Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ok, but the city had an agreement with the owner of the railway to use it. Moose does not have any such agreements.

That's probably one of the least of MOOSE's concerns with the exception of Ottawa and Chelsea. In all other cases, MOOSE could easily and reasonably obtain access to tracks.

Yes, all of these things have to do with how long the construction would take. Even if a bank gave Moose a $1,000,000,000.00 letter of credit tomorrow:

Moose cannot even get access to the tracks/land in question unless the federal government passes legislation invoking the declaratory power, the CTA orders the various owners of the railways/lands to give Moose access to their tracks/land on terms favourable to Moose, and all of the court challenges work their way through the system. That is probably 4-5 years, assuming the federal government is positively disposed to follow that strategy (and we have had ZERO indication the federal government wants any part of this scheme).

That's assuming MOOSE jumps straight to attempting to use declaratory power, which is not stated anywhere in their plans.

Under Moose's proposed business plan, Moose does not own any station. So before shovels can go into the ground, Moose has to find 50 station owners willing to pay Moose a regular fee for trains to stop at their station. Those station owners have to get the various municipal approvals, build the necessary infrastructure and start trying to sell houses to homeowners willing to pay a massive premium for such houses.

Something I didn't mention earlier, but MOOSE is likely already in communication with multiple other contractors, it's just that only one has been publicly named.
I think in MOOSE's plan, stations and some houses get built first, and then more houses get built as MOOSE continues to operate. MOOSE's plan obviously has huge upfront costs that will take a decent amount of time to recuperate which might take place as people continue to buy homes over time.

Yes, in addition to asking the CTA to order major expenditures, there were also jurisdictional questions. So what?

The request to order the city was a subparagraph or a single paragraph in a document that primarily focused on the status of the bridge. Also, I added it to my post afterwards, but "normal railway maintenance, inspection and testing regimen across the Prince of Wales Bridge" could just mean "making sure the bridge doesn't fall apart more than it has".

Ok, but you could also find the answers yourself if you would just read the documents.
Two of the 3 requests to the CTA for which decisions have been reached requested the CTA to order the municipalities to undertake upgrades
"[2] MOOSE requests the Agency to order the City to restore the Bridge."

"An order that all tracks and related infrastructure be rebuilt or refurbished to federal railway standards."

This would have had major costs to municipalities, and no gain since no existing railway company wanted to use the track.

As I said, what the CTA said in their ruling doesn't seem to match up with what is stated in MOOSE's original request to the CTA (which I linked). You should read MOOSE's original document.

Another CTA order and a court case pertained to Chelsea trying to pull up the tracks. I do not know the exact cost to the municipality that the Moose request would have involved, but the tracks are probably worth something on the scrap market and there are probably insurance costs related to the track.

According to MOOSE, they would finance upgrades and repairs of the corridor. If the CTA had ruled in favour of MOOSE then... well Chelsea wouldn't have been permitted to tear the tracks up. That's all. They would have actually saved the money it cost them to hire a contractor to remove the tracks.

but the tracks are probably worth something on the scrap market and there are probably insurance costs related to the track.

Unsubstantiated claims don't really help your argument...

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't believe the City has ever planned to restore the bridge "on its own." The plan would be to get all 5 governments to split the costs (Federal, Quebec Provincial, Ontario Provincial, City of Gatineau and City of Ottawa). Doing it on their own (either voluntarily or by order) would almost guarantee that the other governments wouldn't contribute. That alone could end up making Moose very expensive to Ottawa taxpayers. Joseph doesn't care because I gather he lives in Quebec.

I'm not sure what MOOSE's plan was in 2012 with regards to repairing the PoW bridge, but as of now, it's to pay for the full repair and upgrade of the bridge.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's probably one of the least of MOOSE's concerns with the exception of Ottawa and Chelsea. In all other cases, MOOSE could easily and reasonably obtain access to tracks.

All of Moose's proposed lines involve City of Ottawa owned tracks. Without them there is no Moose. As far as I know we have heard nothing from Via or the QGR as to whether there is capacity for the service Moose has proposed.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's assuming MOOSE jumps straight to attempting to use declaratory power, which is not stated anywhere in their plans.

