Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[jys]

Have you lived in Ottawa? Have you looked up the populations of the towns involved? How do you think MOOSE will achieve their plans? They'd need hundreds of thousands of people to locate/relocate to these various towns.
And if you ask Mr. Potvin, his only defence is to suggest that rural areas should have the same access to transit as urban areas.

Just to clarify. So you're saying that this proposal will fail because it cannot attract the necessary number of developments and therefore riders, and even if it does attract enough developments parts of the developments will be so far from the stations that using it would not be practical and therefore people will drive.

 

[Charles]

Just to clarify. So you're saying that this proposal will fail because it cannot attract the necessary number of developments and therefore riders...

Yes. Use the South West leg as an example. The Smith Falls area has a population of about 10,000 and only about 500 of those commute into Ottawa (2011 Census). Once you get to Richmond you already have Municipal transit service, albeit limited, and then from Barrhaven onwards you have good municipal service. How does running a train every hour with a capacity of almost 500 people per train make sense (equates to an ability to move almost 10,000 people a day).

The numbers are similar along most of the legs of the proposed network. To make a train hit its breakeven point you would not only have to increase the population in the rural communities by huge amounts, you would also have to have all of those folks commute rather than find work locally, as well as all use the train rather than other forms of transportation.

Even if this could happen over the long term, how long can you operate a private train service costing $200M a year, in a deficit, waiting for the development to take place.

 

[micheal_can]

Yes. Use the South West leg as an example. The Smith Falls area has a population of about 10,000 and only about 500 of those commute into Ottawa (2011 Census). Once you get to Richmond you already have Municipal transit service, albeit limited, and then from Barrhaven onwards you have good municipal service. How does running a train every hour with a capacity of almost 500 people per train make sense (equates to an ability to move almost 10,000 people a day).

The numbers are similar along most of the legs of the proposed network. To make a train hit its breakeven point you would not only have to increase the population in the rural communities by huge amounts, you would also have to have all of those folks commute rather than find work locally, as well as all use the train rather than other forms of transportation.

Even if this could happen over the long term, how long can you operate a private train service costing $200M a year, in a deficit, waiting for the development to take place.

Just imagine being someone who works in Downtown Toronto. Housing prices are through the roof in the city. So, you move to the outskirts. Now you want to move even further away.

You could start considering places like Kitchener and Barrie. A few years ago, that would not be in your thoughts as the commute would be hell to drive.

The same goes for all of the places Moose will go. People will move there as they are still able to commute, but now have a nicer property for less money.

 

[Allandale25]

^ And there's nothing wrong necessarily with the above situation as outlined in the GTHA scenario. GO, which is publicly owned, has expanded on the outskirts. Some think that's been a good idea and others have argued it has created sprawl. Either way, GO hasn't had any difficulty expanding and special interests in the private sector haven't been arguing that the should run the service to places like Kitchener or Barrie. I also haven't seen the private sector step up and argue they could serve communitie left out right now, like Cambridge, Port Hope, Peterborough, Collingwood, etc, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just to clarify. So you're saying that this proposal will fail because it cannot attract the necessary number of developments and therefore riders, and even if it does attract enough developments parts of the developments will be so far from the stations that using it would not be practical and therefore people will drive.

The numbers required are massive. And I mean an order of magnitude increase in population in all of these communities. And were that to happen, since none of these town have great local bus services, most of these new residents will be driving to the MOOSE station. So we'll create gigantic sprawling exurbs. And that's the best case scenario for MOOSE.

Just imagine being someone who works in Downtown Toronto. Housing prices are through the roof in the city. So, you move to the outskirts. Now you want to move even further away.

Except that Ottawa is not Toronto and there are still affordable homes to be had inside the greenbelt, let alone the suburbs. You can get homes near the LRT line within walking distance for around $500k. And to top it off, average wages are higher in Ottawa.

The only reason anybody will be moving to the far out communities that MOOSE wants to service is because they want to buy 3500 sqft homes on acre lots for 500k. Explain to me why City of Ottawa taxpayers living inside the greenbelt paying taxes to maintain the existing infrastructure should face a degradation of transit service to subsidize the sprawling lifestyles of these exurban residents.

