Rural Commuter Rail

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

What happens when MOOSE's expenses are greater than 100% of the 'uplift' from property lease and transactions? Would MOOSE take up to 100% from the station owners and have the railway operations run a deficit, or would they expect the station owners to be the ones to run a deficit so that the train is fully funded?

I'll answer but this is a rhetorical question, no? Of course you know that when costs exceed revenues for a business, it either must be financed until revenues exceed costs or it needs to shut down.

Well, unless it's Uber. In that case when losses stay in the multi-billions, it just needs to ramp up the promotional bullhorn and hope that somehow it all works out.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Well I just finished looking at GO Transit's financial statements from Metrolinx and noticed that they lose money about 16 million last year providing commuter service to the GTA and the GTHA. I don't see how it's possible for MOOSE to make money when the populations they want to serve are alot smaller.

Hint: What would happen if, say, the entire Appleby station and parking lot were sold to the highest bidder, and Metrolinx were to charge a fee for train service to that station based on the increment to property value on that land?

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

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

I'll answer but this is a rhetorical question, no? Of course you know that when costs exceed revenues for a business, it either must be financed until revenues exceed costs or it needs to shut down.

No, not rhetorical. Since MOOSE's railway operations is one corporate entity and the station owners are separate entities, I saw this as two options:
A: MOOSE going back out to external investors to continue to finance MOOSE railway operations above and beyond what station owners were generating from 'uplift'' (ie: MOOSE railway operations incur a deficit); or
B: having station owners pay a fee that is greater than the uplift is generating in their vicinity (ie: the station owners incur a deficit).

In theory you could have option C where the deficit is split between the railway operator and the station owners.

From your answer, I understand you see B as the only option. You would expect station owners to continue to pay the a station fee determined by MOOSE even if it was greater than the uplift generated around their stations.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

From your answer, I understand you see B as the only option.

You interpreted incorrectly. If the increment to least/sales transaction does not provide value added to both the property owners and MOOSE, then there will be no train, and properties will be valued as they would have been before with no train. This is not a debt-based initiative.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Hint: What would happen if, say, the entire Appleby station and parking lot were sold to the highest bidder, and Metrolinx were to charge a fee for train service to that station based on the increment to property value on that land?

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

There is only so much demand for property and there are downturns as well regardless of good transit or not so you have to factor downturns in property prices as well. With that said my next question is have you factored in what happens if property values decrease due to an economic downturn?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

You interpreted incorrectly. If the increment to least/sales transaction does not provide value added to both the property owners and MOOSE, then there will be no train, and properties will be valued as they would have been before with no train. This is not a debt-based initiative.

So, from what you're saying, you believe that from day 1, regardless of whether or not any new development is occurring, that all stations will generate sufficient uplift simply from the presence of the train to cover all expenses. And if and when that fails to happen, the network will simply stop ("there will be no train").

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Have you factored in what happens if property values decrease due to an economic downturn?

Yes. PPR only targets the property value increment attributable to train service. In the event of a severe and prolonged property value downturn, the general economic effects are likely to increase demand for transit, therefore for property within an easy walk of a regional rail station. Relatively, this seems more likely to be a hedge against property value downturn than a victim of it. Resilience through downturns is a common design requirement in initiatives I have worked on for some decades.

• In 2006-07 when I led design for Treasury Board Secretariat of the business structure for Government of Canada's IT infrastructure underlying MASAS, Search&Rescue, Buy & Sell, and several other essential systems, one of our criteria was that it has to be resilient to a financial crisis. The "High Resilience Environment" set up then has been running now for over a dozen years, at about 10% of the cost of any equivalent infrastructure within Shared Services Canada, even though the whole system is hosted within SSC data centres. You read that right: 90% cost savings over the other cabinets.

• In 2009 I was invited to give a keynote address at the 2nd Annual Ben Graham Centre Symposium on Value Investing, in Greece. (Here's a short editorial I co-authored afterwards.) The focus was on methods for maintaining tangible worth through widespread valuation crises.

Anyway, you asked if MOOSE is planning for downturns. Absolutely.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

So, from what you're saying, you believe that from day 1, regardless of whether or not any new development is occurring, that all stations will generate sufficient uplift simply from the presence of the train to cover all expenses. And if and when that fails to happen, the network will simply stop ("there will be no train").

You've got the sequence backwards. Also you speak of "development". We speak of "transactions".

1. Households and businesses comparing localities with and without regional rail transit within an easy walk tend to prefer localities with regional rail transit.
2. If there are enough stations signed up, and if the market preference is revealed adequately in lease rates and property sales values (without dependence on any increase in turnover volume), then train service will be delivered to those localities. That's to say, there needs to be a minimum number of signed stations, and a minimum actual increase in aggregated value in ongoing monthly leases and ongoing monthly sales financial transactions, without assuming any change in lease or sale frequency.

