[Mongo]

$100 million perhaps?

That sounds too low, but certainly closer than $100B, which is absurdly high.

Rough back-of-the-envelope calculation of the total land acquisition cost:

length: 108 km

right of way width: varies from 110 m to 150 m, say an average of 130 m

total area: 108 x 0.13 = 14 square km = 1400 hectares

average land cost per hectare: difficult to estimate -- industrial land values in the GTA outside of Metro Toronto seem to run from $200k to $500k per acre = $0.5M to 1.25M per hectare. In downtown Toronto, recent large sales indicate a value of some $25M per hectare, but this would be far too high for the land occupied by the 407. I assume a land cost of $2M per hectare averaged over the entire length of the 407.

total land cost: 1400 x $2 million = $2.8 billion

Even if the land cost is double this estimate, it is still "only" $5.6 billion.

Bill

 

[OttoSchloss]

I'm just not sure when Vancouver decided it was a rival to Toronto. I guess I missed the memo.

It's not even close to being a rival to Canada's de facto second city, Montreal.

Maybe they should just carp about Seattle and Calgary -much more natural rivalries.

 

[Logan]

The chances of Vancouver rivaling Toronto are about as likely as me sitting down with my mother-in-law for tea and biscuits. Aint never gonna happen.

But what does Vancouver have to do with anything? This was all Toronto's doing. Which actually makes it worse in my opinion. Had it been a BC based agency, fine. I understand why they would play up the regionalism but for a Toronto company to basically bash ourselves is kinda sad.

 

[AKS]

The chances of Vancouver rivaling Toronto are about as likely as me sitting down with my mother-in-law for tea and biscuits. Aint never gonna happen.

But what does Vancouver have to do with anything? This was all Toronto's doing. Which actually makes it worse in my opinion. Had it been a BC based agency, fine. I understand why they would play up the regionalism but for a Toronto company to basically bash ourselves is kinda sad.

Ad agencies do whatever gathers attention. The result is everything. I doubt they really care if they were bashing the city they work in. The ads weren't catered towards Torontonians.

 

[doady]

The chances of Vancouver rivaling Toronto are about as likely as me sitting down with my mother-in-law for tea and biscuits. Aint never gonna happen.

But what does Vancouver have to do with anything? This was all Toronto's doing. Which actually makes it worse in my opinion. Had it been a BC based agency, fine. I understand why they would play up the regionalism but for a Toronto company to basically bash ourselves is kinda sad.

Well if the ROC is going bash us anyways, then we should bash ourselves first, then the ROC has nothing to say.

 

[Roy G Biv]

It's true. My relatives in Vancouver can't wait to bash Toronto and promote their own burb (New West of all places).

 

[MetroMan]

Funny how Coors Light went all out with their new 3D transit shelter ads featuring giant ice cubes protruding from the ad space like Libeskind's Crystal from the ROM.

Despite the creative call for attention (maybe redemption), it comes across as hypocritical. I found their ads in BC distasteful, kinda like their beer.

 

[gabe]

I always found people in Toronto and the rest of Canada pretty friendly compared to people in NY and London England. I remember going to bars in in small hick towns in Quebec where the separatists would hang out in the early 80s and not getting served because we were speaking English, Never had that problem in Montreal.

 

[adma]

Ah, I miss the days when it was fashionable to attack the Coors family for its John Birch-ian associations...

 

[ganjavih]

I always found people in Toronto and the rest of Canada pretty friendly compared to people in NY and London England. I remember going to bars in in small hick towns in Quebec where the separatists would hang out in the early 80s and not getting served because we were speaking English, Never had that problem in Montreal.

Personally, I find New Yorkers to be quite friendly... especially in recent years. Torontonians are a bit reserved, which could be interpreted as cold. Just goes to show you everyone has a different perspective.

 

[salvius]

Personally, I find New Yorkers to be quite friendly... especially in recent years. Torontonians are a bit reserved, which could be interpreted as cold. Just goes to show you everyone has a different perspective.

I think it comes down to this: New Yorkers are more open and Torontonians are more reserved. This sometimes means New Yorkers are very nice; e.g. if a Torontonian sees someone who is lost and looking at a map, the Torontonian doesn't actually go out of the way to help though he/she may think the person ought to be helped. On the other hand, a New Yorker just ASKS the person if they need help. Now, if the Torontonian was ASKED about directions, he/she helps and is generally quite nice about it. But the Torontonian is unlikely to offer first.

This, however, also means that if a New Yorker is (even slightly) pi**ed at you about something, he/she will let you know. That's been my observation, at least. Hence, to me, New York is, at the same time, both more and less friendly than Toronto.

