micheal_can
Senior Member
So, I am sort of right?
|
|
|
Moose Rail (National Capital Region)
- Thread starter SaugeenJunction
- Start date
So, I am sort of right?
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is the nonsense where what amounts to capital smoothing is portrayed as "private capital". It's like portraying a bridge loan from the bank as an equity stake in your house.
Ummm, no. There's nobody getting equity or first rights on debt issued by Metrolinx for GO RER.
You want to see private capital? REM is a great example. Just checkout the cooperation necessary to make that happen and you'll know why it'll never happen in Ottawa.
And heck, if you actually had the capital to invest, why the heck would you deal with Mr. Potvin? Companies that invest billions in infrastructure don't deal with guys printing brochures in their basement. They'd steal the idea and pitch all three levels of government themselves. They'd do it with data from real consultants. And wouldn't resort to legal trolling if their proposal wasn't accepted.
steveintoronto
Superstar
That's because it isn't "debt issue". It's bidding on DBFOM. And DBFOM in the case of Metrolinx and RER is:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...On_Corridor_Works_Procurement_Strategy_EN.pdf
"Privatization" per-se is the selling of assets to the private sector, not a contract to DBFOM, but P3 involves differing degrees of Private Investment involvement.
The present Ont Cons have worded their intentions in terms of "future revenue streams". And since GO Transit doesn't 'pay its way' (Farebox return is high by comparative standards, but that ratio is expressed for *operating costs*, not capital ones) it becomes apparent that the Ont Cons intend to sell-off agencies that don't have a greater than 1:1 revenue to cost ratio.
Personal attacks on Mr Potvin when you don't understand the basics of financing, what's being proposed, why it's being proposed, and how this nation built almost all of the existing rail infrastructure in the past, and will return to doing so for passenger in the future merely indicates the limitations of your understanding.
And last time I checked, the Canadian Transportation Agency aren't "trolls". You don't like the Acts they administer? Then petition to change them.
Attachments
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Given you used as a example/comparison Moose and GO RER ("Ontario, even under the previous regime, turned to private capital to DBFOM most of GO's expansion"), are you going to pass (which is fine) or provide a response to my question of: "For GO RER funding, what percentage is being provided by the public sector and what percentage is from the private sector count that will win the DBFOM RFP?"
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
It all depends on the contract entered into. The final selection has not yet been made for RER.
Steve Munro has written a number of articles in detail on it. I suggest reading them. Meantime, from the link I provided above:
Attachments
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ That's just the procurement timeline. Below is the actual budget. If there's an attempt to make a comparison between the private funds being provided for Moose and GO RER situation, my question is what percentage of the GO "RER Program" budget listed below is being directly provided by the private sector consortium that wins? In my mind, there's a difference between a method to finance construction project and who is putting up the capital.
Update: this question at a Metrolinx town hall and response by the CEO is also helpful: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...n-transit-promises.28065/page-92#post-1339527
Update: this question at a Metrolinx town hall and response by the CEO is also helpful: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...n-transit-promises.28065/page-92#post-1339527
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
There isn't. MOOSE is an example of *completely Private Initiative* not a DBFOM. Whenever I've mentioned 'DBFOM' and 'Ont Cons' in the same paragraph, it's that the Ont Cons intend to *go beyond DBFOM*. They have alluded to complete privatization of some government infrastructure.
'Selloffs' by another name.
There's also the chance of 'leasing' gov't owned infrastructure, as was done with the 407 Toll Road, but I digress. This is the same regime promising to reinstate the Northlander. And fly to the Moon in the business car.
kEiThZ
Superstar
@Allandale25
I wouldn't bother. He's here to hear himself talk. Doesn't seem to actually understand what equity or rights on debt mean but thinks others don't get finance. And then when you call him out, the goalpost moving begins. "I didn't really say...." The classic line of those who can't admit (blatant to the rest of us) ignorance everywhere.
It's pretty easy to prove me wrong. Find the cap table where the equity distributions are laid out and show me which private investor has an equity stake in the RER network. I'll bet my next paycheque there isn't one.
The even more entertaining part here is that we are talking about a company with no development experience taking possession of assets for which they have no finance, with funds from a partner that does not exist (that we know of), paying for an asset which neither the federal or provincial governments own, and in some cases, government doesn't own at all.