Obviously, if there occurs more development nearby stations, there's a greater overall volume of property that wlll tend to have a greater value with (vs without) regional rail connectivity. We still never touch based value. Development might take place if it is allowed, but the PPR model also does just fine without added development. Suppose a locality's buildings were 100% heritage-protected, and that they were surrounded by protected farmland and/or ecologically protected areas. The PPR model still works: the value of properties in such a locality could rise enormously. (Yes, there are circumstances in which that may not happen, say due to loss of exclusiveness/insularity.) However the point is, PPR is intentionally designed to work in complementary fashion with strict agricultural/ecological/heritage protection laws, bylaws and master plans. Such controls actually help to make the properties adjacent to the stations much more attractive. MOOSE's architectural member firm MTBA also describes "form-based codes" so that further protections can be included in the agreements with the Linked Localities. (This is why the anti-sprawl critique of MOOSE & PPR is entirely misguided, describing the opposite of what has actually been designed here.)

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

On what basis are you predicting “enormous” property value increases. Existing studies for commuter rail indicate a property value increase of between zero and 11%. There are some metro type systems that have yielded higher increases.

https://uttri.utoronto.ca/files/2017/10/...nd-Land-Value-Uplift-An-Introduction.pdf

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Development might take place if it is allowed, but the PPR model also does just fine without added development. Suppose a locality's buildings were 100% heritage-protected, and that they were surrounded by protected farmland and/or ecologically protected areas. The PPR model still works: the value of properties in such a locality could rise enormously. (Yes, there are circumstances in which that may not happen, say due to loss of exclusiveness/insularity.) However the point is, PPR is intentionally designed to work in complementary fashion with strict agricultural/ecological/heritage protection laws, bylaws and master plans. Such controls actually help to make the properties adjacent to the stations much more attractive. MOOSE's architectural member firm MTBA also describes "form-based codes" so that further protections can be included in the agreements with the Linked Localities. (This is why the anti-sprawl critique of MOOSE & PPR is entirely misguided, describing the opposite of what has actually been designed here.)

That seems to be a very different tone from what I've always interpreted from previous communications. As an example, if I go to your concept document on Linked Localities (pg 10), it states the following: "the proposal to adapt the zoning and planning regulations to accept an intensifying of development on the lands within 0.8 km from the eventually-designated station stop location."

Or, from your own press release (pg 2): " that MOOSE's plan is, in fact, a 100 km2 property development project."

Obviously you can see why folks here might have the idea that intensification and new development are prime components of the MOOSE model.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

On what basis are you predicting “enormous” property value increases. Existing studies for commuter rail indicate a property value increase of between zero and 11%. There are some metro type systems that have yielded higher increases.
https://uttri.utoronto.ca/files/2017/10/...nd-Land-Value-Uplift-An-Introduction.pdf

Various studies (cited in the PPR white paper) give a wider range, from around -10% to +40%. (Plunk a station down in the middle of an 'exclusive' neighbourhood and you'll degrade property value.)

The figures you cite are:
(a) averages
(b) premised upon business models that tend to put stations where the potential margin is lower

Whereas PPR deals in:
(a) optimal choice of sites for prompt and sustained lease/sale value increase
(b) premised upon accepting station applications that optimize for whole-network value

Also, non-performing stations (in a financial sense) will be cut from train service -- the trains will no longer stop there. Is that a problem for anyone? Well, if the train service is not showing up in lease and sale values, then clearly the market is saying it's not interested to get train service at that locality. If the station owner started out with just the start-up station on a bed of 3/4 gravel and basic utilities, the risk is fairly low to test a locality.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Obviously you can see why folks here might have the idea that intensification and new development are prime components of the MOOSE model.

I didn't say intensification and new development are not a prime component at the network level. I am explaining that our model is ALSO inclusive of localities that experience lease/sale value increases by means other than intensification. BTW, the PPR white paper is already more than 20 pages long, so surely there will be other factors as yet unexplained which should not be attributed to evasiveness.

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

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Variants of our plan for refurbishment of the PoWB include an LRT line cantilevered off the west side, in which case the separated pedestrian and cycling paths would be cantilevered off the east side, bike lane above, pedestrian lane below.

It's not yet clear what proportion of their funds would be assembled from developer fees around stations, but at $80M per km, Gatineau's current plan will be politically hard to allocate funds to, I reckon, even within Gatineau, where it would still leave more populous eastern Gatineau households with choosing between Hwy 50 and Rapibus.

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

So you envision the existing single, heavy rail track for Moose trains, on either side cantilevered LRT tracks, and then on either side of those cantilevered multi-use trails. I'm certainly not an engineer but it's that a lot of cantilevering? How much can the existing piers and trusses support?

Are you planning on updating any images or documents on your website to take into account what Gatineau wants to do?

