News   Nov 22, 2024
 695     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.2K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.2K     8 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)


Good article, thanks for the pointer. Though I've asked the journalist to make the following corrections:
  • "Le Mine Investment Group and Consortia"
    • should be "LeMine Investment Group and Consortia N.A. (LeMine-ConsortiaNA)"
  • "to form a joint company to develop the project"
    • should be "to assess the business and technical potential of the project"
  • "the network will operate on a pay-what-you-can basis"
    • should be "the network will operate on a pay-what-you-want basis"
  • "Le Mine is funding a $C 5m feasibility study, which will take around three months to complete."
    • should be "during the next three months LeMine-ConsortiaNA are taking initial steps in what could eventually be a $C 5m feasibility study".
  • "Private investors plan Ottawa commuter rail network"
    • would be better as "Private investors plan metro-Ottawa passenger rail"
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
 
Brightline or All Aboard Florida is significantly different in that it is a venture by the owners of the Florida East Coast Railway, so track ownership, willingness to suffer the venture on said tracks, and railway expertise is undisputed. The ultimate owner is Fortress Investment Group. The principal real estate development is high rise in downtown Miami with some additional in West Palm Beach. Even then, there is still a lot of money yet to find http://floridapolitics.com/archives...orida-announces-train-oriented-housing-towers
 
Brightline or All Aboard Florida is significantly different in that it is a venture by the owners of the Florida East Coast Railway, so track ownership, willingness to suffer the venture on said tracks, and railway expertise is undisputed. The ultimate owner is Fortress Investment Group. The principal real estate development is high rise in downtown Miami with some additional in West Palm Beach. Even then, there is still a lot of money yet to find http://floridapolitics.com/archives...orida-announces-train-oriented-housing-towers
I don't quite get your point. Of course the specifics are different, just as London's Metropolitan was, Montreal's CNoR was, as many were. It's the *business model* predicated on the infrastructure costs of the rail service being borne by development. In this case, the same parent company in partnership as the provider. (Moose is open to other developers participating, but is also a *consortium*) The article I posted wasn't from a geek rail publication, it was from a real-estate one. That's significant.

From the article you quote:
Florida East Coast Industries, parent company to the All Aboard Florida company planning private, high-speed passenger rail service in Florida, announced it is developing two luxury housing towers in West Palm Beach and Miami adjacent to its train stations.

The projects, being developed with the big Miami developer Lincoln Property Co. under the brand, “Park-Line,” gives Florida East Coast Industries a significant revenue opportunity, perhaps one answer to a question long raised by critics of the planned, private Brightline train service: how will it ever make money?

Park-Line plans a 290-unit downtown tower in West Palm Beach and a two-tower complex with 816 units in downtown Miami. Both projects, Florida East Coast Industries Vice President Daniel Quintana pledged in a press release, “transit options just steps away from their front door, including our new Brightline train service that will seamlessly connect Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.”

The projects would be consistent with what urban planners have long preached, development of city centers around transit corridors.
[...]
The company also plans to extend the line northward through the Treasure Coast to Orlando, mostly in the Florida East Coast Railway corridor, bringing a high-speed passenger railroad connecting Florida’s two biggest tourism hubs, South Florida and Central Florida.
[...]
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/busi...en-wpb-and-lauderdale/Ju4GznRLKRz9gky9WyydCL/

It's the latter paragraph that I quoted that's the *extension* that is problematic at this time. The originally planned line remains to be opened this month, if not opened already.

"The projects would be consistent with what urban planners have long preached, development of city centers around transit corridors." Sound familiar? That's the touted cause d'etre of Places to Grow and Metrolinx.