As I said earlier, this would be like allowing Mattamy and Great Gulf Homes to dictate the services and growth of GO. Would you want Mattamy deciding where GO should build to?

 

[Charles]

The same goes for all of the places Moose will go. People will move there as they are still able to commute, but now have a nicer property for less money.

I refer you to my last line that you responded to. "Even if this could happen over the long term, how long can you operate a private train service costing $200M a year, in a deficit, waiting for the development to take place."

People on this forum (and others) are often thinking as passengers and not as operators or investors. Of course everyone would like to have rapid transit pick them up and deliver them directly to their destination. But if a rail line costs $200M a year and only takes in $100M (just an example, that number doesn't come from anywhere), how long do you think investors are going to keep putting in money, and how long before the rail line has to shut down.

I've seen numerous comments in these forums saying that we should all support this because it's private and therefore no risk. Well, nothing comes for free. If a private company isn't making making more money than they spend they either have to cut services, raise fees, or else they go bankrupt.

MOOSE is estimating their annual operating costs at $200M and ultimately would hope to transport 25,000 people. That comes out to $8K per person, even once you generate the 25K passengers by building all these developments and having people move out there. Would you think that you were getting value for your money if you were the one paying these fees? How many years (or decades) would you pay for the rail network to keep operating while it went from 5K to 10K to 15K, etc.

 

[micheal_can]

The numbers required are massive. And I mean an order of magnitude increase in population in all of these communities. And were that to happen, since none of these town have great local bus services, most of these new residents will be driving to the MOOSE station. So we'll create gigantic sprawling exurbs. And that's the best case scenario for MOOSE.



Except that Ottawa is not Toronto and there are still affordable homes to be had inside the greenbelt, let alone the suburbs. You can get homes near the LRT line within walking distance for around $500k. And to top it off, average wages are higher in Ottawa.

The only reason anybody will be moving to the far out communities that MOOSE wants to service is because they want to buy 3500 sqft homes on acre lots for 500k. Explain to me why City of Ottawa taxpayers living inside the greenbelt paying taxes to maintain the existing infrastructure should face a degradation of transit service to subsidize the sprawling lifestyles of these exurban residents.

As I said earlier, this would be like allowing Mattamy and Great Gulf Homes to dictate the services and growth of GO. Would you want Mattamy deciding where GO should build to?

How would there be a degradation? If anything, this would be an improvement on the current service, even with the LRT open.

Lets look back to the 1960s. I was a twinkle in my parents eye. Home prices within the Metropolitan Toronto area and the current GTA were reasonable. In the last 10 years, we have seen housing skyrocket.

Think about those senior government officials that do not have a personal driver. They are the kinds of people that would move to the burbs.

I refer you to my last line that you responded to. "Even if this could happen over the long term, how long can you operate a private train service costing $200M a year, in a deficit, waiting for the development to take place."

People on this forum (and others) are often thinking as passengers and not as operators or investors. Of course everyone would like to have rapid transit pick them up and deliver them directly to their destination. But if a rail line costs $200M a year and only takes in $100M (just an example, that number doesn't come from anywhere), how long do you think investors are going to keep putting in money, and how long before the rail line has to shut down.

I've seen numerous comments in these forums saying that we should all support this because it's private and therefore no risk. Well, nothing comes for free. If a private company isn't making making more money than they spend they either have to cut services, raise fees, or else they go bankrupt.

MOOSE is estimating their annual operating costs at $200M and ultimately would hope to transport 25,000 people. That comes out to $8K per person, even once you generate the 25K passengers by building all these developments and having people move out there. Would you think that you were getting value for your money if you were the one paying these fees? How many years (or decades) would you pay for the rail network to keep operating while it went from 5K to 10K to 15K, etc.

For the first 5 years, I have heard that most businesses run at a loss.

Chances are, the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal will give money to it. The government already gives money to companies like Greyhound.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Potvin has not said what @kEiThZ attributes to him...

• And if you ask Mr. Potvin, his only defence is to suggest that rural areas should have the same access to transit as urban areas.
• Taking over the current Trillium corridor or hampering its operation which will limit frequencies for Ottawa residents.
• Creating a system to facilitate (mostly) ex-urban commuters, with no feeder bus service.

This is a parody, not a summary.