They have referenced the use of the declaratory power in several of their documents (I pasted a google search for you). There is frankly no other mechanism. The CTA has already ruled that the lines on the Quebec side are not under federal jurisdiction, nor are any of the discontinued lines on the Ontario side.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=....0.9B1uQ7MCcoc

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Something I didn't mention earlier, but MOOSE is likely already in communication with multiple other contractors, it's just that only one has been publicly named.

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The request to order the city was a subparagraph or a single paragraph in a document that primarily focused on the status of the bridge. Also, I added it to my post afterwards, but "normal railway maintenance, inspection and testing regimen across the Prince of Wales Bridge" could just mean "making sure the bridge doesn't fall apart more than it has".

As I said, what the CTA said in their ruling doesn't seem to match up with what is stated in MOOSE's original request to the CTA (which I linked). You should read MOOSE's original document.

The CTA has to summarize the request. The Moose documents are written in Mr. Potvin's verbose style.

Also, the CTA decision is dated June 6, the document you linked is dated October 25, so that cannot possibly be Moose's original request to the CTA.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's all. They would have actually saved the money it cost them to hire a contractor to remove the tracks.


Unsubstantiated claims don't really help your argument...

The discontinuance policy repeatedly mentions the "net salvage value" which would seem to indicate there is value to the railway owner in salvaging the track.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/background...-railway-lines

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

All of Moose's proposed lines involve City of Ottawa owned tracks. Without them there is no Moose. As far as I know we have heard nothing from Via or the QGR as to whether there is capacity for the service Moose has proposed.

Technically no... (Bristol - Alexandria) but I get your point. If and when MOOSE reaches agreements with the respective agencies, the time it would then take the do appropriate construction to get their system up and running would only be 1 or 2 years.

They have referenced the use of the declaratory power in several of their documents (I pasted a google search for you). There is frankly no other mechanism. The CTA has already ruled that the lines on the Quebec side are not under federal jurisdiction, nor are any of the discontinued lines on the Ontario side.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=....0.9B1uQ7MCcoc

Could you provide an actual quote from a MOOSE document where they state that they will use declaratory power? I know they reference it, but only in the context of the PoW bridge (it was constructed "for the general advantage of Canada").

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

In the past year MOOSE has been increasingly contacted by major property interests seeking to discuss how their locality not currently adjacent to the existing main corridors could be connected to our network. The only specific site that's public is the Morrison Quarry announcement adjacent to the now missing track through Chelsea. (They and we made an exception because we both thought it was important for the public and other investors to see that in our assessment, the northern terminus would indeed be significant enough to justify our rebuilding the track that Chelsea dismantled.)

I sure wish I could talk about the others, but I cannot yet.

The CTA has to summarize the request. The Moose documents are written in Mr. Potvin's verbose style.

If you want to claim that MOOSE is "vexatious", you should probably look at the original documents, not a summarized version.

Also, the CTA decision is dated June 6, the document you linked is dated October 25, so that cannot possibly be Moose's original request to the CTA.

I didn't notice that. I'll try and find the actual original request document.

The discontinuance policy repeatedly mentions the "net salvage value" which would seem to indicate there is value to the railway owner in salvaging the track.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/background...-railway-lines

Would any money that Chelsea gains from scrapping its rails be enough to cover the costs of hiring a contractor to tear them up?
In any case, that doesn't really seem to indicate that MOOSE would have cost Chelsea any significant amounts of money.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Could you provide an actual quote from a MOOSE document where they state that they will use declaratory power? I know they reference it, but only in the context of the PoW bridge (it was constructed "for the general advantage of Canada").

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...e2015Print.pdf

The Government of Canada is asked
to validate that specific regulations
& statutes are acted upon and
enforced in alignment with the
expressed intent of Parliament,
in particular Sections 92.10(a)
and (c) of the Constitution, and
specific provisions of the Canada
Transportation Act, the Railway
Safety Act and the National
Capital Act;

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...e2015Print.pdf

The Government of Canada is asked
to validate that specific regulations
& statutes are acted upon and
enforced in alignment with the
expressed intent of Parliament,
in particular Sections 92.10(a)
and (c) of the Constitution, and
specific provisions of the Canada
Transportation Act, the Railway
Safety Act and the National
Capital Act;

Thanks.