Something one must be aware of in Florida is the wildly opposing political bents, not only the ridings these lines run through, but also of the newspapers reporting on them. Some of them are stilted Trump stumps, some of them the opposite. It manifests in truly odd ways by most Western values, where private enterprise is taken to issue by the reactionaries who profess it, but not when it comes to their own backyards. As I think we all know, Trump talks in circles, and his followers have to create even more circular thinking to justify their faith in him. NIMBYism (sad)

Here's how the rational business press, as epitomized by the Wall Street Journal, reports it:
A Florida Rail Project Breaks New Ground
The intercity Brightline service is privately funded, built and operated—and may be pointing the way to the future
By
Heidi Mitchell
June 21, 2017 2:04 p.m. ET
23 COMMENTS
When the Brightline opens in Florida late this summer, it will be the first passenger-rail train of its kind built in the U.S. in a century.

What’s so special about it? Where the money comes from. The high-speed intercity line is privately funded, built and operated. None of the $1.3 billion cost of the first phase of the operation—laying track and building bridges, stations and complete trains—is coming out of taxpayers’ pockets. The only government involvement is that the project has permission to sell tax-exempt bonds to fund part of the project through a state agency.

Government planners and companies are watching the project closely. For some, the funding structure could show a way forward for cities, states and counties looking to ease roadway congestion and help reduce carbon emissions without putting a heavy squeeze on taxpayers. But there have been obstacles that may make other cities wary of this kind of undertaking. The project has faced legal challenges, and some activists, claiming the train will disrupt south Florida’s quality of life, still have concerns about some parts of the plan. And not every locale will have access to developers like those behind Brightline, which already owns a network of tracks.

But there is little doubt that how this shakes out could have a profound effect on what happens to rail next. “Once some organization demonstrates that there is value to be generated by [high-speed rail], just like Ford did with the horseless carriage, then others will be bound to follow,” says Anthony Perl, a professor of urban studies and political science at Simon Fraser University and a former director of VIA Rail Canada, the Canadian equivalent of Amtrak.

He is sanguine about Brightline’s chances. “I’ve seen many initiatives come and go, but none have been put forward by an organization that owns the infrastructure, and that puts Brightline in a class by itself,” he says. “As long as there is not some big shock to the global financial markets or another wild card, I’m optimistic.” [...continues at length and in detail with diagrams and photos...]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-florida-rail-project-breaks-new-ground-1498068251

I think that link is non-paywall. If not, enter the article title into Google.

I repeat on Moose: "This is about more than Moose".
 
Last edited:
Except for millions in bridge repair.

Found the estimated bridge repair costs. The Moose folks estimate it would be $50 million. It's referenced in the September 2016 article noted above. Here's the quote from that article:

MOOSE says it has provided engineering details and offered to pay the estimated $50 million costs to repair and update the Prince of Wales bridge from its own financing arrangements. This work would include the addition of pedestrian and cycling paths/walkways.

Interestingly, as best I can tell that figure isn't easily found on Moose's website. It's not listed in the Business Plan section. The closet number to the $50M quoted I could find on Moose's website is buried in the blog section here and then in one of the presentations (see here) given to the NCC on April 23, 2013 (see the August 21, 2015 blog post). That document lists the bridge repairs as follows:

Current Rehabilitation Requirements and Cost: A detailed 2-part engineering report completed by McCormick Rankin in June 2011, contracted by the City of Ottawa, estimated the following alternatives for operational restoration of the Prince of Wales bridge:
  • Option 1: $5.4M (6 Months) – Maintain Current Configuration for Freight Operations without Seismic Enhancements;
  • Option 2A: $9.5M (10 Months) – Maintain Current Configuration for Passenger Train Operations without Seismic Enhancements;
  • Option 2B: $28.7M (18-20 Months) – Maintain Current Configuration for Passenger Train Operations with Seismic Enhancements;
  • Option 3A: $78.3M (24-30 Months) – Double Track for LRT Operations: Maintain Current Configuration for Passenger Train Operations with Seismic Enhancements; Construct an Adjacent Parallel Single Track Bridge; and
  • Option 3B: $65.8M (24-30 Months) – Double Track for LRT Operations: Replace Existing Structure with New Double-Track Structure with Seismic Enhancements.

