles5 Charles5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
When you say "The city of Chelsea already considered all options and has already said that it's not feasable to protect the track so they ripped it up." ... you seem to hold some unjustifiable confidence in them.
Just because the Municipal Council acted contrary to what you believe they should have done does not necessarily make them incompetent or corrupt as you seem to be insinuating.

While they may not be perfect, I believe they have acted in good faith to do what they believe is in the best interests of the community and have worked to ensure due diligence throughout the process.

From reading through some of the documentation on their website it appears that the issue of the tracks being removed and a trail being created was discussed in Council since 2014. There was also a specific working committee looking into the issue since 2015. Members of the public had an opportunity to ask questions and make comments during some of those meetings (including a representative of MOOSE, which I'm guessing was likely yourself).

The public was informed about the issue through various means including a website, press releases, newspaper articles (both pro and con), online questionnaires, presentations, community workshops, etc. A petition gathered over one thousand five hundred signatures in support of the trail.

The Municipality also obtained multiple environmental studies, geotechnical studies, feasibility studies, technical studies, greenhouse gas studies, and a social impact study.

The Quebec Court has also sided in their favour.

Since the removal of the rails they have continued to involve the community through various forum, keeping them informed and obtaining their input through various working groups.

While the Chelsea Municipal Council has been accomplishing all of the above, MOOSE has still yet to complete a feasibility study on their proposed rail network. It's hard to argue that your plan is better when all you have is a vision and some empty promises.

Last edited by Charles5; Jan 6, 2019 at 3:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2186  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 7:05 AM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles5 View Post
As some background, I understand that much of the line has already been discontinued (from about mile 14 onwards I think). Much of that track was removed in 2014.
Yes, the track west of mile 14.5 has already been discontinued. I am not sure who owns the ROW now (I don't think the city exercised their right to take it over for any purpose).

Quote:
Both CP and CN have indicated in their 3 year plans that they intend to discontinue other portions of the line from roughly mile 0.3-14.
Mile 0.30 to 6.00 is heavily used by VIA Rail and there is no risk of it being abandoned. There is some indication that they have taken over ownership of that segment and CN and CP are only continuing to list it as they were previously co-owners and are thus required to do so.

As OCCheetos mentioned, miles 6.00 to 14.5 are used by the ANR (a subsidiary of Nylene) and there is a high probability that they will purchase it from CN (either in partnership with the city or on their own) similar to what they did with the Renfrew Subdivision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
capitalgems.ca is not a website that contains any sort of official listings. Walking on that bridge is as safe and legal as walking on the Prince of Wales bridge (I have no idea why they would call it "family friendly").
Agreed. They also list the POW Bridge: http://www.capitalgems.ca/prince-of-wales-bridge.html

According to their website, it was created "by individuals born and raised in Ottawa who humbly set out on a journey to discover the regions's caves, mines, and abandoned places" (hardly an official listing). They also clearly say, "We are not responsible or held liable for tickets, fines, arrests, injuries or deaths if you visit any locations found on Capitalgems.ca" (emphasis added by me). Hardly the typical disclaimer for public trailways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2187  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 12:54 PM
Charles5 Charles5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 238
@OCCheetos, @Roger1818,

I appreciate your comments on the Beachburg sub. My intent was not to suggest that it would be impossible to make use of that corridor. Rather I was trying to illustrate that it is becoming more complicated over time as ownership changes, infrastructure is removed, etc for it to eventually be returned back to use for heavy rail and I was looking for the MOOSE perspective on how they envision bringing it into their network (ie: purchase the corridor, lease, etc).

In regards to Capital Gems. I acknowledge that they are not an official site. I linked to that site primarily to give access to the photographs of the bridge and the corridor now that the rails have been removed. It also illustrates a desire within certain communities to make use of that corridor for purposes other than a train. I've edited my original post to reflect this.

Last edited by Charles5; Jan 6, 2019 at 1:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2188  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 1:16 PM
OtrainUser OtrainUser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
@OtrainUser, I have seen the very extensive technical engineer's report on the culverts along that entire track. The large majority of those culverts were then and still are about 1/2 to 3/4 blocked by sediment and/or are in need of structural maintenance. When municipal officials say the track washed out due to a very heavy rain, well, uh, ya, that's true. It's also true that neither the municipality nor the 3-municipality's CCFO have ever budgeted for proactive culvert maintenance along that line. Real railway companies are required to do so.

When you say "The city of Chelsea already considered all options and has already said that it's not feasable to protect the track so they ripped it up." ... you seem to hold some unjustifiable confidence in them.


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
They have studies already done and you don't so its obviously easier to take their word over yours.

Get all of your studies done and then more people can take you seriously.

So now to another question how much do you estimate it would cost to prevent the line from washing out in the future and will it include having to elevate the line?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2189  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 5:58 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 29,078
We're at 110 pages and > 3.5 years just on this discussion thread. Moose still hasn't funded a feasibility study.