That'll definitely take a while.
They seem to want to go through the NCC too. That'll be interesting.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Thanks.

That'll definitely take a while.
They seem to want to go through the NCC too. That'll be interesting.

No... it's never going to happen at all.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Could you provide an actual quote from a MOOSE document where they state that they will use declaratory power? I know they reference it, but only in the context of the PoW bridge (it was constructed "for the general advantage of Canada").

Here's a few more quotes for you where MOOSE invokes the Constitution Act in their arguments, complaints, and submissions.

"the Moose rail project triggers clause 92.10(a) of the Constitution Act of 1867 which provides our plan a clear path through an otherwise very complex multi-jurisdictional matrix."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/

"This proposed inter-provincial undertaking invokes Section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution of Canada as a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament. Also the planned use of the Prince of Wales Bridge, which Parliament has declared to be “for the general advantage of Canada”, and other sections of the Ellwood Subdivision and the Lachute Subdivision, invoke Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution as a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...-11-25bPDF.pdf

Following document only refers to the Constitution eight different times. I won't repeat them all here but feel free to read the whole document.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...07-25c_PDF.pdf

Complaint about Maniwaki subdivision:
"the railway infrastructure was “declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada" referencing section 92.10 (c) of the Constitution"
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...6-07-31PDF.pdf

and finally, the next document invokes the Constitution twice in regards to the POW Bridge.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...ct2012dPDF.pdf

[acottawa]

The constitutional obsession is weird. None of the clauses they keep citing are of any value without very strong political support, and if there was very strong political support the government would probably just pay for it.

I guess it is the "I have discovered a loophole/secret" sales pitch.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The constitutional obsession is weird. None of the clauses they keep citing are of any value without very strong political support, and if there was very strong political support the government would probably just pay for it.

I guess it is the "I have discovered a loophole/secret" sales pitch.

And, things aren't moving very quickly. I'm not an expert but I would think that if the CTA or others thought Moose's idea had value they would be acting more quickly.

[Charles5]

As most of you are aware, the entire MOOSE concept is predicated on the basis that development will occur around station locations, that the stations will lead to an increase in value of those properties, and that people will pay a subscription fee to fund the train. In that respect, it is important to have enough stations as the fewer stations there are, the fewer subscribers to the train service, and the higher the costs will be for each remaining subscriber.

Looking at the MOOSE evaluation of station locations, there are already a number that don't have much potential. This is all from the following document:
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...-06-27_PDF.pdf

Richmond: As the railway passes through areas identified as floodplains, there is little buildable land surrounding it in Richmond.

Carp: there is little developable land surrounding the station site outside of infill opportunities

Greenboro/Confederation: The station at the intersection of the four rail lines would be located in an area currently zoned for parkland and open space.

Carleton: This station is located in the heart of the Carleton University campus and is zoned institutional. The development which can occur in this area must be negotiated with the university itself.

Masson: This station is located in a low-density area which has largely been built up

Freeman: Though the area is already built-up, there is the potential for some infill

Chelsea: Chelsea faces some of the same issues concerning the lack of municipal water infrastructure, thereby limiting future development to single-family housing on large lots

Bristol/Quyon: the current scale is limited; in both localities, development is only zoned on the side of the tracks which is already occupied by buildings and any new development is restricted by the lack of municipal water infrastructure, requiring large lots and low density.


Conversely, those areas where there is high potential for development would most likely have that potential even without MOOSE. Bayview station is a prime example that I've discussed before, where having a MOOSE train provides no significant additional benefit compared to having the current O-train in regards to service, nor would a MOOSE train provide any significant customers to any businesses as virtually all passengers would simply be transferring at this location. Consequently I don't see any significant interest in paying a subscription fee to have a station there.

[Charles5]

Previously I have put forward the idea that MOOSE would require approximately a three-fold increase in trainsets from the 6 identified in their CTA submission in order to meet its desired scheduling of hourly service. (link) I would like to follow up on that discussion by suggesting that may also require longer trains if they wish to remain consistent in their overall messaging.

