[OCCheetos]

If those smaller communities can avoid sprawling out.

It defies logic though on why anybody would move to a very small town to simply live in a small home with little land. I'll buy your argument if all the towns supporting MOOSE agree to very strict zoning that disallow exurban development. Wanna take bets on how many of these communities would sign up for that?

I can't say that I have an answer for that right now.

Can you please provide a documented source from MOOSE that says they will double track the Trillium Line prior to launching service? I've read through their docs. I can't find any firm commitment. But maybe I missed it. If you want to provide such, I'll readily change my stance.

But in the absence of any firm commitment to double tracking prior to launch, I think I am fair to assume that corridor capacity constraints will mean less service for OC Transpo trains.

Still waiting on an answer from Mr. Potvin on that one.

You are fair to treat it as a concern, but you're waving it around like it's the "gotcha" of the century.

Personally, I question the value of pedestrian walkways here. It's not a short distance to cross at the PoW and its west of Hull. There's not much in the vicinity of Alex. Tache.

I don't think the CTA ordered the city to put fencing up to block of the bridge to keep the animals off. There's plenty of pedestrian interest for the bridge.

But even if it's desirable, I don't see why we need Moose for this, or why it's an important consideration at all. Whoever ends up using the bridge will do just that. If it ends up as an STO busway to feed a Bayview hub (as is being proposed on SSP), we'd end up with a restored PoW with pedestrian walkways too.

Believe it or not, MOOSE's plan is currently the most concrete plan for the bridge. So unless the city itself proposes something else...
That also doesn't disqualify it as a benefit to the city.

Moose has definitively picked their rolling stock? Didn't know they did that. Can you provide the link to that announcement?

Their documents specifically state Bombardier's Bi-Level coaches. As far as I know, there is no one-door variant of that.

 

[OCCheetos]

Are you naive or wilfully ignorant? I can't tell at this point.

Yes, they aren't selling outside the 800m radius. I have never claimed they did. I claimed that the existence of a regional rail service would enable sprawl, as homebuyers take advantage of MOOSE services to enable an exurban lifestyle. The same way that GO enables 905 commuters to live in places like Barrie without having to put up with a long driving commute.

Your argument is akin to saying that the catchment and relevant area of a GO station is the 800m radius around it. Are you going to make that suggestion with a straight face?

Well, it's something MOOSE will need to demonstrate that they will try and be able to prevent.
Based on what Mr. Potvin has said, that seems to be their intention.

The document I linked contains a section on what the current "urban" plans are for the regions they plan to build stations around. Some included high densification.

 

[Charles]

I believe those hospitals are called P3.

You've completely missed the point of the analogy. This isn't an argument against P3s, I like P3s. This is about the specific details of the scenario.

Questions for you.

a. Would you enter into a P3 agreement with a corporate entity that has no certification, no experience, no money, no investor backing, no viable stream of revenue, and to date has not yet completed a proper study of the proposed scenario?
b. If yes, would you do so despite the fact that the City already has a funded and approved plan to make use of the relevant infrastructure and to provide services to the public with it, albeit in not so grandiose a manner as proposed privately, and knowing that the private plans conflict or interfere with the public plans?
c. If yes, why?

 

[OCCheetos]

a. Would you enter into a P3 agreement with a corporate entity that has no certification, no experience, no money, no investor backing, no viable stream of revenue, and to date has not yet completed a proper study of the proposed scenario?

No, you wouldn't, but that's not what MOOSE is doing so I can't see how this analogy is relevant anymore. Sure, those all describe MOOSE right now, however as I mentioned in my post earlier, that's not what MOOSE will be if/when they ask for access to rails.

b. If yes, would you do so despite the fact that the City already has a funded and approved plan to make use of the relevant infrastructure and to provide services to the public with it, albeit in not so grandiose a manner as proposed privately, and knowing that the private plans conflict or interfere with the public plans?

I don't think this really works as a direct comparison to MOOSE. While a privately built hospital (on the same lot of land) would certainly interfere with a publicly built one, at the moment MOOSE wouldn't interfere with Stage 2 in any way (yet).
So, to answer the question, it would depend on when they had the resources ready to build their privately funded hospital.