Now that I think about it, the New York attitude applies pretty well to London, too, the reserved reputation of Londoners notwithstanding.

 

[Tewder]

I find the exact opposite. The reason we lag behind in the industry is due to an almost overly-comfortable approach to customer service. The Asians and Europeans seem to approach customer service more professionally and efficiently. North Americans tend to forget that they represent their employer.!"

... but this sense of apathy with regards to customer service is in no way North American-wide. I've just come back from the States and as usual have been blown away by the service there and the respect I felt consistently as a consumer whether in a hotel or at a restaurant, bar or store. I very rarely experience this in Toronto where even in high-end places you are often treated with contempt or disinterest as if your patronage or money are not valued or needed.

Your last point is odd. Calling Canada an "over-taxed socialist nanny state" is complete hyperbole, relative to the social nets of other industrial Western countries. You argue that a nanny state (again, which we are not) spawns a society that expects everything, and is responsible for nothing. I could just as easily hypothesize that the nature of a nanny state instills the virtues of compassion and altruism. Finally, I don't see how an entitled society is a cold one. Instead, I imagine the scenerio where no one will pass the mashed potatoes around the table at the bi-monthly Libretarian dinner party...amid cries of "Do it yourself!".

Is it 'complete' hyperbole? Not even a little bit true ...

Our love of 'big government' (the overtaxed nanny state, so to speak) causes commercialism here to function in the same way that a union causes a manufacturing plant to (low efficiency, higher cost with smaller return, and little motivation or initiative on the part of the workers), the result of too many rules and regulations combined with the lack of incentive that arises from the generous safety net we provide to all through taxation and regulation. It is part of our very value system to distrust commercialism, free enterprise, and individualism as far too 'American' and instead to place our faith in bigger government, bureaucracy and legislation which we believe implicitly will know better than we do as individuals what is best for us and how to spend our money. Either that or Canadians are just inveterately crappy business people and should stick to hewing wood and drawing water which I do not believe.

 

[salvius]

Our love of 'big government' (the overtaxed nanny state, so to speak) causes commercialism here to function in the same way that a union causes a manufacturing plant to (low efficiency, higher cost with smaller return, and little motivation or initiative on the part of the workers), the result of too many rules and regulations combined with the lack of incentive that arises from the generous safety net we provide to all through taxation and regulation.

a) Taxation for most residents in Canada is on par with many US states - can we please stop pretending otherwise? We just get much more for our money, that's all. That's a sign that our government is working, and quite well. The 'over-taxed nanny state' phrase makes you sound utterly clueless (at best).

b) The link between supposed lackluster business environment and 'generous safety net' is laughably tenuous here. What, we'll take welfare instead of work?

It is part of our very value system to distrust commercialism, free enterprise, and individualism as far too 'American' and instead to place our faith in bigger government, bureaucracy and legislation which we believe implicitly will know better than we do as individuals what is best for us and how to spend our money. Either that or Canadians are just inveterately crappy business people and should stick to hewing wood and drawing water which I do not believe.

a) Our government as a portion of GDP has been shrinking. The size of the US government is increasing, with the military budget and the homeland security growing steadily. There is no less bureaucracy in the US governments. However, instead of providing benefits to citizens, it uses the collected tax to strip more and more civil liberties and also to help finance some very expensive wars (and it doesn't seem to be stopping with Obama). How this is supposed to be individualism, I'll never know.

b) Our social safety net is less than the vast majority of industrialized nations, excepting the US because they choose to spend their money elsewhere.

c) Finally, the Europeans tend to have some of the most productive and innovative of enterprises, and they tend to have far more generous benefits than this supposed over-taxed nanny state.

 

[afransen]

For illustrative purposes, from Worthwhile Canadian Initiative:

Among industrialized nations, Canada does not have a huge welfare state. Also, there is little correlation between wealth and the extent of the social safety net. As Stephen Gorden points out, it's about 'quality of government' rather than quantity. And by quality, we're often talking about taxing intelligently and spending in ways that get the most bang for the buck.

 

[Roy G Biv]

The link between supposed lackluster business environment and 'generous safety net' is laughably tenuous here.

Overlooking the fact that we're not a nanny-state, this is the crux of our discussion.

Love of big government (which we don't) = Rude sales-people?

Tenous indeed.

America doesn't have a large enough safety net. Their taxes are chronically low, which is why they're in debt-hell. So, to conclude, they don't have a significant safety net YET they're wallowing in debt.