I, for one, hope Mr. Potvin keeps this pace of development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2190  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 6:52 PM
Charles5 Charles5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
We're at 110 pages and > 3.5 years just on this discussion thread. Moose still hasn't funded a feasibility study.

I, for one, hope Mr. Potvin keeps this pace of development.
Here's a bit of a sample of the MOOSE timelines:


14 Sep 2011: But Potvin said if the municipalities all get on board, the first trains could be running by the winter of 2012.

23 April 2013: Our target start-up date for the Moose Consortium’s whole-region private-sector railway service is Friday 29 July, 2016, which we concede is ambitious, and yet is realistic from both technical and investment perspectives.

6 October 2015: their ambitious plan to develop and operate a 400 km private-sector interprovincial passenger railway throughout the Greater National Capital Region in time for Canada’s Sesquicentennial in 2017.

July 12, 2016: Potvin said Smiths Falls could see trains running as early as 2018, a slight shift from the 2017 that was first anticipated

December 8, 2018: “the leader of a private business seeking to set up an interprovincial commuter rail system in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec says he can have trains running by 2020

Last edited by Charles5; Jan 6, 2019 at 11:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2191  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2019, 10:17 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles5 View Post
Here's a bit of a sample of the MOOSE timelines
Yup, we didn't expect the City of Ottawa to outright violate federal law and destroy the track connection. We didn't expect the Canadian Transportation Agency to dilly dally on the case for 7 years, which is almost visible from their office windows. We also expected the Government of Quebec (esp the Min of Transport, who at that time was from The Pontiac), to maintain the rail connection between the Pontiac and the urban core, and La Pêche and the urban core. And we thought the Quebec Minister of Justice (from Gatineau) would require CCFO compliance with Law 244. We were wrong every time we expected the public sector to take a whole region view.

Let me adapt Karl Marx's comment: "Thus the great mass of the [National Capital Region] is formed by the simple addition of homonymous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes."

Oh well. Institutional divergence makes some parts appear greater than the whole. We have a plan, and determination, and resilience. Stay tuned.

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2192  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 1:23 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,912
Wow
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2193  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 2:30 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 29,078
Lots of excuses. Lots of talk. Not one investor who actually thinks Potvin and his "team" are actually worth trusting with real funding for a feasibility study.

I'm enjoying this too. The more unhinged nonsense posted on here, the more there will be for potential investors to ponder. Would you hand over millions for a rail feasibility study to an inexperienced real estate developer quoting Marx?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2194  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 3:26 AM
pattherat pattherat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Lots of excuses. Lots of talk. Not one investor who actually thinks Potvin and his "team" are actually worth trusting with real funding for a feasibility study.

I'm enjoying this too. The more unhinged nonsense posted on here, the more there will be for potential investors to ponder. Would you hand over millions for a rail feasibility study to an inexperienced real estate developer quoting Marx?
I was going to say I wasn’t enjoying the ‘flimsiness’ of it all, but you make an indirect point that I now see...

If one is unable to convince this group, even slightly, good luck gaining favour from a populace that would be extremely ‘happy’ with legal efforts/interference that delays light rail phases or even perhaps the opportunity to connect light rail to Gatineau.

I.e. Support for light rail is very high, people just want to see these phases in service...and as fast as can be. Anyone ‘jimmying’ with this ability will surely not be seen in a positive light...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2195  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 1:12 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
@Truenorth00 is against private sector entrepreneurial transit and instead insist on state monopolies
@pattherat speaks of knowing what the people want

It seems like others may be more inspired by Marxism, whether they know it or not, than the guy (and team) organizing a 100% commercial venture on competitive free market principles. FWIW it might be useful to scan through Milton Friedmans' "Capitalism and Freedom" and see what he suggests about the role of government in a free society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2196  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 1:48 PM
JohnnyRenton JohnnyRenton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Yup, we didn't expect the City of Ottawa to outright violate federal law and destroy the track connection. We didn't expect the Canadian Transportation Agency to dilly dally on the case for 7 years, which is almost visible from their office windows. We also expected the Government of Quebec (esp the Min of Transport, who at that time was from The Pontiac), to maintain the rail connection between the Pontiac and the urban core, and La Pêche and the urban core. And we thought the Quebec Minister of Justice (from Gatineau) would require CCFO compliance with Law 244. We were wrong every time we expected the public sector to take a whole region view.
After seeing that comment, along with some of the posts over the past week, in particular from Charles5, I think I can finally make sense of Moose of the Moose saga, and why it has ended up in the spot that it is in today.

When Moose started, most of the lines he proposed using still had at least a minimum amount of use on them. Without digging too deep I am sure there were a few abandoned sections at the time, but overall, there was at least some activity which would have made it possible to just slap a commuter train on it and start a service on it. Yes, the service would have been painfully slow, but Moose at least had a small chance to work fast and get its system going, before people had too much time to think about the implications of it.

But there was a critical miscalculation.