 

[Charles]

a. Would you enter into a P3 agreement with a corporate entity that has no certification, no experience, no money, no investor backing, no viable stream of revenue, and to date has not yet completed a proper study of the proposed scenario?

Sure, those all describe MOOSE right now,

Then why in the world would you take them seriously, or believe anything they claim that they can do??? This is after 8 years of making claims, after 8 years of seeking investors, after 8 years without completing a feasibility study.

Let's go back to last summer. A major Investment Group (LeMine) which "specializes in bringing international capital to high quality Canadian projects" did a due diligence review of MOOSE's proposal over a period of three months. At the end of that due diligence review the decision was made not to invest any money into MOOSE, not even to fund a proper feasibility study of the proposed network. Of course MOOSE has completely silent in regards to the results of that due diligence review (despite Joseph Potvin claiming they would put out a communication on the results "one way or the other"). If MOOSE can't even convince investors to fund a study, what chance do you think that they will ever come up with the BILLIONs of dollars they need to make this work.

 

[OCCheetos]

Then why in the world would you take them seriously, or believe anything they claim that they can do??? This is after 8 years of making claims, after 8 years of seeking investors, after 8 years without completing a feasibility study.

I'm just a member of an online forum. If you were trying to stop me from investing in MOOSE, then you'd have a point, but I'm not planning to.
Maybe you're trying to argue that no one should invest in them, but considering that there is still non-public info being used in negotiations with investors, I don't know how well you'd succeed in doing that.

As I said in my answer to your question: at this point, there's currently no reason the city should consider just handing over the Trillium Line corridor to MOOSE because as you said, there's absolutely not guarantee that MOOSE will be able to do anything at all with it. However, if MOOSE were able to get to a point where they have the investment they need and have completed all their studies, etc. then I can't see what would be wrong with MOOSE making some form of agreement with the city over the Trillium Line...

 

[kEiThZ]

but you're waving it around like it's the "gotcha" of the century.

Your point would be relevant if I wasn't genuinely concerned and only here to play games (like the many here who have no ties to the NCR).

There's plenty of pedestrian interest for the bridge.

As a crossing or instagram opportunity?

Believe it or not, MOOSE's plan is currently the most concrete plan for the bridge.

You say that, and then say this:

there's currently no reason the city should consider just handing over the Trillium Line corridor to MOOSE

But hey, as long as we're discussing hypotheticals, MOOSE sounds so fantastic, we should turn over all our transit and even VIA Rail to them. They are so much more competent than our current authorities right?

Why can't OC Transpo think about monetizing sprawl the way MOOSE did? Such brilliance.

Their documents specifically state Bombardier's Bi-Level coaches.

An example is no guaranteed of what they will operate.

As far as I know, there is no one-door variant of that.

What's the importance of the number of doors on a carriage?

 

[OCCheetos]

As a crossing or instagram opportunity?

In a way, both. The Alexandria bridge isn't just used as a pedestrian crossing, it's also a nice view of the city. The PoW bridge would also connect directly to the Sentiers des Voyageurs.

You say that, and then say this:

But hey, as long as we're discussing hypotheticals, MOOSE sounds so fantastic, we should turn over all our transit and even VIA Rail to them. They are so much more competent than our current authorities right?

Why can't OC Transpo think about monetizing sprawl the way MOOSE did? Such brilliance.

Can you find a better plan for the PoW bridge at the moment? That's what I was saying, not that the city should hand it over right away.

An example is no guaranteed of what they will operate.

Paragraph 3. b)
Unless that's the example you were talking about?

What's the importance of the number of doors on a carriage?

It's definitely far from the most significant benefit of MOOSE, but compared to the current Trillium Line trains, boarding/deboarding would be significantly faster for most stations. Trying to unload a train entirely full of Carleton students through two narrow doors (on the entire train) is agonizingly slow.

Generally though, the two door thing was a bit of sarcastic remark on my part.

 

[kEiThZ]

Paragraph 3. b)
Unless that's the example you were talking about?

Meh. If you consider some planning docs as serious intent on specific rolling stock.....