RE: "If anybody wants to dispute this, show me how MOOSE plans avoid sprawl. I'm all ears."

kEiThZ, can you please provide some measurable baseline indicators of sprawl that you think would be affected by MOOSE's plan?


RE: I don't dispute that private transit is possible. In fact, I would argue that it's ideal.

kEiThZ, can you point to an example of a privately operated passenger rail service that you think is or was pretty good? Reaching historically, do you think the Ottawa Electric Railway Company was desirable at least until mid-century? In your view of how things ought to be, was it terrible that Ahearn & Soper were managing it?


RE: Can't have healthy debate with a salesman. Mr. Potvin will never, ever disclose the negatives of his proposal, and that's assuming he's ever considered them. And he'll never discuss any setbacks. And I don't blame him. He's here to sell something. Not serve the public.

kEiThZ, You sure seem to dislike it when a project proponent genuinely participates in a public discussion forum. I've been answering questions here -- though some issues are not yet answerable. I've asked you several questions, and you have not provided the community answers.


RE: It's up to us decide if what he's selling makes sense for the public. And as a property owner who pays taxes..

kEiThZ, Please clarify if your interventions on this blog prioritize the broad public interest ahead of your private household interests, or if you put your private household interests ahead of the broad public interest.

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

 

[kEiThZ]

How would there be a degradation? If anything, this would be an improvement on the current service, even with the LRT open.

There's only so much throughput through the central corridor (currently occupied by the Trillium line) that Moose wants to use. If there's trains servicing the exurbs, there's not as much room for a frequent stop LRT to operate. Mr. Potvin has even admitted as much. And has in the past suggested that the city should simply plan long term to hand over the corridor to his company. Moose also includes all Confederation Line stations on their maps. But leaves off stations on Trillium Line. Which means that existing transit users in Ottawa could see Walkley, Mooney's Bay, Gladstone and Carling stations shuttered.

MOOSE's priority is to service the exurbs and facilitate development there. It's not to provide service to the taxpaying and transit using public inside the City of Ottawa.

Lets look back to the 1960s. I was a twinkle in my parents eye. Home prices within the Metropolitan Toronto area and the current GTA were reasonable. In the last 10 years, we have seen housing skyrocket.

You think the current setup of the GTA is something to aspire to? I consider a planning and ecological disaster. We've paid over some of the best farmland in the country to build McMansions. All in a low density format where high frequency transit is not really viable. As a result we have some of the worst traffic congestion in North America. Why would anyone suggest that Ottawa should emulate this disaster?

Ottawa has the opportunity to avoid it all. And is actively trying to do with its transit plan. They want to dense up the area inside the greenbelt and limit the expansion of the suburbs. Mr. Potvin's MOOSE can only make a profit by completely upending this model and directing massive amounts of growth to the suburbs and exurbs.

Think about those senior government officials that do not have a personal driver. They are the kinds of people that would move to the burbs.

You really don't know Ottawa do you? The senior government officials all stay in the core. Close to the hill if possible. It's only the worker bees living in the burbs. You will never catch a minister living in Barrhaven, let alone Manotick, unless it's his/her riding or the agency they are running is further out.

You might get a few senior public servants who stay further out. But unlike the worker bees, they are the rare folks who have enough seniority to get a parking spot (or can afford parking). Most will drive.

So really, the only folks moving out to the exurbs in Ottawa are those who want lots of space. Again, why should urbanites suffer for their sake?

 

[kEiThZ]

kEiThZ, can you please provide some measurable baseline indicators of sprawl that you think would be affected by MOOSE's plan?

How about you show us your cards? How many residents do you need in the exurbs to provide the ridership to let you hit breakeven.

Do that and we'll know exactly how much of the countryside needs to be paved over to make your sprawling fantasy come true.

I've been answering questions here -

No. You've been marketing here. You conveniently disappear or ignore substantive and difficult questions. Or claim we have to wait for more or that you don't have answers just yet. We can all see through the used car salesmen routine.

kEiThZ, Please clarify if your interventions on this blog prioritize the broad public interest ahead of your private household interests, or if you put your private household interests ahead of the broad public interest.

I won't stay in the property forever. But I definitely will not be taking up residence in an exurb anytime soon. That means that I care about promoting a strong urban character in Ottawa and favour existing transit riders and the interests of existing ratepayers above all else.