For standard freight, which is now done in containers, the major operators have rationalized their operations so that they essentially only have to take it from port to intermodal rail terminals (and vice versa), which are located in only the largest centres. From these intermodal terminals, they can simply use trucks to take them too there final destination; branch and short lines are not necessary. And unlike the Prairies or BC, where branch lines serving small or remote areas are used to bring forestry products, potash, oil, grain, and some other natural resources to market, there is nothing like that in Southern Ontario or Southern Quebec, save the need to serve the odd industrial location.

Right at the time Moose was being conceived, and then revealed to the public, several of these lines were hitting the end of their usefulness. In reality, the short lines and branch lines that still remained in the NCR were living on borrowed time. That the lines would be abandoned was inevitable, but Moose failed to see that turn of events.

Once rail lines have stopped serving a purpose, they either get discontinued, sold, or just left in a general state of abandonment until it becomes to costly to even do that. And since the lines are privately owned, there are free to proceed with any one of those choices. The Moose plan required all the commuter lines up and operating simultaneously (or near as makes no difference), and for the lines to be owned and maintained by someone else. So as the infrastructure faded away, Moose needed a new strategy.

If there was already money available to start up Moose the answer would be simple, they just buy the lines themselves. But since there wasn’t even money for a feasibility study, they went with their now well known tactic; take legal action, and try to find any means of having the lines not ripped up.

As stated above, there became this weird notion that somehow, someway, local municipalities should step in and save the lines, and secure them for future use. But that was never going to happen. Municipalities cannot force private companies to keep the tracks in place if they don’t have any use for them. They would also have to purchase the lines themselves, if they wanted to save the tracks from being removed (I know that simply protecting the right of way is different, but Moose needed the tracks, not just the land).

Now, it is not uncommon for public agencies to purchase rail lines. GO has spent the last two decades making purchases to build up its network, and VIA is starting to ramp up its purchasing efforts. But municipalities are not going to purchase a line, maintain the track, just so that some private company might be able to use it in the future one day. Not to say that this model couldn’t work, but it would be a radical shift in how things are done today, and it would take an agency/government with considerable resources to pursue the idea). If a municipality, or collection of municipalities is going to purchase a line/right of way, it will be for their own use. And right now no one seems to be lining up to do that, probably because there is no value in those lines for passenger rail service (outside of perhaps VIA picking up a few, rather short sections, but that is speculative and another topic unto itself).

So instead of stopping, and doing a full rethink of the plan, when it became clear that 3 of lines were going to be abandoned (and would not be coming back), Moose simply played the defensive game and continued its strategy of legal games. A strategy, that as Charles5 pointed out, has involved trying to be clever and tailor arguments for each particular case, even if they are not consistent across the whole.

And as a final nail in the coffin you have the change in how people in Ottawa view LRT since the start of the 2010's. At that time there was just a pokey O-Train on the now Trillium line, and larger plans were still being sorted out as a strong vision of what it could do for, and mean to, the city, hadn't yet brought the majority of the public on board to the investments needed. Now, LRT is largely uncontroversial (save the odd neighborhood battle or line or station placement). People are behind it as a positive and healthy way forward for the city. This makes any battle for the Trillium corridor one in which the public will very swiftly react and voice their opinions about.

TL;DR, there will be no Moose. If there was ever a chance, even after the miscalculation, then Moose would have needed to hit pause some time ago, and retool the project to adjust for the reality that it would need to outright purchase and maintain 3 of the lines if it wanted to pursue its vision as is. Instead an already shaky idea just gets dragged along. It might fade away quietly. Or if an official end is announced, everyone else will be to blame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2197  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 2:01 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post

It seems like others may be more inspired by Marxism, whether they know it or not, than the guy (and team) organizing a 100% commercial venture on competitive free market principles.
The entire business plan is to try to get arms of the state to force the owners of capital to let you, who has no capital, to use their capital at a price dictated by the state, and even invest money for the sole benefit of you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2198  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 2:25 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
get arms of the state to force the owners of capital to let you, who has no capital, to use their capital at a price dictated by the state, and even invest money
Oh.

What are your sources on that?

What you have described doesn't sound like the rather libertarian model we've designed.

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2199  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 5:20 PM
OtrainUser OtrainUser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Oh.

What are your sources on that?

What you have described doesn't sound like the rather libertarian model we've designed.

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
Your behavior proves that especially the lawsuits that are either launched or caused by MOOSE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2200  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2019, 5:26 PM
OtrainUser OtrainUser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
@Truenorth00 is against private sector entrepreneurial transit and instead insist on state monopolies
@pattherat speaks of knowing what the people want

It seems like others may be more inspired by Marxism, whether they know it or not, than the guy (and team) organizing a 100% commercial venture on competitive free market principles. FWIW it might be useful to scan through Milton Friedmans' "Capitalism and Freedom" and see what he suggests about the role of government in a free society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

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
Wrong again, Truenorth is against commuter rail accelerating exurban sprawl which will have a negative effect on the city of Ottawa
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.