Let's say MOOSE was to get access to the Trillium corridor. I think OC Transpo would have a say in what they operate. And I'm not entirely sure they'd allow locomotive pulled bi-levels while they are operating DMUs. I think this is one of many reasons why Mr. Potvin has hinted that it'd be better if the city just handed over the whole line. As it stands, OC Transpo will be in the proverbial driver's seat, not MOOSE.

It's definitely far from the most significant benefit of MOOSE, but compared to the current Trillium Line trains, boarding/deboarding would be significantly faster for most stations. Trying to unload a train entirely full of Carleton students through two narrow doors (on the entire train) is agonizingly slow.

And that's largely due to limited selection of rolling stock for DMUs. No such issues on the Confederation Line:

Maybe they should look at something better after they finish upgrading the line in Stage 2. I think this line would be a great opportunity to test out Hydrail. And the iLint (hydrogen version of Lint 54) has more doors than the Lint 41 that the Trillium Line employs.

 

[OCCheetos]

Meh. If you consider some planning docs as serious intent on specific rolling stock.....

Let's say MOOSE was to get access to the Trillium corridor. I think OC Transpo would have a say in what they operate. And I'm not entirely sure they'd allow locomotive pulled bi-levels while they are operating DMUs. I think this is one of many reasons why Mr. Potvin has hinted that it'd be better if the city just handed over the whole line. As it stands, OC Transpo will be in the proverbial driver's seat, not MOOSE.

I guess. I always figured that it'd be mostly up to the CTA on whether the two types of vehicles would be permitted together...

Other users have suggested using DMUs on MOOSE's lines, but they seem committed to bi-level.

And that's largely due to limited selection of rolling stock for DMUs. No such issues on the Confederation Line:

Maybe they should look at something better after they finish upgrading the line in Stage 2. I think this line would be a great opportunity to test out Hydrail. And the iLint (hydrogen version of Lint 54) has more doors than the Lint 41 that the Trillium Line employs.

In my opinion, they should have gone for the 54 in the first place. Since the city wants to treat the line as a rapid rail line, the one thing it still really lacks is, well.. doors.

 

[micheal_can]

You've completely missed the point of the analogy. This isn't an argument against P3s, I like P3s. This is about the specific details of the scenario.

Questions for you.

a. Would you enter into a P3 agreement with a corporate entity that has no certification, no experience, no money, no investor backing, no viable stream of revenue, and to date has not yet completed a proper study of the proposed scenario?
b. If yes, would you do so despite the fact that the City already has a funded and approved plan to make use of the relevant infrastructure and to provide services to the public with it, albeit in not so grandiose a manner as proposed privately, and knowing that the private plans conflict or interfere with the public plans?
c. If yes, why?

A)
Carillion -
Had:
certification,
experience,
money,
investor backing,
viable stream of revenue, a
completed a proper study of various proposed scenarios within Canada.

They are now BUST.

B&C) Actually, yes. If a private company can provide the services better, cheaper, and no cost to the taxpayer, that is the norm to go with.

So, next argument.

 

[kEiThZ]

Carillion -
Had:
certification,
experience,
money,
investor backing,
viable stream of revenue, a
completed a proper study of various proposed scenarios within Canada.

They are now BUST.

Whataboutism.

Do you think this should be a norm in government contracting? From now on, we should absolutely disregard all standards because of one exceptional bankruptcy? Do you actually believe this?

 

[micheal_can]

Whataboutism.

Do you think this should be a norm in government contracting? From now on, we should absolutely disregard all standards because of one exceptional bankruptcy? Do you actually believe this?

I was merely pointing out that even through out vetting, we still have issues.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was merely pointing out that even through out vetting, we still have issues.

"merely pointing out" = whataboutism

And those "issues" are exceptional. How often do incidents like Carillion happen?

And how else should we take your post in the context of what is being discussed here?

 

[micheal_can]

"merely pointing out" = whataboutism

And those "issues" are exceptional. How often do incidents like Carillion happen?

And how else should we take your post in the context of what is being discussed here?

What is whataboutism?

Governments make decisions based on numerous factors. Before Moose is given the green light, they too will need to show they meet those factors. By stating that they don't is just as smart as saying that something does not exist. It does not exist right now.