I fail to see why it is in the interest of Ottawa residents to support your plan, which requires massive amounts of exurban growth to succeed. All while placing high demand on a currently used transit corridor, with services planned to favour exurban residents over existing users of that corridor and transit system.

If you want to tell me that you will place high density standards around all your stations, limit parking at all them, provide feeder bus services to discourage driving, and provide the same level of service as Trillium Stage 2 to residents inside the greenbelt, perhaps, I might consider this good for the city and the region. Alas, I expect some meandering blather about private sector transit and some diversion about some historical transit system which won't actually commit to the conditions I just stated. And I don't blame you for that. It's your job to sell. It's my job as a citizen and taxpayer to call you on your bullshit.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Mr. Potvin has even admitted as much. And has in the past suggested that the city should simply plan long term to hand over the corridor to his company.

@kEiThZ, My goodness, you your penchant for parody know no bounds. Do you suggest that for a railway company to expect Section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act to apply to all federal railway companies, including Capital Railway, that this is equivalent to saying "the city should simply plan long term to hand over the corridor"?

And please clarify if you support low-density in and around the semi-rural or peri-urban towns, or high density in the those towns. You seem to be against both scenarios. What optimal semi-rural or peri-urban scenario do you advocate?

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]

It's my job as a citizen and taxpayer to call you on your bullshit.

Seeing as how we're both citizens and taxpayers, and most of the companies of MOOSE Consortium are Ottawa-based companies headed by citizens of Ottawa, your framing of the conversation on this blog is much too unilateral. FWIW, I'll just suggest that what you call bullshit, my colleagues and I call manure.

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

 

[kEiThZ]

My goodness, you your penchant for parody know no bounds.

Reported. You want a discussion? I expect an old man who was a former senior bureaucrat to discuss facts respectfully, not resort to calling other posts "penchant for parody".

Attacking the poster, indicates that you don't have facts to back up your arguments.

Do you suggest that for a railway company to expect Section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act to apply to all federal railway companies, including Capital Railway, that this is equivalent to saying "the city should simply plan long term to hand over the corridor"?

I really do not care for the legal chicanery that you insist will be the foundation of your scheme. I trust Transport Canada, the courts and the appropriate tribunals to follow and implement the law and sort out disputes.

My posts have been pretty clear. I am discussing what is good for the city and its residents. If you want to discuss legal minutiae, there's legal forums elsewhere.

And if the law somehow, is used against the residents of Ottawa, I'll be talking to my councillor, mayor, MPP and MP to get it changed. Laws are after all, only cast in stone so long as the legislature sees fit to have them set that way. It'd be absolutely lovely to see Parliament pass a City of Ottawa Act that gives full jurisdiction over the rail corridors in question.

And please clarify if you support low-density in and around the semi-rural or peri-urban towns, or high density in the those towns. You seem to be against both scenarios. What optimal semi-rural or peri-urban scenario do you advocate?

If growth is to occur, the ideal will always be to keep as much of it inside the greenbelt. Failing that, it's to create high density transit oriented development. MOOSE's proposal does not inspire confidence in this regard at all. MOOSE will not commit to a density standard in the 800m ring around its stations. MOOSE will not commit to providing feeder bus services and to limit parking. And MOOSE will not commit to providing residents inside the greenbelt, the services and stations they will have under Trillium Stage 2. So again, why should any Ottawa resident support this proposal?

 

[kEiThZ]

Seeing as how we're both citizens and taxpayers

One of us pays taxes to the City of Ottawa. One of us doesn't. Do you even live in Ontario?

 

[kEiThZ]

Mr. Potvin.

Again. You're resorting to your used car salesmen schtick. My questions have been direct and plain:

1) How much ridership does MOOSE need to breakeven?

2) What will the density standard around your station locations be?

3) What is the transit modal share target for feed at your stations? And how much parking will you build at the stations?

4) What level of service and how many stations will be provided to residents inside the Greenbelt? Will they have exactly what is expected under Trillium Stage 2? YES or NO.

I won't accept, "we don't know yet". If you're the least bit serious, you've modelled all of the above. And if you won't answer, then you're being evasive. It's as simple as that.