So I'm not sure which of the options $50M refers to, unless there has been a more updated study. Several of the presentation files or links are broken on the August 21, 2015 blog post entitled "Moose Inc’s 2013/14 Presentations within Ottawa, Gatineau and the NCC".


This article is interesting because for the first time I've seen operating costs are listed at $200 million year. I'm not sure why it would be so difficult to add that information to the website, along with the cost of the bridge. If the goal is to win over public support so that Ottawa Council and the Mayor can be pressured to change their position, there are some basic project facts that aren't easily found on Moose's website. Letters to the CTA are are well and good but what's the strategy to educate the public on the proposal? The lack of details on transit projects has made the transit battles more fierce in other Ontario cities. It should be a cautionary tale.
 
Last edited:
How much would the Bayview underpass cost? I can't easily find it on Moose's website.
In fact I'd posted incorrect information. I meant to correct that when I posted the correct information in a later post. It is discussed in a number of newspaper articles. And I agree with Moose. They've proposed a 'least costly workaround', but since the City violated the terms and conditions of Capital Rail's obligations under the law, and were warned about it both officially and unofficially, and chose to ignore them, they should pay the price to remediate. The cost is posted and detailed prior in this string a couple of times, here it is again:
City questioned over rail line removal for LRT work
Federal agency orders city to explain why it tore up railway line at Bayview Station
By Giacomo Panico, CBC News Posted: Jun 08, 2017 3:35 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 08, 2017 8:54 PM ET

[...]
Undoing move may be expensive
The CTA initiated its investigation after receiving information from the Moose Consortium, a private venture aiming to run commuter rail service in the Ottawa and Outaouais region.

Moose's director general, Joseph Potvin, has long maintained his desire to run commuter trains across the Prince of Wales Bridge.

"The existence of a railway connecting the two halves of the National Capital Region is critical," said Potvin on Thursday.

According to Potvin, undoing the city's move will be expensive, given the permanent obstructions the city has now built on the old railway line.

The Prince of Wales Bridge is the only railway line still connecting Ottawa and Gatineau. (Giacomo Panico/CBC)

"There's only one thing as far as we're concerned that can happen," said Potvin. "The agency must order the city to fund the prompt re-creation of the railway connection, which is about a $20 million to $25 million commitment for Ottawa taxpayers that should not have had to be spent."
[...]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rail-line-breach-of-duty-city-ottawa-1.4151285

Found the estimated bridge repair costs. The Moose folks estimate it would be $50 million. It's referenced in the September 2016 article noted above. Here's the quote from that article:
The answer was posted yesterday and prior:
 
Last edited:
It is discussed in a number of newspaper articles.

It's great that it's mentioned in articles but my point is that it would be more helpful for the public if this information was added to Moose's website. Not everyone has time to search various media articles. A FAQ section could be easily added to the site. As best I can tell, there are now three costs that could be listed 1) the bridge upgrade costs 2) the operating costs 3) the Bayview modifications/workaround.

The City violated the terms and conditions of Capital Rail's obligations under the law, and were warned about it both officially and unofficially, and chose to ignore them, they should pay the price to remediate.

Guess we'll have to wait to see if the CTA and potentially the court agrees with that opinion.

The cost is posted and detailed prior in this string a couple of times, here it is again:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rail-line-breach-of-duty-city-ottawa-1.4151285

The answer was posted yesterday and prior:

And as I've pointed out, the "$50 million" isn't listed on Moose's website. There are a range of prices to deal with the bridge listed in 2013, but all of them are either higher or lower. As best I can tell, a current, publicly available number hasn't been provided. Also, have the City engineers officially commented or verified the information in the consultant engineers report? That is a typical practice for other proposals.
 
Further from that September 2016 article in the Ottawa Construction news, is a copy of this study available on Moose's website?

