Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Nothing wrong with predicting the future based on past performance and the challenges of pulling something off.
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter SaugeenJunction
- Start date
Charles
New Member
Once again you completely missed the point of the argument. I'm not sure if you're deliberately avoiding it or if you simply lack the ability to comprehend the question. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
The argument is not against P3 agreements, in fact I'm a big fan of them. Rather this is about the credibility of MOOSE and their capacity to implement all those things they claim they can do. If you had actually answered my first question rather than stating some random fact about someone else, perhaps that may have been more obvious to you.
I'll make this a little simpler for you. One question.
Q). In your mind, what is the probability (0-100%) that MOOSE will successfully establish and operate a railway network in the Ottawa region in the next decade, considering the facts that they have no certifications, no money, no investors, no completed feasibility study, nor any viable revenue streams?
micheal_can
Senior Member
50%
I feel that if the city gives them the go ahead and say that the city will work with them, then the other things will fall into place. When this will happen is up for serious discussion.
Charles
New Member
You're a true optimist. I give them less than a 1% chance. Based on that I would never consider altering the current plans for LRT nor expending any significant time and resources on the hypothetical potential that this might work.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Did I say anything should be altered? The only time that the LRT should be altered is when Moose has met all the criteria to operate.
Charles
New Member
So you agree that MOOSE's demands that "the City of Ottawa to immediately change the course of specific activities at this site" and "the Ottawa LRT Project team must promptly determine how its new Bayview Station design can be adapted" are completely unreasonable at this point in time.
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-conte...ocumentation_RE210-R-2012_2016-07-25c_PDF.pdf
OCCheetos
Active Member
Fundamentally, that would not impact the Confederation or the Trillium line in any way.
Also, in that paragraph, they asked the CTA to rule that the city must reconnect the bridge to the Elwood subdivision — something the city stated they were planning to do anyway.
Finally, does MOOSE acting in a way that you disagree with excuse the city of its actions?
It isn't as if MOOSE is asking the city to cancel or reroute Stage 2 in any form so that they can use the tracks instead. (And no, I'm not forgetting that MOOSE is asking the city for sole usage of the tracks, but you see, that only becomes relevant once MOOSE is actually in a legitimate position to make use of the tracks). They asked the city to reconnect a track that should never have been disconnected in the first place.
Charles
New Member
Glad you agree with me. These would have no impact on the current planned LRT lines and the City's future plans, so there would be absolutely no purpose to "change the course of specific activities" nor to "adapt" its design, other than to accommodate MOOSE for their one in a million proposition. Therefore, they would be a complete waste of time and resources that could be put to use elsewhere.
OCCheetos
Active Member
The law says otherwise though.
Without the CTA complaint, the fate of any connection to the PoW bridge would have been... questionable at best. If nothing else, it forced the City to be upfront about the fate of the bridge.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The city of Ottawa is breaking the law. This could potentially cause problems not only for the city, but also for a company wanting to use the rail assets.
I actually side with Moose.
muller877
Senior Member
You can look at the CP siding to Toyota (Woodstock) as a good example of rebuilding an abandoned rail bridge.
The entire bridge was garbage/gone and all that was left was piers. They were able to reconstruct the bridge for a minimal amount. I think they also avoided an EA since they were not touching the water...just rebuilding on top of the piers.
Charles
New Member
FUN WITH FIGURES
Annual operating budget for MOOSE: $500,000,000
Passengers (return trips) per day: 25,000
Annual cost per passenger: $20,000
To pay for this:
Assuming all homeowners:
Annual operating cost: $500,000,000
Average payment to MOOSE from sale of a home near station: $50,000
Home sales required yearly near stations to fund MOOSE: 10,000
Assuming all renters:
Annual operating cost: $500,000,000
Average annual revenue from increased rent per apartment: $3000
Number of tenants paying for MOOSE: 166,000
Mix and match to your hearts content. For example, 50/50 split would require 5,000 home sales a year and 83,000 tenants.
PS: Just for reference purposes:
There were 17,309 residential home sales in all of Ottawa in 2017 (link).
There are approximately 70,000 rental units in the Ottawa region (link).
Annual operating budget for MOOSE: $500,000,000
Passengers (return trips) per day: 25,000
Annual cost per passenger: $20,000
To pay for this:
Assuming all homeowners:
Annual operating cost: $500,000,000
Average payment to MOOSE from sale of a home near station: $50,000
Home sales required yearly near stations to fund MOOSE: 10,000
Assuming all renters:
Annual operating cost: $500,000,000
Average annual revenue from increased rent per apartment: $3000
Number of tenants paying for MOOSE: 166,000
Mix and match to your hearts content. For example, 50/50 split would require 5,000 home sales a year and 83,000 tenants.
PS: Just for reference purposes:
There were 17,309 residential home sales in all of Ottawa in 2017 (link).
There are approximately 70,000 rental units in the Ottawa region (link).
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
We do not know the work behind the scenes. If Moose can turn a profit within 5 years, then it will go forward.
Charles
New Member
As I've said before, I'm not against rail, nor am I against private corporations providing services to the public. In this particular case I simply don't believe that there is any sort of a rational business case to operate a rail network such that MOOSE is suggesting. The ridership simply does not exist, and the suggested revenue generation plan using real estate is completely non-viable.
I've given MOOSE the benefit of the doubt and used their own numbers, despite the fact that you can poke holes in them all day.
To successfully provide a service a private company needs to "turn a profit". To do so their revenue must be greater than their expenditures.
Faced with the inevitable scenario where they are losing money, there are really only two options:
1. Reduce expenditures, which in this case means reducing services. This would lead to a drop in ridership; vicious cycle repeats, etc, etc.
2. Increase revenue, which in this case means increasing fees. This too would lead to a drop in ridership; vicious cycle repeats, etc, etc.
With a per passenger annual cost of $20,000, can someone please explain to me how anyone could actually "turn a profit" under the MOOSE proposal?
OCCheetos
Active Member
Have you ever taken commercial buildings into consideration for your rough calculations?