Currently MOOSE is planning for trainsets with three coaches, capable of transporting just under 500 passengers per train (480 seats). With trains leaving from the six different terminus along the various lines, that means that the network as a whole has a capability to move approximately 3,000 passengers per hour.

MOOSE has also indicated that they expect to transport approximately 30,000 passengers per day on return trips (equal to taking 25,000 cars off the road). In order to move those 30,000 passengers, it would take 10 hourly cycles in order to move those passengers in one direction and another 10 hourly cycles to transport them back. This in itself is mathematically possible if you provide hourly service all day, however passengers don't tend to spread themselves equally throughout the day. Rather, the bulk of the passengers would tend to congregate in the peak hours in the morning and late afternoon.

For arguments sake, let's assume that 80% of all passengers will travel in peak periods and that the peak period can be covered over 4 hourly cycles. 80% of 30,000 comes out to 24,000 passengers during the peak period, and divide that by 4 hourly cycles would equate to 6,000 passengers per cycle. Since there are six different trains in each cycle (one from each terminus), that would mean that each train would need to transport 1,000 passengers and would require a minimum of 6 cars. Once again, that's an absolute best case scenario where passengers are evenly distributed along all lines and in each hour.

This doubling of coaches would obviously significantly increase capital expenditure costs as well as operating costs. It would also have other implications such as in regards to station design.

An alternative to longer trains would be more frequent service. A 30 minute frequency with 3 car trainsets would accomplish the same task, but would be more expensive as it would also require a doubling of locomotives and additional crews.

Most of my figures come from MOOSE's letter to CTA dated 25 Nov 2016, page 6 as follows:

"(a) Frequency of the service Moose will provide train service to stations approximately every hour from 5:30 am to midnight. The practical constraints of each line remain to be negotiated with other railway operators.
(b) Expected passenger loads Each train will consist of three bi-level coaches, for a total seated capacity of 480 per train. It is expected that the entire system will carry more than 30,000 passengers per day."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...-11-25bPDF.pdf


If anyone discovers an error in my calculations or a fundamental flaw in my logic, please let me know.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The constitutional obsession is weird. None of the clauses they keep citing are of any value without very strong political support, and if there was very strong political support the government would probably just pay for it.

I guess it is the "I have discovered a loophole/secret" sales pitch.

There's technically nothing loopeholey about it. The clauses they've cited still exist in the constitution and are still Canadian law. It's only weird since that specific part of the constitution hasn't been used in 56 years, but it is still there. (There are plenty of old laws and by-laws that are pretty old but are still enforced for some reason. That's just one of them.^)

For the time being, whether you think this is a valid application of the constitution remains your opinion. This would have to go under parliamentary debate and etc. to actually determine that.

None of the clauses they keep citing are of any value without very strong political support, and if there was very strong political support the government would probably just pay for it.

I feel like the government would be happy to not spend money if they could.

On the topic of political support, MOOSE did meet with the Prime Minister earlier this year. You can read about it in the link, but at the moment there's nothing else that's public.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

And, things aren't moving very quickly. I'm not an expert but I would think that if the CTA or others thought Moose's idea had value they would be acting more quickly.

It seems that the CTA is currently waiting for MOOSE's financial feasibility study.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Previously I have put forward the idea that MOOSE would require approximately a three-fold increase in trainsets from the 6 identified in their CTA submission in order to meet its desired scheduling of hourly service. (link) I would like to follow up on that discussion by suggesting that may also require longer trains if they wish to remain consistent in their overall messaging.

Currently MOOSE is planning for trainsets with three coaches, capable of transporting just under 500 passengers per train (480 seats). With trains leaving from the six different terminus along the various lines, that means that the network as a whole has a capability to move approximately 3,000 passengers per hour.

MOOSE has also indicated that they expect to transport approximately 30,000 passengers per day on return trips (equal to taking 25,000 cars off the road). In order to move those 30,000 passengers, it would take 10 hourly cycles in order to move those passengers in one direction and another 10 hourly cycles to transport them back. This in itself is mathematically possible if you provide hourly service all day, however passengers don't tend to spread themselves equally throughout the day. Rather, the bulk of the passengers would tend to congregate in the peak hours in the morning and late afternoon.