“MOOSE’s civil engineering member firm REMISZ Consulting Engineers has prepared, and MOOSE has submitted to the regulator and the city, one preliminary drawing of a possible least-cost work-around which involves two short underpasses,” he said.

For LRT projects that go through the TPAP process, the municipality posts all consultant reports as it is a public process and the public may want to see the backup documentation.
 
Guess we'll have to wait to see if the CTA and potentially the court agrees with that opinion.
[“The City of Ottawa has received the letter from the Canadian Transportation Agency ordering the city to ‘show cause’ that it has not breached its obligations under the Canada Transportation Act,” according to Rick O’Connor, the city solicitor and clerk. “City staff are presently reviewing this matter and will prepare a response to the agency in a timely manner. As this is a regulatory hearing process, the city will not offer further comments at this time.”]
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...planation-on-rail-near-prince-of-wales-bridge
For LRT projects that go through the TPAP process, the municipality posts all consultant reports as it is a public process and the public may want to see the backup documentation.
As required under provincial law. MOOSE, once incorporated as a passenger rail operation and recognized by federal regulators, will have to meet federal regulations.
No legislative or regulatory changes at any level of government whatsoever are necessary for Moose Consortium to bring this passenger rail system to life. However a private sector initiative of this type does depend on the several public sector stakeholders understanding that the interprovincial nature of 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/
 
Last edited:
“The City of Ottawa has received the letter from the Canadian Transportation Agency ordering the city to ‘show cause’ that it has not breached its obligations under the Canada Transportation Act,” according to Rick O’Connor, the city solicitor and clerk. “City staff are presently reviewing this matter and will prepare a response to the agency in a timely manner. As this is a regulatory hearing process, the city will not offer further comments at this time.”
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...planation-on-rail-near-prince-of-wales-bridge

Look forward to seeing the CTA's response to the pending City response.

As required under provincial law. MOOSE, once incorporated as a passenger rail operation and recognized by federal regulators, will have to meet federal regulations.
Hope those regulations have the same level of public disclosure as the provincial ones do.
 
Can't recall if this July 4, 2017 article from Railway Technology has been posted. I note this line:

Moose expects to have the CTA authorisation in hand by September this year.

I assume that means they hope the CTA issues it's decision by then on the bridge issue it has taken the City of Ottawa to the CTA on.
 
Because it took Potvin to directly challenge Ottawa since Transport Canada were asleep at the switch. Potvin's challenges go back (six?) years. It started with a letter of warning to Ottawa Council, and it was ignored. All documented previously in this string, fully linked and itemized.

It would be helpful if there was a chronology in one place available that listed all of the back and forth with the CTA, Moose, and Ottawa.
 
I sent an email to the Stage 2 team and received this reply. It confirms the timeline for the City's Stage 2 plan:

As of yesterday, both RFPs for Stage 2 have gone out to tender. The Confederation Line RFP was released on June 26, 2017 and the Trillium Line Extension RFP was released on July 17, 2017.

Contract awards for both procurements remain scheduled for recommendation to Committee and Council in Q2 2018, with the commencement of the bulk of construction activities to begin by spring 2019.

The existing O-Train rolling stock will continue to be used on the Trillium Line as it will remain diesel powered under the current Stage 2 project scope.

The tunnel north of Carleton Station will also remain single tracked under the Stage 2 project scope.
 

This comment in the article by Professor Lee touches on some of the items we've been discussing in this thread:

“I’m a numbers guy and I look at how many people there are and I can’t see the numbers adding up,” Lee said.

“It’s not that I’m opposed to mass transit, but it’s very, very expensive. They say it’s going to drive up the property values so much it’s going to pay for itself. No, it’s not.”

Rail companies typically have enormous capital expenses, Lee said, with around 20 per cent of their revenue going to maintain their tracks and rolling stock. “We’re talking billions of dollars. Not millions, billions,” Lee said.
 

Back
Top