Just wanted to repeat my questions for Mr. Potvin. He insist this project is in the public interest. So surely, he can answer a few basic questions
@kEiThZ,
1) How much ridership does MOOSE need to breakeven?
You have juxtaposed two factors in your question that make it unanswerable. The PPR business model drives system revenues from value increments amongst participating properties, through their participating station enterprises. In our documentation we clearly state how and why transit service
per se is a positive externality, by design. MOOSE's breakeven considerations are a factor of property value, and it is the ridership "option value" rather than "ridership" per se that is critical.
2) What will the density standard around MOOSE's stations locations be?
This will be determined on a whole-system scale,. but it won't be a "standard". The train subscription will be an
algorithmic contract.
"The train service provider will develop a portfolio of 35-50 autonomous station projects. Each station project is assumed to be operated by a “common elements freehold commercial condominium corporation” although that legal form is in no way a requirement. In turn, each of these is controlled by independent owners/investors of commercial/residential/industrial/government property units. They are presented the option to subscribe to train service under a standing offer agreement that consists of a data access clause, a price algorithm, and an automated method of payment. A station's monthly purchase order for train service two months in the future is benchmarked to its data from two months in the past. The algorithm provides that the realized property income and asset value increment that is statistically attributable to the addition of regional rail connectivity within a defined distance from the given station (0.8 km) is apportioned through negotiation amongst the three levels: the property units, the station corporations, and the train operator."
As documented in our materials, the revenue requirement of independent station enterprises will be determined by the external cost to them of the railway operation, and their internal costs of station operations. If you read the PPR white paper, you will see that the proportion of increment that stays with the property owners, and that stays with the station enterprise, and that goes to the railway operations consortium, will be negotiated on an annual basis.
3) What is the transit modal share target for feed at MOOSE stations? And how much parking will be built at the stations?
There is, and will be, no "target" of the type you state. Volume of parking will be determined later, but we doubt it would make any sense to dedicate the most valuable property around stations to sprawling parking lots. The PPR incentive structure will probably favour multi-level garages however, mainly below-ground.
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.
That remains to be determined and negotiated. Several commenters on this blog appear not to see why this intiative is set up to be a "consortium", and is specifically not set up to be a "monopoly". We invite OC-Transpo, the STO and other operators to participate in a consortium. The decisions to answer this Q4 you pose would be worked out in a collaborative way. Certainly, however, a whole-region consortium would not place the interests of people inside the greenbelt as more important that the interests of people outside the greenbelt, nor would it place the interest of Ontario taxpayers over the interests of Quebec taxpayers, and nor would it favour urban over rural perspectives. We view a regional transit system as the circulatory system of a live body. Ignoring circulation to a leg or a foot is not justified on the rationale that so much more lifting can be done by the arms.
Will residents inside the Greenbelt have exactly what is expected under Trillium Stage 2? No, almost certainly not, it will be different and we think better. More generally, our bet is that when those residence are given a genuine choice to optimize for the part to the neglect of the whole, or to optimize for the whole even if their part is not to be treated as more deserving, most will choose the health of the whole National Capital Region. We think this is the case because most households and extended families and workgroups actually "live" thoughout the region, even if their home or workplace is in just one or two parts of it. Saying this takes nothing away from your right to express opposition to such a perspective.
These are questions every single Ottawa resident, politician and other interested parties will be asking. Surely, Mr. Potvin has answers prepared for them.
This conversation would be so much more helpful to this blog community if you'd also answer questions.
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