I've got some experience with airplanes. If I print a glossy brochure, the feds will totally give me a multi-billion dollar contract to replace the RCAF's fighter fleet right? And if you don't believe I have a shot, well, you're the ignorant asshole. After all, glossy brochure equals credible offering and imminent contract right?
I wouldn't bother. He's here to hear himself talk. Doesn't seem to actually understand what equity or rights on debt mean but thinks others don't get finance. And then when you call him out, the goalpost moving begins. "I didn't really say...." The classic line of those who can't admit (blatant to the rest of us) ignorance everywhere.
It's pretty easy to prove me wrong. Find the cap table where the equity distributions are laid out and show me which private investor has an equity stake in the RER network. I'll bet my next paycheque there isn't one.
The even more entertaining part here is that we are talking about a company with no development experience taking possession of assets for which they have no finance, with funds from a partner that does not exist (that we know of), paying for an asset which neither the federal or provincial governments own, and in some cases, government doesn't own at all.
I've got some experience with airplanes. If I print a glossy brochure, the feds will totally give me a multi-billion dollar contract to replace the RCAF's fighter fleet right? And if you don't believe I have a shot, well, you're the ignorant asshole. After all, glossy brochure equals credible offering and imminent contract right?
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
What you're saying now seems different than what you were saying before where you were giving a certain impression on where the capital funding for GO RER was coming from:
But thank you for clarifying you're aware of who is providing the capital funding in Table 1 above.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Sums up his entire history on this forum. All just moving goalposts. His arms must be ripped by that hourly workout.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Selloffs. It'll be really interesting to see Doug Ford try and sell off track owned by the City of Ottawa, VIA Rail and the private operators.
Should be entertaining to say the least.
Should be entertaining to say the least.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Sounds like the 'revive the Avro Arrow' crowd. Sorry for the diversion - back to the regularly scheduled debate . . .
micheal_can
Senior Member
Using the POW bridge is a good idea.
Giving the Ottawa area commuter rail, is a good idea.
And even using the Avro Arrow designs, even today, is a good idea.
The problem is when you have multiple goals for something.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Nobody said it isn't a good idea. This is about who will use it and how it will be used.
Why? I'd like someone to explain to me why a city of about 800 000 (Gatineau is not served by OC Transpo), where a 25 km radius from Parliament Hill covers every immediate suburban area and about 90% of the population needs commuter rail. Especially, if this comes at the expense of improved urban transit (as MOOSE proposes).
Cities of similar size in Canada (Edmonton and Calgary) don't have commuter rail. Neither do a lot of cities of similar sizes elsewhere. And if they do, they usually don't have a light metro system on top. And to boot, any commuter rail system in Ottawa, puts you 1.5-5km outside the downtown core too. I'd like to see a city with a light metro that builds a commuter rail system on top to drop off passengers outside the downtown core. Let's find an example of that.
Ummm no. Stick to talking about trains. This would be a truly ignorant idea today. But we'll leave that for another forum.
The only people creating multiple goals here are the folks who either have their private interests or fantasies or the sycophants who support them. Nobody else thinks there are "multiple goals" for the bridge or anything else transit related in Ottawa. As the last election showed, most voters are quite happy with the direction Ottawa is going and the leadership provided.
Charles
New Member
Second, a letter from the Railway Association of Canada supporting the City of Ottawa's case. Interesting that the railway industry association isn't supportive of Moose's plan. I seem to recall the Moose proponents saying they would contract another railway operator that has the necessary approval documentation from Transport Canada to run their service. I assume most if not all of these existing operators are members of RAC.
I can fully understand why the Railway Association of Canada would be concerned about the recent CTA decision. In fact, I believe that should this decision hold and set a precedence, that it will have exactly the opposite effect as to what is intended, that is it will lead to a significant increase in the amount of rail lines that will be formally discontinued.
Currently there are a significant number of rail corridors across this country that are owned by members of the R.A.C. but are not currently in use. The railway companies keep them around for various reasons, potentially for future use. If something isn't being used, and there are no immediate plans to use that asset, then maintaining it in an operable state is simply a waste of money for any business.
Should the precedence be set that unused rail assets must be maintained in an operable state, on the off chance that someone may want to use it sometime in the future, turns all of those assets into liabilities. Companies will not want to hold onto these assets and will work to rid themselves of them, leading to the formal discontinuance process being initiated when it may not have been previously contemplated.