On a separate topic, for the existing tunnel the O-Train uses on the Trillium Line, do you propose that in order to let the City's plan continue without any disruption from Moose, that the tunnel would have to be widened or a parallel tunnel be built to handle your heavy rail commuter trains?

Is this already on your website?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Charles5

That seems to be a very different tone from what I've always interpreted from previous communications. As an example, if I go to your concept document on Linked Localities (pg 10), it states the following: "the proposal to adapt the zoning and planning regulations to accept an intensifying of development on the lands within 0.8 km from the eventually-designated station stop location."

Or, from your own press release (pg 2): " that MOOSE's plan is, in fact, a 100 km2 property development project."

Obviously you can see why folks here might have the idea that intensification and new development are prime components of the MOOSE model.

Quite interesting that Joseph Potvin thinks you can increase the value of the linked locality without any increase in population driving sprawl in the surrounding area.

The value uplift can only happen if the market sees value in that locale. Which only happens if that locale has increased activity. And there's no way businesses set up in a linked locality unless there is sufficient increased business to justify paying MOOSE's taxes (ummm fees).

So is he lying to himself, investors or the public? That's the question.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So is he lying to himself, investors or the public? That's the question.

@Truenorth00, If you actually believe someone in business in lying to potential investors, I encourage you to initiate a formal case about it. Here you go:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/contactus_index.htm

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Quite interesting that Joseph Potvin thinks you can increase the value of the linked locality without any increase in population driving sprawl in the surrounding area.

Since you decline to back up your strong feelings about rail-related sprawl with any references, perhaps you'll share your insights about sprawl in Chelsea which, very wisely, pulled up its railway less than a year ago. I shared this link earlier but you missed the chance to comment on it back then.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chelsea-quebec-expansion-development-housing-1.4960509

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Truenorth00, If you actually believe someone in business in lying to potential investors, I encourage you to initiate a formal case about it. Here you go:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/contactus_index.htm

Unless you have securities in Ontario the OSC would have no jurisdiction.

[Joseph Potvin]

New submission from MOOSE requesting that the federal Minister of Transport remove ambiguity from the order that City of Ottawa restore the interprovincial railway connection.

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

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Truenorth00, If you actually believe someone in business in lying to potential investors, I encourage you to initiate a formal case about it. Here you go:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/contactus_index.htm

1) I don't have standing.

2) I think your lack of investors speaks more about your "scheme" than anything I could ever do or say.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Since you decline to back up your strong feelings about rail-related sprawl with any references,

There's plenty out there. But selective vision is the mark of an ideologue and that's why you can't see it. Incidentally, that's also a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 trait in a businessman and not something potential investors haven't noticed.

I think your scheme is quite comparable to the effect DART had in Dallas:

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/20...prawl-so-when-will-it-design-for-people/

Some other links:

https://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/29/can-rail-cause-sprawl/

https://www.wired.com/2010/03/high-speed-rail-and-sprawl/

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-farms-20150224-story.html

And if you don't want to read, just look at a density map of the GTA. Let us know how much density GO transit has brought to the 905.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

perhaps you'll share your insights about sprawl in Chelsea which, very wisely, pulled up its railway less than a year ago. I shared this link earlier but you missed the chance to comment on it back then.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chelsea-quebec-expansion-development-housing-1.4960509

For a guy who was a senior public servant and is supposedly running a company, you sure resort to a lot of fallacies in your attempts at persuasion.

You do get that just because some place experiences sprawl without rail that they can also see sprawl with rail?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think your scheme is quite comparable to the effect DART had in Dallas:

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/20...prawl-so-when-will-it-design-for-people/

Some other links:

https://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/29/can-rail-cause-sprawl/

https://www.wired.com/2010/03/high-speed-rail-and-sprawl/

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-farms-20150224-story.html

Thanks for posting those links. In the article about DART it mentions a book, Trains, Buses, People: An Opinionated Atlas of US Transit, which seems like it could be a really interesting read. You can pick up a print copy on Amazon.ca and digital copies on Amazon and Kobo. I think I might have to pick that up for some weekend reading.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/20...prawl-so-when-will-it-design-for-people/
https://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/29/can-rail-cause-sprawl/
https://www.wired.com/2010/03/high-speed-rail-and-sprawl/
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-farms-20150224-story.html

First link:
"DART Successfully Built For Sprawl" ... That was the objective of the system. What's the issue there?

Second link, end of the article:
"The best way to manage population growth is to follow the pattern of places like Bellevue and Northgate and create new urban centers outside of the center city. This of course means more people living in places that are farther away from what’s currently dense development"

Third link, end of the article:
"Focusing on these ideals will reduce the risk of sprawl and make high-speed rail – and the communities it connects – a guidepost to the future of transportation."

Fourth link:
A news piece that reports even-handedly on the opposing views.

Have you got anything that will actually validate your opinion that all regional rail will inevitably result in greater sprawl than automobile/bus systems do?

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