For arguments sake, let's assume that 80% of all passengers will travel in peak periods and that the peak period can be covered over 4 hourly cycles. 80% of 30,000 comes out to 24,000 passengers during the peak period, and divide that by 4 hourly cycles would equate to 6,000 passengers per cycle. Since there are six different trains in each cycle (one from each terminus), that would mean that each train would need to transport 1,000 passengers and would require a minimum of 6 cars. Once again, that's an absolute best case scenario where passengers are evenly distributed along all lines and in each hour.

This doubling of coaches would obviously significantly increase capital expenditure costs as well as operating costs. It would also have other implications such as in regards to station design.

An alternative to longer trains would be more frequent service. A 30 minute frequency with 3 car trainsets would accomplish the same task, but would be more expensive as it would also require a doubling of locomotives and additional crews.

Most of my figures come from MOOSE's letter to CTA dated 25 Nov 2016, page 6 as follows:

"(a) Frequency of the service Moose will provide train service to stations approximately every hour from 5:30 am to midnight. The practical constraints of each line remain to be negotiated with other railway operators.
(b) Expected passenger loads Each train will consist of three bi-level coaches, for a total seated capacity of 480 per train. It is expected that the entire system will carry more than 30,000 passengers per day."
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conten...-11-25bPDF.pdf


If anyone discovers an error in my calculations or a fundamental flaw in my logic, please let me know.

I don't recall any indication that MOOSE would be opposed to running trains at a higher frequency during peak periods. Your quote specifically says "approximately every hour". Considering the accuracy of the 6 trains estimate, I would say that "approximately every hour" is also kind of a rough estimate too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

There's technically nothing loopeholey about it. The clauses they've cited still exist in the constitution and are still Canadian law. It's only weird since that specific part of the constitution hasn't been used in 56 years, but it is still there. (There are plenty of old laws and by-laws that are pretty old but are still enforced for some reason. That's just one of them.^)

For the time being, whether you think this is a valid application of the constitution remains your opinion. This would have to go under parliamentary debate and etc. to actually determine that.



I feel like the government would be happy to not spend money if they could.

On the topic of political support, MOOSE did meet with the Prime Minister earlier this year. You can read about it in the link, but at the moment there's nothing else that's public.

Yes, but my point is that to implement long-abandoned laws and constitutional clauses (and risk well-founded court challenges, the wrath of provinces, the wrath of municipalities, and big political problems for local MPs) the government has to REALLY want rural commuter rail. If they want rural commuter rail that badly, then why would they want to take a risk dealing with a paper company that does not seem to be able to attract investors and has a really complicated financing scheme with math that doesn't seem to add up?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I don't recall any indication that MOOSE would be opposed to running trains at a higher frequency during peak periods. Your quote specifically says "approximately every hour". Considering the accuracy of the 6 trains estimate, I would say that "approximately every hour" is also kind of a rough estimate too.

Fine, but this whole debate is about financial estimates. I've demonstrated that the six trains on which the current financial estimate is based is an impossibility for the desired frequency and that it would be more like 18 trainsets to operate on an hourly basis. If you now want to increase that to service every 30 minutes during the peak periods you would need to double your trains again, to 36. The cost of buying and operating 18 trains vice 6 was already a big jump, going from 6 to 36 is a huge difference.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Fine, but this whole debate is about financial estimates. I've demonstrated that the six trains on which the current financial estimate is based is an impossibility for the desired frequency and that it would be more like 18 trainsets to operate on an hourly basis. If you now want to increase that to service every 30 minutes during the peak periods you would need to double your trains again, to 36. The cost of buying and operating 18 trains vice 6 was already a big jump, going from 6 to 36 is a huge difference.

Exactly. Increasing frequency during peak periods is very expensive as they are buying equipment that are only being used for a couple hours a day. The only feasible option is to have an extra trainset run up and down the trillium line (possibly extended to Gatineau), where demand is highest. Since the run would be short they could get several trips in during peak periods, not just one, the transport more people.

[acottawa]

The Moose website seems to be defunct.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Moose website seems to be defunct.

https://www.letsgomoose.ca/

Judging by a Whois lookup someone changed the domain's nameservers today (the 22nd). They got reset to default. Either a random accident or perhaps the end of MOOSE?